PURNIMA: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal

BIHANI -Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal Evidence Phase Report March 2019

Submitted to Mott MacDonald (MM)

Submitted by DanChurchAid (DCA)

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This evidence collection study is the outcome of earnest efforts put forth by different individuals and organization. First, CREHSS would like to express its immense gratitude to DCA and Mott MacDonald for providing the opportunity to conduct the study. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to RIMS Nepal for its support and co-operation right from the day of the training till the end of the study. We are very thankful to Mr. BidurBastola and MsMalatiMaskey for providing their guidance during tools finalization and for all the co-operation throughout the assessment. We would also like to express our gratitude to Mr. Padam Singh Thagunna for his valuable feedbacks during training and for all the co-ordination. Similarly, we would like to thank Mr. HariharKafle and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Shrestha from RIMS Nepal for all the support and co-operation. We are also very thankful to Mr. Om Pun from NSD and Mr. BishnuPokhrel form GoGo Foundation for their feedback and guidance for the training of researchers.

We are very grateful to Ms. Ganga Subedi, Mr.KushalSuwal, Mr. ShekharKarki, Mr. GeevanGurung, Mr. SewantaKattel and Mr. PraveshGautam for all their support, guidance and co-ordination in respective rural municipality for information collection. We would like to express our deep sense of appreciation to all the researchers for their hard-work and sincerity during the data collection process, enabling the timely and successful completion of the study.

We would also like to extend our deep sense of appreciation to all the key stakeholders and focal persons from all the rural municipality who participated in Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII) and provided their valuable views and opinions for the qualitative study. Similarly, we are thankful to all the respondents for providing their time and valuable information for the study.

Study Team Center for Research on Education, Health and Social Science

2

ACRONYMS

CREHSS Center for Research on Education, Health and Social Science CVD Cardiovascular disease DCA DanChurchAid FCHV Female Community Health Volunteer DMC Disaster Management Committee FCS Food Consumption Score FGDS Focus Group Discussions HHs Households IDP Internally Displaced People KII Key Informant Interview LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas NRA National Reconstruction Authority PFS Poor Families PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PwDS People with Disability RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete

3

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 2 ACRONYMS ...... 3 STUDY TEAM ...... 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 15 1.1 Background for Evidence Collection ...... 15 1.2 Rationale of the Study ...... 16 1.3 Study Objectives ...... 16 1.4 Structure of the Report ...... 16 1.5 Study Limitations ...... 16 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 17 2.1 Design of Evidence Collection ...... 17 2.2 Sources of the Evidence ...... 17 2.3 Methods of evidence collection ...... 17 2.3.1 Palika and Ward Level Meeting ...... 18 2.3.2 Face to Face Structured Interview...... 18 2.3.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ...... 18 2.3.4 Key Informants Interview (KII) ...... 18 2.4. Operational definitions ...... 18 2.4.2 Criteria for Prioritizing Vulnerable Group ...... 19 2.5 Context of evidence collection ...... 20 2.5.1. Finalization of the Study Methods ...... 20 2.4.2. Recruitment and Training ...... 20 2.6 Data entry, processing and analysis ...... 20 2.6.1 Data Collection and Quality Control...... 20 2.6.2 Data Management and Analysis...... 20 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS ...... 21 3.1 Findings from the vulnerable household ...... 21 3.1.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents ...... 21 3.1.2 Affiliation with group/organization ...... 22 3.1.3 Place of original residence and resettlement in the current place ...... 22 3.1.4 Family members by age group ...... 23 3.1.5 Person with Disability (PWD) in home ...... 23 3.1.6 Family member with Chronic Disease in household ...... 25

4

3.1.7 Member of household who is single woman ...... 26 3.1.8 Source of HH Income ...... 26 3.1.9 Land holding status of HHs ...... 28 3.1.10 Roof of the household ...... 28 3.1.11 Household amenities ...... 29 3.1.12 Cooking fuel ...... 29 3.1.13 Domestic animals in the household...... 29 3.1.14 On Farm and Off Farm ...... 31 3.1.15 Commercial Farming ...... 31 3.1.16 Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production ...... 32 3.1.17 Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months ...... 32 3.1.18 Food Consumption Score (FCS) ...... 33 3.1.19 Presence of cooperative in village...... 33 3.1.20 Participate in savings and credit practice ...... 34 3.1.21 Taken Loan from saving and credit scheme ...... 34 3.1.22 Government Service and Provision ...... 35 3.1.23 Sources of drinking water and purification techniques ...... 36 3.1.24 Information regarding toilets ...... 37 3.1.25 Hand-washing practice ...... 38 3.1.26 Water borne diseases ...... 39 3.1.27 Sanitation status ...... 39 3.1.28 Distance to nearest health facility ...... 39 3.1.29 Health status and health care seeking behavior ...... 40 3.1.30 Perceived risk of disaster ...... 40 3.1.31 Existence of Disaster management committee in Palika ...... 41 3.1.32 Family members ever trained and mobilized as a community volunteers ...... 42 3.1.33 Adopted preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness ...... 42 3.1.34 Knowledge about the household level disaster response measures ...... 43 3.1.35 Experiences of loses at HHs leveldue to disaster ...... 43 3.1.36 Psycho social support ...... 44 3.1.37 Family received any humanitarian assistance/support ...... 44 3.1.38 Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as being a disaster affected people ...... 45 3.1.39 Effect of earthquake on house and current situation of house ...... 46 3.2 Vulnerability of Single women ...... 48 3.2.1 Background characteristics of single women ...... 48

5

3.2.2 Status of single women ...... 49 3.2.3 Life skill training ...... 50 3.2.4 Need of services ...... 51 3.2.5 Information from Qualitative study ...... 52 3.3 Result from People with Disability (PWDs) ...... 54 3.3.1 Background characteristics of Disable person ...... 54 3.3.2 Family members of PWD in household by age group ...... 55 3.3.3 Disability details ...... 56 3.3.4 Perception on difficulty of a disable members ...... 58 3.3.5 Difficulty faced ...... 58 3.3.6 Place of Treatment in case of sick and availability of ramp facility ...... 59 3.3.7 Availability of ramp facility in local governing authorities ...... 60 3.3.8 Access to school for disable children ...... 60 3.3.9 Knowledge on right and social inclusion ...... 61 3.3.10 Need of services ...... 61 3.3.11 Information from qualitative study ...... 62 3.4 Result from Elderly ...... 64 3.4.1 Background characteristics of Elderly ...... 64 3.4.2 Problems faced by Elderly ...... 65 3.4.3 Social security allowance ...... 66 3.4.4 Chronic diseases ...... 67 3.4.5 Need of services ...... 68 3.4.6 Information from qualitative study: ...... 69 3.5 Results from Poor Family ...... 70 3.5.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents of Poor Family ...... 70 3.5.2 Source of HH Income ...... 71 3.5.3 Amount of earning from HH Income ...... 72 3.5.4 Land holding status of HHs ...... 72 3.5.5 On Farm and Off Farm ...... 72 3.5.6 Commercial Farming ...... 72 3.5.7 Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months ...... 73 3.5.8 Food Consumption Score (FCS) ...... 73 3.5.9 Government Service and Provision ...... 73 3.5.10 Need of services ...... 74 3.5.11 Information from Key informant interviews ...... 75 3.6 Vulnerability of IDP ...... 78

6

3.6.1 Background characteristics of IDP...... 78 3.6.2 Details of IDP ...... 79 3.6.3 Need of services ...... 80 3.7 Intersectionality data of vulnerable population ...... 81 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 83 4.1 Conclusion ...... 83 4.2 Lessons Learned ...... 84 REFERENCES ...... 86 Annex tables...... 87

7

List of tables

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents ...... 21 Table 2: Place of original residence and resettlement in the current place ...... 22 Table 3: Member of the household ...... 26 Table 4: Income earned from different sources ...... 27 Table 5:Roof of the household ...... 28 Table 6: Domestic animals in the household ...... 30 Table 7: Any cooperative in your village ...... 33 Table 8: Participate in savings and credit practice ...... 34 Table 9: Taken Loan from saving and credit scheme ...... 34 Table 10 a: Government Service and Provision ...... 35 Table 11: Sources of drinking water and purification techniques ...... 37 Table 12:Hand washing practice ...... 38 Table 13: Sanitation status ...... 39 Table 14: Distance to nearest health facility ...... 40 Table 15: Health status and health care seeking behavior ...... 40 Table 16: Perceived risk of disaster ...... 41 Table 17: Existence of Disaster management committee in Palika ...... 41 Table 18: Family members ever trained and mobilized as a community volunteers ...... 42 Table 19: Adopted preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness ...... 43 Table 20: Knowledge about the household level disaster response measures ...... 43 Table 21: Any member of your family become distressed ...... 44 Table 22: Family received any humanitarian assistance/support ...... 45 Table 23:Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as being a disaster affected people ...... 45 Table 23a: Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements according to household category: .. 46 Table 24: Effect of earthquake on house and current situation of house ...... 46 Table 25: Background characteristics of single women ...... 48 Table 26: Status of government single women card ...... 49 Table 27:Life skill training ...... 50 Table 28: Need of services ...... 51 Table 29: Background characteristics of Disable person ...... 54 Table 30: Family members of PWD in household by age group ...... 55 Table 31: Disability and access to social services ...... 56 Table 32: Perception on difficulty of a disabled members ...... 58 Table 33: Difficulty faced by PWDs ...... 59 Table 34: Place of treatment in case of sick and availability of ramp facility ...... 60 Table 35: Availability of ramp facility in local governing authorities:...... 60 Table 36: Access to school for disable children ...... 61 Table 37: Knowledge on right and social inclusion ...... 61 Table 38: Need of services ...... 62 Table 39: Background characteristics of Elderly ...... 64 Table 40: Problems faced by Elderly ...... 65 Table 41: Social security allowance ...... 66 Table 42: Experience of Chronic diseases ...... 68 Table 43: Need of services ...... 69 Table 44: Demographic characteristics of respondents of Poor Family ...... 71 Table 45: Source of HH Income ...... 71 Table 46: Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months ...... 73 Table 47: Government Service and Provision ...... 74 Table 48:Need of services ...... 75 Table 49: Background characteristics of IDP ...... 78 Table 50:Details of IDP ...... 79 Table 51: Need of services ...... 80

8

List of figures

Figure 1: Mean age of respondents (years) ...... 21 Figure 2: Affiliation with group/organization ...... 22 Figure 3: People with Disability (PWD) in home ...... 23 Figure 4: At least one member with Chronic Disease ...... 25 Figure 5: Sources of HH Income ...... 26 Figure 6: Holding of registered land ...... 28 Figure 7: Availability household amenities ...... 29 Figure 8: Major Cooking Fuel ...... 29 Figure 9: Presence of Kitchen Garden ...... 31 Figure 10: Commercial Farming ...... 32 Figure 11: Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production ...... 32 Figure 12: Coping strategies ...... 33 Figure 13: Presence of Latrine ...... 38 Figure 14: Case of water borne disease in past two weeks ...... 39 Figure 15: Observed loses at HHs due to disaster ...... 44 Figure 16: Have government single women card ...... 49 Figure 17: Faced some kinds of difficulties because of disability ...... 58 Figure 18: Types of difficulties faced ...... 59 Figure 19: Have Government aging card ...... 66 Figure 20: Knowledge about Government schemes, program ...... 74

9

STUDY TEAM

Core Team Dr. Ramesh Adhikari Team Leader Mr. KapilGyawali Co-team leader Ms. Ranju KC Study Coordinator Ms. Aakriti Wagle Research Officer Field Supervisors Ms. Aakriti Wagle Ms. Shanti Poudel Field Researchers Mr. HimalSimkhada Ms. Kamala Basnet Ms. PhulmayaUparkoti Ms. RakesnaBasnet Mr. Kumar Tamang Ms. Samjhana Tamang Data Management Ms. Shanti Poudel Mr. BikramKunwar Project Support Team Mr. Arjun Shahi

10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evidence collection of vulnerability targeting was conducted in three different rural municipalities of Dhading district viz. Gajuri, Khaniyabas, and Gangajamuna. The main objective of the study was to assess household socio-economic status, underlying causes of vulnerability and existing coping strategies and practical solutions to tackle the vulnerability. This report was prepared based on the study of the socio-economic status of the severe vulnerable households and situation of vulnerable population through face to face interview. Ward level consultation and prioritization meeting was held in the presence of ward chairperson, members and other representatives to decide severe vulnerable households or beneficiaries. All disabled and IDPs were considered severe vulnerable as blanket. In case of Elderly, Single Women and Poor Family, prioritization was done to find out severe vulnerable population. Face to face interview was conducted in all 1359 households that were identified as severe vulnerable.

Total 30 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted differently for all vulnerable groups from the surveyed rural municipalities. 138 KII, key informants (concerned officials from district, stakeholders from the rural municipalities and community members) were interviewed. FGDs and KIIs were the basis for identification of vulnerable group, data triangulation and finalization of extremely vulnerable HHS for the study.

Key findings:

Household survey A total of 1359 households were vulnerable in the study area. All these households identified through mapping were interviewed. Among those, three-fifths (60%) of the respondents were male. The mean age of the respondents was 56.9 yrs. In regards to educational status, it is discouraging to note that seven out of ten respondents (70%) were illiterate which includes a higher proportion of respondents from Gangajamuna (76%). Affiliation with group/organization was not proportionate in different rural municipalities, as more than half (56%) respondents of Khaniyabas while only a sixth (16%) respondents of Gangajamuna were affiliated with group/organization. Regarding the type of disability, nearly a fifth (19%) households had at least one visually impaired person. Seven percent of the total households had at least one member with difficulty in both seeing and hearing. Six percent of the households had one or more members with multiple disability, the proportion being slightly higher in Khaniyabas (8%). With regards to the prevalence of chronic disease, nearly a sixth (14%) and more than a sixth (18%) respondents said that they had at least one member in the family suffering from Gout and asthma respectively. The proportion of households having one/more widow member, was slightly higher in Gangajamuna (39%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities.

Nearly a third (30%) households had agriculture and livestock rearing as one of the income source followed by unskilled wage labor (28%). There was a huge disparity in the range of average annual income according to rural municipalities. The average annual income of Khaniyabas was less than half of the average annual income of Gajuri.

More than four out of five (81%) households had their own registered land. More than a tenth (13%) and more than a half (52%) households grew vegetables and cereal crops respectively for commercial farming. Commercial farming of cereal crops was more practiced in Khaniyabas (75%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. The percentage of household having food sufficiency from its own production for throughout the year was only 20 percent, the proportion being further lower in Khaniyabas (17%). Nearly four out of five (79%)households consumed main staple food like rice, maize etc. for all seven days of a week, the proportion being analogous in all three rural municipalities. It was found that more than three-fourth (77%) households participated in savings and credit practice. It is discouraging to note that overwhelming majority (95%) of the respondents had no knowledge about government schemes, program, provision related to Agriculture, livestock and other. 10 percent of the households still do not have latrines. The proportion of households not having latrines was higher in Gajuri (17%) in comparison to Gangajamuna (7%) and Khaniyabas (5%). Findings revealed that people

11 of Gajuri had more difficulty in accessing health facilities as higher proportion of households (41%) required more than 2 hours to reach nearest health facility. The findings revealed that only a sixth (16%) respondents had knowledge about household level disaster response measures. Similarly, majority (96%) of households had experienced some kind of losses due to disaster.

Single women A total of 385 single women were found in the study area and interviewed. Almost two-fifth (38%) single women were aged 65 years or above. Illiteracy seemed prominent among the group of single women as almost four out of five single women (79%) were illiterate, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (89%). Majority (87%) of single women were heads of their households. Regarding any additional type of vulnerability, it was found that it was found that more than a half of the single women (53%) were extremely poor while nearly two-fifth (37%) single women were elderly. Overall, almost fourth-fifth (78%) of the single women had obtained card from the government. Still a fifth single women from Gajuri (20%) and 14 percent of them from Gangajamuna had not received single women card. It was found that only 3 percent of single women had received any kind of life skills training and 5 percent of single women reported that they had received any psychosocial counseling support aftermath of earthquake. The needs and interest of single women was also assessed in the study. More than a half (53%) of the single women said that they were interested to work in the field of Poultry farming to improve their livelihood followed by vegetable production (35%). The vulnerability of the single women is found to be from illiteracy and lack of any livelihood skills which has deepened them into extreme poverty. The findings from qualitative study also supported the quantitative data as it was found that many single women during the FGD mentioned that they were willing to work in agricultural sector to earn livelihood.

People with Disability (PwDs) Total 309 people with disability were found in the study area and all of them were interviewed. Three out of five of the disabled people (64%) were male. More than two-third (70%) of disabled people were illiterate and only 3 percentof them had completed secondary level of education. Nearly two-third (64%) disabled had difficulty while walking or climbing steps followed by difficulty with self-care such as washing all over or dressing (34%) and difficulty with communicating (32%). Majority of the disabled (88%) were elderly too and a quarter of them (25%) were extremely poor. Slightly more than three-fifth of disabled people (61%) had obtained government disability card, the proportion being lowest in Gangajamuna (55%). Three-fourth disabled people (75%) who had obtained government card were receiving social security allowances on regular basis. Only 4 percent of the household (n=11) had disabled friendly toilet at their home. It was found that more than a third (35%) of the disabled had never been to school and more than a fifth of them (23%) mentioned that it was very difficult for them to go to school. Similarly, it was very difficult for more than half (52%) of the disabled people to receive Health care. Majority (77%) of the surveyed disabled people had faced some kinds of difficulties due to their disability and this proportion was highest in Khaniyabas (81%). Only 3 percent (n=9) of the disabled people had knowledge about their rights and social inclusion. Almost two-fifth (39%) disabled people had interest to work in poultry production for improving their livelihood. FGD findings also support the interest of people towards poultry farming. The data shows that PwDs are generally elderly who are limited to only welfare scheme but are restricted when it comes to mobility to access health care and also to livelihood.

Elderly Among 484 elderly people were found in the study area and all of them were interviewed, it was found that more than two-fifth of the surveyed elderly people (43%) were aged 70-79 years. More than two- third elderly (71%) were household heads, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (80%). Slightly above a half of the elderly (51%) were engaged in agriculture while two out of five of them reported that they were not able to work (40%). A higher proportion of the elderly from Gajuri (50%) compared to Gangajamuna (42%) and Khaniyabas (18%) were unable to do any work. More than a half elderly (53%) had some difficulties with seeing (even if wearing glasses). More than a third of the elderly (37%) had some difficulties with remembering or concentrating. An overwhelming majority (90%) of the surveyed elderly had government ageing card, the proportion being lowest in Gajuri (87%). Among

12 those who had card, large majority (90%) had received social security allowances provided by government. Almost a fifth elderly (18%) had experienced chronic diseases. Above a half of the elderly (51%) needed financial support to improve their livelihood. Similarly, more than a fifth of the elderly (23%) expressed their interest over poultry production. The study indicates that the skills of the elderly limits to only subsistence agriculture which has limited them to improve on their poverty status further aggravated by their poor health.

Poor Families Among 573 poor families were identified as hard core poor family and were interviewed, more than three-fifth of the respondents from very poor family (63%) were male. Nearly, three-fourth respondents (73%) were illiterate while one in seven of them (14%) had informal education. A higher proportion of the respondents from Gangajamuna (76%) compared to Gajuri (68%) and Khaniyabas (64%) were illiterate. More than a third respondents (36%) from poor family reported that they had no any income source. More than a quarter of the respondents from poor family (28%) earned through unskilled wage labor for their income followed by agriculture and livestock rearing (15%). Gangajamuna had the highest proportion of the respondents (39%) engaged in agriculture and livestock rearing compared to other rural municipalities. Majority of the poor HHs (71%) hold registered land. Registered land holding status was comparatively better in Gangajamuna (88%) than in Gajuri (79%) and Khaniyabas (73%). More than two-fifth of the respondents (42%) had kitchen garden at their home premises, the proportion being lowest in Khaniyabas (39%). Regarding the coping mechanism, in times of food insufficiency, it was found that majority of the respondents (81%) purchased food on credit. It is discouraging to note that almost all respondents from the poor families (96%) were completely unaware about the government schemes, program and provision related to agriculture, livestock etc. Regarding the need of services, nearly a half respondents expressed their interest on poultry production (48%) and this proportion was highest in Khaniyabas (73%). The very poor households’ vulnerability generates not from illiteracy and lack of awareness of social schemes but also from the lack of skills and resources for any livelihood.

Internally Displaced People A total of 43 Internally Displaced People (IDP) were identified and interviewed from the three respective surveyed rural municipalities. Slightly above a fifth of the IDP (21%) were aged 45-54 years. Almost three-fifth of the IDP (58%) were male. More than a half of the IDP (54%) were illiterate, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (67%). More than three-fifth of the IDP (62%) were extremely poor while around one-sixth of them (17%) were disable too. Overall, almost three-fifth of the IDP (58%) were engaged in agriculture followed by daily wage labor (28%). An overwhelming majority of the IDP from Gangajamuna (87%) and more than a half of them from Gajuri (55%) had agriculture as main occupation while the major occupation of the IDP from Khaniyabas was daily wage labor (63%). A half of the surveyed IDP (51%) had resettled in their current place of residence after earthquake. Large majority of the IDP (91%) mentioned that they faced complete damage of their physical properties due to the earthquake. More than a half of the IDP (56%) had been living in temporary settlement after the earthquake. Just above three-fifth of the IDP (61%) had land ownership. More than a quarter of the IDP (28%) reported of facing some kind of discrimination because of being IDP. None of the IDP from Khaniyabas, less than a tenth of them from Gangajamuna (8%) whereas more than a half of them from Gajuri (55%) had suffered from some kind of discrimination for being an IDP. Overall almost three-fifth of the IDP (58%) expressed their interest over poultry production. More than a half of the IDP (51%) reported that they expected help/support to advocacy for lands followed by help to access services (49%) and support in microwaving / investment (26%). It is notable that a half of the IDP from Khaniyabas (50%) expected support in accessing education while this proportion was lower in other rural municipalities (5% in Gajuri and 13% in Gangajamuna).

13

Lessons Learnt

The following lessons were learned based on both quantitative and qualitative results.

• The quantitative findings of the study showed that still a tenth households did not have latrines in their house which is very disgraceful to mention and the proportion of such households was higher in IDP category and very poor families. Similarly, more than a fifth households do not wash their hands with soap after defecation. The incidence of water borne diseases in past two weeks preceding the survey was 12%. These all findings evidently explains the necessity of sanitation and hygiene related programs and interventions in these areas. Hence, WASH related interventions should be implemented in these areas to complement disaster recovery actions. • More than three-fifths households had not received any support for sustainable livelihood improvement initiatives and the proportion was comparatively higher in households with elderly and poor families. Hence, livelihood support interventions should be planned and implemented so as to assure that these categories of population obtain the benefits proportionately. • Both qualitative and quantitative information depicts that most of the vulnerable groups are inclined to work in agricultural field for their livelihood. But the lack of proper market linkage seems to be the major obstacle for them which was portrayed through FGDs and KIIs. Hence, value chain analysis should be done especially through the efforts of stakeholders at rural municipality level. • The information from key informant interviews showed that one of the major challenge in implementation of any program is people’s perception towards the intervention or support they receive. People are more concerned about transient benefits and hence are not able to plan for the sustainability of the intervention for the upliftment of their quality of life. So, awareness and sensitization programs should be massively conducted in the community through behavior change interventions so that vulnerable people are more empowered to uplift on their lives. • The lack of road access especially in two rural municipality; Khaniyabas and Gangajamuna is one of the major factor to add into the vulnerability of the people. Hence, the community should be capacitated to raise their issues with their local government and urge on the need to improve on the road access. • Information from key information interviews also showed that there is lack of proper monitoring mechanism to ensure the sustainability of any interventions. So, implementers of any kinds of programs (especially targeted for vulnerable groups) should ensure its sustainability to achieve the expected outcomes. • The lack of necessary health facilities seems to be another major problem for elderly and PwDs. So, the elderly and PwDs should be facilitated with equipment to improve on their mobility as well as on improve on the disability infrastructure. • The available incentive seems insufficient to fulfill the basic needs of vulnerable people. So, government should increase the incentives to ensure the quality of life of these groups. • The study showed that there are still certain percentage of the vulnerable groups who are not receiving social schemes as provisioned by the government indicating that the awareness program are still needed. • Only three percentage of the single women had received any kind of life skill training which indicates that life skill training program will be useful to improve quality of life of single women.

14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background for Evidence Collection

The project – “BIHANI -Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal” is brought with the aim to contribute to the overall objective of Purnima project - five-year programme funded by UK Department for International Development (DFID) and managed by Mott MacDonald (MM). The project aims to contribute towards enhancing the quality of life of five most vulnerable categories of disaster-affected communities (Elderly, Single Women, People with Disability, Internally Displaced People, Poor& Food Insecure Households) through mainstreaming them into the Reconstruction efforts.

The World Health Organization defines vulnerable as ‘the degree to which a population, individual or organization is unable to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impacts of disasters.”(1) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that vulnerable populations may include anyone who has difficulty communicating, has difficulty accessing medical care, may need help maintaining independence, requires constant supervision, or may need help accessing transportation (2) BIHANI project encompasses five group of vulnerable population namely, Elderly, Single Women, People with Disability (PwDs), Internally Displaced People, Poor &Food Insecure Households.

The single women voices are unheard and are economically tired. Majority of single women face both mental and physical violence, are insecure, lonely and at risk of poverty. Due to the low economic status, single women need to struggle to meet the daily need of their children. Lack of education is a contributing factor for their low status and vulnerability. According to women human right survey in 2011, 78% of widows were found to be victims of various forms of violence, where there was verbal violence (80%), physical violence (12%) and sexual harassment (8%). After the death of husband, especially girl child are compelled to drop out of school and there is low access to basic needs (food, shelter, clothes, health care etc.) Due to the family conflict and deep rooted patriarchal beliefs, single women are prone to various discriminations.(4)

Nepal is one of the world’s poorest nations, with 31 per cent of population living below the poverty line. For millions of Nepalese, chronic food insecurity and hunger are part of daily life. It’s a daily struggle for poor families to access sufficient food mainly in remote mountain regions. Climate change is exaggerating the situation worse. The winter droughts and poor monsoon in 2009 created the need of food aid to 3.4 million people. (1)

According to Nepal Census (2011), two percent (1.94%; 513,321) of the total population of Nepal reported having “some kind of disability”. It is estimated that the number of disabled persons in Nepal has likely increased after earthquake 2015. Due to earthquakes, thousands of Nepalese were “temporarily or permanently disabled being victim of crush or other injuries.” (3)

Ageing is a natural phenomenon. Physical disabilities, mental disorder, characterized by loss of memory and less socialization are some of the recognized characteristics of ageing (5). The population of elderly Nepalese is escalating; 6.8% in 1995/96, 7.6% in 2003/04, and 9.1% in 2010/11 due to the improvement in health facilities. Increasing age results in cardiovascular disease (CVD), respiratory disease, diabetes, hypertension etc. Elderly adults are particularly vulnerable to variability in healthcare due to which necessary personal and financial harm can be faced. (11)

15

1.2 Rationale of the Study

The evidence collection supports to identify the severe condition Vulnerable HHS details of three rural municipalities of Dhading district viz. Gajuri, Khaniyabas, and Gangajamuna as proposed by Mott MacDonald for the Challenge Fund of the PURNIMA project. It also supports to identify the underlying causes of vulnerability and their coping strategies including potential gaps for the vulnerable population to access the public services, resources, schemes and entitlements. Thus, this study makes significant contributions to develop tailor made interventions to address the prime needs of vulnerable HHS.

1.3 Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are • To identify severe condition vulnerable HHS through Vulnerability Mapping. • To assess severe condition vulnerable household socio-economic status, underlying causes of vulnerability, existing coping strategies • To identify potential gaps for the vulnerable population to access the public services, resources, schemes and entitlements. • To identify the earthquake affected population to access the housing trance, reconstruction support and its status.

1.4 Structure of the Report

Thisreport is divided into four chapters namely Introduction, Methodology,Resultsand Summary & Conclusion. The first chapter, Introduction describes about the background of the evidence phase, rationale of the evidence phase, objectives, report structure and limitations. The second chapter incorporates context of evidence collection, design of evidence collection, source of evidence, method of evidence collection, data entry, processing and analysis. The third chapter incorporates findings of the study. Similarly, the fourth chapter comprises of discussion and conclusion.

1.5 Study Limitations

• The severely venerable HHs were identified through mapping which was done in consultation and meeting with concerned stakeholders, like ward chairperson, members and other representatives along with secondary data available in ward offices.

16

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Design of Evidence Collection

A cross-sectional study using both qualitative and quantitative methods was conducted to obtain comprehensive information.The study was conducted in three rural municipalities of Dhading district namely Gajuri, Gangajamuna and Khaniyabas.

2.2 Sources of the Evidence

This evidence report is based on primary and secondary sources of data. The primary information was collected from the project area conducting FGD, KII and HHS survey questionnaires schedule. Pre-test of the survey questionnaire was conducted, and necessary changes were made. Following types of tools were utilized for this survey: • Households interview questionnaire • Checklist for key informant interview • Guideline for the FGD • Matrix form for mapping

The secondary information was taken from the ward office record, rural/municipality records, census reports, official documents. The secondary information was used to triangulate information generated through FGD and KII.

