CHAPTER ONE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Vulnerability

CHAPTER ONE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Vulnerability reduction, and safety and resilience building of communities towards natural and climate change related hazards are central concepts in the recent policy debates (Miller et al., 2010). Although there are fundamental linkages and complementarities between the two concepts, the latter is emphasized more in recent policy and programming. Resilience, with its roots in the Latin word resilio, means to adapt and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event. In the climate vulnerability perspective, ‘community resilience’ is a relative term and refers to an ideal condition of a community in terms of its capacity to anticipate, be prepared for, respond to, and recover quickly from the impacts of a disaster. The resilient community is a positive concept, thus every community is striving to achieve it.

With respect to ecosystem (ecology), resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly (Peterson et al., 1998). Such perturbations and disturbances can include both natural and human-induced events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities like deforestation and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Human activities that adversely affect ecosystem resilience such as reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, land-use change, and anthropo-induced climate change are increasingly causing regime shifts in ecosystems, often to less desirable and degraded conditions (Walker et al., 2004). Interdisciplinary discourse on resilience now includes consideration of the interactions of human and ecosystems via socio-ecological systems, and the need for shift from the maximum sustainable yield paradigm to environmental resource management which aims to build ecological resilience through resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance (Walker et al., 2004). There is increasing awareness that emphasizes the need for a greater understanding of ecosystem resilience to attain the goal of sustainable development (Brand, 2009).

It is established that women are highly knowledgeable in matters related to conservation and disaster mitigation. Women are recognized for their knowledge and skills in natural resource management and their involvement in farming. Therefore, their role in sustainable development and disaster resilience is highly valued. Hyogo Framework for Action 2 (HFA2) (UNISDR, 2013)

1 and UN conference on sustainable development 2012 (UN, 2012) both strongly emphasize women's role as experts and their rights in decision-making and receiving information in disaster reduction and sustainable development. The Sendai Framework has recognized the role of women for effective management of disaster risk and designing, resourcing and implementing gender- sensitive disaster risk reduction policies, plans and programs (UNISDR, 2015). In order to materialize this commitment, in which Nepal is also a partner (Taylor, 2013), to enhance the existing situation of gender equality and to ensure participation of women and men from different social backgrounds in overall disaster resilience processes is necessary.

However, in practice the measurement of community resilience is still in infancy. In order to measure community resilience towards climate-induced disasters, a process cum outcome based community resilience index (Kafle, 2012) has been suggested. Whereas, for measuring socioecological resilience, a set of indicators have been proposed (UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES & UNDP, 2014; Oudenhoven et al., 2014). For measuring ecosystem resilience, quantitative analysis of species composition, basal area, community dominance, and species diversity, richness and evenness have been suggested.

Assessing climate-induced risks including natural hazards and community vulnerabilities is a prerequisite for designing climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions. Nepal is at a high risk of climate-induced disasters (Gurung and Rai, 2009). However, there seems to be a lack of both the initiatives for assessing climate-induced risks at the community level as well as the adoption of appropriate methods for their measurement. In the present study, efforts have been made to fulfill this gap by assessing the climate induced hazards, vulnerabilities, and community and ecosystem resilience in the Seti River corridor of the CHAL (Chitwan Annapurna Landscape) in the Gandaki river basin by engaging community members and key stakeholders.

1.2 Goal and Objectives The overall objective of this study was to assess the community and ecosystem resilience towards climate-induced disasters in the Seti River corridor of the CHAL. The specific objectives were to:  Assess climate-induced hazards and vulnerabilities,  Map/visualize the spatial distribution of areas of exposure, severity of damage, and potential of occurrences for climate-induced hazards, vulnerabilities, and community and ecosystem resilience.

 Outline a method for measuring both communities and ecosystem resilience.

1.3. Assumption and Limitation The study has been carried out with due considerations to the following assumptions and limitations: i. Selection of study area was pre-determined in the Gandaki River Basin mainly in the Seti River Corridor of the CHAL, however, the down-stream boundary has been taken slightly south from the confluence point with an intention to include the lower riparian area. ii. Social and ecosystem indicators were taken into the measurement criteria; however, community indicators were assessed by the administration of different survey instruments at the community level of selected Village Development Committees (VDCs). Ecosystem indicators were assessed based on data/information acquired from maps, satellite imageries, field observation, a questionnaire survey and secondary sources. The quadrat method was used for generating information about the dominant tree species in the area rather than detailed vegetation analysis. iii. The list of measurement indicators of both community and ecosystem were taken from published sources other than the corridor geographical context of Nepal, with a main goal to develop the measurement criteria in the corridor geography of Nepal by following the formula developed by those studies with slight modifications. iv. For the field survey, 13 VDCs/Municipalities (21%) out of 61 were purposively selected, among them, five from up-stream, four from mid-stream and six from down-stream were selected after intensive consultation with the Hariyo Ban expertise team. The Hariyo Ban program was already functional in nine of the selected VDCs. v. The number and boundary of VDCs/Municipalities were based on the 2011 census report of the Government of Nepal.

CHAPTER TWO

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Climate Change: Global to the Local Context The Rio Earth Summit-1992, first convened the climatic agenda through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to tackle the growing problem of global

3 warming and related harmful impacts of climate change, such as more frequent droughts, storms and hurricanes, melting of ice, rising sea levels, flooding, forest fires, etc. Following the resolution of the Rio summit, on 21 March 1994, Cooperation of Parties (COP) discussed the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and its dangerous interferences with the climatic system. After the ‘Fourth Assessment Report’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, scientists published a report on global warming and associated climate change. IPCC Working Group-II in 2007 summarizes the likely impacts of climate change already under way and, the potential for adaptation to reduce vulnerability and the risks of climate change. Among others, the Himalayan mountains are reported to be highly vulnerable to global climate change (Beaumont et al., 2011; Li et.al., 2013; Shrestha et al., 2012; Thapa et al., 2015). Shrestha et al. (2012) indicated that temperature and precipitation changes will be greater than the upper bounds predicted by the IPCC. The second volume of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, addresses impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. It provides a powerful impetus for the identification of clear social needs and associated research priorities (Brewer, 2008). The correlation between climate change and anthropogenic activities has been firmly established. The average global surface temperature has increased by about 0.8°C in the last century and 0.6°C within the last three decades (IPCC, 2007). Recently, the COP-21 meeting held in Paris on December 2015, which is also known as the ‘Climate Conference’ officially recognized the increasing earth surface temperature and in over 20 years of UN negotiations aims to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C (www.COP21Paris.org). Over 195 parties of the world have recognized and accepted increasing global warming, and have agreed to this resolution.

Nepal, being situated in the Himalayas, is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts due to its fragile ecological systems and rugged geographical structure with great elevations and steep slopes (Gurung and Rai, 2009). The rate of temperature increase per year was found to be 0.06°C to 0.12°C in the mid-hills and mountains, and 0.03°C in lowland Nepal (Shrestha et al., 1999).

Seasonal temperatures in Nepal are already increasing at a faster rate than the global average, and this trend is likely to continue. The mean annual temperature is projected to increase by an average of 1.2°C by 2030, 1.7°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2100 compared to 2000 pre-baseline figure. Climate change is also likely to exacerbate the contrast between wet and dry seasons, a process that will

4 culminate in rainy season downpours that are more extreme in both intensity and duration. In addition, higher temperatures, increased rates of evapo-transpiration and decreased winter precipitation may increase instances of drought (Hariyo Ban Programme, n.d.).

2.2 Climate Change Induced Disaster, Risk and Vulnerability Natural hazards like floods, drought, desertification and environmental degradation such as deforestation, erosion and loss of biodiversity are aggravated by climate change and have farreaching consequences in terms of food and water security. Both community and ecosystem have their own resilience capability with respect to these disasters.

2.2.1 Community resilience Resilience approaches are concerned with how the community system responds to change. The resilient community tends to prefer a systematic approach, which aims to secure future sustainability, which cannot be realized without understanding the socio-political processes and environmental linkages that underpin the foundations of vulnerability (Miller et al., 2010). Community vulnerability and resilience are not mutually exclusive; rather they are part of a one system approach (Kafle, 2012). It is assumed here that for the reduction of underlying causes of vulnerabilities and obtaining a resilient community state, the understanding of interactions between vulnerability and resilience elements are prerequisite. In order to capture the dynamic processes of vulnerability and resilience, a number of indicators from both the process and outcomes of a community based disaster risk reduction program have been taken. However, it is regarded here that community vulnerability is a subset of a broader concept of social and ecological resilience. In practice, the community which has the following elements can be considered as resilient to future disaster risks (Kafle, 2010). 1. Community based organizations with trained volunteers; 2. Hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment done and socialized in the community; 3. Community risk reduction plans formulated and implemented; 4. Involvement of women, children and vulnerable groups in decision-making processes; 5. Integration of community plans into local development planning; 6. Linkage development with local government agencies, private sectors and nongovernment organizations;

7. Community awareness on key hazards, their vulnerabilities and capacities, and future disaster risk; 8. Diversified local economy; 9. Safe ‘critical facilities’; 10. Contingency plans; 11. External support; and 12. Community early warning system linked to the government early warning system.

In practice, an integrated community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) intervention has been initiated to build the resilience capabilities using the process cum outcome based standards (Kafle, 2010). In recent years, a number of tools have been developed to measure community resilience capacities, among them two are widely used, i.e. capital-based approach and process and outcome standards. This study adopts the latter one, and quantifies the community in terms of their resilience status.

2.2.2 Ecosystem resilience In the present context of global change, the resilience capacity of the ecosystem seems to be affected by several human activities. For instance, the reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, land-use change, and climate change are among the major causes for ecosystem degradation leading to reduced resilience (Walker et al., 2004). In order to build ecological resilience through "resilience analysis, adaptive resource management and adaptive governance" there needs to be a shift from the sustainable yield paradigm to environmental resource management (Walker et al., 2004; Green et al., 2015). In order attain the goal of sustainable development; there is need for greater understanding about ecosystem resilience with a higher level of awareness (Brand, 2009).

In addition to community resilience towards clime-induced disasters based on process and outcome indicators, the present study also measures resilience of socio-ecological systems using the socio- ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) indicators (UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP, 2014) which help to assess the outcomes of the pressures and disturbances. The validated socio-ecological production landscape and seascape indicators are; i. Landscape/seascape diversity

ii. Ecosystem protection iii. Ecological interactions between different components of the landscape/seascape iv. Recovery and regeneration of the landscape/seascape v. Diversity of local food system vi. Maintenance and use of local crop varieties and animal breeds vii. Sustainable management of common resources viii. Innovation in agriculture and conservation practices ix. Traditional knowledge related to biodiversity x. Documentation of biodiversity-associated knowledge xi. Women’s knowledge xii. Rights in relation to land/water and other natural resource management xiii. Community-based landscape/seascape governance xiv. Social capital in the form of cooperation across the landscape/seascape xv. Social equity xvi. Gender equity xvii. Socio-economic infrastructure xviii. Human health and environmental conditions xix. Income diversity xx. Biodiversity-based livelihoods

2.3 Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment Hazard assessment helps to identify the key triggering events, and nature as well as the probability of occurrence of the events. Climate related hazards assessed using the following parameters:

 Hazard types  Causes of hazard  Warning sign  Fore-warning  Speed of onset  Frequency  Hazard occurrence, and  Duration

Vulnerability assessment is a way of projecting likely impact on identifiable population due to particular hazard. The pressure and release model is used for vulnerability assessment (Fig. 2.1). Vulnerability is usually measured using a person’s exposure to risk by assigning certain scores on the following five components.

