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 pre- requisite 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. 2 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