2.3 Methods of evidence collection

The evidence collection study for vulnerability targeting was conducted in three different rural municipalities of Dhading district viz. Gajuri, Khaniyabas, and Gangajamuna.The survey used community consensus as major tool to identify and determine the severely vulnerable HHs. Before reaching targeted severe vulnerable HHs, this survey used mapping to identify beneficiary's households.Mapping was done through ward level consultation and prioritization meeting was held in the presence of ward chairperson, members and other representatives. All disabled and IDPs were considered severe vulnerable comprehensively while for the Elderly, Single Women and Poor Family, prioritization was given to identify out the most vulnerable population.

A cross-sectional study using both qualitative and quantitative methods was conducted to obtain comprehensive information. In first phase, the evidence collection was done in extremely vulnerable 1359 HHS. All household who have severe vulnerable population identified by the mapping exercise in these three Gaunpalika were interviewed.A total of 1359 household(515 from Gajuri, 503 from Gangajamuna and 341 from Khaniyabas) were covered in this study. Out of these households, 385 single women (130 in Gajuri, 148 in Gangajamuna and 107 in Khaniyabas) were identified and interviewed. Similarly, 309 disable (76 in Gajuri, 134 in Ganja Jamuna and 99 in Khaniyabas) were identified and interviewed. 484 (216 in Gajuri, 160 in Gangajamuna and 108 in Khaniyabas) elderly were found asseverely vulnerable and interviewed. A total of 573 families (515 Gajuri, 503 Gangajamuna and 341 in Khaniyabas) were identified as very poor family who do not have sufficient food for 3 months in a year. All these were interviewed. A total of 43 IDPs were identified in these GaunPalika. All of these IDPs (20 in Gajuri, 15 in Ganja Jamuna and 8 in Khaniyabas) were interviewed.

Face to face interview was conducted in all the households that were identified as severely vulnerable through prioritized meeting with concerned stakeholders. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted differently for all vulnerable groups from the surveyed rural municipalities. For KII, various key informants (concerned officials from district, stakeholders from the rural municipalities and community members) were interviewed. The FGD and KII was the basis for identification of vulnerable group, data triangulation and finalization of extremely vulnerable HHS for the study.

17

2.3.1 Palika and Ward Level Meeting The Palika and ward level meeting were organized with each palika and ward offices. These meetings were fruitful to communicate the project objectives, working modalities and mandate to the elected representatives. Similarly, secondary information about the vulnerable communities, stakeholders, situation of IDPs etc. was also collected during ward level meeting.

2.3.2 Face to Face Structured Interview A total of 1359householdswere interviewed i.e. Head of the households (person able to explain well about the household) were interviewed. The HHS identified as severely vulnerable HHS were interviewed. In first phase, extremely vulnerable 1359 HHS were identified in consultation with key stakeholders and informants and then information was collected in the second phase.

2.3.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) A total of 30 FGDs were conducted in settlement level. The settlement level FGDs was conducted differently to identify vulnerable HHS.These FGD were fruitful to triangulate the list of vulnerable HHS received from ward offices. Similarly, these FGDs support to identify the missing vulnerable HHS and vulnerable people in ward list.

2.3.4 Key Informants Interview (KII) A total of 138 KII were taken to identify the severely vulnerable HHS from the vulnerable HHS list. KII were conducted with stakeholders of the rural municipalities to understand the different issues such as situation of vulnerable population, problem faced by them. The concerned officials from the rural municipalities, school teachers, female community health volunteer, elected members of wards, network, alliance members were interviewed as an key informant.

2.4. Operational definitions The following operational definitions of different category of vulnerable groups for the purpose of study are mentioned below: Single Women: • Single women as a citizen of Nepal, aged 60 who are eligible for social security allowances. • Helpless single women aged 60 or more who are divorcee, widow, living separately in legal provision with her husband, unmarried. • Single women who is divorcee, widow or legally separated with her husband at any age . Elderly people: • Any person above 70 years old eligible to receive Government allowance. • Dalit: anybody over 60 years. • In case of unmarried women, aged above 60 years. IDP: Internally displaced persons due to earthquake, and now has resettled at the working Gaupalikas People with disabilities: • Physical disability • Visual disability: a) blindness b) low vision c) complete blind • Hearing disability: a) deaf b) hard of hearing • Deaf blind • Vocal and Speech • Autism • Intellectual disability • Mental or psychosocial disability • Haemophilia • Multiple disability Poor Families:

18

Hard-core poor are considered poor families for the purpose of this study. These are the households whose food grain production from self-operated land, and wage earnings are sufficient to meet the food requirement of the family for less than 3 months. 2.4.2 Criteria for Prioritizing Vulnerable Group Multiple aspects of vulnerable population were taken into consideration and deeply contemplated for prioritizing them as severe vulnerable or beneficiaries. Factors that were considered varied according to the category of vulnerable population. Vulnerable population with following disadvantages or problems were incorporated into our category of severe vulnerable population.

Elderly: ▪ Elderly people who were living apart from their joint family due to neglect or hatred by family members. ▪ Elderly people whose house was damaged by Earthquake but not listed in NRA list or not able to reconstruct ▪ Elderly people not having any source of income or low income than subsistence level. ▪ Elderly with restricted capability or incapable to work due to poor health. ▪ Elderly with multiple vulnerability (e g Unable to hear/ see, having weak memory, etc.)

Single Women: ▪ Single women having more number of children/large family size. ▪ Women not having any source of income or low income that is not enough for fulfilling basic needs of the family as well as for rearing and caring and education of children. ▪ Women whose house was damaged by earthquake but not listed in NRA list or not able to reconstruct ▪ Women who were victim of stigma, discrimination and impertinence. ▪ Those women who were deprived of opportunities especially because of being ethnic minorities. ▪ Women who were in poor health condition. ▪ Women who were abandoned by the husband for another woman. ▪ Women living apart from their joint family after the death of her husband.

People with disability (PWDs): All types of disabled were prioritized as severe vulnerable but further especial focus was given to following category of people: ▪ People with multiple disability or severe disability. ▪ Partially disabled but with multiple vulnerability such as financially backward or not having caregivers etc. ▪ Economically poor and having no source of income in the family. ▪ Not having disability card ▪ PWDs whose house was damaged by earthquake but not listed in NRA list or not able to reconstruct.

Poor & Food Insecure families: ▪ Family having food sufficiency for less than 3 months from HHs production. ▪ Family not having other reliable sources of income. ▪ Family able to subsist only through wage labor. ▪ Poor health condition of family members. ▪ House damaged by earthquake but not listed in NRA list or not able to reconstruct. ▪ Having multiple vulnerability as mentioned above.

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) ▪ Displaced after the devastating earthquake of 2015 ▪ Not having/ owned land even after being displaced. ▪ Those who were able to subsist only through wage labor. ▪ Those who were in poor health condition (physically and mentally).

19

2.5 Context of evidence collection

2.5.1. Finalization of the Study Methods The methodology including the actual number and location of sites to be visited, methods of primary data collection, study tools (Questionnaires, interview guides and checklists) was finalized in close consultation with the PURNIMA team. This was done during the preparatory stage of the study before finalization of the inception report.

We finalized all the following process with consultation of PURNIMA team. • Finalization of variables (Indicators) and necessary disaggregate of indicators • Tools and data collection techniques • Mobilization plan

2.4.2. Recruitment and Training

This study mobilised the field facilitators and project staff of the project for data collection. A total of 2 field supervisors were recruited to conduct focus group discussion and key informant interviews. Considering the complexity of study tools, three days training was provided to the field researchers by the core team members. Training was conducted in Baireni of Dhading district. The core team and resource persons from DCA Nepal provided training to the field researchers. In the training, the program objectives and the purpose of the study was explained along with the methodologies being adopted for the study. Training also covered the issues of research ethics, research protocol, and rapport building. Role-play and mock interview exercises was conducted as an integral part of the training.

2.6 Data entry, processing and analysis

2.6.1 Data Collection and Quality Control Field execution was planned in close consultation with PURNIMA team. Core group supervised closely the field researchers throughout the study. Supervisor visited frequently to the researchers during the data collection.

The following additional means to ensure data quality that CREHSS adopted were – • Standardization of study tools • In-depth training to field researchers • Close supervision from core team members • Regular mobile/phone communication between core group, supervisors, and field researchers

2.6.2 Data Management and Analysis Quantitative data was collected in tablets/mobiles. A number of quality check mechanisms such as range checks, logical checks and skip instructions was developed which helped to detect the errors during the data collection. All collected data were kept secure in password protected computers at the office.

Both quantitative and qualitative data was analysed. For the quantitative data, data was analysed using descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis. The preliminary results of the analysis was shared with DCA for review and feedback before finalization. Univariate and bi-variate analysis were performed to the key indicators.

For the qualitative information, all the data collected from key informant interviews and FGDs was translated into English. The information collected from the Focus Group Discussion was elaborated by the note taker in Nepali immediately after a discussion session and later translated into English. The focus group discussion notes was compiled in a grid table format. This grid table comprised of a set of codes and associated key themes to triangulate information within the groups.

20

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

This chapter presents finding from census of vulnerable group namely elderly, disable person, single women, poor family and internally displaced women.

3.1 Findings from the vulnerable household

3.1.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents The study of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents showed that out of 1359 total respondents, three-fifths (60%) respondents were male, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (67%). Similarly, more than two-fifths (44%) respondents were aged 65years or above. The mean age of the respondents was 56.9 yrs.

Figure 1: Mean age of respondents (years) Figure 1: Mean age of respondents (years) 100

80 58.5 57.8 53.4 56.9 60

40

20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

Likewise, more than three-fifths (62%) of the respondents were Janajatis/Newar followed by Brahmin/Chhetri (32%). Nearly three fifths (58%) of the respondents were Hindus followed by Buddhists (22%). In regards to educational status, it is discouraging to note that seven out of ten respondents (70%) were illiterate which includes a higher proportion of respondents from Gangajamuna (76%). Similarly, a tenth (10%) had completed basic education and only 4% had completed secondary level education. Similarly, nearly seven out of ten (69%) respondents were household heads.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas N=1359 % N % N % N % Male 274 53.2 319 63.4 228 66.9 821 60.4 Sex Female 241 46.8 184 36.6 112 32.8 537 39.5 Other Gender 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.1 15-24 years 38 7.5 26 5.3 27 8.1 91 6.9 25-34 years 42 8.3 29 5.9 36 10.7 107 8.1 35-44 years 48 9.5 56 11.5 49 14.6 153 11.5 Age group 45-54 years 54 10.7 79 16.2 61 18.2 194 14.6 55-64 years 74 14.7 76 15.6 45 13.4 195 14.7 65 and above 248 49.2 222 45.5 117 34.9 587 44.2 Mean age 58.5 57.8 53.4 56.9 Dalits 98 19.0 65 12.9 27 7.9 190 14.0 Janajati/Newar 254 49.3 281 55.9 310 90.9 845 62.2 Madhesi/Terai Caste/Ethnicity 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 Caste Muslim Caste 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 Brahmin/Chhetri 137 26.6 135 26.8 3 0.9 275 20.2

21

Others 24 4.7 22 4.4 1 .3 47 3.5 Hindu 414 80.4 327 65.0 41 12.0 782 57.5 Buddhist 72 14.0 59 11.7 166 48.7 297 21.9 Religion Muslim 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 Christian 25 4.9 117 23.3 132 38.7 274 20.2 Others 3 0.6 0 0 2 0.6 5 0.4 Illiterate 348 67.6 384 76.3 219 64.2 951 70.0 Informal Education 90 17.5 50 9.9 64 18.8 204 15.0 Basic Education Educational 58 11.3 46 9.1 34 10.0 138 10.2 (Class 1-8) status Secondary (9-12) 16 3.1 19 3.8 21 6.2 56 4.1 Bachelor 1 0.2 4 0.8 3 0.9 8 0.6 Masters and Above 2 0.4 0 0 0 0 2 0.1 HHs Head 371 72.0 365 72.6 207 60.7 943 69.4 Status in HHs HHs members 144 28.0 138 27.4 134 39.3 416 30.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

3.1.2 Affiliation with group/organization With regards to affiliation with group/organization, nearly a third (31%) out of 1359 respondentswere affiliated in any group or organization. Affiliation with group/organization was not proportionate in different rural municipalities, as more than half (56%) respondents of Khaniyabas while only a sixth (16%) respondents of Gangajamuna were affiliated with group/organization (Annex table H1).

Figure 2: Affiliation with group/organization

Figure 2: Affiliation with group/organization 100

80 56.3 60 27.4 30.5 40 16.3 20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.3 Place of original residence and resettlement in the current place It was found that the current place was the place of original residence of almost all households (97%). Among those who migrated to the current place, it was found that more than half (57%) of them migrated there before 2072 B.S. The migration of people after 2072 B.S., was found higher in Khaniyabas (88%, n=7). Among those who migrated to the current place after 2072 B.S., majority of them (81%) had resettled there after losing the original home following earthquake 2072.

Table 2: Place of original residence and resettlement in the current place Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Original place of the Yes 494 95.9 495 98.4 333 97.7 1322 97.3 respondent No 21 4.1 8 1.6 8 2.3 37 2.7

22

Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Before Year of migration to 16 76.2 4 50.0 1 12.5 21 56.8 2072 B.S the current place of After 2072 residence 5 23.8 4 50.0 7 87.5 16 43.2 B.S Total 21 100.0 8 100.0 8 100.0 37 100.0 Resettlement in the Yes 4 80.0 2 50.0 7 100.0 13 81.3 current place after the No 1 20.0 2 50.0 0 0 3 18.8 earthquake 2072 Total 5 100.0 4 100.0 7 100.0 16 100.0

3.1.4 Family members by age group With regards to the number of family members in the households, it was found that a third (33%) households had six or more family members which includes the higher proportion of households from Gajuri (41%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. More than seven out of ten (71%) households had no members aged 0-4 years while nearly a fifth (19%) of the households had one member of that age group. Similarly, more than two-fifths (21%) household had one member aged 5- 18 years followed by two members of that age group (16%). 29% households had two members aged 19-39 years; the proportion being highest in Gajuri (31%). More than a fourth (26%) households had one member of age group 40-59 years. Similarly, more than two-fifth (41%) households had one member aged 60 years above (Annex table H2).

3.1.5 Person with Disability (PWD) in home

Difficulties with seeing Regarding the type of disability, nearly a fifth (19%) households had at least one visually impaired person. The proportion of people with visual impairment was higher in Gajuri (27%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Only about a sixth (15%) of the visually impaired person had obtained government disability card which includes comparatively higher proportion of them from Khaniyabas (21%). Majority of the households (87%) had one member obtaining such disability card (Annex table H3). Difficulties with hearing More than a tenth (14%) households had one or more family member with hearing impairment. Majority of the households (93%) had one member with such difficulty. Only one-fifth (20%) of the people with such difficulty, had obtained government disability card, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (28%) (Annex table H4).

Figure 3: People with Disability (PWD) in home

Figure 3: People with Disability (PWD) in home

Mental or psychosocial disability 5.9 Intellectual disability 4.6 Multiple disability 5.9 Difficulties with communicating 12.7 Difficulties with self-care, such as washing… 18 Difficulties with remembering or… 11.3 Difficulties with walking or climbing steps 26.8 Difficulties with seeing and hearing both 6.5 Difficulties with hearing 13.5 Difficulties with seeing 19.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

23

Difficulties with both seeing and hearing Seven percent of the total households had at least one member with difficulty in both seeing and hearing. Similarly, majority of the households who had such members, (90%) had only one member with such disability. More than one-fourth (28%) of the people with such disability had obtained government disability card, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (44%) (Annex table H5).

Difficulties with walking or climbing steps More than one fourth (27%) percent of the respondents said that they had at least one family member having difficulty with walking or climbing steps. Among the household having members with such difficulty, majority (94%) of the households had one such member. Similarly, more than a third (35%) of people having such difficulty had obtained disability card from the government which includes a higher proportion of respondents from Khaniyabas (46%) (Annex table H6).

More than a tenth (11%) respondents said that they had at least one family member having difficulty in remembering or concentrating. A higher proportion of households (17%) from Gajuri had at least one member with such difficulty in comparison to other two Gaunpalikas. Among the household having members with such difficulty, majority (90%) household had one such member. Similarly, more than a fourth (28%) of people having such difficulty had obtained disability card from the government (Annex table H7).

Difficulties with self-care, such as washing all over or dressing More than a sixth (18%) respondents mentioned that they had at least one family member having difficulty with self-care such as washing all over or dressing. Majority of the households (94%) had one such member in the household. More than a third (34%) of the people having such disability had obtained disability card from the government (Annex table H8).

Any family member having difficulties with communicating Overall, more than a tenth (13%) households had one or more members having difficulties with communicating which includes comparatively higher proportion of households from Gajuri (16%). More than a third (36%) of the people having such disability had obtained government disability card. More than half (52%) of such people from Gangajamuna and nearly half (47%) of them from Khaniyabas (47%) had obtained the card while the percentage was comparatively less (20%) in Gajuri (Annex table H9).

Multiple disability The findings revealed that 6% of the households had one or more members with multiple disability, the proportion being slightly higher in Khaniyabas (8%). Among the people having such disability, two- third (66%) of them had obtained government disability card, which includes the higher proportion of people from Gangajamuna (75%) (Annex table H10).

Intellectual disability It was found that 5 percent of the household had at least one member in the family with intellectual disability. Among those households, majority (95%) had one member with intellectual disability. More than half (53%) of the people with such disability had obtained card from the government, the proportion being highest in Gajuri (65%) (Annex table H11).

Mental or psychosocial disability It was found that six percent of the households had one or more members with mental or psychosocial disability; the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (8%). Only more than two-fifths (43%) of them had obtained government disability card (annex table H12).

Disability in family members out of ten disabilities The information on type of disability was further analyzed comprehensively to obtain the proportion of houses having the type of disability ranging from one to ten. It was found that out of 1359 households,

24 more than half (54%) had none of the ten disabilities. Similarly, nearly a sixth (15%) household had one out of ten categories of disability, the proportion being higher in Khaniyabas (17%). More than a tenth (11%) household had two categories of disabled people which include a higher proportion of households in Gajuri (12%). Likewise, total 2 households, one from Khaniyabas and one from Gangajamuna had all ten types of disabled people. (Annex table H12 a)

3.1.6 Family member with Chronic Disease in household Autism Respondents were asked about the prevalence of chronic disease in their families. Seven percent of the respondents said that they had at least one family member suffering from autism. It was found that only 31 percent of the people with autism had obtained card from the government. The proportion of people obtaining government card in the above category was higher in Gangajamuna (61%) (Annex table H13).

Figure 4: At least one member with Chronic Disease

Figure 4: At least one member with Chronic Disease

18 20 17.7 14.1 15

10 6.7 2.9 5 0.5 0 Autism Haemophilia Gout (Uric Asthma Cancer Others acid)

Haemophilia It was found that three percent of the households had one or more members suffering from Hemophilia. Higher proportion of households from Gajuri had prevalence of Hemophilia (5%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Only 8% of people such disease had obtained card from the government (Annex table h14).

Gout (Uric acid) Nearly a sixth (14%) respondents said that they had at least one member in the family suffering from Gout. Majority of households (87%) had one member suffering from gout. Only three percent people suffering from gout had government card (Annex table H15).

Asthma More than a sixth (18%) respondents said that they had at least one member in the family with asthma, the proportion being highest in Gajuri (22%) and lowest in Khaniyabas (12%). Majority (92%) of the households had one member with asthma in the family. Only, 6 percent of the people with asthma had obtained card from the government (Annex table H16).

Cancer It was found that less than one percent of the total households had one or more member suffering from cancer. Three people each from Gajuri and Gangajamuna and one person from Khaniyabas were suffering from cancer at the time of the study. Similarly, only one person from Khaniyabas had obtained government card (Annex table H17).

Prevalence of chronic diseases was also analyzed according to household category. Prevalence of autism was exceedingly higher in households with PWDs (16%) followed by very poor families and elderly (6% each). The prevalence of uric acid and asthma was highest in household with elderly (19%

25 and 27% respectively). Similarly, 4 people in households with PWDs and 2 people in household with elderly were suffering with cancer. (Annex table H17a) 3.1.7 Member of household who is single woman It was found that more than a third (37%) households had one or more widow member in the family. The proportion of households having one/more widow member, was slightly higher in Gangajamuna (39%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Among the households having widow member, overwhelming majority (97%) had one widow member in the family (Annex table H18).

Similarly, Five percent of the households had at least one woman in the family who is unmarried and aged 35 years or above. The proportion of such women was higher in Khaniyabas rural municipality (10%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Overwhelming majority (96%) of the households had one such member in the family (Annex table H19).

Four percent of the household had one single woman whose husband is out and is solely responsible for child care for more than one year. The proportion of such women was comparatively higher in Khaniyabas rural municipality (7%).

Member of the household a single woman whose husband is out since 1 year and who is solely responsible for child care for more than one year Table 3: Member of the household Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Woman whose husband is out and Yes 16 3.1 15 3.0 23 6.7 54 4.0 who is solely responsible for No 499 96.9 488 97.0 318 93.3 1305 96.0 child care for more than one year Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of woman whose husband is out and who is solely One 16 100.0 15 100.0 23 100.0 54 100.0 responsible for child care for more than one year Total 16 100.0 15 100.0 23 100.0 54 100.0

3.1.8 Source of HH Income Respondents were asked about different sources of their household income. Nearly a third (30%) households had agriculture and livestock rearing as one of the income source followed by unskilled wage labor (28%). Higher proportion of households in Gangajamuna (39%) had agriculture and livestock rearing as their income source in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Similarly, more than a tenth (14%) households also had skilled wage labor as their source of income. More than a fourth (26%) respondents mentioned that their households had other sources of income (Annex table h20).

Figure 5: Sources of HH Income Figure 5: Sources of HH Income 40 30.2 27.5 25.7

20 13.9 7.1 4.3 4.6 2.4 0

26

Income earned from different sources A third (33%)households had total annual income of NRs. 50,000 or more. The proportion of such households was equal in Gajuri and Gangajamuna (37%each) while comparatively lower in Khaniyabas (20%). The total average annual income from all the income sources was NRs 60,815. There was a huge disparity in the range of average annual income according to rural municipalities. The average annual income of Khaniyabas was less than half of the average annual income of Gajuri.

The respondents were also further asked about the income their household members earned from different sources. On response, six percent of respondents said that they earned annual 50,000 or more from skilled wage labor. The proportion of respondents giving such response was higher in Gajuri (9%). Similarly, less than a tenth (7%) respondents said that their household earned 50 thousand or more from unskilled wage labor. Likewise, 8% households earned between 20,000-30,000 from agriculture and livestock rearing. Four percent and six percent households earned 50,000or more from government service and remittance respectively.

Table 4: Income earned from different sources Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % None 408 79.2 442 87.9 320 93.8 1170 86.1 Less than 10,000 8 1.6 13 2.6 4 1.2 25 1.8 10,000-19,999 17 3.3 6 1.2 4 1.2 27 2.0 Skilled wage 20,000-29,999 19 3.7 7 1.4 2 0.6 28 2.1 labor 30,000-39,999 11 2.1 6 1.2 2 0.6 19 1.4 40,000-49,999 5 1.0 2 0.4 4 1.2 11 0.8 50,000and more 47 9.1 27 5.4 5 1.5 79 5.8 None 366 71.1 389 77.3 230 67.4 985 72.5 Less than 10,000 24 4.7 20 4.0 27 7.9 71 5.2 10,000-19,999 29 5.6 14 2.8 25 7.3 68 5.0 Unskilled 20,000-29,999 20 3.9 33 6.6 24 7.0 77 5.7 wage labor 30,000-39,999 15 2.9 12 2.4 13 3.8 40 2.9 40,000-49,999 9 1.7 2 0.4 8 2.3 19 1.4 50,000 and more 52 10.1 33 6.6 14 4.1 99 7.3 None 375 72.8 306 60.8 268 78.6 949 69.8 Less than 10,000 26 5.0 29 5.8 29 8.5 84 6.2 Agriculture 10,000-19,999 48 9.3 42 8.3 21 6.2 111 8.2 and livestock 20,000-29,999 30 5.8 69 13.7 15 4.4 114 8.4 rearing 30,000-39,999 12 2.3 9 1.8 6 1.8 27 2.0 40,000-49,999 4 0.8 9 1.8 1 0.3 14 1.0 50,000 and more 20 3.9 39 7.8 1 0.3 60 4.4 None 487 94.6 473 94.0 340 99.7 1300 95.7 Less than 10,000 8 1.6 6 1.2 0 0 14 1.0 10,000-19,999 3 .6 5 1.0 1 .3 9 .7 Micro 20,000-29,999 0 0 3 .6 0 0 3 .2 enterprise 30,000-39,999 1 .2 4 .8 0 0 5 .4 40,000-49,999 2 .4 3 .6 0 0 5 .4 50,000and more 14 2.7 9 1.8 0 0 23 1.7 None 502 97.5 464 92.2 330 96.8 1296 95.4 Less than 10,000 0 0 3 .6 0 0 3 .2 Government 10,000-19,999 0 0 1 .2 1 .3 2 .1 service 20,000-29,999 0 0 2 .4 0 0 2 .1 40,000-49,999 0 0 1 .2 0 0 1 .1 50,000and more 13 2.5 32 6.4 10 2.9 55 4.0 None 504 97.9 489 97.2 334 97.9 1327 97.6 Non- Less than 10,000 3 .6 1 .2 1 .3 5 .4 government 10,000-19,999 1 .2 0 0 0 0 1 .1 service 20,000-29,999 2 .4 0 0 0 0 2 .1

27

50,000and more 5 1.0 13 2.6 6 1.8 24 1.8 None 490 95.1 457 90.9 316 92.7 1263 92.9 Less than 10,000 0 0 0 0 1 .3 1 .1 10,000-19,999 0 0 4 .8 3 .9 7 .5 Remittance 20,000-29,999 1 .2 2 .4 1 .3 4 .3 40,000-49,999 2 .4 0 0 0 0 2 .1 50,000and more 22 4.3 40 8.0 20 5.9 82 6.0 None 161 31.3 112 22.3 125 36.7 398 29.3 Less than 10,000 28 5.4 34 6.8 28 8.2 90 6.6 10,000-19,999 46 8.9 50 9.9 45 13.2 141 10.4 Total income 20,000-29,999 47 9.1 72 14.3 37 10.9 156 11.5 30,000-39,999 18 3.5 20 4.0 21 6.2 59 4.3 40,000-49,999 25 4.9 31 6.2 16 4.7 72 5.3 50,000 and more 190 36.9 184 36.6 69 20.2 443 32.6 100. Total 515 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0

3.1.9 Land holding status of HHs More than four out of five (81%) households had their own registered land. Land ownership was almost double among males' (63%) in comparison to females' (32%). Female land ownership was comparatively higher in Khaniyabas (39%). The average registered land area (in ropani)owned by a female member was 6.1 while that of a male member was 8.5. In 3% households, the land ownership was with both male and female member in the family. More than half (53%) of the females having land ownership owned 1-4 ropanies of land followed by 5-9 ropanies of land (26%). Similarly, it was found that more than a sixth (18%) households had non-registered land (Annex table h21).

Figure 6: Holding of registered land Figure 6: Holding of registered land 88.1 100 80.9 78.8 73.3 80

60

40

20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.10 Roof of the household Majority of the households (92%) had tin-roofed house followed by stone roofed house (5%). Only one percent of the household had RCC roofed house, the proportion being higher in Gajuri (3%). Table 5:Roof of the household Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Thach roof house 13 2.5 3 .6 2 .6 18 1.3 Stone roof house 60 11.7 6 1.2 4 1.2 70 5.2 Tin roof house 427 82.9 492 97.8 333 97.7 1252 92.1 RCC roof house 15 2.9 2 .4 2 .6 19 1.4 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

28

3.1.11 Household amenities Two-third households (67%) had electricity. The percentage distribution of households with electricity was proportionate in all three rural municipalities. More than two-fifth (45%) households had solar system. Similarly, more than a fourth (28%) households had improved cooking stove/LPG gas stove and seven out of ten (70%) households had mobile phones in their homes. The proportion of households having improved cooking stoves/LPG Gas in Khaniyabas was three times less (11%) than that of Gajuri (36%) and Gangajamuna (33%) (Annex table H22).

Figure 7: Availability household amenities

Figure 7: Availability household amenities 100

73.4 70.8 70.1 80 63.9 49.5 60 47.5 45.3 39.6 35.5 32.6 40 28.4

20 11.4

0 Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total Electricity Solar System Improved cooking stoves/LPG Gas Mobile phone

3.1.12 Cooking fuel It is found that an overwhelming majority (98%)of households used firewood for cooking. Similarly, a fourth of them (25%) also mentioned that they used LPG Gas and few (6%) mentioned that they used coal for cooking. The proportion of households using LPG Gas was comparatively higher in Gajuri (29%) (Annex table H23).

Figure 8: Major Cooking Fuel

97.6 Figure 8: Major Cooking Fuel 100 80 60 40 24.7 20 6.4 0.9 2 1.9 0 Kerosene Firewood Biogas Coal LPG Gas Other

3.1.13 Domestic animals in the household Nearly three-fifths (57%) households had hen/swans followed by buffalos (54%) and ox (28%). The proportion of households with hens/swans was higher in Gajuri (67%) in comparison to Khaniyabas (56%) and Gangajamuna (48%). On the other hand, comparatively higher proportion of households in Khaniyabas (58%) had buffalos.