1. Livelihoods strength and resilience 2. Initial well-being 3. Self-protection 4. Social protection 5. Governance, civil society and institutional framework

Vulnerability Progression

Underlying Causes Dynamic Pressures Unsafe conditions Trigger event

Conflict Physical conditions Climate induced D= H*V Inequality Poverty hazards Closeness Poor education Habitat Destruction Fragile conditions Tragedy of Commons etc.

Figure 2.1. Risk assessment using pressure and release model (Wisner et al. 2003)

2.4 Socio-Ecological Mobility Assessment of vulnerability starts with documenting the exposure of the community to the climate extreme, where exposure is referred to both the physical conditions of the climate related risks, i.e. its extent and magnitude. 2.5 Resilience Measurement UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) has developed a Toolkit for the indicators of resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). It recognizes that humans have influenced most of the Earth’s ecosystems through production activities such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, herding and livestock ranching. While human impacts are often thought of as harmful to the environment, many such human-nature interactions are indeed favorable to or synergistic with biodiversity conservation. The Toolkit further discusses 8 the community and ecosystem of both landscape and seascapes commonly characterized as dynamic bio-cultural mosaics, where the interaction between people and the landscape maintains or enhances biodiversity while providing humans’ goods and services needed for their wellbeing.

2.6 National Policy Initiatives The Government of Nepal first initiated disaster management activities formulating legal instrument by enacting the Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982 (BS 2039) with its two subsequent amendments in 1989 and 1992 (MoHA, 2014). The Act has mandated the MoHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) as the lead agency for immediate rescue and relief work, preparedness and other related activities. Since the establishment of this Act, numbers of other documents such as strategies, measures, guidelines and directives have also been formulated. The Natural Calamity Relief Act arranged for formation of the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs. The document empowered the government to constitute disaster relief committees at the regional, district, and local levels which include the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC), Regional Disaster Relief Committee (RDRC), District Disaster Relief Committee (DDRC), and Local Disaster Relief Committee (LDRC). These committees are authorized to establish natural disaster relief funds to utilize in relief operations.

The Local Self Governance Act, 1999 has provisioned local level authority for environmental friendly sustainable development. The local authority can prepare guidelines considering interlinkage between local level development, environment, and disaster.

The National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (NSDRM) was approved by the Government of Nepal in 2009 (B.S. 2066). The NSDRM has been developed based on Hyogo Framework of Action, 2005 (HFA, 2005). The strategy incorporates prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, while designing responsibilities for the Ministries during the different phases of the disaster management cycle. It describes the government's vision to transform Nepal into a disaster resilient nation. The strategy provides the road map for all sectors to prepare sector specific programs for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and formulate necessary policy decisions for facilitating mainstreaming DRM into the development process. The strategy has identified 29 priority strategic actions and several sectoral activities for DRM. The cross- sectoral strategies are based on gaps and issues identified and are focused on addressing the identified gaps in particular sectors. The strategy further describes the challenges of the various

9 hazards, ministry and department roles, sector strategies, the legal framework and formation of organizations at the national, regional, district and local levels.

In order to address the issues of climate change, Nepal has formulated a climate change policy, 2011 (B.S 2067) and is implementing relevant programmes to minimize the existing effects and likely impacts in different ecological regions-from the southern plains to the middle-hills and to the high Himalayan mountains in the north, and their peoples, livelihoods, and ecosystems.

In order to assess climatic vulnerability, and systematically respond to climate change adaption issues by developing appropriate adaptation measures, the Ministry of Environment, Government of Nepal has prepared the National Adaptation Program of Action, NAPA, (2010) in accordance with the decision of COP7. Following the NAPA, to address location-specific climate change issues and integrate adaptation into mainstreamed sector-specific planning, the National Framework for Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA), 2011 has been prepared which adapts a decentralized bottom-up planning approach expecting effective delivery of adaptation services to the most climate vulnerable areas and people.

As provisioned in the National Strategy (2009) and as per the mandate of Local Self Governance Act, 1999, with the aim of disaster risk reduction and better preparedness, the Ministry Local Development (MoLD) has prepared the Local Disaster Risk Management Planning (LDRMP) Guideline, 2012 (BS 2068). The guideline anticipates participatory, transparent, accountable, inclusive and responsive disaster management for building community resiliency at the local level.

As provisioned in the National Strategy (2009) and as per the mandate of the Local Self Governance Act, 1999, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) prepared the District Disaster Management Planning Guideline, 2013 (BS 2069) with the aim of incorporating climate related provision in their periodic development and annual plans.

The Government of Nepal developed the National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF) 2013 to provide a clear, concise, and comprehensive framework for the country to deliver a more effective and coordinated national response during large scale disasters. National disaster response is defined as the “actions taken immediately before, during, and after a disaster or directly to save lives and property; maintain law and order; care for sick, injured, and vulnerable people; provide essential services (lifeline utilities, food, shelter, public information, and media); and protect public

10 property”. The framework limits the scope to preparedness and emergency response at the national, regional, district and VDC/local level. The NDRF briefly explains the disaster response at the national system, the international assistance process, the coordination structure for national and international assistance, special operation arrangements and the national framework (MoHA, 2013). The framework has 49 key actions with the roles and responsibilities of all ministries, departments, local authorities, and other development and humanitarian partners.

The MoHA spearheaded the planning for disaster preparedness and response guidelines. The CNDRC approved the guidelines in 2011 and the document is considered a milestone for 'organizing effective disaster preparedness and response planning at the District, Regional, and National levels’. One of the recommendations was to create District Lead Support Agencies (DLSA) in 75 districts among the national and international agencies to support DDRC in the development of the District Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan (DPRP). This has resulted in very positive feedback from all the DRR actors. As a result, to date, almost all districts have the DPRP.

CHAPTER THREE

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Study area selection During the conceptualization phase, selection of study area was pre-determined in the Gandaki River Basin mainly focusing on the Seti River Corridor of CHAL. The reasons behind the selection were: i. The vertical corridor along the perennial river is the most favourable linkage of two famous natural habitats managed and protected by two different management systems i.e. the strictly protected Chitwan National Park (CNP) and the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) managed by local people. ii. The Chitwan region has sub-tropical climate and the Annapurna region has cool temperate and alpine climate. Both these landscapes connect by the water flow system of the Seti River which provides an exemplary landscape for the climate change-induced disaster resilience experience.

iii. Due to altitudinal variation and different management regimes, the corridor also has high diversity of human community and natural ecosystem. iv. The resilience towards climate-induced and natural disaster depends on the characteristics of the corridor. Therefore, the unique landscape along the corridor will provide one of the best experiences in the measurement of climate-induced and natural disaster resilience for DRR and sustainable development.

3.2 Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) Geographically, the CHAL is located in central Nepal. In the global positioning system, the CHAL is confined between 82°55’ to 85°45’ East Longitude and 27°20’ to 29°17’ North Latitude covering an area of 32,057 km2, with elevations ranging from 200 m in the southern Tarai at Chitwan to 8,091 m at Annapurna-I in the north (Fig. 3.1). The landscape includes all or part of 19 districts and is drained by seven major perennial rivers and their tributaries of the broader Sapta Gandaki (Trishuli, Budi Gandaki, Daraudi, Marsyangdi, Madi, Seti, Kali or including two small but perennial rivers Modi and Badi Gad) called the Narayani River Basin. The CHAL experiences a range of climates from sub-tropical in the lowlands to alpine in the high mountains to cold and dry in the Trans-Himalayan region. The CHAL is divided into Tarai and inner Tarai (Bhitri Madhesh), Shiwalik, Mid-hills, High Mountains and High Himal physiographic zones (Fig. 3.1). Geology and climate vary considerably with formation, altitude and aspect. The CHAL and the Seti River Corridor (Fig. 3.2) provide critical north-south linkages including the important areas of the Mid-hills of Nepal. This linkage is highly important for climate adaptation as well as for freshwater conservation (KAFCOL, 2013).

Seti corridor is located at the central part of the country in the CHAL confined between 83°52’ East to 84°29’ East Longitude and 27°29’ North to 28°17’ North Latitude with an approximate length of 135 km and width of 20 km covering an area of 2355 km2 (Table 3.1, Annex III-I). The corridor has elevations ranging from 200 m in the southern Tarai in Chitwan, to 8,091 m in Annapurna-I in the north. This corridor connects the Chitwan National Park and the Annapurna Conservation Area (Fig. 3.2).

Figure 3.1: Location of the CHAL and the Seti River Corridor

Figure 3.2: The Seti River Corridor (Chitwan-Barandabhar-Panchase-Annapurna) Table 3.1: Characteristic of the corridor Corridor

Characteristics Down-stream Mid-stream Upper Total Number of VDCs/Municipalities 6 VDCs, 23 VDCs, 28 VDCs, 1 Municipality 1 Municipality 1 Sub Metropolitan 1 Municipality 431.2 836.3 1087.6 2355.1 Total area (square kilometer) Total household (CBS, 2011) 53844.0 48232 114276 216,352 Total population (CBS, 2011) 216502.0 197500 437659 851,661 Total male population (CBS, 2011) 105933.0 87598 208532 402,063 Total female population (CBS, 2011) 110569.0 109902 229127 449,598 Population density (person per hectare) 502.1 236.2 402.4 361.6

Male population per 1000 female 958.1 797.1 910.1 894.3

3.3 Field Survey Field data were collected at two levels, i.e. local level and district level. The local level data was collected based on the administration of household questionnaire, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), Key Informants Interview (KII), ecosystem plot survey, expert observation and local level consultation meetings with local stakeholders held at 13 different VDCs of the corridor in different sections and districts. District level information was collected from the consultation meetings with district level representations of different sectors, line agencies, organizations and stakeholders related with District Disaster Reduction and Management (DDRM) activities. District consultation meetings were held at district headquarters of Chitwan, Tanahun and Kaski districts.

Thirteen VDCs were selected for the field data collection. The selection was based on the section of the corridor (up-stream, mid-stream and down-stream) as well as the VDCs where either the Hariyo Ban Program was functional or not. Five VDCs from the up-stream and four VDCs from each mid-stream and down-stream were purposively selected with due considerations on representation of heterogeneity, irregularity on distribution and tributary and trunk river network (Table 3.2).

The survey sites were distributed randomly in the corridor (Fig. 3.3). District level stakeholders were entertained in the consultation meetings held at the district headquarters. Participants for the consultation were invited based on representation of women and different social groups, government organizations and representatives of DDRC, Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN), and district level NGOs working in the disaster sector, and district level experts working in disaster management. VDC level stakeholders were involved in the local level consultation.

3.4 Work-Flow The study has been conceptualized by the desk-top review. Literature and documents of the works previously carried out by Hariyo Ban WWF-Nepal was prioritized and this has a continuous process throughout the study period. In addition to the reports and publications of WWF-Nepal, other relevant documents more specifically related with climate-induced vulnerability and resilience available in open source were reviewed (listed in the references). Step-wise activities of the study were framed and carried out based on the understanding of the proposed task (Fig. 3.4). 15

After the prior desk-top survey and review of available literature, specific indicators for each objective were developed (Annex III-II). During the development of the specific indicators, an expert team frequently visited the field for rapid assessment through rapport building with the local stakeholders and consultation meeting at local and district level.