29

Table 6: Domestic animals in the household Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Yes 163 31.7 98 19.5 44 12.9 305 22.4 Cow No 352 68.3 405 80.5 297 87.1 1054 77.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 1 0.6 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 One 103 63.2 67 68.4 17 38.6 187 61.3 Number of cows Two 39 23.9 22 22.4 23 52.3 84 27.5 Three 16 9.8 6 6.1 3 6.8 25 8.2 Four 4 2.5 3 3.1 1 2.3 8 2.6 Total 163 100.0 98 100.0 44 100.0 305 100.0 Yes 266 51.7 270 53.7 199 58.4 735 54.1 Buffalo No 249 48.3 233 46.3 142 41.6 624 45.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 1 .4 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 One 138 51.9 140 51.9 57 28.6 335 45.6 Number of Buffalos Two 96 36.1 99 36.7 109 54.8 304 41.4 Three 25 9.4 26 9.6 27 13.6 78 10.6 Four 6 2.3 5 1.9 6 3.0 17 2.3 Total 266 100.0 270 100.0 199 100.0 735 100.0 Yes 117 22.7 140 27.8 117 34.3 374 27.5 Ox No 398 77.3 363 72.2 224 65.7 985 72.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 One 23 19.7 29 20.7 6 5.1 58 15.5 Two 73 62.4 97 69.3 108 92.3 278 74.3 Number of Ox Three 15 12.8 13 9.3 1 0.9 29 7.8 Four 6 5.1 1 0.7 2 1.7 9 2.4 Total 117 100.0 140 100.0 117 100.0 374 100.0 Yes 4 .8 4 .8 56 16.4 64 4.7 Pig No 511 99.2 499 99.2 285 83.6 1295 95.3 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 One 3 75.0 4 100.0 30 53.6 37 57.8 Number of Pigs Two 1 25.0 0 0 22 39.3 23 35.9 Three 0 0 0 0 4 7.1 4 6.3 Total 4 100.0 4 100.0 56 100.0 64 100.0 Yes 345 67.0 241 47.9 191 56.0 777 57.2 Hen/Swan No 170 33.0 262 52.1 150 44.0 582 42.8 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 4 1.2 3 1.2 1 0.5 8 1.0 1-4 163 47.2 161 66.8 111 58.1 435 56.0 Number of 5-9 105 30.4 53 22.0 69 36.1 227 29.2 Hen/swans 10 and 73 21.2 24 10.0 10 5.2 107 13.8 more Total 345 100.0 241 100.0 191 100.0 777 100.0 Yes 387 75.1 299 59.4 198 58.1 884 65.0 Other No 128 24.9 204 40.6 143 41.9 475 35.0 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 2 0.5 1 0.3 0 0 3 0.3 1-4 171 44.2 195 65.2 137 69.2 503 56.9 Number of other 5-9 161 41.6 84 28.1 54 27.3 299 33.8 domestic animals 10 and 53 13.7 19 6.4 7 3.5 79 8.9 more Total 387 100.0 299 100.0 198 100.0 884 100.0

30

3.1.14 On Farm and Off Farm Three-fifths (60%) households mentioned that they had kitchen garden in their home premises. Higher and comparable percentage of households in Gajuri (69%) and Gangajamuna (65%) had kitchen garden in contrast to Khaniyabas (39%). Among those who had kitchen garden, it was found that majority (83%) of the households produced seasonal vegetables. Overwhelming majority (92%) of households who produced seasonal vegetables also mentioned that they consumed produced vegetables to fulfill daily vegetable requirement. Only nearly a sixth (15%) households had vegetable sufficiency to fulfill daily vegetable requirement from own vegetable production for 0-12 month. Very few (7%) of household sell surplus vegetables after fulfilling HHs daily vegetable requirement which includes a higher fraction of households from Gajuri (14%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Among those who sell surplus vegetables, more than half (52%)of them earned 10,000 or more annually (Annex table h24).

Figure 9: Presence of Kitchen Garden

Figure 9: Presence of Kitchen Garden 100 69.1 65 80 60 60 38.7 40 20 0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

The presence of kitchen garden in the households was also analyzed according to the category of vulnerable population. More than half of the households with single women (55%) and PWDs (56%), two-fifths (40%) households with IDPs and two-third (66%) households with elderly had kitchen garden in their home premises. Likewise more than two-fifths (42%) very poor families had kitchen garden (Annex table H24a)

3.1.15 Commercial Farming More than a tenth households (13%) grew vegetables for commercial farming where only 7 percent of those households earned NRs. 10,000 or more annually by selling vegetables(excluding investment). The percentage of households growing vegetables commercially was disproportionate in different rural municipalities, as more than a fourth (28%) households in Khaniyabas while only 3% households in Gangajamuna grew vegetables commercially.

Similarly more than a half households (52%) grew cereal crops for commercial farming but only 3% of those households earned annual 10000 or more excluding the investment. Commercial farming of cereal crops was also more practiced in Khaniyabas (75%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities.

Likewise, livestock commercial farming was practiced by a tenth (10%) households. Much higher proportion of households in Khaniyabas (28%) practiced commercial livestock farming in comparison to Gajuri (5%) and Gangajamuna (2%). More than a fourth (27%) households practicing commercial livestock farming earned annual NRs10,000 or more excluding the investment. Only 1 percent household grew fruits for commercial farming (Annex table h24).

The variance in the practice of commercial farming of vegetables was also observed in different categories of households. Out of 1359 studyhouseholds, 15 percent of households with PWDs and 14% of the internally displaced households practiced commercial farming of vegetables. Similarly, the percentage of households with single women and elderly people practicing commercial farming was 13% and 12% respectively. .(Annex table H24b)

31

Figure 10: Commercial Farming

100 Figure 10: Commercial Farming

74.8 80

60 51.9 44.1 44.3

40 28.4 27.6

20 12 12.7 9.6 5 1.2 2.6 1.6 0.2 2.6 1.3 2 1.7 0.2 1 0 Vegetables Cereal Crops High Value Cash Livestock Fruits Crops

Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.16 Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production The status of food sufficiency of households from its own production was explored in the study. The percentage of household having food sufficiency from its own production for throughout the year was only 20 percent, the proportion being further lower in Khaniyabas (17%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Similarly, more than a fourth (29%) households had food sufficiency for only six months. It is discouraging to note that more than two-fifths (42%) households had food sufficient for only three months from its own production. The proportion of such households was comparatively higher in Gangajamuna (45%) in comparison to Gajuri (43%) and Khaniyabas (37%) (Annex table h25).

Figure 11: Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production

Figure 11: Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production 100 80 45.1 60 42.9 42.2 36.7 30.9 40 27 29 29 20.1 17.3 21.4 17 19.8 20 4.9 7.8 9.1 0 0-3 Months 0-6 Months 0-9 Months 0-12 Months

Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.17 Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months

The families who had food insufficient for 12 months were further asked about the coping strategies they adopt, and most frequently practiced coping strategy was purchasing food on credit which was practiced by more than three fourth (77%) households. But the practice of purchasing food on credit was notably lower in Khaniyabas (34%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. More than three-fourths (67%) households also managed their food from wage labor at the time of food insufficiency. The least practiced coping strategy was less consumption of food by women members compared to other members (23%) (Annex table h26).

32

Figure 12: Coping strategies Figure 12: Coping strategies 100 76.8 80 67.3 61.9 53.2 60

40 27.3 22.9

20

0 Had food by Rely on less Borrow food, Purchase food Consume seed Women earning money preferred and or rely on help on credit stock held for members in from wage less expensive from a friend next season the household labour foods or relative ate less amount of food compared to other members

3.1.18 Food Consumption Score (FCS) The variety of foods people consumed in days of preceding week was studied to find out the food consumption score. Overall, nearly four out of five (79%) households consumed main staple food like rice, maize etc. for all seven days of a week, the proportion being analogous in all three rural municipalities.

Similarly, overall only four percent of the households consumed pulses for all seven days of a week while more than a fourth (26%) did not consume pulses for even a single day in a week. The proportion of households not consuming pulses for even a single day was comparatively higher in Gangajamuna (34%). Likewise in case of vegetables, three-fourth (75%) respondents said that they consumed vegetables throughout the week whereas 6 percent of them said they did not consume it for a single day. Majority (81%) respondents said that they did not consume fruits for even a single day in the preceding week.

Similarly, just more than a half (51%) respondents consumed meat products once a week. More than three-fourths (78%) respondents said that they did not consume milk last week. Majority (80%) households consumed oil and condiments throughout the week (Annex table H27).

3.1.19 Presence of cooperative in village More than a third (34%) respondents mentioned that they had co-operatives in their village. Among those, 31% said that they had the membership of co-operatives, which includes a higher proportion of respondents from Gangajamuna (35%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Table 7: Any cooperative in your village Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Presence of cooperative in Yes 117 22.7 114 22.7 233 68.3 464 34.1 the village No 398 77.3 389 77.3 108 31.7 895 65.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Membership in Yes 37 31.6 40 35.1 68 29.2 145 31.3 cooperatives No 80 68.4 74 64.9 165 70.8 319 68.8 Total 117 100.0 114 100.0 233 100.0 464 100.0

33

3.1.20 Participate in savings and credit practice It was found that more than three-fourth (77%) households participated in savings and credit practice and the proportion of such households was comparable in different rural municipalities. Among those who participated in savings and credit practice, nearly three-fourth (73%) used group monthly savings and more than half (51%) used co-operatives for saving and credit practice. Just more than three-fifths (61%) had savings in the range of Rs.1000-5000 till date. Similarly, just more than a sixth (18%) had savings of 10,000 or more, the proportion being higher in Gangajamuna (35%).

Table 8: Participate in savings and credit practice Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Participated in Yes 28 75.7 30 75.0 53 77.9 111 76.6 savings and credit No 9 24.3 10 25.0 15 22.1 34 23.4 practice Total 37 100.0 40 100.0 68 100.0 145 100.0 Group monthly 9 32.1 25 83.3 47 88.7 81 73.0 Type of institution savings for practicing Micro finance 2 7.1 1 3.3 0 0 3 2.7 savings and credit * institution Cooperatives 24 85.7 5 16.7 28 52.8 57 51.4 Total 28 100.0 30 100.0 53 100.0 111 100.0 Total saving Up to 1000 2 7.4 1 4.3 0 0 3 2.9 amount from 1000-5000 13 48.1 11 47.8 39 73.6 63 61.2 savings and credit 5001-9999 6 22.2 3 13.0 9 17.0 18 17.5 practice till date 10000 and over 6 22.2 8 34.8 5 9.4 19 18.4 Total 27 100.0 23 100.0 53 100.0 103 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.21 Taken Loan from saving and credit scheme Regarding the loan taking practice, it was found that more than two-fifths (41%) respondents had taken loan from saving and credit scheme. People from Khaniyabas (44%) and Gangajamuna (43%)were found more active in loan taking practice in comparison to people from Gajuri (35%). Among those who took loans, nearly three-fifths (58%) took loans for festival and cultural function. Nearly a fourth (22%) of them took loans for health and treatment. Similarly, one-fifth (20%) of them took the loans for livestock rearing, the proportion being higher in Khaniyabas (27%).

Table 9: Taken Loan from saving and credit scheme Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Taken Loan from Yes 13 35.1 17 42.5 30 44.1 60 41.4 saving and credit No 24 64.9 23 57.5 38 55.9 85 58.6 scheme Total 37 100.0 40 100.0 68 100.0 145 100.0 Agriculture 4 30.8 1 5.9 3 10.0 8 13.3 Livestock rearing 2 15.4 2 11.8 8 26.7 12 20.0 Enterprises 0 0 2 11.8 0 0 2 3.3 Food 1 7.7 4 23.5 1 3.3 6 10.0 Type of loan Health& treatment 3 23.1 8 47.1 2 6.7 13 21.7 investment sector * Education 1 7.7 1 5.9 2 6.7 4 6.7 HHs expenditure 1 7.7 0 0 2 6.7 3 5.0 Festival & cultural 5 38.5 8 47.1 22 73.3 35 58.3 function Other 2 15.4 1 5.9 0 0 3 5.0 Total 13 100.0 17 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

34

3.1.22 Government Service and Provision It is discouraging to note that overwhelming majority (95%) of the respondents had no knowledge while only 2 respondents from Gajuri had entire knowledge about government schemes, program, provision related to Agriculture, livestock and other. Overall, only a third (33%) of those who had knowledge on government schemes had received any schemes or services from the government. Similarly, nearly three-fifths (58%) of the respondents who received any schemes were satisfied with that schemes or service.

Only two out of 1359 respondents had complete knowledge on government schemes, programs and provision related to agriculture livestock and other, which includes one household with single women and one household with elderly. Likewise, 6% of the household with single women, 5% of households with IDPs and 4% of very poor families had partial knowledge on those programs and schemes. Similarly, a third (33%) household with PWDs, 46% households with single women and more than a third (35%) poor families had ever received any kinds of schemes and services from government.

Table 10 a: Government Service and Provision Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Knowledge about No 479 93.0 499 99.2 309 90.6 1287 94.7 government Partial 33 6.4 4 .8 32 9.4 69 5.1 schemes, program, Reasonably 1 .2 0 0 0 0 1 .1 provision related to Agriculture, Entirely 2 0.4 0 0 0 0 2 .1 livestock and other Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of familiar Less than Two 34 94.4 4 100.0 31 96.9 69 95.8 government schemes Schemes provision related to Three to Six agriculture, 2 5.6 0 0 1 3.1 3 4.2 Schemes livestock, and other Total 36 100.0 4 100.0 32 100.0 72 100.0 Ever received Yes 10 27.8 2 50.0 12 37.5 24 33.3 schemes/services from government No 26 72.2 2 50.0 20 62.5 48 66.7 offices Total 36 100.0 4 100.0 32 100.0 72 100.0 Satisfied with the Satisfied 4 40.0 10 83.3 14 58.3 service and schemes Moderately 3 30.0 2 100.0 2 16.7 7 29.2 received from Satisfied government offices Highly Satisfied 3 30.0 0 0 0 0 3 12.5 Total 10 100.0 2 100.0 12 100.0 24 100.0

35

Table 10b: Government service and provision according to household category Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Total women Poor Family (Ka) N N N N N N Knowledge about 36 4 29 46 55 128 No 93.8 95.3 96.1 95.2 96.5 94.7 government 1 1 7 1 3 7 schemes, program, Partial 23 6.0 2 4.7 12 3.9 21 4.3 20 3.5 69 5.1 provision related to Reasonabl 1 .2 1 .1 Agriculture, y livestock and other Entirely 1 .3 1 .2 2 .1 38 100. 4 100. 30 100. 48 100. 57 100. 135 100. Total 5 0 3 0 9 0 4 0 3 0 9 0 Number of familiar Less than 100. 100. 100. government Two 22 91.7 2 12 22 95.7 20 69 95.8 0 0 0 schemes provision Schemes related to Three to agriculture,livestoc Six 2 8.3 1 4.3 3 4.2 k, and other Schemes 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. Total 24 2 12 23 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ever received Yes 11 45.8 4 33.3 6 26.1 7 35.0 24 33.3 schemes/services 100. from government No 13 54.2 2 8 66.7 17 73.9 13 65.0 48 66.7 0 offices 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. Total 24 2 12 23 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Satisfied with the Satisfied 7 63.6 3 75.0 3 50.0 5 71.4 14 58.3 service and Moderatel 2 18.2 1 25.0 2 33.3 2 28.6 7 29.2 schemes received y Satisfied from government Highly 2 18.2 1 16.7 3 12.5 offices Satisfied 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. Total 11 4 6 7 24 0 0 0 0 0

3.1.23 Sources of drinking water and purification techniques The main source of drinking water was tap in large majority (93%) of the houses. Similarly, it was found that women were responsible to fetch the water in majority (88%) of the houses. Likewise, the average time required for fetching water was less than 15 minutes in majority (91%) of households. The findings revealed that people from Khaniyabas required more time to fetch water in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Nearly three-fourth (72%) households had the practice of covering the container used to store water. Only more than a sixth (18%) households practiced water purification methods, which includes comparatively higher proportion of respondents from Khaniyabas (32%). Boiling was the most commonly used water purification method (74%) followed by filtration (61%).

36

Table 11: Sources of drinking water and purification techniques Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Tap 458 88.9 468 93.0 337 98.8 1263 92.9 Dug well 35 6.8 20 4.0 1 .3 56 4.1 Source of drinking Hand pump 1 .2 1 .2 1 .3 3 .2 water Stream 1 .2 3 .6 0 0 4 .3 Others 20 3.9 11 2.2 2 .6 33 2.4 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Women 441 85.6 456 90.7 304 89.1 1201 88.4 Person normally Men 69 13.4 44 8.7 28 8.2 141 10.4 fetching water Girls 3 .6 8 2.3 11 .8 Boys 2 .4 3 .6 1 .3 6 .4 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Average time <15 minute 466 90.5 481 95.6 291 85.3 1238 91.1 required for 15 to 30 minute 43 8.3 21 4.2 43 12.6 107 7.9 fetching water More than 30 (including 6 1.2 1 .2 7 2.1 14 1.0 minute queuing) Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Practice of Yes 367 71.3 388 77.1 217 63.6 972 71.5 covering the No 71 13.8 59 11.7 19 5.6 149 11.0 container used to Sometimes 77 15.0 56 11.1 105 30.8 238 17.5 store water Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Practice of water Yes 37 7.2 91 18.1 110 32.3 238 17.5 purification No 478 92.8 412 81.9 231 67.7 1121 82.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Frequency of water Always 16 43.2 73 80.2 63 57.3 152 63.9 purification Sometimes 21 56.8 18 19.8 47 42.7 86 36.1 Total 37 100.0 91 100.0 110 100.0 238 100.0 Boiling 29 78.4 46 50.5 102 92.7 177 74.4 Water filter 12 32.4 76 83.5 57 51.8 145 60.9 Solar water 0 0 1 1.1 1 .9 2 .8 Methods used for disinfection water purification* Mixture of chlorine liquid (water 1 2.7 0 0 1 .9 2 .8 guard) Others 2 5.4 0 0 1 .9 3 1.3 Total 37 100.0 91 100.0 110 100.0 238 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.24 Information regarding toilets Majority of the households (90%) had latrines in their houses but still 10 percent of the households did not have latrines. The proportion of households not having latrines was higher in Gajuri (17%) in comparison to Gangajamuna (7%) and Khaniyabas (5%).

More than three fourth (76%) households had permanent latrines. Among the households not having latrines, a fifth (20%) said that they used agricultural field and more than a tenth (13%) used river for defecation. Similarly, it was found that nearly two-fifths (39%) households had the distance of 10-19 meters from their latrine to the water source followed by less than ten meters (36%) (Annex table h28).

Presence of toilet was also analyzed according to the category of households. It was found that majority of households (90%) had toilets, the proportion being higher in households of PWDs (94%). Similarly, of 11% households not having toilets, the proportion was higher in very poor families and IDPs (16% each) followed by households of single women (13%). (Annex table H28a)

37

Figure 13: Presence of Latrine

Figure 13: Presence of Latrine

95 92.6 89.5 100 82.7 80 60 40 20 0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.25 Hand-washing practice Hand-washing practice of people was also investigated in the study. It was found that majority (78%) of respondents used soap for hand-washing after defecation followed by ash (7%). The proportion of respondents using soap for hand-washing was comparatively higher in Khaniyabas (84%) and Gangajamuna (81%) than in Gajuri (71%). Similarly, nearly three-fourth (72%) respondents mentioned that they used soap for hand-washing before eating and feeding. Likewise, more than half (53%) respondents said that they used soap for hand-washing after cleaning children’s faeces followed by only water (9%).

Table 12:Hand washing practice Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Wash with soap 364 70.7 409 81.3 287 84.2 1060 78.0 Material used for Wash with soil 23 4.5 4 .8 4 1.2 31 2.3 hand washing after Wash with ash 71 13.8 16 3.2 5 1.5 92 6.8 defecation Wash with only water 54 10.5 72 14.3 44 12.9 170 12.5 Don't wash 3 .6 2 .4 1 .3 6 .4 100. Total 515 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0 Wash with soap 332 64.5 372 74.0 275 80.6 979 72.0 Material used for Wash with soil 19 3.7 2 .4 2 .6 23 1.7 hand washing Wash with ash 61 11.8 12 2.4 8 2.3 81 6.0 before eating and Wash with only water 100 19.4 115 22.9 56 16.4 271 19.9 feeding Don't wash 3 .6 2 .4 5 .4 100. Total 515 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0 No children in house 177 34.4 186 37.0 92 27.0 455 33.5 Material used for Wash with soap 246 47.8 262 52.1 211 61.9 719 52.9 hand washing after Wash with soil 9 1.7 1 .2 1 .3 11 .8 cleaning children's Wash with ash 45 8.7 6 1.2 5 1.5 56 4.1 feces Wash with only water 36 7.0 48 9.5 32 9.4 116 8.5 Don't wash 2 .4 0 0 0 0 2 .1 100. Total 515 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0

38

3.1.26 Water borne diseases The occurrence of water borne disease was also investigated . In this regard, it was found that more than a tenth (12%) households had at least a case of water borne disease in past two weeks. The incidence of water borne diseases in the past two weeks preceding the study was higher in Khaniyabas (24%) in comparison to Gajuri (10%) and Gangajamuna(5%). People were also asked about the knowledge regarding the causes of those water borne diseases on which more than a third (35%) each said that it was dirty water and contaminated food. Similarly, it was found that higher proportion of children (41%) were affected by water borne disease in comparison to elderly (31%) and adults (28%) (Annex table H29).

Figure 14: Case of water borne disease in past two weeks

50 Figure 14: Case of water borne disease in past two weeks

40 24 30

20 9.7 11.5 4.8 10

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.27 Sanitation status More than a third (37%) households had disposal site for solid waste, the proportion being comparatively higher in Gangajamuna (48%). Similarly, nearly two-fifths (39%) households had the provision of drainage around water source. Likewise, more than half (55%) respondents said that their community was ever declared as open defecation free community. Higher proportion of respondents in Khaniyabas (67%) in comparison to other rural municipalities said that their community was ever declared as open defecation free.

Table 13: Sanitation status Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Presence of disposal Yes 165 32.0 239 47.5 92 27.0 496 36.5 site for solid waste No 350 68.0 264 52.5 249 73.0 863 63.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Provision of drainage Yes 199 38.6 244 48.5 89 26.1 532 39.1 around water source No 316 61.4 259 51.5 252 73.9 827 60.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Community ever Yes 234 45.4 281 55.9 228 66.9 743 54.7 declared as open No 52 10.1 10 2.0 5 1.5 67 4.9 defecation free (ODF) 98 229 44.5 212 42.1 108 31.7 549 40.4 community Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

3.1.28 Distance to nearest health facility The distance of the household with its nearest health facility was also investigated in the study. More than a third (36%) respondents said that it took 30-59 minutes to reach their nearest health facility. A fifth (20%) respondents reported that less than half hour was required to reach the nearest health facility. Similarly, about a fourth (23%)household requires more than 2 hours to reach the nearest health facility.

39

People of Gajuri had more difficulty in accessing health facilities as higher proportion of households (41%) required more than 2 hours to reach nearest health facility. Similarly, a fifth (20%) respondents said that it took between 1-2 hours to reach the nearest health facility.

Table 14: Distance to nearest health facility Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Time taken to Less than half hour 64 12.4 116 23.1 92 27.0 272 20.0 reach the 30-59 minutes 138 26.8 207 41.2 146 42.8 491 36.1 nearest health 60-119 minutes 100 19.4 101 20.1 78 22.9 279 20.5 facility from the More than 2 hours 213 41.4 79 15.7 25 7.3 317 23.3 house Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

3.1.29 Health status and health care seeking behavior One third (33%) respondents reported that some member of their household were ill in the past six months, the proportion being higher in Gajuri (38%) in comparison to Gangajamuna (34%) and Khaniyabas (25%). Multiple responses were obtained on type of illness in which nearly three- fifths (58%) respondents said that the family member had fever while two-fifths (40%) said the illness was cough and cold. Among those who were ill, it was found that nearly three-fifths (59%) went to hospital followed by health post (49%) for treatment. Higher proportion of people in Gajuri went to Hospital (70%) in comparison to Gangajamuna (61%) and Khaniyabas (27%).

Table 15: Health status and health care seeking behavior Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Anyone in the Yes 195 37.9 171 34.0 86 25.2 452 33.3 house becoming sick in the past 6 No 320 62.1 332 66.0 255 74.8 907 66.7 months Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Fever 112 57.4 102 59.6 49 57.0 263 58.2 Diarrhoea 19 9.7 15 8.8 27 31.4 61 13.5 Type of Illness* Cough and cold 81 41.5 70 40.9 31 36.0 182 40.3 Others specify 87 44.6 71 41.5 32 37.2 190 42.0 Total 195 100.0 171 100.0 86 100.0 452 100.0 Nothing 5 2.6 9 5.3 15 17.4 29 6.4 Went to HP 83 42.6 93 54.4 47 54.7 223 49.3 Attempt to cure the Went to Hospital 137 70.3 105 61.4 23 26.7 265 58.6 illness* Went to 28 14.4 2 1.2 7 8.1 37 8.2 DhamiJhankri Others 3 1.5 6 3.5 5 5.8 14 3.1 Total 195 100.0 171 100.0 86 100.0 452 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.30 Perceived risk of disaster The perception of the people regarding the risk of disaster in their community was also explored in the study. In regards to this, a third (33%) respondents said that their community was at the risk of disaster. Considerably, higher proportion of respondents in Khaniyabas(71%) in comparison to Gajuri (26%) and Gangajamuna (15%) said that there community was at the risk of disaster. When asked about the most frequent disasters in the community, nearly two-fifths (38%) respondents said that it was landslide. Similarly, nearly a third (32%) and one-fifth(20%) mentioned that it was windstorm and earthquake respectively.

40

Table 16: Perceived risk of disaster Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Community at risk Yes 133 25.8 76 15.1 242 71.0 451 33.2 of disaster No 382 74.2 427 84.9 99 29.0 908 66.8 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Fire 12 9.0 3 3.9 8 3.3 23 5.1 Floods 3 2.3 3 3.9 6 2.5 12 2.7 Most frequent Earthquake 83 62.4 16 21.1 45 18.6 144 31.9 disasters in the Drought 4 3.0 1 1.3 1 0.4 6 1.3 community Windstorm 12 9.0 5 6.6 71 29.3 88 19.5 Landslide 18 13.5 47 61.8 105 43.4 170 37.7 Hailstorm 1 .8 1 1.3 6 2.5 8 1.8 Total 133 100.0 76 100.0 242 100.0 451 100.0

3.1.31 Existence of Disaster management committee in Palika More than a tenth (13%) respondents reported that they had a disaster management committee (DMC) in their rural municipality while a majority (82%) of them were ignorant about the presence of DMC. Higher percentage of people in Khaniyabas (23%) as compared to Gajuri (14%) and Gangajamuna (6%) were aware about the presence of DMCs. The people who had known about the existence of DMC were further asked about whether it was able to mobilize groups/members towards the management of disaster, on which only less than half (49%) of the respondents replied positive.

Table 17: Existence of Disaster management committee in Palika Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Presence of Disaster Yes 71 13.8 30 6.0 78 22.9 179 13.2 Management No 35 6.8 27 5.4 11 3.2 73 5.4 Committee (DMCs) Don’t know 409 79.4 446 88.7 252 73.9 1107 81.5 in the palika Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 DMCs being able to Yes 54 76.1 13 43.3 20 25.6 87 48.6 mobilize groups/members towards the No 17 23.9 17 56.7 58 74.4 92 51.4 management of natural and human made disaster Total 71 100.0 30 100.0 78 100.0 179 100.0 Establishment of 6 8.5 0 0 65 83.3 71 39.7 emergency fund Participatory Vulnerability Capacity 3 4.2 1 3.3 32 41.0 36 20.1 Assessment (VCA) Establishment of Initiatives taken by community seed and 7 9.9 0 0 16 20.5 23 12.8 DMC to response grain bank towards natural and Prepare community human made disaster management 6 8.5 2 6.7 5 6.4 13 7.3 disaster* plan Awareness raising campaign on disaster 6 8.5 2 6.7 3 3.8 11 6.1 preparation Relief distribution 59 83.1 26 86.7 6 7.7 91 50.8 during the disaster Structural mitigation 4 5.6 1 3.3 8 10.3 13 7.3

41

Support school for school level 3 4.2 0 0 2 2.6 5 2.8 preparedness Preposition of rescue equipment and 7 9.9 0 0 9 11.5 16 8.9 materials in place Mock drill 5 7.0 1 3.3 1 1.3 7 3.9 Others 2 2.8 1 3.3 4 5.1 7 3.9 Total 71 100.0 30 100.0 78 100.0 179 100.0

3.1.32 Family members ever trained and mobilized as a community volunteers It was found that only 4 percent of the household had one or more members ever trained and mobilized as a community volunteers during disaster, the proportion being comparatively higher in Khaniyabas(6%). Those who mentioned of receiving any training were further asked about the area in which was received. The major responses obtained were relief management (48%), light search and rescue (48%) and first aid (25%).

Table 18: Family members ever trained and mobilized as a community volunteers Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Respondents or their Yes 25 4.9 6 1.2 21 6.2 52 3.8 family members ever trained and mobilized as a No 490 95.1 497 98.8 320 93.8 1307 96.2 community volunteers 100. Total 515 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0 Early Warning 7 28.0 2 33.3 8 38.1 17 32.7 First aid 6 24.0 2 33.3 5 23.8 13 25.0 Area in which the task Light Search force (respondents or their 7 28.0 2 33.3 16 76.2 25 48.1 and Rescue family members) have Relief been trained for* 7 28.0 2 33.3 16 76.2 25 48.1 Management Others specify 5 20.0 1 16.7 6 11.5 100. Total 25 6 100.0 21 100.0 52 100.0 0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.33 Adopted preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness Nearly a fifth (19%) of total 1359 respondents reported that they had adopted any preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness. Adoption of preventive measures was found more frequent in Khaniyabas (29%) in comparison to Gajuri (19%) and Gangajamuna (13%). Among those who adopted some preventive measures were further asked about the type of preventive measures adopted, and it was found that most commonly adopted preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness were house strengthening (67%) and pre-position of food (20%).