Table 3.2: VDCs/Communities selected for field data collection and consultation Corridor District VDCs/Communities District level Section Consultation With Hariyo Ban Without Hariyo Ban Up-stream Kaski Machhapuchhre, Bhadaure Armala Pokhara Tamagi, Sardikhola

Syangja Taksar Mid-Stream Tanahun Bandipur, Bhimad Damauli Dharampani, Khairenitar,

Down- Tanahun, Devghat, Bharatpur stream Nawalparasi Gaindakot

Chitwan, Mangalpur, Kabilash,

Figure 3.3: Distribution of field survey VDCs/Municipalities and consultation sites

Figure 3.4: Activities flow chart

Photo: Expert Team Field visit at Machhapuchree

Chitwan Chitwan

Tanahun Kaski

Photo: District consultation meetings at Chitwan, Tanahun and Kaski

3.5 Data types 3.5.1 Household survey Survey questionnaire was prepared (Annex III-III) by incorporating both community and ecosystem resilience parameters required for the analysis.

Sampling of Household Number of household to be surveyed was determined using procedure Arkins and Colton (1963). n =N/1+ N(e)2

Where: n = required sample size N= size of study population e = maximum tolerable error

Given the size of households of corridor 215,413 and the desired level of confidence of 95% (maximum tolerable error of 5 percent), the required sample size comes out as follows:

n = = 399

The calculation gives the required sample size of 399 households. To be on the safe side and to have a reasonable number of households in each of 13 VDCs of all the three sections of the basins, 35 households from a VDC was determined. Therefore, a total of 456 households from the corridor were randomly selected in which proportional representation of different section of the corridor, ethnic and caste groups from each VDC were taken into consideration. Photo: Orientation meeting at CDMS, Kathmandu

3.5.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) survey In total, 16 PRAs were entertained. The community selection for the PRAs was based on the local information about the severity of the disaster. At least 10 to15 persons, including females’ and other socially deprived groups’ participation were ensured. A structured PRA discussion guideline was prepared prior to the field visit (Annex III-IV).

3.5.3 Key Informants Interview (KII) A total 54 respondents including senior citizens, educated and subject experts, disaster victims, representatives of the local level Users Groups, Mother’s groups and Community Organizations were entertained for the KII. Structured discussion guideline was prepared prior to the field visit (Annex III-IV).

3.5.4 Informal Group Discussion For the triangulation of collected data/information 38 informal group discussions, accidental survey and indirect discussion were made throughout the data collection process.

Dharampani, Taanahun Bandipur, Tanahaun

Taksar, Syanja Bandipur, Tanahaun

Photo: Field consultation meetings at various locations

3.5.5 Facilitated Group Discussion (FGD) During the field survey, 10 FGDs were held in different levels (Annex III-IV). In such events both information collection and triangulation was done.

3.5.6 Workshop-based Local Level Consultation In each VDC/Municipality, and also in Kaski, Tanahu and Chitwan districts, an organized consultation meeting was held ensuring participation of different level stakeholders (Annex IIIIV). Floor discussion and formal expression of the views and ideas were collected and analyzed accordingly.

3.5.7 Selection of Survey Plot For the ecosystem survey plot, both community forest and government forest of the survey VDCs were identified with the help of local stakeholders. In total, 26 quadrat plots of 20 m x 20 m, ensuring at least two plots from each surveyed VDCs, were taken. Information about the presence of dominant tree species was collected from the quadrat study.

3.6 Hazard and Vulnerability Mapping with Multi-criteria The assessment of hazard and vulnerability at the corridor level was carried out by using spatial data acquired from different maps and satellite imageries using multi-criteria analysis. The acquired data were compiled and multi-criteria analysis was carried out in the Geographic Information System (GIS) software, ArcGis (version 10.1). The relative impact factors were given in each parameter across the VDCs/Municipalities accordingly. i. Aspect: In Nepal, East, South-east, South and South-west facing hill-slopes are exposed to high intensity of sunshine and precipitation in comparison to the North-west, North, North-east and Flat directions. Those faces also have dense human settlement and land is intensively used for agriculture. Thus, these aspects are relatively more exposed to climate-induced hazard and vulnerability. The distribution of area of a VDC/Municipality by aspect was determined by using ASTER DEM (Satellite imageries) and giving higher score to the area with more exposure. ii. Slope: Slope is one of the major physiographic parameters, where steeper the slope, the more exposed to climate-induced vulnerability. The distribution of area of a VDC/Municipality by slope, particularly beyond steep to very steep slope categories (>25 degree slope inclination) was determined using slope map. The VDC/Municipalities with larger area beyond this critical slope was given high value. iii. Cultivated land across exposed aspect and critical hill-slope: Cultivated land is the most notable human activities in the rural areas. Therefore, the percentage distribution of such land in a VDC/Municipality under the exposed aspect and critical hill-slope was determined by aspect and slope map. The VDC/Municipality with higher percentage of area under this class was given higher score. iv. Per-capita forest coverage: The per-capita forest in a VDC/Municipality gives the relative degree of the measurement of environmental condition. Therefore, it is taken as the measurement

22 criterion, where lower the value, the higher the pressure on the forest resources, and more prone to disaster and vulnerability. Thus, area with low per-capita forest was given a higher score. v. Crude density of population: This is a common measurement for people to land ratio, where higher number of people per unit area exerts larger pressure on the land, which provides greater chance to hazard and vulnerability, and thus was given high score. vi. Physiologic density: The ratio of total population to the cultivated land gives the information about population pressure on cultivated land. A higher ratio exerts more pressure on agriculture land leading to a relatively high chance of hazard and vulnerability. The VDC/Municipality with higher value of physiologic density was given higher score. vii. Settlement location over the critical slope: Spatial distribution of settlement was determined by counting the settlement units in topo-sheet map (scale 1:25,000) of the Department of Survey, Government of Nepal. Based on the counting, share of settlement of a VDC/Municipality over the critical hill-slope was determined. The VDC/Municipality with higher settlement number in the critical hill-slope was considered to be more vulnerable. viii. Male to female (gender/sex) ratio: The ratio of male to female gives a measurement of pressure over females. Here, it is measured by the number of males to 1000 females. Where number of males is less compared females, the pressure is higher on female.

The hazard and vulnerability scores of multi-criteria (above parameters) were normalized by using:

The normalized scores were naturally classified into five categories, i.e. very high, high, medium, low and very low relative scale of hazard and vulnerability across the VDCs/Municipalities within the Gandaki (Seti) River Corridor.

3.7 Community Resilience In order to measure the community resilience, the index suggested by Kafle (2012) was used as represented the following equation.

i=10, j=5 i=25, j=5

Resilience score (RS) = [∑ P (Wi*Rj) + ∑ O (Wi*Rj)]/2 i=1, j= 0 i=1, j= 0 Where, RS= Overall resilience score expressed in percentage P = Process indicators ranging from 1 to 10 (see the list in Annex I) O = Outcome indicators ranging from 1 to 25 (see the list in Annex II) Wi = Weight of process and outcome indicators i Rj = Rank or value of process and outcome indicators j

3.8 Socio-Ecological Resilience In order to measure the socio-ecological resilience, a set of indicators proposed by UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) and Oudenhoven et al. (2014) were used. The indicator is mainly based on the following criteria; i. Landscape diversity and ecosystem protection ii. Biodiversity including agriculture diversity iii. Knowledge and innovation iv. Governance and social equity v. Livelihoods and well-being

3.9 Analysis and interpretation: Data acquired from above methods were tabulated and computed in the form of tables, figures and maps. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS (version 20). Geospatial data were analyzed using ArcGis (version 10.1).

CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Characteristics of the Community Respondents In order to acquire the community response about resilience, 455 households from 13 representative VDCs of the Seti Corridor, five from upstream, four from mid-stream and four from the down-stream were included in this study. Thirty to 40 households were interviewed in each VDC.

4.1.1 Household characteristics Among the respondents from the household, 42% were female and 58% were male. The age of the respondents varied from 17 to 90, where 7.7% belonged <25 year age group, 48.3% were from 25- 49 years age group and 44.0% were from 50 and above age group. On an average the respondents were 47.1 years of age (Annex IV-I). Ethnically, respondents included 13 castes/ethnicities group, where Gurung were in highest (35.4%) proportion, followed by Brahmin (23.1%), Magar (9.9%), Chhetri (8.8%), Bishwokarma (7.0%) Pariyar (6.2%), Newar (3.3%), Tamang (2.9%), Kumal (1.5%), and others such as Rai, Thakali, Bhujel and Miya were in less than one percent (Annex IV-I). Among the respondents, 81.5% of the respondents were literate and 18.5% were illiterate (Annex IV-I). From an education perspective, 19.1% respondents had obtained the school leaving certificate or above. Among the total respondents, 3.7% had obtained a Bachelor's or above degree. It seems that the respondents were well educated and well informed about the local environment, disaster and resilience of the society. In terms of occupation, large shares (90.5%) were found to involve in agriculture and related occupation and 6.8% respondents were from other occupations such as businesses, microenterprises, government jobs, wage laborers and pensioners (Annex IV- I) showing overlapping (>100%) of the occupations.

4.1.2 Response of the people about disaster The household survey reported different major disasters in the corridor. The result revealed that nearly half of the total respondents (46.4%) reported landslide as a major disaster, followed by flood (36.0%), earthquake (25.3%), drought (16.9%) and fire (4.2%) (Annex IV-II). Landslide is a common hazard up-stream of the corridor including the ridgeline of the watershed. Similarly, down-stream area is prone to flood disaster during the heavy rainfall period. Increasing uncertainty on the volume and intensity of rainfall due to climate change increase the frequency of the events of landslide and flood along the corridor. The flash flood event of 5 May 2012 in the Seti Corridor was a devastating disaster in the recent past. This event was the largest one which was not caused by the monsoon rain (Sharma, 2015). Due to this flash flood, up-stream communities were found to be more conscious about floods. During the discussion with the senior members of the community, it was found that disaster events are increasing even within their lifetime. Down- stream parts of the corridor, specifically Mangalpur and Gaindakot VDCs, reported to be badly affected by flood during monsoon (Dangol and Poudel, 2004). Due to 25 April 2015 major earthquake and several consequent aftershocks, people in the corridor were severely threatened.

Many lost their houses even though the Seti Corridor was relatively less affected. Therefore, local respondents ranked this as the third category (Annex IV-II). Drought is now becoming one of the major uncertain events and nearly one-sixth proportion of the respondents mentioned drought as the major disaster. Among the respondents, 35.2% reported drought to be the cause of loss of their properties and production. Despite the above disasters, local people also reported other disasters such as storm, hailstone, thunderstorm and lightening, soil erosion and gully formation, sinkhole formation, and human wildlife conflict. Sinkhole in Armala VDC was a typical localized disaster event. It has caused substantial loss of property of local community (MoHA, 2013). According to the local inhabitants, the increasing monkey population is becoming a great threat to rural crop farming in all villages. Increasing populations of porcupine, dear and leopard are also becoming a problem for crop and livestock in the rural areas. With respect to disaster risk, majority (59.3%) of the respondents expressed having no disaster risk, 34.5% expressed the possibility and a small proportion (5.9%) expressed ignorance. Respondents from Khairenitar (77.1%), Bhadure-Tamagi (57.6%), Kabilas (45.7%), Taksar (54.3%) and Armala and Machhapuchhre each (40.0%) expressed the risk. The least risk was expressed by the respondents of Bandipur (5.7%) and Mangalpur (6.7%). In general, respondents from up-stream communities expressed more disaster risk (IV-II).

4.1.3 Livelihood of the local people In terms of food sufficiency, a large (58.2%) proportion of respondents reported food insufficiency from their own production. Among the respondents, only 41.8% reported enough food for 12 months, 4.0% reported food sufficiency for 10 to 11 months, 14.6% reported food sufficiency for 7 to 9 months and 31.2% reported food just enough for four to six months, while 8.4% reported food sufficiency only for 3 or less months (IV-III). This shows that livelihood is in a vulnerable situation. Among the VDCs, Mangalpur showed highest (53.3%) and Dharampani showed lowest (14.3%) proportion of respondents having food sufficiency from the own produce.

Despite the poor level of food sufficiency, respondents reported satisfactory savings. Among the total, 65.7% respondents reported that they saved in a bank account. Among them, 63.1% households were found to save less than 1,000 rupees (approx.US$ 10) per month and 1.7% households save 20,000 to 50,000 rupees (US$ 200 to 500) per month. This might be due to foreign remittance as indicated by the gender ratio, 894.3, (male to 1000 females) of the corridor (CBS,

2012). Among the 61 VDCs, 25 have less than 800 males for 1000 females. This ratio decreases to 709:1000 in Kotdarbar. Male member outmigration for work seems to be common in the corridor.

4.1.4 Organizations working in the corridor Different social organizations including Mothers' Group (MG), Fathers Group (FG), Youth Club, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and international and/or national non-governmental organizations were found to be working jointly and/or independently towards the response of climate-induced hazards and vulnerability in the corridor. Those organizations are carrying out different activities which enhance the resilience capacity of both community and ecosystems. From the field survey, it was revealed that mothers are forming groups, i.e. the MGs and they are in higher number (135 in 13 VDCs). There are 36 MGs in the up-stream area, 23 in the midstream region and 76 in the down-stream region. Among the VDCs, Kabilas alone has 48 MGs. This shows that Mothers' groups are one of the strong and reliable social channels delivering development aids to the grass root community. After MGs, the second strong social channel is the Youth Club (YC) organized to fulfill their needs. However, Youth Clubs were found mostly involved in youth related activities. Similarly, children are also organized into groups through the Children’s Club (CC). They also focus mainly on children’s welfare. But Mothers' and Fathers' groups were directly related to development activities, social awareness and infrastructure building in their communities. Volunteer fund raising; construction of community buildings, drinking water supply system; construction and maintenance of community schools, foot-trail and motor road; running informal education classes for elders, women and poor; introducing income generating activities; running cooperatives, and kind and cash support to the needy disaster victims are some of noticeable activities in the community. Several MGs were also running volunteer small (micro) saving and credit activities within their group to solve cash needs. Tole Improvement Committees (Tole Sudhar Samiti) were also formed in some clustered settlements. Their activities were also focused on their local area development. In addition to these volunteer social community-based organizations (CBOs), most of the VDCs also have some sector-based organizations like Community Forest User’s Group (CFUGs), Leasehold Forest Users Groups (LFUGs), and Drinking Water User’s Groups (DWUGs), Farmers Group, Road Construction and Maintenance Groups and so on. Similarly, several communities have micro-finance cooperatives with the provision of saving and credit activities (Annex IV-IV). All

27 these CBOs are directly related to maintain the health of the ecosystem and social wellbeing in the area. Thirty three I/NGOs are working in the VDCs across the corridor (Annex IV-IV). Most of these organizations are mainly concentrated on DRM. A large number of such organizations are concentrated in Bhadaure-Tamagi VDC in the up-stream area, Khairenitar and Bandipur in the mid-stream region, and Kabilas and Mangalpur VDCs in the down-stream region. The Taksar and Devghat VDCs each have one such organization. However, there seems no such organizations in Gaindakot. The distribution of I/NGOs in the VDCs have their impacts on creation of local CBOs. The Bhaduare-Tamagi, Khairenitar and Kabilas VDCs representing three stretches of the corridor provides a similar picture showing higher numbers of such organizations. In the same way, Gaindakot, Devghat and Taksar have the least number of CBOs. The 27 cooperatives in Gaindakot may be due to urban characteristics of the area (Annex IV-IV).

4.1.5 Local knowledge for the risk reduction Community members expressed existence of local knowledge to cope with disasters. Among the respondents, 38.2% expressed having some knowledge, 37.0% expressed having no such knowledge and 24.8% did not have any such knowledge (Annex IV-V). In general, communities seem more focused on mitigation measures for those disasters which they feel to be prone. This can be noted from the Armala, where sinkholes caused large damage of property. A similar case can be noted in the Bhadaure-Tamagi flood of July, 2015 and Machhapuchhre VDCs flash flood of May, 2012. Therefore, response regarding the use of local knowledge to mitigate the overall disaster might be lesser than other locations. Local people usually construct embankments along the river/stream banks by using local materials like stone, tree sapling and bamboo. Gabion-wall and terracing are common measures for controlling gullies, small landslide scars and soil erosion. Tree plantation at the cultivated terraces seems common in the area.

4.1.6 Public perception on climate change With respect to local perception on climate change, respondents expressed different observations in their localities, where different environmental parameters are changing in their own life time. Respondents from the up-stream (Machhapuchhre and Sardikhoal) and mid-stream (Bandipur) regions reported the appearance of mosquitoes. The respondents expressed that weather is getting

28 hotter in summer and colder in winter with shift in season. In addition, they also reported the introduction of new weeds and pests in the area. The pest infestation in millet, which is thought to be disease resistant crop, has been taken as an unexpected event by the Shardikhola community. In addition, dying out of water springs was also reported. The respondents also reported the likely disappearance of most of the local varieties of crops. For example; at Jhapre Khola of Bandipur VDC, the local variety of paddy is has disappeared and new varieties have been introduced.

Photo: Farmers grown local variety paddy (jira masina) along with HYV (Radha-7at Jhapre Khola Bandipur 03 November 2015. 4.2 Assessment of Hazard and Vulnerability Hazard and vulnerability of any area is determined by location, physiography, land use/cover and social parameters. Therefore, integration of all these parameters gives a relative scale of severity of major hazard and vulnerability. These parameters are discussed here in different headings and subheadings; 4.2.1 Location The Seti Corridor is located in the central part of the Gandaki Basin and has a very active geohydrological regime with most of the area facing towards the south with several wetlands with higher precipitation, and includes the immediately raised concave-shaped Annapurna Mountain Range (Gurung, 1965). The corridor is extends from the warmer Tarai up to the alpine region with diverse physiography, climate, natural environment, ecosystem, and biodiversity giving the corridor a unique social and ecological characteristics.

4.2.2 Physiography The corridor has high variation in elevation, aspect, slope, and climatic conditions which results in major impacts on ecosystem. These parameters exert specific situations and provide very complex results. Geologically, the upper part of the corridor has the Main Central Thrust (MCT), which is the major zone of displacement of the Indian continental block in the south and the Tibetan continental block in the north. Because of the colloidal zone of these two huge and thick continental masses, this zone is very sensitive to endogenetic activities (Bhandary, 1987). The altitudinal gradient has resulted in extreme variation in several ecosystem parameters from the lower bottom and the summit of the hills and mountain (Table 4.1, Annex IV-VI).

Table 4.1 Corridor area (km2) across elevation zone Elevation Zone Total Area %

Below 500 m. 519.0 22.0 500 - 1000 m. 971.8 41.2

1000 - 1500 m. 336.7 14.3

1500 - 2500 m. 189.5 8.0

2500 - 3500 m. 108.3 4.6

3500 - 4500 m. 110.8 4.7

4500 - 6000 m. 110.7 4.7

Above 6000 m. 13.9 0.6

Total 2360.7 100.0

Source: Computed from the elevation zone map

Table 4.1 shows that 22.0 % of the corridor’s area is below 500 m elevation with the maximum being within the 500 and 1000 m elevation zone (41.3 %). The corridor has a substantial area (5.3%) above the permanent snowline (> 4500 m). Human settlements in the corridor are mostly located up to 1500 m elevation, however, the seasonal grazing goes up to the snowline (4500 m).

The trunk river (Seti) channels from the north to the south direction, gradually bending towards the south-east. The water divide of the corridor is elongated parallel to the trunk channel. A small

30 portion (0.5%) of the area is flat. Likewise, the north, the north-east and the north-west constitute include 34.5% while the west facing aspect constitutes 14.3% of total area. The rest (50.6%) includes the east, the south-east, the south and the south-west facing slopes which have longer sunshine and high monsoon rainfall along with high human inhabitants and intensive human activities with sparse vegetal cover (Table 4.2, Annex IV-VII).

Another basic physiographic character of the corridor is hill-slope. In this respect, nearly half of the total area falls above 25 degree inclination (Table 4.3) which is categorized as critical slope for the human activities (Gurung, 1965; Impat, 1980). Only 18.1% of the total area falls below 10 degree slope. Similarly, 32.6% area is in between 10 and 25 degrees, which is the major area for cultivation in the hills. Overall, the corridor has domination of steep to very steep slope with high possibility of land degradation due to steepness of the slope (Annex IV-VIII). Table 4.2 Corridor area (km2) across aspects (hill-slope facing direction) (Land area by aspects) Aspect direction Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total %

Flat 3.3 2.7 5.9 11.9 0.5 Northeast 49.0 108.3 103.6 261.0 11.1

East 49.6 103.3 113.3 266.2 11.3

Southeast 49.0 86.2 123.0 258.2 11.0

South 57.3 106.4 155.3 319.0 13.5

Southwest 63.1 120.5 165.1 348.6 14.8

West 56.4 114.4 165.6 336.4 14.3

Northwest 56.6 103.6 145.4 305.6 13.0

North 47.1 90.8 110.3 248.2 10.5

Total 431.2 836.3 1087.6 2355.1 100.0

% 18.3 35.5 46.2 100.0

Source: Computed from the aspect map

Table 4.3 Distribution of area (km2) in different slope class across corridor (Land area by slope) Corridor (area in hectare)

Slope Class Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total % (degree)

< 10 185.41 92.9 148.6 426.9 18.1 10-15 87.59 140.9 137.6 366.1 15.5 15-25 43.31 176.8 182.1 402.2 17.1 25-35 73.63 309.4 356.2 739.2 31.4 35-45 26.37 76.1 120.1 222.8 9.5 > 45 14.92 40.2 143.0 198.1 8.4 Total 431.23 836.3 1087.6 2355.1 100.0 % 18.3 35.5 46.2 100.0

Source: Computed from the slope map

The River Seti is the trunk river originating at the southern flank of the Annapurna Himalayan Range and flows towards the south and south-east direction until confluence with River Trishuli at Gaighat. This is a perennial system and several tributaries confluence with the Trunk River including the Madi System which is also a glacial fed system. This system is one of major subsystems of River Narayani or Gandaki system. Due to its water volume and flow, and geography, it has influences on diverse aquatic lives. The Seti River system has no large dams and barriers constructed so far which is favourable for the free movement of aquatic life through the channel. Due to deep and narrow gorges and valley formed by the river channel, several river hazards and disasters are associated with it. Side wall collapse, river water blockade during monsoon and landslides over narrow and steep valley and side hill-slope are frequent throughout the channel. In recent years, excavation of river sand and stone for construction purposes, the river has developed deep and intense down cutting causing slides.