42

Table 19: Adopted preventive measures for household level disaster preparedness Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Preventive measures Yes 96 18.6 64 12.7 98 28.7 258 19.0 adopted for household level disaster No 419 81.4 439 87.3 243 71.3 1101 81.0 preparedness Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Pre-position 21 21.9 2 3.1 28 28.6 51 19.8 of food House Types of preventive 42 43.8 41 64.1 92 93.9 175 67.8 strengthen measures adopted for Drainage household level 0 0 3 4.7 5 5.1 8 3.1 System disaster preparedness Embankment 0 0 2 3.1 0 0 2 .8 Others 61 63.5 22 34.4 1 1.0 84 32.6 specify Total 96 100.0 64 100.0 98 100.0 258 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.34 Knowledge about the household level disaster response measures The knowledge of people regarding household level disaster response measures was also assessed in the study. It was found that only a sixth (16%) respondents had knowledge about household level disaster response measures. People of Gangajamuna and Gajuri (20% each) were more aware about household level disaster response measures in comparison to people of Khaniyabas (3%).

Table 20: Knowledge about the household level disaster response measures Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Knowledge about Yes 106 20.6 107 21.3 9 2.6 222 16.3 household level disaster response No 409 79.4 396 78.7 332 97.4 1137 83.7 measures Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

3.1.35 Experiences of loses at HHs leveldue to disaster The consequence of disaster at the household level was also studied in the study. It is discouraging to note that majority (96%) of households had experienced some kind of losses due to disaster. The impact of disaster was comparatively more in Khaniyabas as almost all households (99%) had experienced some kinds of losses. Similarly, while investigating the type of losses, overwhelming majority (97%) respondents mentioned that there was extreme damage to their houses. Similarly, nearly a third (33%) said that their agriculture was destructed while 4 percent of the respondents mentioned there was human loss too. When respondents were asked to express their loss in monetary terms, majority (79%) said it was equal to or above 1 lakhs (Annex table H30).

The experience of losses due to disaster at household level was also analyzed according to the category of households. It was found that the impact of disaster at HH level was proportionate in different category of households which included 88% of the households with elderly, 87% of households with PWDs and 82% very poor families. Similarly all households of IDPs experienced losses due to disaster at HH level. (Annex table H30a)

43

Figure 15: Observed loses at HHs due to disaster

Figure 15: Observed loses at HHs due to disaster 99.4 88.2 100 84.1 84.7

80

60

40

20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

3.1.36 Psycho social support Nearly a tenth (8%) respondent reported that one or more family members in their household were distressed due to the consequence of disaster. The proportion of people being distressed as a consequence of disaster was more than double in Gajuri (13%) in comparison to Gangajamuna (5%) and Khaniyabas (4%).Similarly, only more than a fifth (21%) who were distressed due to disaster received psychosocial support. Among those who received psychosocial support, more than three-fifths (61%) received psychosocial support from government organization.

Table 21: Any member of your family become distressed Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 69 13.4 27 5.4 14 4.1 110 8.1 becoming distressed No 446 86.6 476 94.6 327 95.9 1249 91.9 after any disaster Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Family member Yes 14 20.3 5 18.5 4 28.6 23 20.9 receiving psychosocial support after No 55 79.7 22 81.5 10 71.4 87 79.1 becoming distressed due to disaster Total 69 100.0 27 100.0 14 100.0 110 100.0 DMCs 2 50.0 2 8.7 Place from where GOs 7 50.0 4 80.0 3 75.0 14 60.9 family member I/NGOs 1 25.0 1 4.3 received Psycho Humanitarians Social Support 12 85.7 1 20.0 1 25.0 14 60.9 Organization Total 14 100.0 5 100.0 4 100.0 23 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.37 Family received any humanitarian assistance/support More than three-fourths (77%) households received some kinds of humanitarian assistance or support which includes a higher proportion of households from Khaniyabas (93%) in comparison to other two rural municipalities. Among those who received support, overwhelming majority (95%) of respondents said that they were satisfied with the humanitarian response they received. Those respondents, who said that they were dissatisfied, were asked about the complaint lodging mechanism, on which nearly two- fifths (39%) said there was some kind of complaint lodging mechanism to report dissatisfaction.

44

Table 22: Family received any humanitarian assistance/support Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Family receiving any Yes 346 67.2 386 76.7 317 93.0 1049 77.2 humanitarian No 169 32.8 117 23.3 24 7.0 310 22.8 assistance/support Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Satisfied with the Yes 316 91.3 371 96.1 310 97.8 997 95.0 humanitarian response No 30 8.7 15 3.9 7 2.2 52 5.0 Total 346 100.0 386 100.0 317 100.0 1049 100.0 Any complaint Yes 13 43.3 7 46.7 0 0 20 38.5 lodging mechanism to report dissatisfaction No 17 56.7 8 53.3 7 100.0 32 61.5 with the humanitarian response Total 30 100.0 15 100.0 7 100.0 52 100.0

* Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.1.38 Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as being a disaster affected people Only nearly two-fifths (38%) respondents reported that they had received some kind of support for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as being a disaster affected people. Higher proportion of people in Khaniyabas (61%) received aforementioned support in comparison to Gajuri (36%) and Gangajamuna (24%). Similarly, among those who had received the support, more than half (53%) continued sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives using that support.

The variations in support received for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives in 1359 households was also analyzed according to the category of households. 44% of IDPs, 43% of households with single women and 42% of households with single women received any support for sustainable livelihood improvement initiatives. Similarly, 38% of poor families and households with elderly each received such support. Likewise, only less than half (47%) of those who received the support continued sustainable livelihood improvements using the support, the proportion being higher in households with single women (62%).

Table 23:Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as being a disaster affected people Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Received any support for Yes 187 36.3 118 23.5 207 60.7 512 37.7 sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives as No 328 63.7 385 76.5 134 39.3 847 62.3 being a disaster affected people Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Continued sustainable Yes 149 79.7 75 63.6 48 23.2 272 53.1 livelihood improvements initiatives using received No 38 20.3 43 36.4 159 76.8 240 46.9 support Total 187 100.0 118 100.0 207 100.0 512 100.0

45

Table 23a: Received any support for sustainable livelihood improvements according to household category: Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N N N N N N Received any Yes 164 42.6 19 44.2 130 42.1 183 37.8 220 38.4 512 37.7 support for sustainable livelihood No 221 57.4 24 55.8 179 57.9 301 62.2 353 61.6 847 62.3 improvements initiatives Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0 Continued Yes 102 62.2 9 47.4 55 42.3 101 55.2 115 52.3 272 53.1 sustainable livelihood improvements initiatives No 62 37.8 10 52.6 75 57.7 82 44.8 105 47.7 240 46.9 using received support Total 164 100.0 19 100.0 130 100.0 183 100.0 220 100.0 512 100.0

3.1.39 Effect of earthquake on house and current situation of house The consequences of earthquake on house and current situation of house of the respondents was also investigated in the evidence collection study. Overwhelming majority (97%) of respondents reported that their house was damaged due to earthquake. The damage due to earthquake was a bit lower in Gajuri in comparison to other two rural municipalities. On further investigating the level of damage, it was found that 88% of the houses were completely damaged, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (97%). It was found that more than four-fifths (85%) of the damaged houses were listed in National Reconstruction Authority (NRA). Of the houses listed in NRA, more than seven out of ten (71%) received third tranche, while 5% did not receive any sum of money. More than two-third (68%) households completed the reconstruction of their houses aftermath of earthquake. Respondents reporting incomplete status of reconstruction of their houses were further asked about the reasons behind that on which more than three fourth (79%) said it was financial constraints.

Damage on house due to earthquake was highly prevalent in all categories of households. 99% of the households with PWDs, 98% of the households with elderly and 96% of single women and poor families each experienced damaged on house due to earthquake. Among 1321 HHs facing damage of their house, 85% were listed in NRA, which includes a higher proportion of households of PWDs (89%) and lowest proportion of households of IDPs (68%). Among the households listed in NRA, highest proportion of households with elderly and PWDs (74% each) had received third tranche while only 25% internally displaced households had received the third tranche.

Table 24: Effect of earthquake on house and current situation of house Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Damaged Yes 485 94.2 497 98.8 339 99.4 1321 97.2 house due to No 30 5.8 6 1.2 2 .6 38 2.8 earthquake Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Level of Normal 20 4.1 93 18.7 10 2.9 123 9.3 damaged Partial 41 8.5 0 0 0 41 3.1

46

Completely 424 87.4 404 81.3 329 97.1 1157 87.6 Total 485 100.0 497 100.0 339 100.0 1321 100.0 Yes 406 83.7 381 76.7 335 98.8 1122 84.9 Listed in NRA No 79 16.3 116 23.3 4 1.2 199 15.1 Total 485 100.0 497 100.0 339 100.0 1321 100.0 Not received 36 8.9 6 1.6 11 3.3 53 4.7 Tranche First tranche 10 2.5 9 2.4 23 6.9 42 3.7 received Second Tranche 70 17.2 76 19.9 86 25.7 232 20.7 Third Tranche 290 71.4 290 76.1 215 64.2 795 70.9 Total 406 100.0 381 100.0 335 100.0 1122 100.0 Status of Completed 303 62.5 315 63.4 285 84.1 903 68.4 reconstruction Not completed 182 37.5 182 36.6 54 15.9 418 31.6 of house Total 485 100.0 497 100.0 339 100.0 1321 100.0 Alone 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 1 .2 completed the 11 6.04 11 0 0 0 2.6 11 agreement Didn’t get labour 10 5.49 10 1.1 7 13.0 19 4.5 Don't have own land 4 2.20 4 .5 0 0 5 1.2 Don't know 1 0.55 1 0 0 0 1 .2 Due to sick 2 1.10 2 0 0 0 2 .5 Financial constraints 122 67.03 122 92.3 38 70.4 328 78.5 Reason for not Living in another 2 1.10 2 0 0 0 .5 2 completion house No one who can 1 0.55 1 0 0 0 .2 1 support in family Not able to work 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 1 .2 Not in NRA List 10 5.49 10 2 3.7 12 2.9 Ongoing construction 18 9.89 18 4.9 6 11.1 33 7.9 Separated from 1 0.55 1 0 0 0 .2 1 parents Time constraints 0 0 0 .5 0 0 1 .2 Total 182 100 182 100 54 100 418 100.0

Table 24a: Effect of earthquake on house and current situation of house according to household category

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N N N N N N Damaged 36 4 30 47 54 132 Yes 95.8 100 98.7 97.5 95.6 97.2 house due to 9 3 5 2 8 1 earthquake No 16 4.2 0 0 4 1.3 12 2.5 25 4.4 38 2.8 38 100. 4 100. 30 100. 48 100. 57 100. 135 100. Total 5 0 3 0 9 0 4 0 3 0 9 0 Normal 26 7.0 6 14.6 12 3.9 70 14.8 30 5.5 123 9.3 Level of Partial 8 2.2 7 2.3 17 3.6 21 3.8 41 3.1 damaged Completel 33 3 28 38 49 115 90.8 85.4 93.8 81.6 90.7 87.6 y 5 5 6 5 7 7 36 100. 4 100. 30 100. 47 100. 54 100. 132 100. Total 9 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 8 0 1 0 31 2 27 39 45 112 Yes 86.4 68.3 88.5 83.1 82.8 84.9 Listed in 9 8 0 2 4 2 NRA 1 No 50 13.6 31.7 35 11.5 80 16.9 94 17.2 199 15.1 3

47

36 100. 4 100. 30 100. 47 100. 54 100. 132 100. Total 9 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 8 0 1 0 Not 18 5.6 4 14.3 10 3.7 20 5.1 26 5.7 53 4.7 received First 12 3.8 1 3.6 7 2.6 11 2.8 27 5.9 42 3.7 Tranche tranche received Second 1 82 25.7 57.1 54 20.0 72 18.4 94 20.7 232 20.7 Tranche 6 Third 20 19 28 30 64.9 7 25.0 73.7 73.7 67.6 795 70.9 Tranche 7 9 9 7 31 100. 2 100. 27 100. 39 100. 45 100. 112 100. Total 9 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 24 2 22 31 33 Status of Completed 66.9 48.8 74.8 66.9 61.9 903 68.4 7 0 8 6 9 reconstructio Not 12 2 15 20 n of house 33.1 51.2 77 25.2 33.1 38.1 418 31.6 completed 2 1 6 9 36 100. 4 100. 30 100. 47 100. 54 100. 132 100. Total 9 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 8 0 1 0

3.2 Vulnerability of Single women

3.2.1 Background characteristics of single women Almost two-fifth (38%) single women were aged 65 years or above followed by age group 55-64 years (23%) and 45-54 years (21%). It is discouraging to note that almost four out of five single women (79%) were illiterate. A higher proportion of single women from Gangajamuna (89%) were illiterate compared to Khaniyabas (79%) and Gajuri (68%). Similarly, one-sixth of them (17%) had informal education while only 3 percent of them had completed basic education. Likewise, majority (87%) of single women were heads of their households. When asked about any additional type of vulnerability, it was found that more than a half of the single women (53%) were extremely poor and almost a tenth of them (9%) were disable. More than three-fifth of the single women each from Khaniyabas (61%) and Gangajamuna (62%) while comparatively lower proportion of them from Gajuri (38%) were extremely poor. Regarding the current marital status, more than two-third (71%) of single women were widows whereas slightly above a fifth (21%) were single or never married. Majority of the single women (88 %) from Gangajamuna and Gajuri (74%) while more than two-fifth of them (44%) from Khaniyabas were widows. The occupational status of single women was also investigated. It was found that more than three-fifth (63%) single women were involved in agriculture, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (72%).

Table 25: Background characteristics of single women Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Single Women-Total N % N % N % N % 15-24 years 3 2.3 3 2.0 1 0.9 7 1.8 25-34 years 8 6.2 2 1.4 4 3.7 14 3.6 35-44 years 11 8.5 21 14.2 17 15.9 49 12.8 Age group 45-54 years 25 19.4 30 20.3 25 23.4 80 20.8 55-64 years 33 25.6 29 19.6 27 25.2 89 23.2 65 and above 49 38.0 63 42.6 33 30.8 145 37.8 Illiterate 88 67.7 132 89.2 85 79.4 305 79.2 Informal Education 36 27.7 9 6.1 19 17.8 64 16.6 Educational Basic Education (Class Status 5 3.8 6 4.1 2 1.9 13 3.4 1-8) Secondary (9-12) 1 0.8 1 0.7 1 0.9 3 0.8 HHs Head 116 89.2 128 86.5 93 86.9 337 87.5

48

Status in the HHs members 14 10.8 20 13.5 14 13.1 48 12.5 HH Elderly 58 44.6 49 33.1 35 32.7 142 36.9 Disable 9 6.9 12 8.1 12 11.2 33 8.6 Any additional IDP 9 6.9 6 4.1 1 0.9 16 4.2 type of Extreme Poor 49 37.7 92 62.2 65 60.7 206 53.5 vulnerability* No additional 38 29.2 19 12.8 15 14.0 72 18.7 vulnerability Single/Never married 28 21.5 9 6.1 44 41.1 81 21.0 Current Married 4 3.1 3 2.0 4 3.7 11 2.9 Marital Status Divorced/separate 2 1.5 6 4.1 12 11.2 20 5.2 Widow/Widower 96 73.8 130 87.8 47 43.9 273 70.9 Agriculture 74 56.9 90 60.8 77 72.0 241 62.6 Business 2 1.5 4 2.7 17 15.9 23 6.0 Employee (All jobs) 0 0 3 2.0 0 0 3 0.8 Occupation Daily Wage labor 8 6.2 15 10.1 6 5.6 29 7.5 Unable to do any work 30 23.1 28 18.9 2 1.9 60 15.6 Other (Specify) 16 12.3 8 5.4 5 4.7 29 7.5 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.2.2 Status of single women It was found that almost a tenth (9%) of single women had become widow because of earthquake 2015. Similarly, almost fourth-fifth (78%) of the single women had obtained card from the government, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (85%).

Figure 16: Have government single women card

Figure 16: Have government single women card 100 85.1 80 77.9 80 65.4 % 60

40

20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

Among the women who had obtained government card, almost all (99%) of them were receiving social security allowances from government on regular basis. Women who didn't have government card, were further asked about the reason behind it, on which more than a half of them (53%) said that they were ignorant about it (annex table SW1).

Table 26: Status of government single women card Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Single Women- Total N % N % N % N % Became single Yes 12 9.2 10 6.8 13 12.1 35 9.1 women due to the No 118 90.8 138 93.2 94 87.9 350 90.9 earthquake 2072 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Have government Yes 104 80.0 126 85.1 70 65.4 300 77.9 single women card No 26 20.0 22 14.9 37 34.6 85 22.1

49

Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Received any social Yes 101 97.1 126 100.0 69 98.6 296 98.7 security allowances from government on No 3 2.9 0 0 1 1.4 4 1.3 regular basis Total 104 100.0 126 100.0 70 100.0 300 100.0 Difficulty to reach in service 9 31.0 5 22.7 11 28.9 25 28.1 center Do not know 13 44.8 13 59.1 21 55.3 47 52.8 about it Reason for not Unable to go receiving single there due to 7 24.1 2 9.1 19 50.0 28 31.5 women card yet* financial burden No one to go 2 6.9 3 13.6 7 18.4 12 13.5 along with Not required 1 2.6 1 1.1 Other (Specify) 9 31.0 7 31.8 6 15.8 22 24.7 Total 29 100.0 22 100.0 38 100.0 89 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.2.3 Life skill training It was found that only 3 percent of single women had received any kind of life skills training aftermath of earthquake. It is discouraging to note that only 3 percent of single women had knowledge regarding human rights and social inclusion. Similarly, only 3 percent of single women mentioned that they had received any kind of skilled based income generation training to restore their livelihood. Five percent of single women reported that they had received any psychosocial counseling support aftermath of earthquake. Those women who received support, were further asked about the type of support they received. In this regard, almost three-fifth of them (59%) said they received cash for work. Single women were also asked about things that could done so that they can receive or seek additional support. For this, the most frequently obtained responses were access to financial resources (86%), referral service (22%), provision of technical support (14%) and advocacy (11%).

Table 27:Life skill training Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Single Women- Total N % N % N % N % Taken any life skill Yes 6 4.6 4 2.7 3 2.8 13 3.4 training in the aftermath of No 124 95.4 144 97.3 104 97.2 372 96.6 earthquake Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Any awareness on Yes 9 6.9 4 2.7 0 0 13 3.4 human rights and No 121 93.1 144 97.3 107 100.0 372 96.6 social inclusion Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Received any skill- Yes 7 5.4 0 0 3 2.8 10 2.6 based income generation training to No 123 94.6 148 100.0 104 97.2 375 97.4 restore your livelihood Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Taken any Yes 11 8.5 1 0.7 6 5.6 18 4.7 psychosocial counseling support No 119 91.5 147 99.3 101 94.4 367 95.3 in the aftermath of earthquake

50

Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Cash for work 48 36.9 98 66.2 81 75.7 227 59.0 Types of support Livelihood inputs 67 51.5 51 34.5 38 35.5 156 40.5 received after the Training 7 5.4 0 0 20 18.7 27 7.0 earthquake 2072* Health support 9 6.9 9 6.1 24 22.4 42 10.9 Others 39 30.0 15 10.1 10 9.3 64 16.6 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Access to financial 96 73.8 139 93.9 98 91.6 333 86.5 resource Support in seeking Things that could be 9 6.9 4 2.7 22 20.6 35 9.1 document done so that single Provide technical women receive/seek 10 7.7 27 18.2 19 17.8 56 14.5 support additional support* Advocacy 7 5.4 25 16.9 9 8.4 41 10.6 Referral service 46 35.4 24 16.2 14 13.1 84 21.8 Others 16 12.3 9 6.1 5 4.7 30 7.8 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Vegetable 44 33.8 48 32.4 60 56.1 152 39.5 production Poultry production 39 30.0 64 43.2 76 71.0 179 46.5 Dairy production 11 8.5 5 3.4 1 0.9 17 4.4 Off-farm activities Areas of acquired like marketing 0 0 1 0.7 1 0.9 2 0.5 skills and activities, post- knowledge* Harvest processing Non-farm activities such as tailoring, 13 10.0 23 15.5 17 15.9 53 13.8 retail shop, hotel, etc. Others 55 42.3 63 42.6 20 18.7 138 35.8 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.2.4 Need of services The needs and interest of single women was also assessed in the study. More than a half (53%) of the single women said that they were interested to work in the field of Poultry farming to improve their livelihood followed by vegetable production (35%). A higher proportion of single women from Khaniyabas (69%) compared to Gangajamuna (51%) and Gajuri (41%) showed their interest over Poultry farming. When women were asked about the type of support that might help to solve their problems, nearly two-third of them (64%) said that helping to access services would be beneficial followed by support for microwaving or investment (53%) and support for skills training (25%). Almost a fourth (24%) single women mentioned that her family needed psychosocial counseling, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (45%). Single women were also asked whether they see themselves in vulnerable or risk situation, on which nearly a half (47%) of them replied yes. Women who perceived themselves as vulnerable mentioned that the major problem caused by their vulnerable situation was economic hardship (70%) followed by poor health (59%).

Table 28: Need of services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Single Women- Total N % N % N % N % Vegetable production 41 31.5 39 26.4 59 55.1 139 36.1

Poultry production 53 40.8 76 51.4 74 69.2 203 52.7 Area of interest Dairy production 2 1.5 8 5.4 4 3.7 14 3.6 to improve your Off-farm activities livelihood* 22 16.9 35 23.6 22 20.6 79 20.5 like marketing

51

Non-farm activities such as tailoring, retail 2 1.5 3 2.0 3 2.8 8 2.1 shop, hotel, etc Further education 2 1.5 2 1.4 1 .9 5 1.3 Goat farming 9 6.9 14 9.5 9 8.4 32 8.3 Financial support 5 3.8 4 2.7 1 .9 10 2.6 Training for skill 2 1.4 2 .5 development Tea shop 1 .8 3 2.0 4 1.0 Buffalo farming 1 .9 1 .3 Pig farming 1 .9 1 .3 Nothing 9 6.9 13 8.8 22 5.7 Not able to work 21 16.2 19 12.8 4 3.7 44 11.4 Don't know 1 .8 1 .3 Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 Help to access services (cards, 71 54.6 103 69.6 73 68.2 247 64.2 tranches etc.) Advocacy within 19 14.6 22 14.9 18 16.8 59 15.3 stakeholders Support for education Types of 1 0.8 4 2.7 10 9.3 15 3.9 access support that Physical logistics might help to support (Wheelchair, solve the 3 2.3 9 6.1 4 3.7 16 4.2 glasses, hearing problems machine, sticks) faced* Advocacy for lands 8 6.2 10 6.8 8 7.5 26 6.8 Support for skills 16 12.3 44 29.7 34 31.8 94 24.4 training Support for microwaving / 88 67.7 89 60.1 26 24.3 203 52.7 investment Total 130 100.0 148 100.0 107 100.0 385 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.2.5 Information from Qualitative study

Current situation Most of the FGD participants reported that contemporary situation of single women was better as compared to that of past days. Most of the women agreed that single women's participation and empowerment is improving gradually with time. But still there were so many issues to be addressed.

"My husband abandoned me 20 years ago and single women like me are often overlooked. We don't even get incentives from the government unlike other single women and that's so unfair." a participantsaid. But all other category of women who were the beneficiaries of incentives program were receiving welfareon time. Most of the women were involved in agriculture for their livelihood. "I get some money by selling milk or sometimes hens. I struggle to run my life smoothly." said another participant. Single women living with their children or family had support from their family members too. So, single women who were not living together with family were found more vulnerable. Some of the women expressed their dissatisfaction with the incentives they received. "The incentive we receive is not sufficient at all. We can't even buy all the medicines we need." an old woman added.

Stigma and discrimination People's perception towards single women was changing and they were viewed with more dignity as reported by many FGD participants. But still the discrimination was existing in some corners of the society as it is deeply entrenched from the ancient period and cannot be so easily uprooted.

52

"Some people still believe that seeing a single woman before any auspicious occasion is a bad omen." said a participant. "Some families do not permit a single woman to perform rituals for her newlywed daughter in law just because she is a widow." another woman elaborated. Participants further explained that not all families or people think or behave in same way but some were still so orthodox. "People do not use decent words to address single woman. Even our relatives sometimes address us with discourteous words, left alone community people." said another woman sadly. "One single woman in our nearby community committed suicide. She was treated awfully by her daughter-in- law. May be that was the reason behind her suicide." another woman elaborated with an example.

Need assessment Many single women were willing to work in agricultural sector to earn a livelihood. "It would be better if I get some hens and goats to rear and sustain my daily life. I received tailoring training too but it was no good for me." Women further explained, "Even if we cultivate crops or rear animals, there's no market to value our crops and products. Due to difficult topography and scarce transportation, the condition is more pathetic." While some of them were also interested in obtaining skill based trainings like tailoring or beauty parlour trainings etc. "I received tailoring training and currently I earn some money from small tailor business. Now, I want some advanced training so that I can expand my business." Similarly, some aged single women were wanting to get involved in works that requires less efforts like bee-farming.

Case Studies of Single Women

Case1 “I have three daughters and they are still in school. A few months ago, my husband passed away in an accident. With his death, we lost our source of income too. It has been difficult to take care of both household and school expense of my children. We just have a small plot of land to grow vegetables but the earning is very little. My health has also deteriorated but I can’t afford the treatment.” (……… Ghale, Idu, Gangajamuna Rural Municipality Ward No: 4)

Case2 “It has been 9 years since I lost contact with my husband who had gone abroad for work. We used to live on the top floor of our house, but it got destroyed in the earthquake. I and my two children are currently living in one room of the ground floor that belongs to my brother-in-law. An organization gave some money for rebuilding house, but I’ve used the money for my children’s education. I don’t have land and since I married a Dalit man, my maternal family has disowned me. I earn money by working in others field. I am also worried about registering the death certificate of my husband. What if he come back home?” (…………TamangAnras, Khaniyabas-4, Chowki)

Case3 “I have a daughter and a son. Since my husband brought his second wife home, eight years ago, I’ve had to look after my children. Ever since that day, my family members have shunned me. I also do not receive any support from my husband, nor do I have any land in my name. I work as a daily labour to support my children. The earthquake destroyed my home and although financial assistance was provided for rebuilding, I didn’t get any since my husband and his second wife took the money.” (………..Tamang, Khaniyabas-2)

53

3.3 Result from People with Disability (PWDs) 3.3.1 Background characteristics of Disable person Just more than a fifth (21%) of disabled people were aged 65 years or above followed by 15-24 years (19%) and less than 15 years (16%). Three out of five of them (64%) were male. With regards to educational status, more than two-third (70%) of disabled people were illiterate and only 3 percentof them had completed secondary level of education. Slightly more than a third (35%) of disabled people were household heads. Regarding the type of disability, nearly two-third (64%) disabled had difficulty while walking or climbing steps followed by difficulty with self-care such as washing all over or dressing (34%) and difficulty with communicating (32%). When asked about any additional type of vulnerability, it was found that an overwhelming majority of the disabled (88%) were elderly too and a quarter of them (25%) were extremely poor. A higher proportion of the single women from Gangajamuna (34%) compared to Gajuri (22%) and Khaniyabas (16%) were extremely poor. More than half (54%) of disabled were never married while more than a third (36%) were married at the time of study. In regards to occupation, nearly a half (45%) of the disabled people were unable to perform any work while above two-fifth of them (41%) were involved in agriculture. The proportion of disable people engaged in agriculture was comparatively higher in Khaniyabas (47%) than Gajuri and Gangajamuna (38% each).

Table 29: Background characteristics of Disable person Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Less than 15 years 12 15.8 22 16.4 16 16.2 50 16.2 15-24 years 16 21.1 26 19.4 16 16.2 58 18.8 25-34 years 6 7.9 9 6.7 13 13.1 28 9.1 Age group 35-44 years 9 11.8 15 11.2 10 10.1 34 11.0 45-54 years 7 9.2 16 11.9 19 19.2 42 13.6 55-64 years 11 14.5 12 9.0 10 10.1 33 10.7 65 and above 15 19.7 34 25.4 15 15.2 64 20.7 Female 26 34.2 59 44.0 38 38.4 123 39.8 Sex Male 50 65.8 75 56.0 61 61.6 186 60.2 Illiterate 52 68.4 93 69.4 71 71.7 216 69.9 Informal Education 5 6.6 9 6.7 9 9.1 23 7.4 Educational Basic Education (Class 15 19.7 28 20.9 16 16.2 59 19.1 status 1-8) Secondary (9-12) 3 3.9 4 3.0 3 3.0 10 3.2 Masters and Above 1 1.3 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 HHs Head 31 40.8 44 32.8 32 32.3 107 34.6 Status in HHs HHs members 45 59.2 90 67.2 67 67.7 202 65.4 Difficulties with seeing 15 19.7 18 13.4 10 10.1 43 13.9 even if wearing glasses Difficulties with hearing even with a 9 11.8 35 26.1 11 11.1 55 17.8 hearing aid Difficulties with walking or climbing 47 61.8 86 64.2 64 64.6 197 63.8 steps Type of Difficulties with disability * remembering or 18 23.7 43 32.1 19 19.2 80 25.9 concentrating Difficulties with self- care such as washing 26 34.2 54 40.3 25 25.3 105 34.0 all over or dressing Difficulties with communicating (using 22 28.9 48 35.8 29 29.3 99 32.0 your usual language)

54

Multiple disability 11 14.5 16 11.9 19 19.2 46 14.9 Difficulties with both 3 2.2 3 1.0 seeing and hearing Intellectual disability 9 11.8 11 8.2 6 6.1 26 8.4 Psychosocial disability 13 17.1 31 23.1 17 17.2 61 19.7 Others 4 5.3 4 3.0 5 5.1 13 4.2 Single Women 7 9.2 12 9.0 13 13.1 32 10.4 Any Elderly 70 92.1 110 82.1 91 91.9 271 87.7 additional type IDP 0 0 1 0.7 0 0 1 0.3 of Extreme Poor 17 22.4 45 33.6 16 16.2 78 25.2 vulnerability* No additional 1 1.3 14 10.4 5 5.1 20 6.5 vulnerability Single/Never married 35 46.1 76 56.7 55 55.6 166 53.7 Current Married 32 42.1 41 30.6 37 37.4 110 35.6 Marital Status Divorced/separate 1 1.3 2 1.5 0 0 3 1.0 Widow/Widower 8 10.5 15 11.2 7 7.1 30 9.7 Agriculture 29 38.2 51 38.1 47 47.5 127 41.1 Business 1 1.3 0 0 8 8.1 9 2.9 Occupation of Daily Wage labor 1 1.3 3 2.2 0 0 4 1.3 PWD Remittance 0 0 0 0 3 3.0 3 1.0 Unable to do any work 39 51.3 68 50.7 33 33.3 140 45.3 Other 6 7.9 12 9.0 8 8.1 26 8.4 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.3.2 Family members of PWD in household by age group The family members of People with disability were categorized into different age groups. It was found that more than one-sixth (18%) household had one member of 0-4 years and more than a fifth HHs (24%) also had one member of 5-18 years. Similarly, a third households (33%) had three members of age group 19-39 years. More than a fourth (26%) households had two members of age group 40-59 years. More than a quarter (29%) and about a fourth (23%) households had one and two members aged 60 and above respectively.

Table 30: Family members of PWD in household by age group Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % None 51 67.1 105 78.4 77 77.8 233 75.4 One 17 22.4 20 14.9 19 19.2 56 18.1 0-4 years Two 5 6.6 6 4.5 3 3.0 14 4.5 Three 3 3.9 3 2.2 0 0 6 1.9 None 40 52.6 55 41.0 36 36.4 131 42.4 One 15 19.7 29 21.6 29 29.3 73 23.6 Two 10 13.2 30 22.4 18 18.2 58 18.8 5-18 years Three 10 13.2 14 10.4 9 9.1 33 10.7 Four 0 0 6 4.5 6 6.1 12 3.9 Five 1 1.3 0 0 1 1.0 2 0.6 None 18 23.7 45 33.6 30 30.3 93 30.1 One 24 31.6 27 20.1 20 20.2 71 23.0 Two 25 32.9 35 26.1 34 34.3 94 30.4 19-39 years Three 3 3.9 13 9.7 12 12.1 28 9.1 Four 5 6.6 9 6.7 1 1.0 15 4.9 Five 0 0 2 1.5 1 1.0 3 1.0 Six and more 1 1.3 3 2.2 1 1.0 5 1.6 None 38 50.0 64 47.8 43 43.4 145 46.9 40-59 years One 19 25.0 41 30.6 13 13.1 73 23.6 Two 17 22.4 25 18.7 40 40.4 82 26.5

55

Three 2 2.6 2 1.5 2 2.0 6 1.9 Four 0 0 2 1.5 1 1.0 3 1.0 None 41 53.9 54 40.3 52 52.5 147 47.6 One 24 31.6 45 33.6 22 22.2 91 29.4 60 and above Two 11 14.5 34 25.4 23 23.2 68 22.0 years Three 0 0 1 0.7 1 1.0 2 0.6 Four 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 1 0.3 None 1 1.3 4 3.0 2 2.0 7 2.3 One 11 14.5 7 5.2 4 4.0 22 7.1 Two 8 10.5 23 17.2 14 14.1 45 14.6 60 and above Three 15 19.7 19 14.2 16 16.2 50 16.2 years Four 14 18.4 23 17.2 14 14.1 51 16.5 Five 6 7.9 14 10.4 14 14.1 34 11.0 Six and more 21 27.6 44 32.8 35 35.4 100 32.4 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0

3.3.3 Disability details It was found that the disability of 7 percent of people was resulted due to the consequence of earthquake 2072. Slightly more than three-fifth of disabled people (61%) had obtained government disability card, the proportion being lowest in Gangajamuna (55%). Among those who had obtained card, it was found that almost two-fifth (39%) people had red card followed by blue card (29%) and yellow card (21%) based on their disability. Similarly, almost two-fifth (39%) disabled people had red card. Three in four disabled people (75%) who had obtained government card were receiving social security allowances on regular basis. People who had not obtained disability card were further asked about the reasons behind it. In this regard, nearly three-fifth (56%) of them said due to difficulty to reach service center. Likewise, more than two-fifth of them (44%) mentioned they didn't know about it followed by unable to go there due to financial burden (21%). In regards to the type of aid received, one in seven (14%) received crutches, 12 percent of them received wheel chair whereas almost a fifth of them (19%) mentioned they did not needed any types of aids. Just above a tenth (11%) of disabled people who were unable to walk had wheelchair or crutches however, none of them had ramp facility. Only 4 percent of the household (n=11) had disabled friendly toilet at their home.

Table 31: Disability and access to social services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Disability acquired Yes 2 2.6 9 6.7 12 12.1 23 7.4 due to the No 74 97.4 125 93.3 87 87.9 286 92.6 earthquake 2072 Have government Yes 51 67.1 74 55.2 64 64.6 189 61.2 disability card No 25 32.9 60 44.8 35 35.4 120 38.8 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Red 25 49.0 33 44.6 15 23.4 73 38.6 Category of Blue 11 21.6 24 32.4 20 31.3 55 29.1 government Yellow 8 15.7 11 14.9 21 32.8 40 21.2 disability card White 7 13.7 6 8.1 8 12.5 21 11.1 Total 51 100.0 74 100.0 64 100.0 189 100.0 Received any Yes 37 72.5 63 85.1 41 64.1 141 74.6 social security allowances from No 14 27.5 11 14.9 23 35.9 48 25.4 government on regular basis Total 51 100.0 74 100.0 64 100.0 189 100.0 Difficulty to reach Reason for not 8 57.1 4 36.4 15 65.2 27 56.3 in service centre receiving any Do not know about social security 3 21.4 6 54.5 12 52.2 21 43.8 it

56 allowances from Unable to go there government yet * due to financial 0 0 2 18.2 8 34.8 10 20.8 burden No one to go along 0 0 0 0 4 17.4 4 8.3 with Other 5 35.7 5 45.5 3 13.0 13 27.1 Total 14 100.0 11 100.0 23 100.0 48 100.0 Difficulty to reach 5 20.0 26 43.3 18 51.4 49 40.8 in service center Do not know about 15 60.0 38 63.3 24 68.6 77 64.2 it Reason for not Unable to go there receiving disability due to financial 7 28.0 5 8.3 22 62.9 34 28.3 card from the burden government yet* No one to go along 1 4.0 2 3.3 4 11.4 7 5.8 with Not required 2 8.0 2 3.3 4 11.4 8 6.7 Other 6 24.0 10 16.7 1 2.9 17 14.2 Total 25 100.0 60 100.0 35 100.0 120 100.0 Hearing Device 5 6.6 9 6.7 13 13.1 27 8.7 Glasses / magnifying glass 3 3.9 5 3.7 2 2.0 10 3.2 etc. Received types of Crutches 9 11.8 12 9.0 22 22.2 43 13.9 aids to help with Wheel chair 6 7.9 11 8.2 20 20.2 37 12.0 daily activities* White cane 10 13.2 4 3.0 10 10.1 24 7.8 Artificial 6 4.5 4 4.0 10 3.2 limb/hand Not necessary 16 21.1 25 18.7 19 19.2 60 19.4 Any other(specify) 32 42.1 77 57.5 30 30.3 139 45.0 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Have wheel chair Yes 14 18.4 13 9.7 8 8.1 35 11.3 or crutches / other No 47 61.8 75 56.0 50 50.5 172 55.7 aid if unable to NA 15 19.7 46 34.3 41 41.4 102 33.0 walk Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Don’t move 8 17.0 16 21.3 13 26.0 37 21.5 Someone in family Way/means of 12 25.5 21 28.0 8 16.0 41 23.8 help to move movement Move by crawling 9 19.1 23 30.7 20 40.0 52 30.2 Other 18 38.3 15 20.0 9 18.0 42 24.4 Total 47 100.0 75 100.0 50 100.0 172 100.0 Have ramp facilities if have a No 61 100.0 88 100.0 58 100.0 207 100.0 wheelchair Total 61 100.0 88 100.0 58 100.0 207 100.0 Way of moving in a wheel chair in . absence of ramp facility Total Have a disabled Yes 1 1.3 4 3.0 6 6.1 11 3.6 friendly toilet at No 75 98.7 130 97.0 93 93.9 298 96.4 home Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Reason for not Not needed 27 36.0 22 16.9 21 22.6 70 23.5 having disabled Financial barrier 37 49.3 60 46.2 35 37.6 132 44.3 friendly toilet at Don't know how to 7 9.3 41 31.5 33 35.5 81 27.2 home build

57

Don't have toilet 3 4.0 2 1.5 2 2.2 7 2.3 Other 1 1.3 5 3.8 2 2.2 8 2.7 Total 75 100.0 130 100.0 93 100.0 298 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.3.4 Perception on difficulty of a disable members The perception of disabled people regarding the difficulty to access different services was also assessed in the study. It was found that more than a third (35%) of the disabled have never attended schools and more than a fifth of them (23%) said that it was very difficult for them to go to school. Similarly, it was very difficult for more than half (52%) of the disabled people to receive health care. A higher proportion of the disabled people from Khaniyabas (19%) compared to Gajuri (7%) and Gangajamuna (4%) reported of never visiting the health care center. Likewise, more than two-fifth (42%) of the disabled mentioned that it was very difficult for them to receive allowances, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (50%). Table 32: Perception on difficulty of a disabled members Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Perception of Very difficult 13 17.1 39 29.1 20 20.2 72 23.3 difficulty of a Little difficult 7 9.2 29 21.6 15 15.2 51 16.5 disabled I never go to 26 34.2 52 38.8 29 29.3 107 34.6 member/other such school member in the No difficult 2 2.6 2 1.5 3 3.0 7 2.3 family to go to School Not applicable 28 36.8 12 9.0 32 32.3 72 23.3 Perception of Very difficult 44 57.9 75 56.0 41 41.4 160 51.8 difficulty of a Little difficult 21 27.6 46 34.3 30 30.3 97 31.4 disabled I never go to health 5 6.6 5 3.7 19 19.2 29 9.4 member/other such care center member in the No difficult 4 5.3 8 6.0 4 4.0 16 5.2 family to receive Health Care Not applicable 2 2.6 0 0 5 5.1 7 2.3 Perception of Very difficult 27 35.5 67 50.0 35 35.4 129 41.7 difficulty of a Little difficult 18 23.7 40 29.9 26 26.3 84 27.2 disabled I never go to take 4 5.3 3 2.2 9 9.1 16 5.2 member/other such allowance member in the No difficult 12 15.8 15 11.2 4 4.0 31 10.0 family to receive allowances Not applicable 15 19.7 9 6.7 25 25.3 49 15.9 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0

3.3.5 Difficulty faced The type of difficulties faced by disabled people was also assessed in the study. Majority (77%) of the disabled people had faced some kinds of difficulties due to their disability and this proportion was highest in Khaniyabas (81%). Figure 17: Faced some kinds of difficulties because of disability Figure 17: Faced some kinds of difficulties because of disability 100 80.8 76.3 75.4 77.3 80

60 % 40

20

0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

58

When they were further asked about the type of difficulty, more than four-fifth of them (82%) said that it was financial hardship followed by difficulty in services access (48%). Similarly, more than two-fifth of the disabled each faced social discrimination (40%) and exclusion in social events (41%).

Figure 18: Types of difficulties faced

Figure 18: Types of difficulties faced 100 82.4 80

60 48.5 40.2 40.6 40 32.6 34.7 27.6

20 7.9 0.8 0 Financial Social Did not get Poor health Cannot go to Domestic Difficulty in Exclusion in all Other hardship discrimination married school violence services access events

Table 33: Difficulty faced by PWDs Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Faced some kinds Yes 58 76.3 101 75.4 80 80.8 239 77.3 of difficulties because of No 18 23.7 33 24.6 19 19.2 70 22.7 disability Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Financial hardship 39 67.2 88 87.1 70 87.5 197 82.4 Social 24 41.4 12 11.9 60 75.0 96 40.2 discrimination Did not get married 13 22.4 31 30.7 34 42.5 78 32.6 Poor health 24 41.4 21 20.8 21 26.3 66 27.6 Cannot go to Types of 18 31.0 41 40.6 24 30.0 83 34.7 school difficulties faced* Domestic violence 8 13.8 4 4.0 7 8.8 19 7.9 Difficulty in 31 53.4 59 58.4 26 32.5 116 48.5 services access Exclusion in all 18 31.0 42 41.6 37 46.3 97 40.6 events Other 1 1.7 1 1.0 0 0 2 .8 Total 58 100.0 101 100.0 80 100.0 239 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.3.6 Place of Treatment in case of sick and availability of ramp facility It was found that three-fifth (60%) of disabled people seek health care from health post in case of illness followed by hospital (26%). But only 4 percent of those health facility had ramps.

59

Table 34: Place of treatment in case of sick and availability of ramp facility Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Health post 39 51.3 83 61.9 62 62.6 184 59.5 Medical 2 2.6 2 1.5 22 22.2 26 8.4 Place to seek Hospital 34 44.7 36 26.9 12 12.1 82 26.5 care/treatment Traditional during illness 0 0 2 1.5 2 2.0 4 1.3 healers Others 1 1.3 11 8.2 1 1.0 13 4.2 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0 Yes 7 9.2 2 1.5 2 2.0 11 3.6 Have ramp facilities No 69 90.8 132 98.5 97 98.0 298 96.4 Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0

3.3.7 Availability of ramp facility in local governing authorities More than two-fifth (43%) disabled people visit local governing authorities sometimes (1-5times a year) while more than a fifth visited local governing authorities frequently (23%). However, only 2 percent (n=5) of local governing authorities had ramps.

Table 35: Availability of ramp facility in local governing authorities: Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Frequently (every 21 27.6 25 18.7 24 24.2 70 22.7 Frequency of 2 months or more) visiting to local Sometimes (1- 5 40 52.6 59 44.0 34 34.3 133 43.0 governing times a year) authorities for any Rarely (less than 4 5.3 41 30.6 23 23.2 68 22.0 services once a year) Don't visit 11 14.5 9 6.7 18 18.2 38 12.3 Availability of Yes 3 3.9 1 0.7 1 1.0 5 1.6 ramp facilities in local governing No 73 96.1 133 99.3 98 99.0 304 98.4 authorities Total 76 100.0 134 100.0 99 100.0 309 100.0

3.3.8 Access to school for disable children Only 4 percent (n=12) disabled children out of 309 had access to school and although accessible all schools except one did not have ramp facilities. Those respondents who said disabled children did not have access to school were asked for the reasons behind it. In response, more than two-fifth of them (42%) mentioned children did not go to the school due to the absence of ramp facilities in school followed by absence of wheel chair (25%). The study further explored the availability of disable friendly toilets in the school. In this regard, it is discouraging to note that large majority of the schools (92%) where disable children study lacked disable friendly toilets. Similarly, two-third of the schools (67%) where disable children study lacked disable friendly teaching learning mechanism.

60

Table 36: Access to school for disable children Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Disable child having Yes 1 1.3 4 3.0 7 7.1 12 3.9 access to school No 75 98.7 130 97.0 92 92.9 297 96.1 Other students and Very nice 1 100.0 0 0 1 14.3 2 16.7 teacher's behavior Nice 0 0 2 50.0 0 0 2 16.7 with the disable Fair 0 0 2 50.0 6 85.7 8 66.7 child in the school Availability of ramp Yes 0 0 0 0 1 14.3 1 8.3 facilities in the school where disable No 1 100.0 4 100.0 6 85.7 11 91.7 children study No Ramp 1 100.0 1 25.0 3 42.9 5 41.7 Reason for the disable No wheel children not visiting 0 0 1 25.0 2 28.6 3 25.0 chair the school Others 0 0 2 50.0 2 28.6 4 33.3 Availability of Yes 0 0 0 0 1 14.3 1 8.3 disable friendly toilets in the school No 1 100.0 4 100.0 6 85.7 11 91.7 where disable children study Availability of Yes 0 0 0 0 4 57.1 4 33.3 disable friendly teaching learning mechanism in the No 1 100.0 4 100.0 3 42.9 8 66.7 school where disable children study Total 1 100.0 4 100.0 7 100.0 12 100.0

3.3.9 Knowledge on right and social inclusion With regards to knowledge on rights and social inclusion, only 3 percent (n=9) of the disabled people had knowledge about their rights and social inclusion. Similarly, it was found that only 5 percent (n=17) of the disabled people were affiliated with any rights based organization.

Table 37: Knowledge on right and social inclusion Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Knowledge/information Yes 5 6.6 3 2.2 1 1.0 9 2.9 on the rights of person with disability and social No 71 93.4 131 97.8 98 99.0 300 97.1 inclusion Affiliation with any Yes 14 18.4 1 0.7 2 2.0 17 5.5 rights based organization No 62 81.6 133 99.3 97 98.0 292 94.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 309 100.0

3.3.10 Need of services The interest and needs of disabled people was also investigated in the study. More than two-fifth of the disable person (44%) reported that they were not able to work. Almost two-fifth (39%) and more than a fifth (23%) of the disabled people had interest to work in poultry production and vegetable production respectively for improving their livelihood. When asked about types of support that might help to solve the problems of disabled people, just above three-fifth (61%) disabled people said that they needed help to access services followed by support for investment/microwaving (39%) and support in physical logistics like wheelchair, glasses, hearing machines etc. (28%)

61

Table 38: Need of services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Disable N % N % N % N % Vegetable production 13 17.1 16 11.9 43 43.4 72 23.3 Poultry production 19 25.0 36 26.9 65 65.7 120 38.8 Dairy production 4 3.0 3 3.0 7 2.3 Off-farm activities like 6 7.9 13 9.7 41 41.4 60 19.4 marketing Non-farm activities such as tailoring, retail 9 11.8 17 12.7 15 15.2 41 13.3 shop, hotel, etc Goat farming 12 15.8 3 2.2 2 2.0 17 5.5 Area of Financial support 3 3.9 8 6.0 3 3.0 14 4.5 interest to Training for skill improve your 2 1.5 1 1.0 3 1.0 development livelihood* Buffalo farming 1 1.3 1 .3 Petty shop 1 1.3 1 .7 2 .6 Job 1 1.0 1 .3 Disable friendly school 1 .7 1 .3 Wheel chair with 1 1.3 1 .7 2 .6 remote Nothing 2 1.5 2 .6 Not able to work 20 26.3 55 41.0 7 7.1 82 26.5 Don't know 5 6.6 5 3.7 10 3.2 Help to access services 38 50.0 86 64.7 63 63.6 187 60.7 (cards, tranches etc.) Advocacy within 13 17.1 17 12.8 33 33.3 63 20.5 stakeholders Support for education 3 3.9 7 5.3 23 23.2 33 10.7 access Types of Physical logistics support that support (Wheelchair, might help to 21 27.6 34 25.6 30 30.3 85 27.6 glasses, hearing solve the machine, sticks) problems* Advocacy for lands 3 3.9 6 4.5 1 1.0 10 3.2 Support for skills 11 14.5 24 18.0 28 28.3 63 20.5 training Support for microwaving / 39 51.3 68 51.1 12 12.1 119 38.6 investment

Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 309 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.3.11 Information from qualitative study Current situation People with disability (PWDs) in FGD mentioned that they had to compromise in various activities and opportunities because of their physical incapability. "I don’t even participate in programs as it is very difficult for me to walk" A man said sadly. They were regularly receiving incentives. They also told that no any special programs were organized for them till now.

Stigma and discrimination Most of the FGD participants from Khaniyabas rural municipality mentioned that they were treated well and there was no such prevailing discrimination. "People talk to me normally and they behave well. I haven't heard any indecent words till now." A participant said to elaborate.

62

Need assessment FGD participants mentioned that support in investment for any income generating activities would be beneficial. Some of the participants mentioned that they were interested in agriculture. "I am sustaining through poultry farming. It would be better if I get some more hens", a man from disabled FGD group said optimistically. "He cannot do anything because of his poor health. He needs to visit health facility very frequently and is alive just because of medicines. He needs support for his treatment." a woman said in favor of a participant with disability and also many physiological problems." They said that the incentives they receive was not merely enough to fulfill their needs.

Participants mentioned that it would be better if they get following support for upliftment of quality of quality of life • Support by government for medical treatment • Support in investment for poultry farming • Increasing the welfare scheme.

Case Stories of Disabled People Case 1 “I am not able to walk without support. I have never been to the hospital to treat my legs and the condition of my legs are getting worse day by day. My husband passed away a long time ago. I have 4 sons but they live in separate houses. Currently, I am living with my second eldest son. To this day, I do not have my citizenship papers or a disabled-person card. As I cannot walk for a long period of time and with the road access being far from my home, I was not able to go to the government office to process my papers. It is too expensive to call an ambulance. If I could get an allowance, it would be like living on my own income. I would feel less dependent on my sons. But I do not know how to make my citizenship papers as it requires me to go to the office. Our financial status is also very weak, we only manage to harvest one kind of crop in 8 months.” (…..Maya Tamang, 71 years, Gajuri 8, Gyalguney)

Case 2 “My legs don’t work and I have to rely on crutches. In the recent past, I stayed at the hospital for six months for my treatment. I had to sell our buffaloes and goats. I stopped treatment mid- way since I couldn’t afford it. I was told that I could get and identity card for disabled people, but I have no idea about the process and who to talk to. For now, to take care of household expenses, my son is working. He has had to put his study on hold after SEE. I also borrowed a goat from my neighbour.” (……Kami ( B.K), 48 years, Gangajamuna Rural Municipality- 2)

Case 3 “My daughter is not able to walk, eat, or even clean herself. She is only 15 years of age. We do not have a house, so we are currently staying in a temporary hut. My older sister and I (Reeta’s mother) are the caretakers. We are a very poor. My husband lives separately from us. He blamed me for giving birth to a disabled child and so as punishment, he keeps, me and my two daughters separate from him. It is very difficult for the three of us to obtain even two meals per day. My older daughter and I do odd jobs around the village to make ends meet. How can I carry on like this for the rest of my life – with a disabled daughter and a weak financial condition. I just hope that I will be able to get some help for my daughter.” (ReetaChepang, 15 years, Gajuri Rural Municipality, Ward no.4)

Case 4 “I am an unmarried, disabled person from a very poor family. I live with my elderly mother and am her sole caretaker. I cannot walk and my disability is the reason that I am unmarried.

63

Our house was completely ruined by the earthquake of 2072 BS. We received the first installment but the money got lost. To make things worse my elderly mother’s health is deteriorating day by day.” (….Tamang, 45 years, Gangajamuna Rural Municipality, ward no.2)

Case 5 “Suman is my one and only son. He is unable to walk, sometimes he can’t recognize people and is unable to eat by himself. I have taken him to different places for treatment but it has all been unsuccessful so far. My husband left me and married another woman after the birth of our disabled son. His new family and my family do not get along with each other. I run the house on my own. Our house has only had a DPC after the earthquake. I often cry by myself thinking about my son’s situation. I find it difficult to make ends meet as I am the sole caretaker of my son. There often isn’t enough to eat as I am unable to work. The village and society have never offered me a helping hand. I need a wheelchair for my son and financial support for his medical treatment.” (SumanBhandari, 15 years, Gajuri Rural Municipality, ward no.1)

3.4 Result from Elderly

3.4.1 Background characteristics of Elderly It was found that more than two-fifth of the elderly people (43%) were aged 70-79 years. Similarly more than two-third of them (36%) belonged to age-group 80-89 years. Overall, the proportion of female elderly (53%) was slightly higher than males (47%). The proportion of female elderly participating in the study was comparatively higher in Khaniyabas (68%) than other rural municipalities (Gangajamuna =54%) and Gajuri=44%). It is notable that large majority of the elderly were illiterate (90%). Only two elderly from Khaniyabas while one-tenth or more from Gangajamuna (10%) and Gajuri (14%) respectively were literate. Nearly three-fourth of the elderly (71%) were household heads. The elderly women were asked if they had any other additional vulnerability. Nearly more than a third of the respondents (36%) reported of being single women followed by extremely poor (35%) and disable (15%). The proportion of elderly who were also single women was higher in Khaniyabas (54%) than in Gajuri (32%) and Gangajamuna (31%). Nearly a half of the elderly (46%) were currently married. Similarly, almost a half of them (47%) were widow/widower. Slightly above a half of the elderly (51%) were engaged in agriculture while two out of five of them reported that they were not able to work (40%). The proportion of the elderly having agriculture as the main occupation was higher in Khaniyabas (74%) compared to Gangajamuna (48%) and Gajuri (41%).

Table 39: Background characteristics of Elderly Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Elderly N % N % N % N % 60-69 26 12.1 15 9.4 6 5.6 47 9.8 70-79 95 44.4 63 39.4 50 46.3 208 43.2 Age group 80-89 70 32.7 65 40.6 40 37.0 175 36.3 90 and above 23 10.7 17 10.6 12 11.1 52 10.8 Female 95 44.0 87 54.4 73 67.6 255 52.7 Sex Male 121 56.0 73 45.6 35 32.4 229 47.3 Illiterate 187 86.6 145 90.6 106 98.1 438 90.5 Informal Education 28 13.0 12 7.5 1 0.9 41 8.5 Educational Basic Education (Class status 1 0.5 3 1.9 0 0 4 0.8 1-8) Secondary (9-12) 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 1 0.2 HHs Head 141 65.3 115 71.9 86 79.6 342 70.7 Status in HHs HHs members 75 34.7 45 28.1 22 20.4 142 29.3 Single Women 69 31.9 49 30.6 58 53.7 176 36.4 Disabled 32 14.8 26 16.3 17 15.7 75 15.5

64

IDP 19 8.8 4 2.5 4 3.7 27 5.6 Any other Extreme Poor 63 29.2 75 46.9 33 30.6 171 35.3 additional No additional vulnerability 82 38.0 48 30.0 21 19.4 151 31.2 vulnerability Single/Never married 17 7.9 6 3.8 9 8.3 32 6.6 Current Married 108 50.0 83 51.9 31 28.7 222 45.9 Marital Status Divorced/separate 2 .9 2 1.3 0 0 4 0.8 Widow/Widower 89 41.2 69 43.1 68 63.0 226 46.7 Agriculture 89 41.2 77 48.1 80 74.1 246 50.8 Business 3 1.4 2 1.3 5 4.6 10 2.1 Occupation of Daily Wage labor 6 2.8 8 5.0 0 0 14 2.9 PWD Retired 0 0 0 0 3 2.8 3 .6 Unable to do any work 108 50.0 68 42.5 19 17.6 195 40.3 Other (Specify) 10 4.6 5 3.1 1 .9 16 3.3 Total 216 100.0 160 100.0 108 100.0 484 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.4.2 Problems faced by Elderly The study explored information about the problems faced by the elderly. More than a half elderly (53%) had some difficulties with seeing (even if wearing glasses). Almost a tenth respondents (9%) had a lot of difficulties with seeing while five of them mentioned that they could not see at all. Almost two-fifth of the elderly (39%) had some difficulties with hearing (even with a hearing aid). One-tenth elderly (10%) had a lot of difficulties with hearing whereas four of them reported that they could not hear at all. Almost a half of the elderly people (47%) had some difficulties whereas one in seven of them (14%) had a lot of difficulties with walking or climbing steps. On the other hand, nine of them mentioned that they could not walk at all.

Mental abilities such as remembering or concentrating power of the elderly was also explored in the study. In this regard, more than a third of the elderly (37%) had some difficulties with remembering or concentrating. Nearly one in ten mentioned that they had lot of difficulties (8%) with remembering or concentrating whereas six respondents stated they could not remember or concentrate at all. Almost two-fifth of the elderly (39%) had some difficulties with self-care such as washing, dressing etc. More than a tenth of them (12%) had a lot of difficulties with self-caring. On the other hand, ten elderly (2%) mentioned that they could not self-care at all.