4.2.3 Climatic condition The corridor has great variation in its geographical setting; as a result it shows variability of temperature, precipitation, sunshine, humidity and wind direction. Therefore, the region has micro climatic variation. The permanent snowline is at the altitude of 4500 m asl. However, the snowline varies with the degree of hill-slope inclination, aspect and prevailing wind direction. The climatic

32 data (temperature and rainfall) of various stations in the corridor was obtained from Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Government of Nepal. In January (2007 to 2013), the mean minimum and mean maximum temperature at Bharatpur (205 m asl) was found to be 8.8°C and 22.1°C, respectively. In June, the mean minimum and maximum value was found to be 25.8°C and 35.1°C, respectively. In Damauli (358 m asl), mean minimum and maximum in January, for the same period, was recorded respectively to be 8.7°C and 21.3°C and the values in June was found to be 22.5°C and 35.1°C. Likewise, in Khairenitar (500 m asl), the mean minimum and maximum temperature was found respectively to be 9.0°C and 22°C in January, and 22.9°C and 338 in June. In Lumle (1740 m asl), the mean minimum and maximum value in January was found respectively to be 4.9°C and 14.9°C and in June it was found to be 16.8°C and 24.8°C. This shows that the temperature in the corridor gradually declines with elevation.

With respect to rainfall, the total annual average rainfall of Bharatpur (2001 to 2013) was found to be 2400.0 mm with the maximum value in August, 2009, 704 mm in July, 2010, and 734.8 mm in July, 2013. The average annual rainfall in Damuli (1974 to 2013) was recorded to be <2000 mm with peak value of 756.6 mm in July, 1989 (highest record, with total annual value 1783.1 mm) followed by June, 1974 (total annual 2774 mm). In 2013, the total annual value is 1940.0 mm and in June, it was 585.8 mm. Similarly, in Khairenitar (1972-2013), the annual average was found to be about 2400 mm with a peak value of 1022.5 mm in July, 1972 (annual 2516.5 mm) followed by 948.8 mm in July, 2002 (total annual 3057.5 mm). In 2013, the total annual rainfall was 2344.5 mm. Likewise, in Lumle annual average (1970 to 2013) was recorded to be around 5500 mm. The highest annual record was 6561.4 mm in 1995. There seems no uniform distribution of rainfall in the corridor. However, there seems to be peak rainfall in upstream region with lower rainfall in the down-stream region. The study from the Panchase area has shown an uncertain trend rainfall (Dixit, Karki and Shukla, 2015). Sometimes, the cloud burst is confined in the small coverage in the corridor causing heavy damage (Poudel, 2003).

4.2.4 Land Use/Cover Land use/cover data shows that 33.1% of the corridor’s area is under cultivation and about half of the area is forest, including shrub/bush. The rest of the area includes snow/glacier (6.7%), barren

33 land (3.3%), built-up area (2.2%), grass land (2.1%), and water bodies, lakes and rivers (1.0%) (Table 4.4, Annex IV-IX).

Table 4.4 Land use/cove (km2) distribution in the corridor Land Use/Cover Total %

Cultivated land 793.9 33.1 Broad-leaved closed forest 671.1 28.0

Broad-leaved open forest 273.5 11.4

Needle-leaved closed forest 97.4 4.1

Needle-leaved open forest 151.5 6.3

Shrub land 42.0 1.7

Grass land 51.6 2.1

Built-up area 53.6 2.2

Barren land 78.9 3.3

Lakes 8.3 0.3

River 17.6 0.7

Snow/Glacier 161.8 6.7

Total 2401.1 100.0

Source: ICIMOD (2010) The data shows that forest, shrub/bush, grass land and cultivated area cover almost over 4/5th parts of the total coverage of the corridor. For last few decades, Nepal is experiencing substantial changes in land use/cover pattern. Specifically, change in cultivated land, forest, shrub and bush plays an important role in the local environment. Land use/cover change in the Seti Corridor in 16 years, i.e. between 1994 and 2010 shows quite a significant change, where cultivated land declined by 9.03%. For the same period, forest increased by 3.23% and grass land decreased by 44.47%. Grass land declined (69.6%) mainly in the down-stream region of the corridor (Table 4.5, Annex IV-X). The maximum area of cultivated land declined by 15.1% in the mid-stream of the corridor coinciding with the low sex ratio (797.1 males per 1000 females) (Table 3.1). In the time period, forest area increased the most as supported by per capita forest coverage (Table 4.5). The data shows nearly 57.6% of the total forest coverage under the critical slope which is a good

34 indicator for reduced vulnerability (Table 4.7, Annex IV-XI). The average per capita forest area including dense forest and shrub is less than the national average (0.25 ha) (FRA Nepal, 2016). It was observed that the lower part of the corridor has increasing built-up area with dense human settlement, and encroachment of open fallow, grass land and bush/shrub areas in accessible low land along the motorable road sides. Many such settlements seem to have high risk of flood, sedimentation of mass-waste, specifically in the break-of-bulk of sloping landscape, and improper sanitation due to congestion. Cultivated land is another major use/cover type in the corridor shared consisting of 77575.9 ha (33.1 %) of the total area. Of this, 20948.4 ha (27.0%) cultivated land is confined within the critical hill-slope (>25 degree). In the mid-stream region, 35.5% of cultivated land falls in the critical slope indicating the vulnerable status (Table 4.8, Annex IV-XII).

Table 4.5 Land use/cover (km2) change in the corridor between 1994 and 2010 Land Use/Cover Down- Midstream Up-stream Total stream 127.3 335.9 312.6 775.8 Cultivated land 2010 Cultivated land 1994 136.3 455.6 337.9 929.8 Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -9.0 -119.7 -25.3 -154.1 Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -3.4 -15.1 -3.9 -9.0 Forest land 2010 260.5 466.7 479.3 1206.5 Forest land 1994 261.2 416.8 452.9 1130.9 Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -0.8 49.9 26.4 75.5 Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -0.1 5.6 2.8 3.2 Grass land_2010 1.6 4.2 45.8 51.6 Grass land 1994 8.8 10.8 114.5 134.1 Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -7.2 -6.6 -68.7 -82.6 Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -69.6 -43.9 -42.9 -44.5

Source: Land use/cover (1994) is taken from the topographic digital data of Department of Survey and 2010 is taken from the ICIMOD

Table 4.6 Per capita agricultural land forest land across corridor Corridor Down- Mid-stream Upper Total Characteristics stream Cultivated land (ha) 12725.9 34358.5 30491.6 77575.9 Per capita agricultural land (ha) 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.091 Total forest land including 26047.6 46666.0 47931.5 120645.1 bush/shrub (ha) (ICIMOD, 2010) Per capita forest land (ha) 0.12 0.24 0.11 0.14 Source: Computed from the maps

Table 4.7 Distribution of forest coverage (km2) in the critical slope (>25 degree) Land use Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total Total forest 26047.6 46666 47931.5 120645. 1 Forest in critical slope (> 25 7474.9 31476.71 30580.6 69532.2 Degree) % 28.7 67.5 63.8 57.6 Source: Computed from overlaid land use and slope map

Table 4.8 Distribution of cultivated land (km2) in the critical slope (> 25 degree) Land use Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total

Total cultivated land 12725.9 34358.5 30491.6 77575.9 Cultivation over in critical 1597.5 12213.5 7137.4 20948.4 slope (> 25 Degree) % 12.6 35.5 23.4 27.0 Source: Computed from overlaid land use and slope map

4.2.5 Population distribution For a long time, mid-land river valleys of Nepal were not preferred for human inhabitation. Recorded history mentions that the valleys became attractive only after the eradication of Malaria

36 in the early 1950s along with the construction of roads and other infrastructural facilities such as health, education, market, and irrigation canal facilities. At present, the corridor has one submetropolitan city (Pokhara) and three municipalities (Lekhnath, Byas and Bharatpur). Pokhara and Lekhnath are in the up-stream region, Byas in the mid-stream region and Bharatpur in the down- stream region of the corridor. The concentration of population is high within these urban centers and also along the river terraces. The corridor has total 8,51,661 population in 216,352 households (3.94 persons per household) (CBS, 2012). These four urban centers cover only 15.1% land area of the corridor, but include 60.7% of the households with 58.7% of the population, and 1413 persons per square kilometer. In the down-stream region, Mangalpur has the highest and Kabilas has the least population density, 900 and 93 persons per square kilometer, respectively. In the mid- stream region, the highest population density is in the Byas Municipality and the least is in the Deurali VDC, 815 and 72 persons per square kilometer, respectively. Similarly, in the up-stream region, the highest population density is in Pokhara SubMetropolitan City and the least is in the Machhapuchhre VDC, 4636 and 6 persons per square kilometers, respectively. The low population density in Machhapuchhre is due to the presence of high mountain range without settlements. With respect to per-capita cultivated land, on an average the cultivated land covers 0.091 ha with variation in the different stretches: 0.06 ha in the down-stream region, 0.17 ha in mid-stream region and 0.07 ha in up-stream region (Table 4.6, Annex III-I). It was found that the corridor has a low sex ratio (894.3 males per 1000 females), with the downstream value being 958.1, the mid-stream value being 797.1 and the up-stream value being 910.1, depicting large number of male absentees in the mid-stream region. As a result, females in the corridor are under high pressure to maintain their livelihood and local environment.

With respect to settlement, large numbers of human settlements are confined within the critical hill-slope. The result shows that 42.2% of human settlements in the up-stream region, 39.8% in mid-stream region, and 18.0% in the down-stream region are located within critical hill-slope (Annex IV-XIII).

4.2.6 Multi-criteria-based assessment of climate induced hazards and vulnerabilities The multi-criteria based assessment result shows that the up-stream region of the corridor has comparatively more VDCs (8) in very high vulnerable categories. Among them, Puranchaur,

Armala, Valam and Arva Vijaya in the eastern part, Dhikurpokhari, Pumdi-Bhumdi and Kristi in the western part and Rupakot in the eastern part are in high hazard and vulnerability category (Annex IV-XIV, Fig. 4.1). The Pokhara sub-metropolitan and Lekhnath Municipality have very low hazard and vulnerability. The VDCs lying in the upper part of the mid-stream region- Chhang, Arunodaya and Bhanumati are in very high hazard and vulnerability category, while the mid and lower parts fall under low to high hazard and vulnerability categories In the downstream region, because of low altitude and homogeneous physical parameters, the VDCs (except Devghat) fall under low to very low hazard and vulnerability categories. In addition to these categories, other local factors may be operating with little significance. The formation of sinkholes in the lower part of Armala VDCs, landslide and flood in Lumle and Bhadaure-Tamagi in 2015 due to cloud burst, the Seti River Flash Flood of May 2012, the Seti River blockade during the monsoon in Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City, landslides and floods in Kabilas and many VDCs of Tanahun in August 2003 due to cloud burst, and flood and side-cutting at Mangalpur and Devghat are some instances of local events. Therefore, from the climate induced disaster resilience perspective, such local events also need to be considered at micro level planning.

Photo: Landslides in Bhadaure-Tamagi VDC, Novemebr 2015

Figure 4.1: Relative hazard and vulnerability level in the corridor

4.3 Ecosystem Services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (2005) recognizes the interdependencies of ecosystem health and social wellbeing. Based on this approach four distinct ecosystem services, provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services and cultural services have been categorized (Raid et al., 2005). Using the same approach the social and ecosystem resiliency of the hazard and vulnerability in the Seti Corridor have been assessed.