Table 40: Problems faced by Elderly Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Elderly N % N % N % N % Have No – no difficulty 107 49.5 45 28.1 28 25.9 180 37.2 difficulties with Yes-some difficulty 86 39.8 94 58.8 75 69.4 255 52.7 seeing (even if Yes – a lot of 21 9.7 20 12.5 3 2.8 44 9.1 wearing difficulty glasses) Cannot see at all 2 0.9 1 0.6 2 1.9 5 1.0 Have No – no difficulty 137 63.4 61 38.1 46 42.6 244 50.4 difficulties with Yes-some difficulty 54 25.0 80 50.0 55 50.9 189 39.0 hearing (even Yes – a lot of 23 10.6 18 11.3 6 5.6 47 9.7 with a hearing difficulty aid) Cannot see at all 2 0.9 1 0.6 1 0.9 4 0.8 No – no difficulty 99 45.8 42 26.3 37 34.3 178 36.8 Have Yes-some difficulty 82 38.0 90 56.3 58 53.7 230 47.5 difficulties with Yes – a lot of walking or 33 15.3 23 14.4 11 10.2 67 13.8 difficulty climbing steps Cannot see at all 2 0.9 5 3.1 2 1.9 9 1.9 Have No – no difficulty 128 59.3 72 45.0 62 57.4 262 54.1 difficulties with Yes-some difficulty 63 29.2 73 45.6 41 38.0 177 36.6

65 remembering or Yes – a lot of 22 10.2 13 8.1 4 3.7 39 8.1 concentrating difficulty Cannot see at all 3 1.4 2 1.3 1 0.9 6 1.2 Have No – no difficulty 117 54.2 57 35.6 55 50.9 229 47.3 difficulties with Yes-some difficulty 72 33.3 73 45.6 44 40.7 189 39.0 self-care, such Yes – a lot of 23 10.6 27 16.9 6 5.6 56 11.6 as washing all difficulty over or dressing Cannot see at all 4 1.9 3 1.9 3 2.8 10 2.1 Total 216 100.0 160 100.0 108 100.0 484 100.0

3.4.3 Social security allowance An overwhelming majority (90%) of the elderly had government ageing card, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (96%).

Figure 19: Have Government aging card Figure 19: Have Government aging card 95.6 100 85.6 88.9 89.7 80 60 % 40 20 0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

Those who lacked government ageing card were asked for the reasons for not having the card yet. More than two-fifth of the elderly (44%) mentioned that they did not know about the government ageing card. Above a quarter of them (26%) had difficulty to reach the service center while a tenth of them mentioned that they do not need the card. Among those who had card, large majority (90%) had received social security allowances provided by government. Similarly, those who had received social security allowances were asked about the amount of money received per month. More than three-fourth of them (76%) mentioned of getting NRs. 2000 per month as a social security allowance. The same group of respondents were further asked what things they do with the money they got as allowance. Majority of the elderly (81%) ate nutritious food followed by spent the money in medicines (71%) and spent in alcohol/ cigarette (21%). Those elderly, who did not received the social security allowance despite of having the card were asked for the reason for not receiving the money. Two-third of the elderly people (66%) mentioned that they were unaware about it.

Table 41: Social security allowance Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Elderly N % N % N % N % Have government Yes 185 85.6 153 95.6 96 88.9 434 89.7 aging card No 31 14.4 7 4.4 12 11.1 50 10.3 Total 216 100.0 160 100.0 108 100.0 484 100.0 Difficulty to reach 9 29.0 0 0 4 33.3 13 26.0 in service centre Do not know about Reason for not 16 51.6 3 42.9 3 25.0 22 44.0 it receiving Unable to go there government aging due to financial 1 3.2 1 14.3 2 16.7 4 8.0 card yet* burden No one to go along 1 3.2 0 0 1 8.3 2 4.0 with

66

Not required 2 6.5 1 14.3 2 16.7 5 10.0 Other (Specify) 7 22.6 2 28.6 5 41.7 14 28.0 Total 31 100.0 7 100.0 12 100.0 50 100.0 Received social Yes 185 85.6 150 93.8 99 91.7 434 89.7 security allowances No 31 14.4 10 6.3 9 8.3 50 10.3 provided by government Total (NPR) 216 100.0 160 100.0 108 100.0 484 100.0 500 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 Amount of money 600 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 received per month 800 0 0 1 0.7 0 0 1 0.2 as social security 1000 16 8.6 16 10.7 1 1.0 33 7.6 allowances by the 2000 130 70.3 103 68.7 98 99.0 331 76.3 government 4000 5 2.7 2 1.3 0 0 7 1.6 8000 32 17.3 28 18.7 0 0 60 13.8 Total 185 100.0 150 100.0 99 100.0 434 100.0 Eat nutritious food 150 81.1 125 83.3 76 76.8 351 80.9 Give it to sons/ Things done with 38 20.5 6 4.0 32 32.3 76 17.5 daughters the money received Spend in alcohol/ as social security 18 9.7 43 28.7 29 29.3 90 20.7 cigarette allowance* Spend in medicines 108 58.4 128 85.3 74 74.7 310 71.4 Others 16 8.6 14 14.1 30 6.9 Total 185 100.0 150 100.0 99 100.0 434 100.0 Reason for not I don’t know about 25 80.6 4 40.0 4 44.4 33 66.0 receiving money it (social security Another family 0 0 1 10.0 0 0 1 2.0 allowance) after member collects it having ageing card Others 6 19.4 5 50.0 5 55.6 16 32.0 Total 31 100.0 10 100.0 9 100.0 50 100.0

3.4.4 Chronic diseases The study sought information about the experience of chronic diseases among the elderly people. In this regard, almost a fifth of the respondents (18%) had experienced chronic diseases. The proportion of elderly who suffered from chronic disease was highest in Gajuri (23%) and lowest in Gangajamuna (12%). Those respondents were further asked about the types of chronic diseases they suffered from. The common diseases experienced by them were asthma, gout (uric acid), eye problem, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes etc. (table not shown). Majority of the elderly (82%) who experienced chronic diseases had visited to health center for the treatment.

Additionally, the study explored about any kinds of discrimination faced by the elderly who suffered chronic illness. Six of them admitted of having faced discrimination because of their chronic illness. Those who faced discrimination were further asked about the types of discrimination faced. A half of them (50%) each mentioned that they faces domestic violence and discrimination in health services accessibility. Awareness of the elderly people on human rights and social inclusion was also assessed in the study. It is quite discouraging to note that almost all elderly (98%) were unaware about human rights and social inclusion.

67

Table 42: Experience of Chronic diseases Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Elderly N % N % N % N % Have any chronic Yes 50 23.1 19 11.9 19 17.6 88 18.2 illness No 166 76.9 141 88.1 89 82.4 396 81.8 Total 216 100.0 160 100.0 108 100.0 484 100.0 Visit to health Yes 39 78.0 16 84.2 17 89.5 72 81.8 center for the treatment of the No 11 22.0 3 15.8 2 10.5 16 18.2 chronic illness Total 50 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 88 100.0 Suffered from any Yes 2 4.0 2 10.5 2 10.5 6 6.8 kind of discrimination No 48 96.0 17 89.5 17 89.5 82 93.2 because of your condition Total 50 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 88 100.0 Neglected in any 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 1 16.7 event No participation in decision making 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 1 16.7 Kinds of process discrimination Domestic violence 2 100.0 1 50.0 0 0 3 50.0 faced because of Discrimination in your condition* health service 0 0 2 100.0 1 50.0 3 50.0 access Discrimination in 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 1 16.7 food given Others 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 1 16.7 Total 2 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 6 100.0 Have any Yes 6 2.8 1 0.6 0 0 7 1.4 awareness on human rights and No 210 97.2 159 99.4 108 100.0 477 98.6 social inclusion Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 484 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.4.5 Need of services This study sought insight of the elderly people regarding their expectation of certain services that would fulfil their current needs. In this regard, they were asked about their areas of interest which needs support to improve their livelihoods. Slightly above a half of the elderly (51%) no desire to work further to improve their livelihood. A higher proportion of the elderly from Gangajamuna (62%) compared to Khaniyabas (49%) and Gajuri (43%) desired financial support. Similarly more than a fifth of the elderly (23%) expressed their interest over poultry production followed by vegetable production (18%) and off- farm activities like marketing (5%).

Moreover, the elderly people’s perception over the types of support that might help them to solve their problems was also assessed in the study. Almost a half elderly (49%) mentioned that they expect help/support to utilize the available services to them followed by support for some investment (35%) and physical logistics support like wheelchair, glasses, hearing machine, sticks etc. (20%).

68

Table 43: Need of services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Elderly N % N % N % N % Vegetable production 38 17.6 17 10.6 35 32.4 90 18.6 Poultry production 32 14.8 34 21.3 43 39.8 109 22.5 Dairy production 1 .5 2 1.3 3 2.8 6 1.2 Off-farm activities like 9 4.2 8 5.0 9 8.3 26 5.4 marketing Area of Non-farm activities such interest to as tailoring, retail shop, 1 .9 1 .2 improve hotel, etc your No desire to further work 93 43.1 100 62.5 53 49.1 246 50.8 livelihood* Goat farming 19 8.8 7 4.4 1 .9 27 5.6 Financial support 9 4.2 2 1.3 11 2.3 Training for skill 4 1.9 1 .6 5 1.0 development Bee farming 1 .6 1 .2 Not able to work 30 13.9 8 5.0 2 1.9 40 8.3 Help to access services 102 47.2 88 55.0 45 41.7 235 48.6 (cards, tranches etc) Advocacy within 16 7.4 29 18.1 17 15.7 62 12.8 stakeholders Support for education 0 0 2 1.3 8 7.4 10 2.1 Types of access support that Physical logistics support might help (Wheelchair, glasses, 35 16.2 39 24.4 21 19.4 95 19.6 to solve the hearing machine, sticks) problems* Advocacy for lands 10 4.6 2 1.3 6 5.6 18 3.7 Support for skills training 8 3.7 13 8.1 25 23.1 46 9.5 Support for microwaving 95 44.0 52 32.5 25 23.1 172 35.5 / investment Others 39 18.1 27 16.9 24 22.2 90 18.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 484 100.0

3.4.6 Information from qualitative study:

Current situation Most of the elderly people (FGD participants) stayed together with their children or family members. But the old ones, who don't have children or not staying together with their children were found more vulnerable. "This couple do not have children. They are somehow sustaining their livelihood through farming. But what about tomorrow when their hands will stop working?" an old man said in support of his friend, who could not utter a word and was just full of tears." Eligible elderly were receiving incentives on time. "There must be provision of receiving incentives at the age of 60, because at 70s our life is almost over, how long will we survive to receive the incentive after that? An old man recommended.

Need Assessment Most of the participants mentioned that they lack good health facility. "There is only one health post where all facilities and necessary drugs are not available. As the topography is difficult, there is no proper transportation. So, in case of emergency, the situation becomes horrible." participants said one after another. They mentioned that the land was not fertile. So, the crops production was not satisfactory. Even if they produced, hailstorm would destroy it. So, they were prone to food insecurity. "Even if we have money, we can't buy nutritious food because of lack of market." a participant added.

Efforts required for upliftment of their quality of life

69

Many elderly mentioned that they could do some work which needs less effort. So, it would be better if they were provided with training or other support for something like bee farming. Some also mentioned that they could do small business like running shops. Some old but energetic elderly mentioned that they can even do goat farming if they are provided with goats.

Suggestion and Recommendation: The group of elderly provided following suggestions and recommendations: • It would be better if there is availability of hospital ambulance because in case of emergency, they need to hire helicopter and the fair is too expensive. • Health facility should be expanded. • There must be provision of providing incentives at age 60, because 70s is too late.

Case Stories of Elderly People

Case1 “I have no family left and I live on my own. My body is bent double with age but I have to do some work to keep my livelihood going. My house is not earthquake resistant. There is no one to even prepare my meals for me or help out with household chores. Everyday life and every little task is very difficult for me.” (..Tamang, 85 years, Gajuri Rural Municipality)

Case2 (Elderly and single Women) “I only have one grandson who takes care of me. He works as a wage laborer and looks after me and the house. Since our financial condition is very weak, with the income he earns, it is a struggle to get money for food every day. I cannot walk, and my eyes are weak, and I stay at home the whole day. I have not been able to go and receive the government benefits for elderly either.” (…Maya Tamang, 83 years, Gajuri)

Case3 (Elderly and single Women) “I am 69 years old. My husband passed away four years ago. Since, I could not give birth to children, he married second wife from whom he had two sons and one daughter. I don’t have any other family members who can look after me. Though the government provided support for single women service, I get 4000 allowance, but it is not enough, as I suffer from blood pressure problems. After the earthquake, I have been living in a makeshift shack. My eldest step-son took the government provided financial assistance that was provided to me. He rebuilt my old house and started living there with his family. I didn’t receive any monetary support from them. I still have two more years before I can receive the government provided elderly financial allowance from the ward.” (…Tamang, 69 years, Khaniyabas-3, Bungchet, TamangTole)

3.5 Results from Poor Family

Verypoor family in this study means those families who have food sufficiency only for 3 months or less from their own production or by selling their production and buying food or purchasing food from any other income source.

3.5.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents of Poor Family More than three-fifth of the respondents from very poor family (63%) were male. More than two-fifth respondents (42%) were aged 65 years and above. Three-fifth respondents (60%) belonged to Janajati/Newar followed by Dalits (21%) and Brahmin/Chhetri (16%). Nearly, three out of five respondents (56%) were Hindu followed by Christian (29%). Nearly, three-fourth respondents (73%) were illiterate while one in seven of them (14%) had informal education. A higher proportion of the respondents from Gangajamuna (90%) compared to Gajuri (62%) and Khaniyabas (84%) were illiterate. Almost four-fifth (79%) respondents who were interviewed were household heads.

70

Table 44: Demographic characteristics of respondents of Poor Family Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Male 122 55.2 156 68.7 84 67.2 362 63.2 Sex Female 99 44.8 71 31.3 40 32.0 210 36.6 Other Gender 1 .8 1 .2 15-24 years 17 7.9 9 4.1 7 5.8 33 6.0 25-34 years 23 10.6 8 3.7 16 13.3 47 8.5 35-44 years 29 13.4 31 14.2 14 11.7 74 13.4 Age group 45-54 years 25 11.6 32 14.7 29 24.2 86 15.5 55-64 years 34 15.7 36 16.5 13 10.8 83 15.0 65 and above 88 40.7 102 46.8 41 34.2 231 41.7 Dalits 65 29.4 39 17.2 18 14.4 122 21.3 Janajati/Newar 94 42.5 142 62.6 106 84.8 342 59.7 Madhesi/Terai 1 .5 1 .2 Caste/Ethnicity Caste Muslim Caste 1 .5 1 .2 Brahmin/Chhetri 53 24.0 36 15.9 89 15.5 Others 7 3.2 10 4.4 1 .8 18 3.1 Hindu 183 82.8 125 55.1 12 9.6 320 55.8 Buddhist 18 8.1 27 11.9 41 32.8 86 15.0 Religion Muslim 1 .5 1 .2 Christian 18 8.1 75 33.0 71 56.8 164 28.6 Others 1 .5 1 .8 2 .3 Illiterate 137 62.0 191 84.1 90 72.0 418 72.9 Informal 50 22.6 13 5.7 20 16.0 83 14.5 Education Basic Education Educational 22 10.0 18 7.9 11 8.8 51 8.9 (Class 1-8) status Secondary (9-12) 11 5.0 5 2.2 3 2.4 19 3.3 Bachelor 1 .8 1 .2 Masters and 1 .5 1 .2 Above HHs Head 183 82.8 183 80.6 85 68.0 451 78.7 Status in HHs HHs members 38 17.2 44 19.4 40 32.0 122 21.3 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0

3.5.2 Source of HH Income More than a third respondents (36%) from poor family reported that they had no any income source. However more than a quarter of them (28%) earned through unskilled wage labor while only more than a tenth (13%) reported earning some money from skilled wage labor. Likewise almost one-sixth of the respondents (15%) mentioned that they earn from agriculture and livestock rearing, the proportion being highest in Gajuri (21%).

Table 45: Source of HH Income Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Skilled wage labor 48 21.7 21 9.3 5 4.0 74 12.9 Unskilled wage 70 31.7 45 19.8 43 34.4 158 27.6 Source of labor income Agriculture and 46 20.8 33 14.5 9 7.2 88 15.4 livestock rearing Micro enterprise 7 3.2 11 4.8 18 3.1

71

Government 4 1.8 5 2.2 1 .8 10 1.7 service Non-government 2 .9 2 1.6 4 .7 service Remittance 6 2.7 10 4.4 5 4.0 21 3.7 Others 55 24.9 84 37.0 24 19.2 163 28.4 No Income source 75 33.9 80 35.2 52 41.6 207 36.1 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.5.3 Amount of earning from HH Income Only 13 percent of the respondents reported earning some money from skilled wage labor. Three percent each mentioned earning NPR.10000-19999 and 50 thousands and more from skilled wage labor. On the other hand, more than a quarter of the respondents (28%) reported of earning from unskilled labor. Less than a tenth each (7%) mentioned of earning NPR. 10000-19999 and 50 thousand and more from unskilled wage labor. Similarly, only 6 percent respondents mentioned earning NRs. 10000-19999 from agriculture and livestock rearing. Earning from sources such as micro enterprise, government service, non-government service, and remittance was very negligible in terms of poor families. Regarding the total annual income, one out of five respondents reported of earning NPR. 50 thousands or more annually followed by NPR.20,000-29,999 (15%) and NPR. 10,000-19,999 (13%). (Annex table PF1).

3.5.4 Land holding status of HHs Majority of the poor HHs (71%) hold registered land. Registered land holding status was comparatively better in Gangajamuna (88%) than in Gajuri (79%) and Khaniyabas (73%). Out of the total HHs holding registered land, almost two-fifth of them (39%) had the registered land in the name of female member. Nearly three-fourth of the poor HHs (73%) had 1-4 ropanis of registered land in the name of female members. Similarly, more than a two-third of the HHs (70%) hold 1-4 ropanies of registered land in the name of male member. Just above a fifth of the poor HHs (21%) had non-registered land, the proportion being lowest in Gangajamuna (10%). Among them more the four-fifth of the poor HHs (86%) had 1-4 ropanies of non-registered land. (Annex table PF2).

3.5.5 On Farm and Off Farm The study sought information about on farm and off farm activities performed by the respondents from poor families. More than two-fifth of the respondents (42%) had kitchen garden at their home premises, the proportion being lowest in Khaniyabas (15%). Among them four out of five (80%) produced seasonal vegetables in their kitchen garden. The proportion of respondents producing seasonal vegetables in their kitchen garden was highest in Khaniyabas (85%) compared to other rural municipalities. Similarly, among those who produce seasonal vegetables in their kitchen garden, an overwhelming majority (89%) of them consumed produced vegetables to fulfill daily vegetables requirement. Three-fourth of them (75%) mentioned that the vegetables that they produced in their kitchen garden is only sufficient to fulfill daily vegetable requirement for 0-3 months. It is notable that only 3 percent (n=6) respondents mentioned selling of surplus vegetable after fulfilling HHs daily vegetable requirement. Among those who sold the surplus vegetables, a half of the respondents (50%) earned NRs. 5000-9999 annually by selling their surplus vegetables (Annex table PF3).

3.5.6 Commercial Farming It was found that only nearly a tenth respondents (8%) were engaged in commercial vegetable farming, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (25%). Among them also only 9 percent earned (6 percent earned NRS. Less than 5000 while 2 percent earned NRs. 10000 or more) annually by selling vegetables they farmed. Similarly, above two-fifth of them (41%) were engaged in cereal crops farming although only less than 10 percent of them earned some money annually by selling the cereal crops. The proportion of the respondents who sell cereal crops commercially was highest in Khaniyabas (60%) compared to other two rural municipalities. Negligible percent of poor family (<1%) were engaged in high value cash crops farming and commercial livestock (3%). Among the 16 respondents who reported

72 selling livestock, two reported earning NPR. 10,000 or more while one reported of earning less than 10,000. (Annex table PF4).

3.5.7 Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months The study investigated upon the coping strategy of the respondents from poor families who have food insufficiency for 12 months. Multiple coping strategies were recorded for this question. Majority of the respondents (81%) purchased food on credit. Three-fourth of the respondents (75%) relied on less expensive foods while more than two-third (70%) respondents managed food insufficiency by earning money from wage labor and buying food. Similarly, more than three-fifth of them (64%) borrowed food, or relied on help from a friend or relative while a third of them (34%) consumed seed stock kept for next season to cope food insufficient situation.

Table 46: Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Had food by earning money 149 69.6 150 66.1 65 79.3 364 69.6 from wage labour Rely on less preferred and less 188 87.9 170 74.9 35 42.7 393 75.1 expensive foods Borrow food, or rely on help from a 157 73.4 144 63.4 33 40.2 334 63.9 friend or relative Coping Purchase food on Strategies 197 92.1 198 87.2 30 36.6 425 81.3 credit Consume seed stock held for next 102 47.7 51 22.5 23 28.0 176 33.7 season Women members in the household ate less amount of 71 33.2 61 26.9 21 25.6 153 29.3 food compared to other members Total 214 100.0 227 100.0 82 100.0 523 100.0

3.5.8 Food Consumption Score (FCS) The study assessed the food consumption pattern of the poor families in the past week. The respondents were asked for how many days in a week their family members consumed certain categories of foods. Three-fourth respondents (75%) mentioned that their family members consumed the main staple foods such as maize, rice, millet, bread and other cereals groups for a whole week (7 days). A third of them (33%) stated their family members consumed pulses for a single day in a week. Nearly three-fourth of them (72%) reported of having consumed green vegetables for all seven days in the past week. It is notable that majority of the poor families (85%) did not consumed any fruits at all in the past week. Likewise, more than two-fifth (43%) of the poor families had consumed meat/meat products and fish for a single day while another less than a half (44%) did not consumed meat at all in the past week. It is also notable that majority of the families (89%) had no consumption of milk and milk products in the past week. Nearly three-fourth (71%) of the poor families had consumed oil for all seven days in the past week (Annex table PF5).

3.5.9 Government Service and Provision It is discouraging to note that almost all respondents from the poor families (96%) were completely unaware about the government schemes, program and provision provided for the vulnerable groups related to agriculture, livestock etc. 3 percent (n=20) respondents who had the knowledge were only

73 aware about less than two schemes. Among them also only seven respondents had received schemes/services from government offices. Among them 5 were satisfied while two were moderately satisfied with the services/schemes they received from the government.

Figure 20: Knowledge about Government schemes, program Figure 20: Knowledge about Government schemes, program

94.1 99.6 95.2 96.5 100 80 60 40

20 5.9 0.4 4.8 3.5 0 Gajuri Ganga Jamuna Khaniyabas Total

No Partial

Table 47: Government Service and Provision Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Knowledge about No 208 94.1 226 99.6 119 95.2 553 96.5 government schemes, program, provision Partial 13 5.9 1 .4 6 4.8 20 3.5 related to Agriculture, livestock and other Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Number of familiar government schemes Less than Two provision related to 13 100.0 1 100.0 6 100.0 20 100.0 Schemes agriculture,livestock, and other Total 13 100.0 1 100.0 6 100.0 20 100.0 Ever received Yes 4 30.8 3 50.0 7 35.0 schemes/services from government No 9 69.2 1 100.0 3 50.0 13 65.0 offices Total 13 100.0 1 100.0 6 100.0 20 100.0 Satisfied with the Satisfied 3 75.0 2 66.7 5 71.4 service and schemes Moderately received from 1 25.0 1 33.3 2 28.6 Satisfied government offices Total 4 100.0 3 100.0 7 100.0

3.5.10 Need of services This study sought information about the poor families regarding their need for certain services that would improve their quality of life. They were inquired about their areas of interest which needs support to improve their livelihoods. Nearly a half respondents expressed their interest on poultry production (49%) followed by vegetable production (28%) and off-farm activities like marketing (21%). A higher proportion of the respondents from Khaniyabas (73%) than Gangajamuna (37%) and Gajuri (47%) had interest in poultry production.

Furthermore, the respondent’s perception over the types of support that might help them to solve their problems were also assessed in the study. More than four fifth (85%) mentioned that they expect

74 help/support to access service for cards, tranches etc and support for microwaving/investment (71%) followed by support for skills training (27%).

Table 48:Need of services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (Ka) N % N % N % N % Vegetable 42 30.0 26 14.6 48 51.1 116 28.2 production Poultry 66 47.1 66 37.1 69 73.4 201 48.8 production Dairy production 3 1.7 3 3.2 6 1.5 Off-farm activities like 24 17.1 29 16.3 34 36.2 87 21.1 marketing Non-farm activities such as 6 4.3 13 7.3 5 5.3 24 5.8 Area of interest to tailoring, retail improve your shop, hotel, etc livelihood* Further education 58 41.4 87 48.9 22 23.4 167 40.5 Goat farming 28 20.0 11 6.2 8 8.5 47 11.4 Financial support 5 3.6 10 5.6 1 1.1 16 3.9 Training for skill 2 1.4 3 1.7 1 1.1 6 1.5 development Buffalo farming 1 .7 1 1.1 2 .5 Petty shop 1 .7 1 .6 2 .5 Nothing 4 2.9 6 3.4 10 2.4 Not able to work 25 17.9 51 28.7 10 10.6 86 20.9 Don't know 2 1.1 2 .5 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Help to access services (cards, 119 85.0 153 86.0 68 72.3 340 82.5 tranches etc) Advocacy within 33 23.6 48 27.0 19 20.2 100 24.3 stakeholders Support for 3 2.1 7 3.9 17 18.1 27 6.6 education access Physical logistics Types of support support that might help to (Wheelchair, 23 16.4 37 20.8 22 23.4 82 19.9 solve the glasses, hearing problems* machine, sticks) Advocacy for 19 13.6 10 5.6 15 16.0 44 10.7 lands Support for skills 25 17.9 47 26.4 38 40.4 110 26.7 training Support for microwaving / 121 86.4 140 78.7 35 37.2 296 71.8 investment Others (specify) 14 10.0 18 10.1 10 10.6 42 10.2 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0

3.5.11 Information from Key informant interviews

Vulnerability and its contributing factors “In my opinion, not all the people from vulnerable groups (single women, elderly, disabled, IDP, poor families) are left behind. Very poor and ignorant people who are unaware about their rights in every

75 group are actually more vulnerable. And, those who are actually left behind are not reached by many interventions.

Lack of awareness and lack of empowerment are the major contributing factors for vulnerability. People themselves are reluctant to take any opportunity as they underestimate themselves. Every effort is futile if people themselves are unwilling. Due to people’s perception towards any support or help they receive, they become dependent on outsiders support/help. They don’t stick to those interventions for so long and because of that, support become ineffective. There is no sustainability of any support as people are just greedy about transient benefits. Moreover, perpetuating factors are early marriage, alcoholism and smoking as these factors decrease productivity.” -Chairperson, Gajuri Rural municipality

“In case of women, they are left behind due to fear and insecurity. They are reluctant to express their views and opinions and problems as they fear that society would oppose and dislike their opinions and ultimately the person making such opinions. And our social norms, values and culture tend to exaggerate the situations. Lack of empowerment is also the reason why such groups are left behind.” -Chairperson, Women’s human rights protection Network, Gajuri

“Especially, poor Dalits are more vulnerable in our area. They are left behind because they are reluctant to get involved in any decision making process even if given the opportunity as they underestimate themselves because they have a sense of inferiority complex deeply entrenched in their community.

On the other hand, majority of the people are Tamang community and are involved in criminal activities. They don’t have nature of hardship and sincerity and so any efforts for the upliftment are fruitless. The attitude of those people towards any interventions or support they receive is not right. They only look for short term benefit and does not work for sustaining the support and ultimately uplifting their status.” -Chief administrative officer, Khaniyabas Rural municipality

Current situation and the way forward: “Our PHC have disabled friendly toilets and infrastructures. Also, I have permitted to construct new school buildings only if they have disabled friendly infrastructures” -Chairperson, Gajuri Rural municipality

“Although the current situation of vulnerable groups including single women is definitely improving but is still not satisfactory. Although, the participation in various programs is increasing, the participation is not productive enough.” -Chairperson, Women’s human rights protection Network, Gajuri

“Each year there are many especial programs for vulnerable targeted groups at the Palika level-income generating activities and also financial support. For eg.Hen distribution to poor and vulnerable groups. But in my opinion, the concept of disabled friendly school is all in vain unless the topography becomes favorable enough for the disabled group to reach to the school.” Chief administrative officer, Khaniyabas Rural municipality

“Dependency towards fund/outsiders support has increased among vulnerable population after the earthquake. On the other side, although people are receiving support for agriculture, the main problem is there is no good market to value their production. “ -Focal person, social development division, Gangajamuna

“Although there are many interventions going on for vulnerable groups from different organizations, there is no proper monitoring mechanism to ensure its sustainability. So, the outcome is never as expected. So, the continuity of the support should be effectively monitored by implementers.” -Ward chairperson, Phulkharka, Gangajamuna

76

“Training on activities that require less effort are specially beneficial for elderly, and disabled. For eg, knitting, bee-farming, candle making. It would be better if we get technological support in agriculture and also in irrigation as the production is not as expected.” -FCHV, Gangajamuna Rural municipality Case Stories of Person from Poor Families:

Case1 “I have two sons but they live separately. My house got damaged during the earthquake. I did receive a financial support of NPR 3,00,000, but it was not enough to rebuild the house. Also, I didn’t have money to complete it. The house is still half complete. l don’t have a safe shelter to live during the rains and storms.” (….Karki, 50 years, Gangajamuna-6, Baseri)

Case2 “When my first wife died during pregnancy, I left for India for work. Upon returning home, I found out that my parents had sold off all the property except a small piece of land. In my later years, I decided to marry again as I realized I would need a companion when I grow old. Although my wife has mental health issues, I married her with the hope that we might have a child who would take care of me in my old years. We have one daughter and she is 8 years old now. I used to work as a wage laborer to provide for my family and for my daughter’s education, but it is not enough to feed the family, let alone to pay for my daughter’s education. I have been sick for some time and haven’t been able to work. The only property I have is a small house with a polythene roof. In rainy days, the roof leaks.” (…Tamang, Khaniyabas-2, Patigho)

Case3 “I have one daughter and one son. My husband has a drinking habit and at time he also become very violent. I’ve been taking care of the house and my children by working as a wage labourer. The income has helped to feed my family. Our house got damaged by the earthquake, but we have not been able to re-built it again. Due to my husband’s drinking habit even my neighbors suggested me to run away with another man, but if I do that, who will look after my children?” (….ChhetriPariyar, 28 years, Gangajamuna-6, Deurali)

Case4 “My father passed away a month ago. He was the sole breadwinner for the family. During the earthquake, my legs got injured. Moving around is a challenge and my poor health makes it worse. Our house was damaged too and my father took out a loan to buy a land and build a new house. But after he passed away, things have been difficult. It is a constant struggle to earn money for food. My mother’s health has also deteriorated so she hasn’t been able to work as a wage laborer. I am still studying (in grade five) in the local school.” (…Gurung, 19 years, Gangajamuna Rural Municipality, Ward No-2, Helang)

Case5 “Both my son and daughters are physically challenged. Before the earthquake we lived in Pokhara in a rented accommodation. After my husband passed away during the earthquake, I returned back to the village and have been living in my brother-in-laws house. Since I do not own any property, the community have supported me with labour to build a small house in the plot of land that belongs to my youngest brother-in-law. I also have disabled-identity cards for both my children, and I also receive financial assistance for single woman provided by the government. Although I receive labour support from the community, I still not have the financial means to buy building materials. Also, I do not have source of income. I need some sort of livelihood support so that we do not have to struggle for our daily meals.” (…..Tamang, 65 years, Gangajamuna-1, Kichet)

77

3.6 Vulnerability of IDP

3.6.1 Background characteristics of IDP A total of 43 Internally Displaced People (IDP) were interviewed from the three respective rural municipalities. Slightly above a fifth of the IDP (21%) were aged 45-54 years while almost a fifth of them (19%) each belonged to 15-24 years and 55-64 years. Almost three-fifth of the IDP (58%) were male. More than a half of the IDP (54%) were illiterate whereas one-sixth of them (16%) had completed secondary level of education. Majority of the IDPs (77%) who were interviewed were HHs head. The IPD were asked if they had any other additional type of vulnerability. More than three-fifth of the IDP (62%) were extremely poor while around one-sixth of them (17%) were disable too. Almost three in five IDP (79%) were currently married. In regard to occupation, almost three-fifth of the IDP (58%) were engaged in agriculture followed by daily wage labor (28%).