4.3.1 Provisioning services Provisioning services include agriculture production such as the production of cereal crops, legumes, fruits and vegetables. These provisioning services are necessary day-to-day food items for the people. The wellbeing of the system is determined by the amount of the production. However, the resilience is determined with the diversity of services. In the corridor, cereals are recognized as the major staple food. Among them, paddy (rice), maize and millet are commonly used with wheat, barley and buckwheat as other subsidiary crops. In the down-stream region, paddy as well as wheat is common. In both the mid-stream and up-stream regions, maize and millet are grown in the dry area (bari) and paddy is grown in the wetland (khet). In the midstream region, the upland rice (ghaiya) is common in sloping areas and dry river terraces (tar). In up-stream region, upland rice used to be grown by in the slash-down and burn (khoriya) method in past, but this practice has almost stopped due to increased awareness about forest conservation. The cereal production is basically determined by the irrigation. However, due to steep and elevated terrain irrigation facility is limited resulting limited crop diversification. Since, cereals production is monsoon dependent, only a few cereals can be grown within short summer monsoon period. Limited lowland with irrigation facility produce winter crops, wheat, barley and early monsoon paddy (chaite dhan) (Annex IV-XV). Several high yielding varieties (HYV) of cereal crops (paddy, maize) (Annex IV-XV) have been introduced by the government as well as by the local people themselves with an objective of increasing production. Consequently, several indigenous varieties have reportedly disappeared. Though, HYV is good for yield, several problems are found to be associated with this. Local people reported that the HYV cereals have low resistance to pests, are less tasty, the seeds cannot be used for further production and there are problems storing them for a longer period of time. In terms of vegetables production, the corridor has limited diversification mainly due to inadequate water supply. During the rainy season, there is good diversity of green vegetables including various types

41 of guards, brinjal, ladies finger, spinach, pumpkins, lettuce, cucumber, garlic and ginger. The most of these vegetables are common in the corridor. During dry winter, tomato, cauliflower, cabbage, radish, carrot, black-eye beans, etc. are produced. The up-stream region has less vegetable diversity (spinach, radish, tomato, potato and beans) during winter. In the mid-stream region as well vegetable production is determined by water availability, where the main produce are spinach, radish, tomato, beans, cauliflower and cabbage. In the downstream region, the major vegetables are spinach, radish, tomato, brinjal, ladies-finger, pumpkins, lettuce, peas and beans, carrot, potato, onion, etc.(Annex IV-XV)

The production of oils and legumes are also considered to be provisioning services providing protein rich nutrition. They are grown either as mono-crop, multi-crop or intercrop. In the upstream region, soybean and black-eye pulse is grown with paddy as intercrop. They are particularly grown in terrace bund. Specifically, Masyang is grown as intercrop with maize and millet. In the mid- stream region, black-eye pulse (kalo mas), gahat and masyang are common. This stretch is considered to be famous for the black-eye pulse, mainly grown after ghaya in tar and bari. In the down-stream region, various types of legumes including back-eye pulse (kalo mas), gahat, masyang, soybean, lentil (til), yello pulse (adahar), red pulse (musuro), mustard (tori) and sarsyoo are grown (Annex IV-XV)

Among the fruits, orange, pear, and plum are common in elevated areas of the up-stream region, while guava, papaya and banana are grown at lower elevations. In the mid-stream region, guava, banana, litchi, mango, papaya are common at lower elevations and orange is produced at higher elevations. In the downstream region, mango, papaya, guava, litchi and banana are common (Annex IV-XV).

4.3.2 Regulating services Regulating services comprise regulation of natural processes and events like flood, drought, land degradation and diseases. Such services have direct linkages with ecosystem health and human wellbeing. Events like drought, landslide and floods can be recorded physically and people from outside the area can observe and monitor these events. However, gradual effect of change caused by the climate can be well perceived by the people living in the area for long time and their observation and feelings signify this substantially. In the Seti Corridor, local community expressed different experiences about the regulating services. For instance, mosquito appearance in higher

42 altitude, new invasive species of plants, change in rainfall pattern, dying of water springs, cloud burst, shifting in season, increasing warmness in summer months, flash flood, introduction of new pests in crop and plant are some of their critical observations (Annex IVXV). These events have important linkages with the climate change.

4.3.3 Supporting services In connection to the supporting services, plants, wild animals and birds are the major categories. These services show wide diversity from the down-stream to the up-stream region of the corridor. Dominant plant species like reeds (Arundinaria falcata), bamboo (Dendracalamus strichts), rhododendron (Rhododendron arboretum), birch (Bitula utilis), utis (Alnus nepalansis), various herbs and flowering plants are common in the elevated area of the up-stream region and extend up to the High Himalayas. At lower elevations, sal (Shorea rubusta), katus (Castanopsis indica), chilaune (Schima wallicht), maleto (Macaranga indica), rakta chandan (Daphnephylum sp.), chutro (Berberis aristata), guenlo (Elaeagruts parvifloria), aiselu (Rubus elliptica), khirro, chanp (Michelia champaca), mauwa (Engelhardtia spicata) are common. In the mid-stream region, sal (Shorea rubusta), khayar (Acasia catechu), simal (Bombm ceiba), sisso (Dalbharzia sisso), bhalayao are common at lower elevations and katus ((Castanopsis indica), chilaune (Schima wallicht), phaledo, aiselu (Rubus elliptica), archal, kagiyo, thakal, rhododendron (Rhododendron arboretum), orchids, sindure, amala, jamun, kyamun are common in elevated areas. Likewise, in the down-stream region, sal (Shorea robusta) is the dominant species along with khayar (Acasia catechu), sisso (Dalbharzia sisso), saj, jamun, etc (Annex IV-XV) Some plant species like mainkanda, bhalayo, tuni, dalchini (sinkauli) (Cinnamomum zeylanicum), sipligan, rukh bayar are less frequently observed in the corridor. With respect to wild animals, there are wide ranges of wildlife from the down-stream to the up-stream region (Annex IV-XV) Similarly, different bird species are reported from the area (Annex IV-XV) Local people also reported existence of some supporting services (plant, animal and birds) in the past, which are rare and have now disappeared (Annex IV-XV) 4.3.4 Cultural services The Seti Corridor is important for local cultural and aesthetic resources. Many of them are closely related with religious belief and worships of the people. These include cultural monuments, and archeological sites: Devghat, Byas, and Panchase. Similarly, aesthetical sites include lakes/wetlands- Phewa, Begnas, Rupa and the Annapurna Himalayan Range. Pokhara Valley,

Bandipur, Panchase, Sarangkot, Byas-cave, and deep Seti River Gorge are among highly important aesthetic destinations (Annex IV-XV). In addition, the various ethnic groups residing the area have their unique socio-cultural practices.

4.4 Tree Species in the Corridor The dominant tree species in the different stretches of the corridor show that up-stream stretch is dominated by uttis (Alnus nepalensis) and chilaune-katus (Schima- Castanopsis). Likewise, midstream stretch is dominated by hill sal (Shorea robusta) and the down-stream stretch is dominated by sal (Shorea robusta) and sisso (Dalberzia sisso) (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Common tree species and type of forest in the corridor Dominant Remark SN Name of VDC Name of Tree species species s Upstream 1 Machhapuchhre Chanp, Maleto, Rakchan, Uttis Uttis-Maleto 2 Sardikhola Katus, Mahuwa, Chilaune, Maleto, Chilaune-Katus 3 Armala Katus, Chilaune, Uttis, Khirro, Maleto Chilaune-Katus Bhadaure4 Chilaune, Gurans, Rakchan, Katus, Chilaune-Katus Tamagi Kafal 5 Taksar Sal, Chilaune, Katus Sal Mid-stream 6 Bhimad Chilaune, Katus, Sal, Mahuwa Sal 7 Khairenitar Sal, Chilaune Sal 8 Bandipur Sal, Chilaune, Botdhayenro, Khirro Sal 9 Dharampani Sal, Chilaune, Barro, Kyamun Sal Downstream 10 Devghat Khirro, Botdhayenro, Sal, Chilaune Sal 11 Kabilas Sal, Saj, Tantari Sal Sal, Rajbrikshya, Botdhayenro, Sindure, 12 Gaidakot Sal Chhatiwan, Karma Sisso, Karma, Bakaino, Padke, Bhellar, 13 Mangalpur Bilaune Sisso Source: Field survey 2015

4.5 Community and Ecosystem Resilience The results obtained from community and ecosystem resilience measurements using process and outcome indicators, and ecosystem indicators respectively in the Seti Corridor are discussed. The

44 level of resilience was comparatively analyzed with respect to different stretches, i.e. up-stream, mid-stream and down-stream stretches, and communities either under the Hariyo Ban Program or not (Table 4.10). Table 4.10 Community and Ecosystem Resilience of the VDCs in the Corridor SN Name of VDC PI (score) OI (score) CR (score) ER (score) Remarks

Upstream LAPA at VDC 1 Machhapuchhre* 26.91 28.25 27.58 56 level by HB LAPA at VDC 2 Sardikhola* 25.82 29.96 27.89 64 level by HB VA at Jayamani, 3 Armala 25.45 25.20 25.33 59 sinkhole area CAPA at ward 4 Bhadaure-Tamagi* 22.18 21.20 21.69 58 level (5.7,8) No any disaster 5 Taksar 10.18 14.98 12.58 54 related program Average 23.10±6.34 58.2±3.76

Mid-stream HB program at 6 Bhimad* 12.00 17.49 14.75 55 ward no 3, Bhagar No any program, 7 Khairenitar 12.00 17.22 14.61 57 relatively good economic status HB program at 8 Bandipur* 15.27 19.21 17.24 58 ward no 7, Bahunbhanjyang HB program at 9 Dharampani* 12.73 16.23 14.48 58 ward no 8, Kamalbari Average 15.27±1.32 57±1.41

Downstream LAPA at VDC 10 Devghat* 28.36 31.21 29.79 57 level by HB LAPA at VDC 11 Kabilas* 32.73 29.60 31.17 52 level by HB Relatively high 12 Gaidakot 20.00 19.55 19.78 54 economic status

CBDRR of ward no (4/5), 5. By 13 Mangalpur* 60.73 59.55 60.14 55 Redcross, Mangalpur and CORD Average 35.22±17.37 54.5±2.08

PI = Process indicator OI = Outcome indicator CR = Community Resiliency ER = Ecosystem Resiliency * VDCs with Hariyoban Program (Dharampani VDC has not been placed in the list of VDC having Hariyoban Program as provided by WWF)

4.5.1 Up-stream corridor With respect to community resilience amongst the VDCs, Sardhikhola was found to have relatively high (27.89) score, followed by Machhapuchhre (27.58), Armala (25.33), BhadaureTamagi (21.69) and Taksar (12.58) (Table 4.10). The average community resilience score of the up-stream region is 23.1. The higher score of Sardikhola and Machapuchhre is attributed to the climate induced hazard assessment through LAPA. Similarly, the lowest score of Taksar is due to less organizational activities and inadequate disaster risk management intervention.

With respect to ecosystem resilience, Sardhikhola was found to have a relatively high score (64), followed by Armala (59), Bhadaure-Tamagi (58), Machhapuchhre (56), and Taksar (54) (Table 0). The average ecosystem resilience score of the up-stream region is 58.2. The higher value of Sardikhola can be attributed to the prevalence of conservation organizations and activities such as the formulation of Conservation Area Management Committee in each ward of the VDC. However, in Taksar such activities and program are relatively low.