Rural municipality-wise analysis showed that a higher percentage of the IDP participating from Khaniyabas were female (62%) while in other rural municipalities this proportion was higher for male participants. The proportion of the respondents who were illiterate was higher in Gangajamuna (67%) compared to Khaniyabas (50%) and Gajuri (45%). Comparatively a lower proportion of the respondents from Khaniyabas (37%) than Gajuri (90%) and Gangajamuna (80%) were HHs head. All respondents from Khaniyabas while three-fourth or less from Gajuri (75%) and Gangajamuna (73%) respectively were currently married. Eight IDP from Gajuri and 7 IDP from Gangajamuna were extremely poor. An overwhelming majority of the IDP from Gangajamuna (87%) and more than a half of them from Gajuri (55%) had agriculture as main occupation while the major occupation of the IDP from Khaniyabas was daily wage labor (63%).

Table 49: Background characteristics of IDP Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-IDP N % N % N % N % 15-24 years 5 25.0 2 13.3 1 12.5 8 18.6 25-34 years 3 15.0 0 0 3 37.5 6 14.0 35-44 years 3 15.0 3 20.0 0 0 6 14.0 Age group 45-54 years 2 10.0 4 26.7 3 37.5 9 20.9 55-64 years 4 20.0 3 20.0 1 12.5 8 18.6 65 and above 3 15.0 3 20.0 0 0 6 14.0 Female 8 40.0 5 33.3 5 62.5 18 41.9 Sex Male 12 60.0 10 66.7 3 37.5 25 58.1 Illiterate 9 45.0 10 66.7 4 50.0 23 53.5 Informal Education 4 20.0 1 6.7 2 25.0 7 16.3 Basic Education 2 10.0 2 13.3 0 0 4 9.3 Educational status (Class 1-8) Secondary (9-12) 4 20.0 2 13.3 1 12.5 7 16.3 Bachelor 0 0 0 0 1 12.5 1 2.3 Masters and Above 1 5.0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 HHs Head 18 90.0 12 80.0 3 37.5 33 76.7 Status in HHs HHs members 2 10.0 3 20.0 5 62.5 10 23.3 Single Women 1 9.1 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 Disable 1 9.1 2 16.7 1 100.0 4 16.7 Any additional type Extreme Poor 8 72.7 7 58.3 0 0 15 62.5 of vulnerability No additional 1 9.1 3 25.0 0 0 4 16.7 vulnerability Single/Never 2 10.0 2 13.3 0 0 4 9.3 married Current Marital Married 15 75.0 11 73.3 8 100.0 34 79.1 Status Divorced/separate 1 5.0 1 6.7 0 0 2 4.7 Widow/Widower 2 10.0 1 6.7 0 0 3 7.0 Occupation Agriculture 11 55.0 13 86.7 1 12.5 25 58.1

78

Business 1 5.0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 Employee (All 0 0 0 0 2 25.0 2 4.7 jobs) Daily Wage labor 6 30.0 1 6.7 5 62.5 12 27.9 Not able to work 1 5.0 1 6.7 0 0 2 4.7 Other 1 5.0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 Total 20 100.0 15 100.0 8 100.0 43 100.0

3.6.2 Details of IDP A half of the IDP (51%) had resettled in their current place of residence after earthquake. Large majority of the IDP (91%) mentioned that they faced complete damage of their physical properties due to the earthquake. More than a half of the IDP (56%) had been living in temporary settlement after the earthquake. Just above three-fifth of the IDP (61%) had land ownership. An overwhelming majority of the IDP (86%) had been living in their self-identified settlement while the remaining (14%) IDP were living in settlements provided by the government. Nearly two out of four IDP (37%) reported that they lacked water supply facility in their settlement. Similarly, the other problems/obstacles they faced while living in their settlements were discrimination (30%), no respect and dignity (21%) and lack of electricity supply (19%). More than a half of the IDP (57%) fetch water from their neighbor. More than a quarter of the IDP (28%) reported of facing some kind of discrimination because of being IDP. Those who suffered discrimination were further asked about the kinds of discrimination they faced. On this, three out of four IDP (75%) reported of not getting ownership in property followed by discrimination in health service access (58%) and no autonomy in decision making process (25%). Only almost one- sixth of the IDP (16%) had awareness on human rights and social inclusion.

Rural municipality-wise distribution showed that a higher proportion of IDP from Khaniyabas (87%) compared to Gangajamuna (60%) and Gajuri (30%) had resettled in their current place of residence after earthquake. All IDP from Gangajamuna and Khaniyabas while four-fifth of them (80%) from Gajuri had experienced complete damage of their property after the earthquake. A higher proportion of the IDP from Gangajamuna (73%) had been residing in permanent settlement compared to Gajuri (35%) and Khaniyabas (12%). Two-fifth of the IDP from Gajuri (40%) had faced lack of respect and dignity, a half of them from Khaniyabas (50%) had lack of electricity and almost a half from Gangajamuna (47%) had lack of water supply in their settlements. None of the IDP from Khaniyabas, less than a tenth of them from Gangajamuna (8%) whereas more than a half of them from Gajuri (55%) had suffered from some kind of discrimination for being an IDP.

Table 50:Details of IDP Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-IDP N % N % N % N % Resettled in this Yes 6 30.0 9 60.0 7 87.5 22 51.2 place after No 14 70.0 6 40.0 1 12.5 21 48.8 earthquake Completely 16 80.0 15 100.0 8 100.0 39 90.7 Range of physical damaged damage/loss Partially damaged 2 10.0 0 0 0 0 2 4.7 Not damage at all 2 10.0 0 0 0 0 2 4.7 Temporary 13 65.0 4 26.7 7 87.5 24 55.8 Type of settlement Permanent 7 35.0 11 73.3 1 12.5 19 44.2 Own 6 30.0 12 80.0 8 100.0 26 60.5 Status of land Government / 1 5.0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 ownership Public Other (Specify) 13 65.0 3 20.0 0 0 16 37.2 Person/organization Government /NRA 3 15.0 2 13.3 1 12.5 6 14.0 providing the Self-identified 17 85.0 13 86.7 7 87.5 37 86.0 settlement No respect and 8 40.0 1 6.7 0 0 9 20.9 dignity

79

No electricity 4 26.7 4 50.0 8 18.6 Obstacles faced No water supply 5 25.0 7 46.7 4 50.0 16 37.2 while staying in the Discrimination 11 55.0 1 6.7 1 12.5 13 30.2 settlement Others (Please 4 20.0 5 33.3 1 12.5 10 23.3 specify) Facility of water Yes 14 70.0 10 66.7 5 62.5 29 67.4 supply No 6 30.0 5 33.3 3 37.5 14 32.6 Bring from 1 16.7 4 80.0 3 100.0 8 57.1 Place for fetching Neighbor water Local spring 5 83.3 0 0 0 0 5 35.7 Others 0 0 1 20.0 0 0 1 7.1 Suffered from any Yes 11 55.0 1 6.7 0 0 12 27.9 kind of discrimination No 9 45.0 14 93.3 8 100.0 31 72.1 because of being IDP Neglected in any 1 9.1 0 0 0 0 1 8.3 event No participation in decision making 3 27.3 0 0 0 0 3 25.0 Kinds of process discrimination No ownership in 9 81.8 0 0 0 0 9 75.0 faced* property Domestic violence 2 18.2 0 0 0 0 2 16.7 Discrimination in health service 6 54.5 1 100.0 0 0 7 58.3 access Have any Yes 2 10.0 2 13.3 3 37.5 7 16.3 awareness on human rights and No 18 90.0 13 86.7 5 62.5 36 83.7 social inclusion Total 20 100.0 15 100.0 8 100.0 43 100.0 *Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.6.3 Need of services The IDP were inquired about their areas of interest which needs support to improve their livelihoods. In this regard, More than a half of them each showed their interest towards vegetable production (54%) and off-farm activities like marketing (51%). In addition, the IDP insight over the types of support that might help them to solve their problems were also assessed in the study. More than a half of the IDP (51%) reported that they expected help/support to advocacy for lands followed by help to access services (49%) and support in microwaving / investment (26%) etc.

Rural municipality-wise analysis showed that vegetable production, poultry production and off-farm activities like marketing were the major areas of interest of the IPD from all rural municipalities. It is notable that a half of the IDP from Khaniyabas (50%) expected support in accessing education while this proportion was lower in other rural municipalities (5% in Gajuri and 13% in Gangajamuna).

Table 51: Need of services Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-IDP N % N % N % N % Vegetable production 14 70.0 3 20.0 6 75.0 23 53.5 Area of Poultry production 7 35.0 11 73.3 7 87.5 25 58.1 interest to Off-farm activities like 9 45.0 6 40.0 7 87.5 22 51.2 improve marketing your Non-farm activities such livelihood as tailoring, retail shop, 2 13.3 2 4.7 hotel, etc

80

Goat farming 1 5.0 2 13.3 3 7.0 Petty shop 1 5.0 1 2.3 Help to access services 11 55.0 7 46.7 3 37.5 21 48.8 (cards, tranches etc.) Advocacy within 6 30.0 3 20.0 1 12.5 10 23.3 stakeholders Types of Support for education support that 1 5.0 2 13.3 4 50.0 7 16.3 access might help Physical logistics support to solve the (Wheelchair, glasses, 1 5.0 0 0 1 12.5 2 4.7 problems hearing machine, sticks) faced Advocacy for lands 11 55.0 7 46.7 4 50.0 22 51.2 Support for skills training 1 5.0 4 26.7 4 50.0 9 20.9 Support for microwaving 4 20.0 6 40.0 1 12.5 11 25.6 / investment Total 20 100.0 15 100.0 8 100.0 43 100.0 *Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

3.7 Intersectionality data of vulnerable population This study covered sampled population having five different types of vulnerability viz. single women, IDP, PWDs, Elderly and Poor Families. Overall almost two-third of the sample population (65%) posed one type of vulnerability whereas almost one-third belonged to two categories of vulnerable group at the same time. Gajuri had the highest proportion of sampled population with one type of vulnerability (67%) while the least belonged to Gangajamuna (62%). Similarly, two respondents from Gangajamuna had four types of vulnerability and one respondent had all five types of vulnerability.

Table 52: Intersectionality data by rural municipality Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % One type of vulnerability 344 66.8 310 61.6 223 65.4 877 64.5 Two types of 157 30.5 179 35.6 111 32.6 447 32.9 vulnerability Three types of Intersecti 14 2.7 11 2.2 7 2.1 32 2.4 vulnerability onality Four types of 0 0 2 0.4 0 0 2 0.1 vulnerability All five types of 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.1 vulnerability Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Overall almost two-third of the sampled population (65%) posed one type of vulnerability whereas almost one-third had two types of vulnerability at the same time. Vulnerable category-wise distribution showed that almost a half of the single women (49%) and slightly above a half of the IDPs (51%) while only above two-fifth of the PWDs (41%) and one-third of the elderly (33%)had two types of vulnerability at a time. It is notable that a highest proportion of the respondents from poor families had two types of vulnerability.

Table 53: Intersectionality data by type of vulnerable population Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N % N % N % N % N % N % Intersect One type of 1 17 29 14 170 44.2 39.5 55.0 60.7 24.4 877 64.5 ionality vulnerability 7 0 4 0

81

Two types of 2 12 15 39 187 48.6 51.2 41.1 32.9 69.6 447 32.9 vulnerability 2 7 9 9 Three types of 25 6.5 3 7.0 9 2.9 28 5.8 31 5.4 32 2.4 vulnerability Four types of 2 0.5 0 0 2 0.6 2 0.4 2 0.3 2 0.1 vulnerability All five types of 1 0.3 1 2.3 1 0.3 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.1 vulnerability 100. 4 100. 30 100. 48 100. 57 100. 135 100. Total 385 0 3 0 9 0 4 0 3 0 9 0

82

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Conclusion

Vulnerable Household The evidence collection study assessed household socio-economic status, underlying causes of vulnerability and existing coping strategies and practical solutions to tackle the vulnerability in three different rural municipalities of Dhading district. 1359 severe vulnerable households were interviewed. The findings revealed that three-fifths (60%) of the respondents were male. Seven out of ten respondents (70%) were illiterate which includes a higher proportion of respondents from Gangajamuna (76%). With regards to the type of disability, nearly a fifth (19%) households had at least one visually impaired person. Similarly, seven percent of the total households had at least one member with difficulty in both seeing and hearing. The underlying discrepancy in the range of average annual income was explicitly shown in the study as the average annual income of Khaniyabas was less than half of the average annual income of Gajuri. Commercial farming of cereal crops was practiced more in Khaniyabas in comparison to other two rural municipalities. 10 percent of the households still do not have latrines. Findings revealed that people of Gajuri had more difficulty in accessing health facilities as higher proportion of households (41%) required more than 2 hours to reach nearest health facility. The consequences of earthquake on house and current situation of house of the respondents was also investigated. Overwhelming majority (97%) of respondents reported that their house was damaged due to earthquake. On further investigating the level of damage, it was found that 88% of the houses were completely damaged, the proportion being highest in Khaniyabas (97%).

Single women Almost two out of five single women were aged 65 years or above. Illiteracy seemed prominent among the group of single women as almost four out of five of them were illiterate, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna. When exploring the additional vulnerability of the single women more than a half of them were extremely poor and nearly two out of five of them were elderly too. It is notable that still more than a fifth of the single women have not received ID card from the government. Almost all single women did not received any life-skills related trainings and psychosocial counseling support aftermath of earthquake. All surveyed single women expressed need for certain services to improve their livelihood. More than a half of them mentioned they would be benefited if they were provided support for poultry production. Similarly, more than three out of five further voiced to get support to access different services like cards, tranches etc.

People with Disability (PWDs) It is notable that majority of the disabled people were illiterate. Nearly two out of three disabled people had difficulty while walking or climbing steps and around one-third of them each had difficulty with self-care such as washing all over or dressing and difficulty with communicating. In addition to disability, majority of the disabled were elderly and a quarter of them were extremely poor. It is discouraging to note that almost two out of four disable people had not obtained government disability card, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (55%). Moreover one out of four disable people having card were not receiving social security allowances on regular basis. Almost all HHs (except n=11 HH) did not have disabled friendly toilet. More than a third and more than a half of the disabled had never been to school and had difficulty to receive health care respectively. It is discouraging to note that almost all disable people were unaware about their rights and social inclusion. Almost two-fifth disabled people had interest to work in poultry production for improving their livelihood.

83

Elderly More than two-fifth (43%) out of484 elderly people were aged 70-79 years. Slightly above a half of the elderly were engaged in agriculture while two out of five of them were not able to work. More than a half elderly had some difficulties with seeing (even if wearing glasses) while more than a third of them had some difficulties with remembering or concentrating. Still one in ten elderly did not have government ageing card and the same proportion of those having the card had not received social security allowances. Almost a fifth elderly had experienced chronic diseases.Above a half of them needed financial support to improve their livelihood. Similarly more than a fifth of them expressed their interest over poultry production.

Poor Families A total of 573 poor families who were included in the study.Majority of the respondents were illiterate, the proportion being higher in Gangajamuna (76%). More than a third respondents from poor family had no any income source. More than a quarter of the respondents from poor family earned through unskilled wage labor. More than one in four respondents from poor families had no registered land. Registered land holding status was comparatively better in Gangajamuna than other rural municipalities. Nearly three out of five respondents from the poor families lacked kitchen garden at their home premises. Majority of the respondents purchased food on credit during the time of food insufficiency. It is discouraging to note that almost all respondents were completely unaware about the government schemes, program and provision related to agriculture, livestock etc. Nearly a half respondents expressed their interest on poultry production and this proportion was highest in Khaniyabas.

IDP More than a half of the IDP were illiterate, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (67%). More than three in five of the IDPs were extremely poor while around one-sixth of them were disable too. Almost three-fifth of the IDP were engaged in agriculture, the proportion being highest in Gangajamuna (87%). A half of the IDP had resettled in their current place of residence after earthquake. Large majority of the IDP had faced complete damage of their physical properties due to the earthquake. More than a half of the IDP had been living in temporary settlement after the earthquake. Just above three- fifth of the IDP had land ownership. More than a quarter of the IDP reported of facing some kind of discrimination because of being IDP, the proportion being highest in Gajuri (55%). Overall almost three-fifth of the IDP expressed their interest over poultry production.

4.2 Lessons Learned

The following lesson were learned based on both quantitative and qualitative results.

• The quantitative findings of the study showed that still a tenth households did not have latrines in their house, the proportion being higher in household of IDPs and very poor families which is very disgraceful to mention. Similarly, more than a fifth households do not wash their hands with soap after defecation. The incidence of water borne diseases in past two weeks preceding the study was 12%. These all findings evidently explains the necessity of sanitation and hygiene related programs and interventions in these areas. Hence, WASH related interventions should be implemented in these areas to complement disaster recovery actions.

• More than three-fifths households had not received any support for sustainable livelihood improvement initiatives and the proportion was comparatively higher in households with elderly and poor families. Hence, livelihood support interventions should be planned and implemented so as to assure that these categories of population obtain the benefits proportionately.

• Both qualitative and quantitative information depicts that most of the vulnerable groups are inclined to work in agricultural field for their livelihood. But the lack of proper market linkage

84

seems to be the major obstacle for them which was portrayed through FGDs and KIIs. Hence, value chain analysis should be done especially through the efforts of stakeholders at rural municipality level.

• The information from key informant interviews showed that one of the major challenge in implementation of any program is people’s perception towards the intervention or support they receive. People are more concerned about transient benefits and hence are not able to plan for the sustainability of the intervention for the upliftment of their quality of life. So, awareness and sensitization programs should be massively conducted in the community through behavior change interventions so that vulnerable people are more empowered to uplift on their lives.

• The lack of road access especially in two rural municipality; Khaniyabas and Gangajamuna is one of the major factor to add into the vulnerability of the people. Hence, the community should be capacitated to raise their issues with their local government and urge on the need to improve on the road access.

• Information from key information interviews also showed that there is lack of proper monitoring mechanism to ensure the sustainability of any interventions. So, implementers of any kinds of programs (especially targeted for vulnerable groups) should ensure its sustainability to achieve the expected outcomes.

• The lack of necessary health facilities seems to be another major problem for elderly and PWDs. So, the elderly and PWDs should be facilitated with equipment to improve on their mobility as well as to improve the disability infrastructure.

• The available incentive seems insufficient to fulfill the basic needs of vulnerable people. So, government should increase the incentives to ensure the quality of life of these groups.

• The study showed that there are still certain percentage of the vulnerable groups who are not receiving social schemes as provisioned by the government indicating that the awareness program are still needed.

• Only three percentage of the single women had received any kind of life skill training which indicates that life skill training program will be useful to improve quality of life of single women.

•

Pls add discussions and recommendations forkey project activities and numbers(for different waves- Wave 1,2,3 etc)

85

REFERENCES

1. Improving Food Security for Vulnerable Communities in Nepal’, Oxfam case study, June 2011 2. https://www.coronainsights.com/2018/08/defining-the-vulnerable-and-at-risk-populations- who-are-we-really-looking-at 3. http://codefornepal.org 4. http://whr.org.np 5. Raj Kumar Yadav Department of Population Studies, TU, TRM Campus, Birgunj. Academic Voices A Multidisciplinary Journal Volume 2, N0. 1, 2012 6. Sabri, B., Sabarwal, S., Decker, M. R., Shrestha, A., Sharma, K., Thapa, L., &Surkan, P. J. (2016). Violence against widows in Nepal: Experiences, coping behaviors, and barriers in seeking help. Journal of interpersonal violence, 31(9), 1744-1766.) 7. Rawal, B. B. (2017). Socio-Economic Status of People With Disability: A Study of GudukhatiVdc, Bajura District, Nepal(Doctoral dissertation, Central Department of Rural Development Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu). 8. Thakur, R. P., Banerjee, A., &Nikumb, V. B. (2013). Health Problems Among the Elderly: A Cross. Sectional Study. Annals of medical and health sciences research, 3(1), 19-25. 9. Chalise, H. N., &Basnet, M. (2017). Abuse of older adults residing in the communit y of Nepal. J GerontolGeriatr Res, 6(415), 2. 10. Kaphle HP, Parajuli D, Subedi S (2014).Health Status, Family Relation and Living Condition of Elderly People Residing in Geriatric Homes of Western Nepal, International Journal of Health Sciences & Research (www.ijhsr.org) 4(7)33-42 11. Acharya, S., Ghimire, S., Jeffers, E. M., &Shrestha, N. (2019). Health Care Utilization and Health Care Expenditure of Nepali Older Adults. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 24.

86

Annex tables

Table H1 Affiliation with group/organization

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Affiliation in any Yes 141 27.4 82 16.3 192 56.3 415 30.5 group No 374 72.6 421 83.7 149 43.7 944 69.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H2 Family members by age group

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % None 329 63.9 392 77.9 249 73.0 970 71.4 One 121 23.5 75 14.9 68 19.9 264 19.4 Two 43 8.3 31 6.2 18 5.3 92 6.8 Three 16 3.1 5 1.0 5 1.5 26 1.9 0-4 years Four 4 0.8 0 0 0 0 4 0.3 Five 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.3 2 0.1 Six and 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 more None 229 44.5 247 49.1 165 48.4 641 47.2 One 94 18.3 105 20.9 79 23.2 278 20.5 Two 82 15.9 89 17.7 46 13.5 217 16.0 Three 73 14.2 43 8.5 34 10.0 150 11.0 5-18 years Four 25 4.9 12 2.4 10 2.9 47 3.5 Five 10 1.9 3 0.6 6 1.8 19 1.4 Six and 2 0.4 4 0.8 1 0.3 7 0.5 more None 151 29.3 208 41.4 126 37.0 485 35.7 One 100 19.4 96 19.1 73 21.4 269 19.8 Two 161 31.3 130 25.8 97 28.4 388 28.6 Three 46 8.9 27 5.4 26 7.6 99 7.3 19-39 years Four 33 6.4 26 5.2 13 3.8 72 5.3 Five 11 2.1 9 1.8 3 0.9 23 1.7 Six and 13 2.5 7 1.4 3 0.9 23 1.7 more None 278 54.0 255 50.7 167 49.0 700 51.5 One 134 26.0 137 27.2 82 24.0 353 26.0 Two 93 18.1 104 20.7 88 25.8 285 21.0 Three 5 1.0 3 0.6 1 0.3 9 0.7 40-59 years Four 4 0.8 4 0.8 2 0.6 10 0.7 Five 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.1 Six and 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 more None 183 35.5 165 32.8 153 44.9 501 36.9 One 212 41.2 213 42.3 126 37.0 551 40.5 60 and above Two 115 22.3 119 23.7 57 16.7 291 21.4 years Three 5 1.0 6 1.2 4 1.2 15 1.1 Five 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.1 None 2 0.4 4 0.8 3 0.9 9 0.7 One 57 11.1 75 14.9 57 16.7 189 13.9 Two 70 13.6 86 17.1 44 12.9 200 14.7 Total Three 55 10.7 65 12.9 51 15.0 171 12.6 Four 64 12.4 63 12.5 42 12.3 169 12.4 Five 56 10.9 66 13.1 47 13.8 169 12.4

87

Six and 211 41.0 144 28.6 97 28.4 452 33.3 more Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H3 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with seeing

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 137 26.6 80 15.9 43 12.6 260 19.1 having difficulties No 378 73.4 423 84.1 298 87.4 1099 80.9 with seeing Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 122 89.1 74 92.5 39 90.7 235 90.4 members with seeing 2 15 10.9 6 7.5 4 9.3 25 9.6 difficulty in the family Total 137 100.0 80 100.0 43 100.0 260 100.0 Have government Yes 14 10.2 15 18.8 9 20.9 38 14.6 disability card in the No 123 89.8 65 81.3 34 79.1 222 85.4 above category Total 137 100.0 80 100.0 43 100.0 260 100.0 Number of family 1 14 100.0 11 73.3 8 88.9 33 86.8 members having government disability 2 0 0 4 26.7 1 11.1 5 13.1 card in the above category Total 14 100.0 15 100.0 9 100.0 38 100.0

Table H4 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with hearing

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 78 15.1 61 12.1 44 12.9 183 13.5 having difficulties No 437 84.9 442 87.9 297 87.1 1176 86.5 with hearing Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 72 92.3 55 90.2 43 97.7 170 92.9 members with hearing 2 6 7.7 6 9.8 1 2.3 13 7.1 difficulty in the family Total 78 100.0 61 100.0 44 100.0 183 100.0 Have government Yes 9 11.5 17 27.9 10 22.7 36 19.7 disability card in the No 69 88.5 44 72.1 34 77.3 147 80.3 above category Total 78 100.0 61 100.0 44 100.0 183 100.0 Number of family 1 9 100.0 16 94.1 9 90.0 34 94.4 members having government disability 2 0 0 1 5.9 1 10.0 2 5.6 card in the above category Total 9 100.0 17 100.0 10 100.0 36 100.0

88

Table H5 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with both seeing and hearing

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 46 8.9 19 3.8 23 6.7 88 6.5 having difficulties with both seeing and No 469 91.1 484 96.2 318 93.3 1271 93.5 hearing Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 43 93.5 17 89.5 19 82.6 79 89.8 members having 2 3 6.5 1 5.3 4 17.4 8 9.1 difficulties with both 6 0 0 1 5.3 0 0 1 1.1 seeing and hearing Total 46 100.0 19 100.0 23 100.0 88 100.0 Have government Yes 8 17.4 7 36.8 10 43.5 25 28.4 disability card in the No 38 82.6 12 63.2 13 56.5 63 71.6 above category Total 46 100.0 19 100.0 23 100.0 88 100.0 Number of family 1 8 100.0 6 85.7 9 90.0 23 92.0 members having 2 0 0 0 0 1 10.0 1 4.0 government disability card in the above 6 0 0 1 14.3 0 0 1 4.0 category Total 8 100.0 7 100.0 10 100.0 25 100.0

Table H6 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with walking or climbing steps

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 150 29.1 129 25.6 85 24.9 364 26.8 having difficulties with walking or No 365 70.9 374 74.4 256 75.1 995 73.2 climbing steps Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of members 1 143 95.3 125 96.9 75 88.2 343 94.2 having difficulties 2 7 4.7 3 2.3 10 11.8 20 5.5 with walking or 6 0 0 1 0.8 0 0 1 0.3 climbing steps Total 150 100.0 129 100.0 85 100.0 364 100.0 Have government Yes 35 23.3 53 41.1 39 45.9 127 34.9 disability card in the No 115 76.7 76 58.9 46 54.1 237 65.1 above category Total 150 100.0 129 100.0 85 100.0 364 100.0 Number of family 1 35 100.0 50 94.3 35 89.7 120 94.5 members having 2 0 0 2 3.8 4 10.3 6 4.7 government disability card in the above 6 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 1 0.8 category Total 35 100.0 53 100.0 39 100.0 127 100.0

89

Table H7 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with remembering or concentrating

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 88 17.1 49 9.7 17 5.0 154 11.3 having difficulties with remembering or No 427 82.9 454 90.3 324 95.0 1205 88.7 concentrating Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 79 89.8 48 98.0 11 64.7 138 89.6 members having 2 9 10.2 0 0 6 35.3 15 9.7 difficulties with remembering or 6 0 0 1 2.0 0 0 1 0.6 concentrating Total 88 100.0 49 100.0 17 100.0 154 100.0 Have government Yes 16 18.2 19 38.8 8 47.1 43 27.9 disability card in the No 72 81.8 30 61.2 9 52.9 111 72.1 above category Total 88 100.0 49 100.0 17 100.0 154 100.0 Number of family 1 15 93.8 19 100.0 5 62.5 39 90.7 members having government disability 2 1 6.3 0 0 3 37.5 4 9.3 card in the above category Total 16 100.0 19 100.0 8 100.0 43 100.0