It was found that community resilience in VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is functional, have relatively high score with exception of Armala. The VDCs under this program such as Sardhikhola (27.58), Machhapuchhre (27.89), Bhadaure-Tamagi (21.69) showed higher score when compared to the VDCs not under this program, such as Taksar (12.58) (Table 4.10). The higher value in VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is active can be attributed to increased awareness, and support provided for livelihood improvement through micro-enterprises such as vegetable farming, poultry, livestock, etc. as well as community empowerment through group formation, micro- financial initiatives and related trainings. These activities are less common in VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is not active. However, Armala. being a VDC not under the Hariyo Ban Program showed a higher score than the Bhadaure-Tamagi, which is under the program . This can

46 be attributed to the formation of sink-hole and subduction events of April, 2014, after which the VDC received special attention and vulnerability assessment was carried out. With respect to ecosystem resilience, VDCs under this program revealed a relatively high score with the exception of Armala. The VDCs under this program such as Sardhikhola (64), Bhadaure-Tamagi (58), Machapuchhre (56) were found to have higher scores when compared to a VDC not under the program, i.e. Taksar (54) (Table 4.10). The higher ecosystem resilience score in areas where the Hariyo Ban Program is active can be attributed to conservation support provided to the community forest user groups and pertinent conservation trainings. The higher score of Armala (59) compared to Machhapuchhre and Bhadaure-Tamagi is due to high score in socio-economic indicator.

4.5.2 Mid-stream corridor With respect to community resiliency, Bandipur was found to have the highest score (17.24), followed by Bhimad (14.75), Khairenitar (14.61), and Dharampani (14.48) (Table 4.10). The average score of the mid-stream region was found to be 23.1. The higher score of Bandipur is due to tourism infrastructure, higher level of awareness and physical infrastructures. The least value in Dharampani is attributed to the remoteness of the area and weak socio-economic infrastructures.

With respect to ecosystem resiliency, Bandipur and Dharampani have been found to have the highest scores (58), followed by Khairenitar (57) and Bhimad (55) (Table 4.10). The average ecosystem resiliency score of the mid-stream region was found to be 57.0. The higher score of Bandipur and Dharampani can be attributed to the larger forest cover and community forest practices in comparison to Bhimad.

Though restricted in limited area (only one ward in some VDCs), VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is active was found to have higher community resilience scores. VDCs under this program such as Bandipur, Bhimad and Dharampani were found to have scores 17.24, 14.75 and 14.48 respectively (Table 4.10). However, Khairenitar, being a VDC without the program, was found to have higher (14.61) score when compared to the Dharampani. This is due to its urban characteristics and better socio-economic settings. With respect to ecosystem resilience, VDCs under this program showed relatively higher scores with the exception of Khairenitar (57). VDCs under this program such as Dharampani and Bandipur were found to have higher scores (58) followed by Bhimad (55) (Table 4.10). The higher score of Khairenitar compared to Bhimad can be attributed to higher conservation initiatives. There seems to be limited conservation practices

(community forests) in Bhimad when compared to Kharienitar, which is also supported by larger (32.4%) forest coverage when compared to Bhimad (27.1%) in (Annex IV-X). 4.5.3 Down-stream corridor In the down-stream region, Mangalpur showed the highest (60.14) community resilience score, followed by Kabilas (31.17), Devghat (29.79) and Gaindakot (19.78) (Table 4.10). The average community resilience score in the down-stream region was found to be 35.22. The higher score in Mangalpur can be attributed to better socio-economic status, physical infrastructure and vulnerability assessment with Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) supported by Red Cross, Chitwan and the Centre of Resilient Development (CORD). The low score observed in Gaindakot may be due to less disaster risk management related interventions.

With respect to ecosystem resilience, Devghat was found to have the highest (57) score, followed by Mangalpur (55), Gaindakot (54) and Kabilas (52) (Table 4.10). The average ecosystem resilience score of down-stream region was calculated to be 54.5. The higher score observed for Devghat can be attributed to the relatively pristine environment and diverse landscapes when compared to Kabilas.

With respect to community resilience, VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is active were found to have higher scores, Mangalpur (60.14), Kabilas (31.17), Devghat (29.97), when compared to Gaindakot (19.78) which is not under this program. Mangalpur was found to have an exceptionally high (60.14) score which can be attributed to the better socio-economic status and disaster interventions. With respect to ecosystem resilience, Devghat, a VDC under the program showed a relatively high (57) score when compared to Gaindakot (54), not under the Hariyo Ban Program. Gaindakot, not under the program was found to a higher score when compared to Kabilas, under the program. This can be attributed to the high score in socioeconomic indicators used in the SEPLS method.

4.5.4 Resilience in corridor level With respect to community resilience in the overall corridor, the average score of the downstream area has been observed to be high (35.22), followed by the up-stream (23.1) and midstream (15.27) areas (Table 4.10). The higher score in the down-stream region of the corridor can be attributed to the relatively high disaster risk management interventions (formation of LDRMP, CBDRR,

LAPA), better socio-economic infrastructures and activities, and better social wellbeing. The lower score of the mid-stream region is mainly due to less disaster risk management interventions. Likewise, with reference to ecosystem resilience, up-stream communities have been observed to have a higher (58.2) score when compared to mid-stream (57) and down-stream (54.5) communities. This can be attributed to the presence of protected areas, better forest cover, and conservation committees and activities.

CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion, Recommendations and Lessen Learned 5.1 Conclusion 5.1.1 Corridor characteristics The Seti Corridor ranges from lower elevation (200 m) in Tarai to High-Himalayan Mountain (above 8000 m) with socio-cultural, ethnic, physiographic, climatic, and biological diversity. With respect to climate-induced disasters, landslides have been reported to be major disasters (46.4% respondents) while flooding has been reported to be the second major disasters (36% respondent). According to the senior citizens of the community, disaster events have increased in recent years.

In terms of livelihood, the majority (58.2%) of respondents reported food insufficiency from their own production. About 40% respondents expressed food sufficiency for less than 6 months indicating situation of livelihood vulnerability. Among the VDCs, Dharampani is highly vulnerable and Mangalpur is least vulnerable. With respect to income and saving, it has been reported that the community has initiated saving habits. Among the respondents, 65.7% reported having bank savings. Among them, 63.1% save less than1000 NRs per month (US$ 10) and less than1.7% save 20,000-50,000 NRs per month (US$ 200-500). Foreign employment would be the source of income for most of the households. The sex or gender ratio ranged from 709 (at minimum) to 894 (on average) males per 1000 females showing male absentees, thus indicating higher pressure on female members to maintain livelihood and local environment.

With respect to local social organizations, diverse forms of social organizations such as Mothers' Group (MG), Fathers Group (FG), Youth's Club (YC), Community Based Organizations (CBOs), and I/NGOs are working on building community and ecosystem resiliency. Among the community groups, MGs are in the lead (135 groups in 13 VDCs) including 36 in the up-stream region, 23 in the mid-stream region and 76 in the down-stream region. Kabilas VDC alone has 48 MGs. The MG is one of the stronger and more reliable social channels for delivering development aids to the grass root community. After MG, the second strong social channel is YC organized to fulfill their needs. In addition, Tole Improvement Committees (Tole Sudhar Samiti), and community organization like Community Forest User’s Group (CFUGs), Leasehold Forest Users Groups (LFUGs), and Drinking Water User’s Groups (DWUGs), Farmers Group, Road Construction and Maintenance Group, etc. are active in the communities. Similarly, several communities have

50 micro-finance cooperatives. All these CBOs are directly related to maintain the health of ecosystem and social wellbeing in the area. In the VDCs sampled for this study 33 I/NGOs were involved in developmental activities. Most of these organizations are mainly concentrated in Bhadaure-Tamagi VDC in the up-stream region, Khairenitar and Bandipur in the mid-stream region, and Kabilas and Mangalpur VDCs in the down-stream region. The distribution of I/NGOs in the VDCs have their impacts on creation of local CBOs. The Bhaduare-Tamagi, Khairenitar and Kabilas VDCs representing three stretches of the corridor provides a similar picture showing a higher number of such organizations. However, Gaindakot, Devghat and Taksar have least number of CBOs. The numbers (27) of cooperative in Gaindakot may be due to urban characteristics of the area.

With respect to disaster risk reduction, the communities seem more focused on mitigation measures for the disasters which they feel to be more prone. For instance, sinkholes in Armala, flood of Bhadaure-Tamagi and flashflood of Machhapuchhre and Shardikhola VDCs have had a greater impact on these communities. Therefore, the use of local knowledge to mitigate the overall disaster might be lesser than in other locations.

5.1.2 Hazard and vulnerability In terms of the aspect-wise area in the corridor, 50.6% area belongs to east, south-east, south and south-west facing slope with longer sunshine and high monsoon rainfall along with high human settlement and intensive human activities with sparse vegetal cover. Nearly 50% land of the corridor falls in critical hill-slope indicating physiographic vulnerability. The average forest area (51.5%) is higher than the national average (44.7%), however, per capita forest (0.14 ha) is lesser than the national per capita (0.25 ha). In the down-stream region built-up area with dense human settlement with high risk of flood is increasing.

With respect to human settlement in the hill-slope, 42.2% settlement in the up-stream region, 39.8% in the mid-stream region, and 18.0% in the down-stream region are located within critical hill-slope reflecting their vulnerable situation. The multi-criteria based assessment shows the upstream VDCs of the corridor to be in very high vulnerable categories.

5.1.3 Ecosystem services With respect to the ecosystem services, the corridor has provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services and cultural services. The major provisioning services include agriculture

51 production like cereal crops, legumes, fruits and vegetables. However, these services have limited diversification. The indigenous varieties of staple food like paddy and maize are almost replaced by new HYV (High Yielding Variety), which are insects prone during storage, and seeds are not viable for next generation, despite good yield. The regulating natural processes and events like flood, drought, land degradation and diseases are closely linked with the climate change. People in the corridor reported several such services are changing abruptly within their life time. For instance, drinking water springs are dying out, river and stream courses are deepening, cloud burst is frequent, and the frequency of hailstone and lighting are increasing. The supporting services include plants, wild animals and birds as major categories. Wildlife people conflict is reported in several communities. For instance, monkey population is increasing in throughout the corridor leading to increase wildlife-people conflict. Similarly, porcupine, rabbit and leopard population is increasing causing loss of crop and domestic animals. More common in the past, the appearance of some plant species, wild animals and birds has become rare in the corridor recently. For example; among the plants, main-kanda and rukh bayar and among the animal Jackal, water Otter (pani oot) (animals) and vulture and kalij (birds) have become species of low appearance. A number of wild fruits are disappearing from the community forest due to regular lopping and weeding with a view of transforming community forest from natural growth to profit making commercial forest. Only selected species domination is found. Due to this practice most of the community forest canopy seems well intact with less ground diversity. The corridor is rich in cultural services, most of which are closely related with religious belief and worships of the people. These include cultural monuments and archeological sites. Among them, lakes, wetlands, caves, cultural villages and deep river gorges are important cultural services. In addition, the various ethnic groups residing the area have their unique sociocultural practices.

5.1.4 Resilient level In terms of resilience in the corridor, the down-stream communities are more resilient followed by the up-stream and mid-stream communities. With respect to community resilience, the upstream stretch of the corridor is more resilient in comparison to the mid-stream, and down-stream stretches. In the up-stream stretch, Sardhikhola and Machhapuchhre VDCs have been found to have relatively high scores which can be attributed to the climate induced hazard assessment through LAPA. The lowest score of Taksar is due to less organizational activities and inadequate disaster risk management intervention. In the mid-stream stretch, Bandipur has been found to have

52 the highest score, followed by Bhimad. The higher score of Bandipur is due to tourism infrastructure, increased level of awareness and physical infrastructures. The least score in Dharampani can be attributed to the remoteness and weak socio-economic infrastructures. In the down-stream stretch, Mangalpur has the highest community resilience score, followed by Kabilas. The higher score in Mangalpur can be attributed to better socio-economic status, physical infrastructure and vulnerability assessment with Community based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM). The low score observed in Gaindakot may be due to less disaster risk management related interventions. VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is functional have relatively higher resiliency scores due to increased awareness, and support provided for livelihood improvement through micro-enterprises and community empowerment through group formation, micro- financial initiative and related trainings. With respect to ecosystem resilience, in the up-stream, Sardhikhola has been found to have the highest score followed by Armala. The higher value of Sardikhola can be attributed to the prevalence of conservation organizations and activities such as formulation of Conservation Area Management Committee in each ward of the VDC. However, in Taksar such activities and program are relatively low. In the mid-stream region, Bandipur and Dharampani have been found to have higher scores. The higher scores of Bandipur and Dharampani can be attributed to the larger forest cover and community forest practices. In the down-stream region, Devghat has been observed to have the highest score, followed by Mangalpur. The higher score observed for Devghat can be attributed to the relatively pristine environment and diverse landscapes compared to Kabilas. The higher ecosystem resilience score in the up-stream VDCs where the Hariyo Ban program is functional can be attributed to the conservation support provided to the community forest user groups and pertinent conservation trainings. The mid-stream VDCs where this program is functional have higher scores due to better forest cover and community-based organizations. The downstream VDCs where the Hariyo Ban program is in function also show higher resilience with the exception of Gaindakot. The high score of Gaindakot even without the Hariyo Ban Program can be attributed to the high score in socio-ecological indicators. 5.2 Recommendations Based on the findings of the present study, the following recommendations have been made for the community and ecosystem resilience towards the climate-induced hazard and vulnerability;

 In up-stream, in order to attain the physical stability of the landscape, eight VDCs in the upstream stretch i.e. Puranchaur, Armala, Valam, Arva Vijaya, Dhikurpokhari, Pumdi Bhumdi, Kristi Nachnechaur and Rupakot need to be given high priority. These VDCs fall in relatively very high hazard and vulnerability category followed by Dhampus, BhadaureTamagi and Kaskikot.  In the mid-stream, Chang, Arunodaya and Bhanumati VDCs fall in relatively very high hazard and vulnerability category followed by Khairenitar, Manpang, Majkot, Ranipokhari (Rising), Ghasikuwa, Pokharibhanjyng and Keshavtar. Thus, the priority of action for hazard and vulnerability reduction needs to focus on these VDCs.  In the down-stream, the corridor being dominated by plain topography. Among the Devghat, Kabilas, Mangalpur and Gaindakot, Devghat falls in relatively high hazard and vulnerability category demanding further activities to increase the community resilience, Gaindakot requires to improve the community resilience, and Kabilas requires to increase both community and ecosystem resilience.  Among the 61, 14 VDCs/Municipalities in the corridors have forest coverage less than national average (44.7 %). Among them, 10 are confined in the up-stream (i.e. ArbaVijaya, Hemaja, Kahun, Kaskikot, Lahachok, Lamachaur, Lekhnath Municipality, Pokhara SubMetropolitan City, Sarangkot and Nirmal Pokhari. Rest three (Byas Municipality, Dhorphirdi and Dulegaunda) are in mid-stream and Mangalpur in the down-stream stretch of the corridor. All these VDCs/municipalities require plantation and forest preservation. Even in the city area green city concept needs to bring in the action. Similarly, VDCs with above 33% of the total cultivated land in critical slope (>25°) are Deurali, Reevan, Kahun, Machhapuchchhre, Armala, Lwangghale, Rupakot and Dhampus in the up-stream, and Chhimkeshwori, Baidi, Dharampani, KahuShivapur and Kotdarbar in the mid-stream requires to change cereal cultivation (plantation) on such hill-slope inclination.  From the study it is also recommended that the river banks of the down-stream requires special attention on flood hazard mitigation activities, especially in Mangalpur and Gaindakot VDCs. 5.3 Lessen Learned i. The present study has covered the Seti River Corridor with an aim of measuring community and ecosystem resilience towards climate-induced disasters. The study has found relative level of

54 resilience at VDC level, however in order to execute the action at micro (community) level, the study needs to pinpoint the micro level with the background information of corridor level. ii. Slight modifications on questionnaire have been experienced in the measurement criteria adopted from the empirical study other than Nepal case. iii. Community and ecosystem resilience contains multidimensional issues which require large numbers of parameters to consider however there seems trade-off on data integration. iv. Linking community and ecosystem resilience and ecosystem services covers wide range of variables which requires long time and multidisciplinary team to carry out the study. v. In order to measure the community and ecosystem resilience of a corridor, physical hazard and vulnerability needs high resolution spatial data which requires access on satellite imageries and technical expertise.

References Beaumont L., Pitman J., Perkins, A. S., Zimmermann N.E., Yoccoz N. G. and Thuiller W. (2011). Impacts of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 108:2306-2311. Bhandari N. P, Dahal R. K, and Okamura M. (2012). Preliminary understanding of the Seti River debris/flood in Pokhara, Nepal on May 5, 2012: A report based on a quick field visit program. ISSMGE Bulletin, vol.6(4): 8-18. Bhandary R. K. (1987). Slope instability in the fragile Himalaya and strategy for development. Indian Geophysical Journal, Vol. 77: 1 – 88. Brand F. (2009). Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecological Economics 68 (3): 605–612. Brewer J. F. (2008). New Directions in Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation Assessment: Summary of a Workshop. Washington D.C: National Academies Press, National Academic Council Dangol V. and Poudel K. (2004). Channel shifting of Narayani River and its ramification in west Chitwan, Central Nepal. Journal of Nepal Geological Society, Vol. 30:153-156. Dixit A., Karki M. and Shukla A. (2015). Vulnerability and Impacts Assessment for Adaptation Planning in Panchase Mountain Ecological Region, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal. Government of Nepal, UNEP, UNDP, IUCN, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation Building and Nuclear Safety and Institute for Social and Environmental Transition Nepal.

Green O. O., Garmestani A. S., Allen C. R., Gunderson L. H., Ruhl J. B, Arnold C. A., Graham N. A. J., Cosens B., Angeler D. G, Chaffin B. C. and Holling C.S. (2015). Barriers and bridges to the integration of social–ecological resilience and law. The Ecological Society of America, www.frontiersinecology.org (accessed from ResearchGate 17 January 2016) Pp. 332-337. Gurung G. S. and Rai S. C. (2009).The Account of Climate Change Program of WWF Nepal (WWF Nepal internal report) IMBC-Technical Working Group I: Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity and Mountain Protected Areas. Kathmandu: WWF, Nepal. Gurung H. (1965). Pokhara Valley: A Geographical Survey. Department of Geography, School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. (Reprint and Published by) Nepal Geographical Society (2002). Kathmandu Hariyo Ban Programme (n.d.). Hariyo Ban Program Promoting Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal. Kathmandu: Hariyo Ban Program, WWF-Nepal. Hariyo Ban, WWF Nepal (n.d.) Terai Arc Landscape and the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape. Kathmandu: Hariyo Ban, WWF Nepal. Holling C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological System, Vol.4: 1–23. IPCC, (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In, Martin Parry, Osvaldo Canziani, Jean Palutik, Paul van der Linden and Clair Hanson (Eds.) Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2010) KAFCOL, (2013). Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape Biodiversity Important Areas and Linkages. Kathmandu: Kathmandu Forestry College (KAFCOL), Hariyo Ban Program, WWF- Nepal. Kafle S. K. (2005). Community based disaster risk reduction framework for southeast asia. World Youth Foundation, Melaka, http://www.wyf.org.my/2005/Shesh%2520Kanta%2520Kafle%2520.doc.pp. 1–14 (accessed 5th August, 2011). Kafle S. K. (2006). Community based disaster risk management for local authorities. ADPC. Thailand. Kafle s. K. (2010). How resilient are our communities? Continuity 28-29 Kafle S. K. (2012). Measuring disaster resilient communities: A case study of coastal communities in Indonesia. Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning. Vol. 5 (3). 315- 325. Li J. X., Lin A.C., Peterson T., Ma K., Bertzky M., Ciais P., Kapos V., Peng C., Poulter B.

(2013). Global priority conservation areas in the face of 21st Century climate change. PLoS ONE 8 DOI: 00.1371/journal.pone.0054839 Miller F. H., Osbahr F., Boyd E., Thormalia F. Bharwani S., Ziervogel G., Walker B. , Birkmann J., Van der Leeuw S., Rockstrom J., Hinkel J., Downing T., Folke C. and Nelson D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society, Vol.15 (3):1-25. MoHA, (2013). A report on sinkhole formation at agriculture field of Jaimure village of Armala VDC, Kaski District. Technical Study Team, Ministry of Home Affair (MOHA), Kathmandu. Oudenhoven V. M., and Eyzaguirre P (2011). Social-ecological indicators of resilience in agrarian and natural landscapes. Management of Environmental Quality, Vol.22(2):154173. Peterson G., Allen C. R. and Holling C. S. (1998). Ecological resilience, biodiversity and scale. Ecosystems 1 (1): 6–18. Peterson K. Ma M., Bertzky P., Ciais V., Kapos C. P. and Poulter B. (2013). Global priority conservation areas in the face of 21st Century climate change. PLoS ONE 8 DOI: 00.1371/journal. pone.0054839; Poudel K. P. (2003). Watershed Management in the Himalayas: a resource analysis approach. New Delhi: Adroit Publishers. Poudel K. P. (2010). Building vertical linkages of bio-reserves to combat the risk of climate change: a proposition in the case of Central Nepal. In, Pradhan P. K, Subedi B. P. and Khanal N. R. (Eds.) Environment Livelihood and Micro Enterprises. Kathmandu: Central Department of Geography, Tribhuvan University. Pp. 13-22. Reid W.V., Mooney H. A., Cropper A., Capistrano D., Carpenter S. R., Chopra K., Dasgupta P., Dietz T., Duraiappah A. K., Hassan R., Kasperson R., Leemans R., May R. M., McMichael T.A.J., Pingali P., Samper C., Scholes R., Watson R. T., Zakri A.H., Shidong Z., Ash N. J., Bennett E., Kumar P., Lee M. J., Raudsepp-Hearne C., Simons H., Thonell J., and Zure M. B. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC., World Resources Institute Sharma S. (2015). Flood muddies Fewa Lake. Kathmandu Post. Kantipur Publication (04August 2015). Shrestha A. B., Wake C. P., Mayewski P. A. and Dibb J. E. (1999). Maximum temperature trends in the Himalayas and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971-1994. Journal of Climate, Vol.12: 2776-2786. Shrestha U. B., Gautam S. and Bawa.K.S. (2012). Widespread climate change in the Himalayas and associated changes in local ecosystems. PloS one 7, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036741

Taylor G., Vatsa K., Gurung M. and Coutre E. (2013). Review of the Nepal risk reduction consortium (NRRC). Kathmandu: http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/2013-09- 20NRRC-review_0.pdf Thapa, G.J., E. Wikramanayake, and J. Forrest. (2015). Climate-change Impacts on the Biodiversity of the Terai Arc Landscape and the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape. Hariyo Ban, WWF Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. UNISDR (2013)..Post-2015 Framework for disaster risk reduction (HFA2). Report from 2013 Global Platform Consultations. Geneva http://www.preventionweb.net/files/35070 hfa2consultationsgp2013report.pdf) UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). In: UN world conference on disaster risk reduction, 2015 March 14–18, Sendai, Japan. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_201520 30.pdf (Accessed on 16 May 2016). United Nations, 2012. Report of the United Nations conference on sustainable development. New York https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20 UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014). Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). Bioversity International/Dunja Mijatovic Walker B., Holling C. S., Carpenter S. R. and Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society Vol.9 (2): 5. Wisner B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis I. (2003). At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.