Table 6f Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Difficulties with self-care, such as washing all over or dressing

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 100 19.4 93 18.5 52 15.2 245 18.0 having difficulties with self-care, such as No 415 80.6 410 81.5 289 84.8 1114 82.0 washing all over or dressing Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 96 96.0 88 94.6 47 90.4 231 94.3 members having difficulties with self- 2 4 4.0 5 5.4 5 9.6 14 5.7 care, such as washing all over or dressing Total 100 100.0 93 100.0 52 100.0 245 100.0 Have government Yes 28 28.0 38 40.9 18 34.6 84 34.3 disability card in the No 72 72.0 55 59.1 34 65.4 161 65.7 above category Total 100 100.0 93 100.0 52 100.0 245 100.0 Number of family 1 28 100.0 36 94.7 15 83.3 79 94.0 members having government disability 2 0 0 2 5.3 3 16.7 5 6.0 card in the above category Total 28 100.0 38 100.0 18 100.0 84 100.0

90

Table H9 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Any family member having difficulties with communicating

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 80 15.5 58 11.5 34 10.0 172 12.7 having difficulties No 435 84.5 445 88.5 307 90.0 1187 87.3 with communicating Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 0 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1 0.6 Number of family 1 75 93.8 53 91.4 30 88.2 158 91.9 members having 2 5 6.3 2 3.4 4 11.8 11 6.4 difficulties with 3 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1 0.6 communicating 6 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1 0.6 Total 80 100.0 58 100.0 34 100.0 172 100.0 Have government Yes 16 20.0 30 51.7 16 47.1 62 36.0 disability card in the No 64 80.0 28 48.3 18 52.9 110 64.0 above category Total 80 100.0 58 100.0 34 100.0 172 100.0 Number of family 1 16 100.0 29 96.7 12 75.0 57 91.9 members having 2 0 0 0 0 4 25.0 4 6.5 government disability card in the above 3 0 0 1 3.3 0 0 1 1.6 category Total 16 100.0 30 100.0 16 100.0 62 100.0

Table H10 Person with Disability (PWD) in home-Multiple disability

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 26 5.0 28 5.6 26 7.6 80 5.9 having multiple No 489 95.0 475 94.4 315 92.4 1279 94.1 disability Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 25 96.2 27 96.4 22 84.6 74 92.5 members having 2 1 3.8 0 0 4 15.4 5 6.3 multiple disability 6 0 0 1 3.6 0 0 1 1.3 Total 26 100.0 28 100.0 26 100.0 80 100.0 Have government Yes 17 65.4 21 75.0 15 57.7 53 66.3 disability card in the No 9 34.6 7 25.0 11 42.3 27 33.8 above category Total 26 100.0 28 100.0 26 100.0 80 100.0 Number of family 1 17 100.0 20 95.2 13 86.7 50 94.3 members having 2 0 0 0 0 2 13.3 2 3.8 government disability card in the above 6 0 0 1 4.8 0 0 1 1.9 category Total 17 100.0 21 100.0 15 100.0 53 100.0

Table H11 Family member with Chronic Disease in home-Intellectual disability

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 20 3.9 30 6.0 12 3.5 62 4.6 suffering from No 495 96.1 473 94.0 329 96.5 1297 95.4 intellectual disability Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 20 100.0 29 96.7 10 83.3 59 95.2 members suffering 2 0 0 0 0 2 16.7 2 3.2

91 from intellectual 6 0 0 1 3.3 0 0 1 1.6 disability Total 20 100.0 30 100.0 12 100.0 62 100.0 Have government card Yes 13 65.0 16 53.3 4 33.3 33 53.2 in the above category No 7 35.0 14 46.7 8 66.7 29 46.8 Total 20 100.0 30 100.0 12 100.0 62 100.0 Number of family 1 12 92.3 15 93.8 2 50.0 29 87.9 members having 2 1 7.7 0 0 2 50.0 3 9.1 government card in 6 0 0 1 6.3 0 0 1 3.0 the above category Total 13 100.0 16 100.0 4 100.0 33 100.0

Table H12 Family member with Chronic Disease in home-Mental or psychosocial disability

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 21 4.1 38 7.6 21 6.2 80 5.9 suffering from mental or psychosocial No 494 95.9 465 92.4 320 93.8 1279 94.1 disability Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 19 90.5 37 97.4 19 90.5 75 93.8 members suffering 2 2 9.5 0 0 2 9.5 4 5.0 mental or 4 0 0 1 2.6 0 0 1 1.3 psychosocial disability Total 21 100.0 38 100.0 21 100.0 80 100.0 Have government card Yes 8 38.1 17 44.7 9 42.9 34 42.5 in the above category No 13 61.9 21 55.3 12 57.1 46 57.5 Total 21 100.0 38 100.0 21 100.0 80 100.0 Number of family 1 8 100.0 16 94.1 7 77.8 31 91.2 members having 2 0 0 0 0 2 22.2 2 5.9 government card in 6 0 0 1 5.9 0 0 1 2.9 the above category Total 8 100.0 17 100.0 9 100.0 34 100.0

Table H12a: Disability in family members out of ten disabilities

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % None 261 50.7 278 55.3 193 56.6 732 53.9 One out of 10 64 12.4 81 16.1 58 17.0 203 14.9 disability Two out of 10 67 13.0 48 9.5 37 10.9 152 11.2 disability Three out of 10 41 8.0 48 9.5 27 7.9 116 8.5 disability Disability in Four out of 10 family members 35 6.8 18 3.6 10 2.9 63 4.6 disability out of ten Five out of 10 disabilities 19 3.7 11 2.2 4 1.2 34 2.5 disability Six out of 10 11 2.1 6 1.2 4 1.2 21 1.5 disability Seven out of 10 14 2.7 7 1.4 6 1.8 27 2.0 disability Eight out of 10 1 .2 3 .6 1 .3 5 .4 disability

92

Nine out of 10 2 .4 2 .4 4 .3 disability All ten disability 1 .2 1 .3 2 .1 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H13 Family member with Chronic Disease in home-Autism

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 51 9.9 23 4.6 17 5.0 91 6.7 suffering from Autism No 464 90.1 480 95.4 324 95.0 1268 93.3 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 48 94.1 23 100.0 15 88.2 86 94.5 members suffering 2 3 5.9 0 0 2 11.8 5 5.5 from Autism Total 51 100.0 23 100.0 17 100.0 91 100.0 Have government card Yes 8 15.7 14 60.9 6 35.3 28 30.8 in the above category No 43 84.3 9 39.1 11 64.7 63 69.2 Total 51 100.0 23 100.0 17 100.0 91 100.0 Number of family 1 8 100.0 14 100.0 4 66.7 26 92.9 members having government card in 2 0 0 0 0 2 33.3 2 7.1 the above category Total 8 100.0 14 100.0 6 100.0 28 100.0

Table H14 Family member with Chronic Disease in home---Haemophilia

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 27 5.2 5 1.0 8 2.3 40 2.9 suffering from No 488 94.8 498 99.0 333 97.7 1319 97.1 haemophilia Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family members suffering 1 27 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 40 100.0 from haemophilia Total 27 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 40 100.0 Have government card Yes 2 40.0 1 12.5 3 7.5 in the above category No 27 100.0 3 60.0 7 87.5 37 92.5 Total 27 100.0 5 100.0 8 100.0 40 100.0 Number of family members having 1 0 0 2 100.0 1 100.0 3 100.0 government card in the above category Total 0 0 2 100.0 1 100.0 3 100.0

Table H15 Family member with Chronic Disease in home---Gout (Uric acid)

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 91 17.7 95 18.9 6 1.8 192 14.1 suffering from gout No 424 82.3 408 81.1 335 98.2 1167 85.9 (uric acid) Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 1 76 83.5 84 88.4 6 100.0 166 86.5

93

Number of family members suffering 2 15 16.5 11 11.6 0 0 26 13.5 from gout (uric acid) Total 91 100.0 95 100.0 6 100.0 192 100.0 Have government card Yes 2 2.2 2 2.1 1 16.7 5 2.6 in the above category No 89 97.8 93 97.9 5 83.3 187 97.4 Total 91 100.0 95 100.0 6 100.0 192 100.0 Number of family 1 2 100.0 1 50.0 1 100.0 4 80.0 members having government card in 2 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 1 20.0 the above category Total 2 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 5 100.0

Table H16 Family member with Chronic Disease in home---Asthma

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 112 21.7 90 17.9 42 12.3 244 18.0 suffering from asthma No 403 78.3 413 82.1 299 87.7 1115 82.0 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family 1 99 88.4 84 93.3 41 97.6 224 91.8 members suffering 2 12 10.7 6 6.7 1 2.4 19 7.8 from asthma 3 1 0.9 0 0 0 0 1 0.4 Total 112 100.0 90 100.0 42 100.0 244 100.0 Have government card Yes 1 0.9 4 4.4 10 23.8 15 6.1 in the above category No 111 99.1 86 95.6 32 76.2 229 93.9 Total 112 100.0 90 100.0 42 100.0 244 100.0 Number of family 1 1 100.0 3 75.0 10 100.0 14 93.3 members having government card in 2 0 0 1 25.0 0 0 1 6.7 the above category Total 1 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 15 100.0

Table H17 Family member with Chronic Disease in home---Cancer

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Any family member Yes 3 0.6 3 0.6 1 0.3 7 0.5 suffering from cancer No 512 99.4 500 99.4 340 99.7 1352 99.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of family members suffering 1 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 100.0 7 100.0 from cancer Total 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 100.0 7 100.0 Have government card Yes 0 0 0 0 1 100.0 1 14.3 in the above category No 3 100.0 3 100.0 0 0 6 85.7 Total 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 100.0 7 100.0 Number of family members having 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0 government card in the above category Total 1 100.0 1 100.0

94

Table H17 a: Prevalence of chronic disease by household category

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Hard core Poor Total women Family (Ka) N N N N N N Any family Yes 18 4.7 2 4.7 48 15.5 30 6.2 36 6.3 91 6.7 member suffering from No 367 95.3 41 95.3 261 84.5 454 93.8 537 93.7 1268 93.3 Autism Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0 Any family Yes 46 11.9 3 7.0 32 10.4 90 18.6 72 12.6 192 14.1 member suffering from No 339 88.1 40 93.0 277 89.6 394 81.4 501 87.4 1167 85.9 gout (uric acid) Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0 Any family Yes 55 14.3 7 16.3 39 12.6 132 27.3 90 15.7 244 18.0 member suffering from No 330 85.7 36 83.7 270 87.4 352 72.7 483 84.3 1115 82.0 asthma Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0 Any family Yes 4 1.3 2 .4 1 .2 7 .5 member suffering from No 385 100.0 43 100.0 305 98.7 482 99.6 572 99.8 1352 99.5 cancer Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h18 Member of the household a single woman (Widow or/ never married aged > 35 years age, or woman solely responsible for child care for more than one year—Widow

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Yes 191 37.1 196 39.0 121 35.5 508 37.4 Widow No 324 62.9 307 61.0 220 64.5 851 62.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Number of 1 186 97.4 189 96.4 117 96.7 492 96.9 widow 2 5 2.6 7 3.6 4 3.3 16 3.1 Total 191 100.0 196 100.0 121 100.0 508 100.0

Table H19 Member of the household a single woman (Widow or/ never married aged > 35 years age, or woman solely responsible for child care for more than one year-- Never married aged>35 years old

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Never married Yes 11 2.1 27 5.4 35 10.3 73 5.4 aged>35 years old No 504 97.9 476 94.6 306 89.7 1286 94.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

95

Number of never 1 11 100.0 24 88.9 35 100.0 70 95.9 married aged>35 2 0 0 2 7.4 0 0 2 2.7 years old 3 0 0 1 3.7 0 0 1 1.4 Total 11 100.0 27 100.0 35 100.0 73 100.0

Table H20 Source of HH Income

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Skilled wage labor 107 20.8 61 12.1 21 6.2 189 13.9 Unskilled wage 149 28.9 114 22.7 111 32.6 374 27.5 labor Agriculture and 140 27.2 197 39.2 73 21.4 410 30.2 livestock rearing Source of Micro enterprise 28 5.4 30 6.0 1 .3 59 4.3 income Government service 13 2.5 39 7.8 11 3.2 63 4.6 Non-government 11 2.1 14 2.8 7 2.1 32 2.4 service Remittance 25 4.9 46 9.1 25 7.3 96 7.1 Others 132 25.6 163 32.4 54 15.8 349 25.7 No Income source 159 30.9 110 21.9 124 36.4 393 28.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

Table H21 Land holding status of HHs Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Holding of Yes 406 78.8 443 88.1 250 73.3 1099 80.9 registered land No 109 21.2 60 11.9 91 26.7 260 19.1 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Female 96 23.6 154 34.8 98 39.2 348 31.7 Gender of the HH Male 273 67.2 280 63.2 144 57.6 697 63.4 member holding the Both 21 5.2 6 1.4 4 1.6 31 2.8 registered land Other 16 3.9 3 0.7 4 1.6 23 2.1 Total 406 100.0 443 100.0 250 100.0 1099 100.0 None 2 1.2 2 .5 1-4 59 51.8 89 54.6 56 51.4 204 52.8 Registered land 5-9 26 22.8 47 28.8 27 24.8 100 25.9 area in Ropani of 10-14 12 10.5 14 8.6 18 16.5 44 11.4 female member 15 and more 17 14.9 11 6.7 8 7.3 36 9.3 Ropani Total 114 100.0 163 100.0 109 100.0 386 100.0 None 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 1-4 107 36.6 123 43.2 60 41.7 290 40.2 Registered land 5-9 85 29.1 74 26.0 44 30.6 203 28.2 area in Ropani of 10-14 36 12.3 47 16.5 20 13.9 103 14.3 Male member 15 and more 63 21.6 41 14.4 20 13.9 124 17.2 Ropani Total 292 100.0 285 100.0 144 100.0 721 100.0 Family holding Yes 90 17.5 50 9.9 105 30.8 245 18.0 non-registered land No 425 82.5 453 90.1 236 69.2 1114 82.0 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 1-4 65 72.2 37 74.0 79 75.2 181 73.9 Holding of non 5-9 15 16.7 11 22.0 20 19.0 46 18.8 registered land area 10-14 3 3.3 1 2.0 5 4.8 9 3.7 in Ropani 15 and more 7 7.8 1 2.0 1 1.0 9 3.7 Ropani' Total 90 100.0 50 100.0 105 100.0 245 100.0

96

Table h22 Household amenities

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Yes 334 64.9 337 67.0 234 68.6 905 66.6 Electricity No 181 35.1 166 33.0 107 31.4 454 33.4 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Yes 255 49.5 199 39.6 162 47.5 616 45.3 Solar system No 260 50.5 304 60.4 179 52.5 743 54.7 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Improved cooking Yes 183 35.5 164 32.6 39 11.4 386 28.4 stove/LPG gas stove No 332 64.5 339 67.4 302 88.6 973 71.6 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Yes 378 73.4 356 70.8 218 63.9 952 70.1 Mobile phone No 137 26.6 147 29.2 123 36.1 407 29.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h23 Major cooking fuel

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Kerosene 1 0.2 8 1.6 3 0.9 12 0.9 Firewood 492 95.5 498 99.0 337 98.8 1327 97.6 Biogas 10 1.9 16 3.2 1 0.3 27 2.0

Coal 31 6.0 33 6.6 23 6.7 87 6.4 LPG Gas 148 28.7 127 25.2 60 17.6 335 24.7 Other 20 3.9 2 0.4 4 1.2 26 1.9 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h24 On Farm and Off Farm

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Presence of kitchen Yes 356 69.1 327 65.0 132 38.7 815 60.0 garden/home garden No 159 30.9 176 35.0 209 61.3 544 40.0 at home premises Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Production of Yes 257 72.2 294 89.9 127 96.2 678 83.2 seasonal vegetables No 99 27.8 33 10.1 5 3.8 137 16.8 at the kitchen garden Total 356 100.0 327 100.0 132 100.0 815 100.0 Consumption of Yes 236 91.8 277 94.2 109 85.8 622 91.7 produced vegetables to fulfill daily No 21 8.2 17 5.8 18 14.2 56 8.3 vegetables requirement Total 257 100.0 294 100.0 127 100.0 678 100.0 Month of vegetable 0-3 Month 105 44.5 165 59.6 28 25.7 298 47.9 sufficiency to fulfill 0-6 Month 71 30.1 34 12.3 39 35.8 144 23.2 daily vegetable 0-9 Month 34 14.4 29 10.5 21 19.3 84 13.5 requirement from own vegetable production at 0-12 Month 26 11.0 49 17.7 21 19.3 96 15.4 kitchen garden Total 236 100.0 277 100.0 109 100.0 622 100.0 Yes 36 14.0 2 0.7 6 4.7 44 6.5

97

Selling surplus vegetable after fulfilling HHs daily No 221 86.0 292 99.3 121 95.3 634 93.5 vegetable requirement Total 257 100.0 294 100.0 127 100.0 678 100.0 None 0 0 0 0 5 83.3 5 11.4 Average annual Less than 5 13.9 0 0 1 16.7 6 13.6 income by selling 5000 vegetables produced 5000-9999 9 25.0 1 50.0 0 0 10 22.7 at kitchen garden 10000 or 22 61.1 1 50.0 0 0 23 52.3 more Total 36 100.0 2 100.0 6 100.0 44 100.0

Table h24 Commercial Farming

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Yes 62 12.0 13 2.6 97 28.4 172 12.7 Vegetables No 453 88.0 490 97.4 244 71.6 1187 87.3 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 42 67.7 13 100.0 89 91.8 144 83.7 Total annual income Less than 7 11.3 0 0 6 6.2 13 7.6 by selling vegetables 5000 in NPR excluding 5000-9999 2 3.2 0 0 1 1.0 3 1.7 the investment 10000 or 11 17.7 0 0 1 1.0 12 7.0 more Total 62 100.0 13 100.0 97 100.0 172 100.0 Yes 227 44.1 223 44.3 255 74.8 705 51.9 Cereal Crops No 288 55.9 280 55.7 86 25.2 654 48.1 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 195 85.9 209 93.7 246 96.5 650 92.2 Total annual income Less than by selling cereal 15 6.6 5 2.2 6 2.4 26 3.7 5000 crops in NPR 5000-9999 6 2.6 3 1.3 1 .4 10 1.4 excluding the 10000 or investment 11 4.8 6 2.7 2 .8 19 2.7 more Total 227 100.0 223 100.0 255 100.0 705 100.0 High Value Cash Yes 8 1.6 1 .2 9 2.6 18 1.3 Crops No 507 98.4 502 99.8 332 97.4 1341 98.7 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Total annual income None 4 50.0 1 100.0 9 100.0 14 77.8 by selling high value Less than 3 37.5 0 0 0 0 3 16.7 cash crops in NPR 5000 excluding the 5000-9999 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 1 5.6 investment Total 8 100.0 1 100.0 9 100.0 18 100.0 Yes 26 5.0 10 2.0 94 27.6 130 9.6 Livestock No 489 95.0 493 98.0 247 72.4 1229 90.4 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 12 46.2 5 50.0 42 44.7 59 45.4 Total annual income Less than 2 7.7 3 30.0 13 13.8 18 13.8 by selling livestock 5000 in NPR excluding 5000-9999 4 15.4 0 0 14 14.9 18 13.8 the investment 10000 or 8 30.8 2 20.0 25 26.6 35 26.9 more Total 26 100.0 10 100.0 94 100.0 130 100.0 Fruits Yes 9 1.7 1 .2 4 1.2 14 1.0

98

No 506 98.3 502 99.8 337 98.8 1345 99.0 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 None 5 55.6 1 100.0 2 50.0 8 57.1 Total annual income Less than fruits in NPR 4 44.4 0 0 1 25.0 5 35.7 5000 excluding 5000-9999 0 0 0 0 1 25.0 1 7.1 Total 9 100.0 1 100.0 4 100.0 14 100.0

Table H24a: Presence of kitchen garden

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N % N % N % N % N % N % Presence of Yes 210 54.5 17 39.5 173 56.0 321 66.3 240 41.9 815 60.0 kitchen garden/home garden at No 175 45.5 26 60.5 136 44.0 163 33.7 333 58.1 544 40.0 home premises Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H24b: Commercial Farming

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N % N % N % N % N % N % Yes 50 13.0 6 14.0 46 14.9 58 12.0 46 8.0 172 12.7 Vegetables No 335 87.0 37 86.0 263 85.1 426 88.0 527 92.0 1187 87.3 Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h25 Months of Food Sufficiency from Own Production

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % 0-3 221 42.9 227 45.1 125 36.7 573 42.2 Month 0-6 Months of food 159 30.9 136 27.0 99 29.0 394 29.0 Month sufficiency form own 0-9 production 25 4.9 39 7.8 59 17.3 123 9.1 Month 0-12 110 21.4 101 20.1 58 17.0 269 19.8 Month Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h26 Coping strategy for those who have insufficient food for 12 months

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Had food by earning money from wage 264 67.9 251 62.4 126 78.3 641 67.3 labour Rely on less Coping preferred and less 314 80.7 220 54.7 55 34.2 589 61.9 Strategies expensive foods Borrow food, or rely on help from a 251 64.5 192 47.8 63 39.1 506 53.2 friend or relative

99

Purchase food on 323 83.0 353 87.8 55 34.2 731 76.8 credit Consume seed stock 140 36.0 80 19.9 40 24.8 260 27.3 held for next season Women members in the household ate less amount of food 97 24.9 83 20.6 38 23.6 218 22.9 compared to other members Total 389 100.0 402 100.0 161 100.0 952 100.0

Table H27 Food Consumption Score (FCS)

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % 0 33 6.4 41 8.2 50 14.7 124 9.1 Main staples Maize, 1 19 3.7 19 3.8 0 0 38 2.8 rice, sorghum, millet 2 19 3.7 10 2.0 8 2.3 37 2.7 pasta, bread and other 3 8 1.6 14 2.8 3 .9 25 1.8 cereals Cassava, 4 6 1.2 5 1.0 5 1.5 16 1.2 potatoes and sweet 5 15 2.9 9 1.8 6 1.8 30 2.2 potatoes, other tubers, plantains 6 9 1.7 6 1.2 5 1.5 20 1.5 7 406 78.8 399 79.3 264 77.4 1069 78.7 0 103 20.0 173 34.4 74 21.7 350 25.8 1 175 34.0 215 42.7 111 32.6 501 36.9 2 137 26.6 56 11.1 125 36.7 318 23.4 Pulses (Beans, peas, 3 29 5.6 22 4.4 19 5.6 70 5.2 groundnuts and 4 9 1.7 17 3.4 5 1.5 31 2.3 cashew nuts) 5 15 2.9 18 3.6 0 0 33 2.4 6 1 .2 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 7 46 8.9 2 .4 7 2.1 55 4.0 0 8 1.6 15 3.0 59 17.3 82 6.0 1 4 .8 1 .2 3 .9 8 .6 2 4 .8 3 .6 8 2.3 15 1.1 3 2 .4 3 .6 1 .3 6 .4 Vegetables 4 13 2.5 13 2.6 6 1.8 32 2.4 5 31 6.0 52 10.3 11 3.2 94 6.9 6 31 6.0 26 5.2 41 12.0 98 7.2 7 422 81.9 390 77.5 212 62.2 1024 75.3 0 385 74.8 449 89.3 266 78.0 1100 80.9 1 54 10.5 44 8.7 66 19.4 164 12.1 2 35 6.8 4 .8 7 2.1 46 3.4 3 13 2.5 1 .2 1 .3 15 1.1 Fruits 4 3 .6 0 0 1 .3 4 .3 5 10 1.9 3 .6 0 0 13 1.0 6 3 .6 0 0 0 0 3 .2 7 12 2.3 2 .4 0 0 14 1.0 0 130 25.2 183 36.4 128 37.5 441 32.5 1 236 45.8 264 52.5 197 57.8 697 51.3 Meat and fish (goat, 2 101 19.6 39 7.8 11 3.2 151 11.1 poultry, pork, eggs 3 30 5.8 13 2.6 4 1.2 47 3.5 and fish) 4 5 1.0 2 .4 1 .3 8 .6 5 7 1.4 0 0 0 0 7 .5 7 6 1.2 2 .4 0 0 8 .6 0 370 71.8 386 76.7 297 87.1 1053 77.5 Milk ( Milk yoghurt 1 6 1.2 12 2.4 23 6.7 41 3.0 and other diaries) 2 10 1.9 4 .8 3 .9 17 1.3 3 10 1.9 2 .4 2 .6 14 1.0

100

4 30 5.8 2 .4 2 .6 34 2.5 5 14 2.7 1 .2 0 0 15 1.1 6 2 .4 1 .2 0 0 3 .2 7 73 14.2 95 18.9 14 4.1 182 13.4 0 372 72.2 393 78.1 101 29.6 866 63.7 1 8 1.6 15 3.0 49 14.4 72 5.3 2 21 4.1 11 2.2 2 .6 34 2.5 Sugar (Sugar and 3 18 3.5 9 1.8 1 .3 28 2.1 sugar products, honey, 4 6 1.2 11 2.2 4 1.2 21 1.5 sweets) 5 17 3.3 20 4.0 10 2.9 47 3.5 6 9 1.7 8 1.6 11 3.2 28 2.1 7 64 12.4 36 7.2 163 47.8 263 19.4 0 12 2.3 7 1.4 60 17.6 79 5.8 1 3 .6 4 .8 4 1.2 11 .8 2 1 .2 4 .8 1 .3 6 .4 Oil (Oils, fats and 3 9 1.7 11 2.2 1 .3 21 1.5 butter) 4 25 4.9 15 3.0 6 1.8 46 3.4 5 16 3.1 52 10.3 5 1.5 73 5.4 6 21 4.1 19 3.8 3 .9 43 3.2 7 428 83.1 391 77.7 261 76.5 1080 79.5 0 22 4.3 2 .4 67 19.6 91 6.7 1 1 .2 5 1.0 2 .6 8 .6 Condiments (spices, 2 5 1.0 3 .6 1 .3 9 .7 tea, coffee, salt, fish 3 14 2.7 15 3.0 1 .3 30 2.2 power, small amounts 4 23 4.5 15 3.0 5 1.5 43 3.2 of milk for tea) 5 19 3.7 28 5.6 11 3.2 58 4.3 6 7 1.4 10 2.0 16 4.7 33 2.4 7 424 82.3 425 84.5 238 69.8 1087 80.0 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H28 Information regarding toilets

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Presence of latrine Yes 426 82.7 466 92.6 324 95.0 1216 89.5 in the house No 89 17.3 37 7.4 17 5.0 143 10.5 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Temporary 44 10.3 188 40.3 62 19.1 294 24.2 latrine Type of latrine Permanent 382 89.7 278 59.7 262 80.9 922 75.8 latrine Total 426 100.0 466 100.0 324 100.0 1216 100.0 Agriculture 20 22.5 5 13.5 2 11.8 27 18.9 field Place for defecation River 10 11.2 6 16.2 3 17.6 19 13.3 in absence of latrine Pig shed 1 2.7 5 29.4 6 4.2 Others 59 66.3 25 67.6 7 41.2 91 63.6 Total 89 100.0 37 100.0 17 100.0 143 100.0 No children in 181 35.1 222 44.1 96 28.2 499 36.7 house Latrine 290 56.3 259 51.5 239 70.1 788 58.0 Place of defecation Agriculture for children 18 3.5 6 1.2 5 1.5 29 2.1 field Yard 4 .8 2 .4 0 0 6 .4 Others 22 4.3 14 2.8 1 .3 37 2.7 Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Distance of latrine Less than 10 195 37.9 210 41.7 84 24.6 489 36.0 form water source meter

101

10-19 153 29.7 149 29.6 223 65.4 525 38.6 20-29 71 13.8 63 12.5 25 7.3 159 11.7 30-39 38 7.4 40 8.0 5 1.5 83 6.1 40 and more 58 11.3 41 8.2 4 1.2 103 7.6 meter Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0

Table H28a : Presence of latrine

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N N N N N N Presence of Yes 335 87.0 36 83.7 289 93.5 441 91.1 479 83.6 1216 89.5 latrine in the No 50 13.0 7 16.3 20 6.5 43 8.9 94 16.4 143 10.5 house Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0

Table h29 Water borne diseases

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Case of water born Yes 50 9.7 24 4.8 82 24.0 156 11.5 disease at home in No 465 90.3 479 95.2 259 76.0 1203 88.5 past two weeks Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Dirty water 21 42.0 2 8.3 31 37.8 54 34.6 Dirty hand 1 2.0 2 8.3 42 51.2 45 28.8 Flies 1 2.0 0 0 45 54.9 46 29.5 Reasons of water Contaminated borne diseases* 2 4.0 3 12.5 49 59.8 54 34.6 food Don't know 21 42.0 17 70.8 11 13.4 49 31.4 Others 7 14.0 4 16.7 4 4.9 15 9.6 Total 50 100.0 24 100.0 82 100.0 156 100.0 Mostly affected Adult 13 26.0 7 29.2 24 29.3 44 28.2 from water borne Children 18 36.0 12 50.0 34 41.5 64 41.0 diseases Elder 19 38.0 5 20.8 24 29.3 48 30.8 Total 50 100.0 24 100.0 82 100.0 156 100.0 * Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

Table H30 Observed any loses at your HHs due to disaster

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total N % N % N % N % Experience of Yes 433 84.1 426 84.7 339 99.4 1198 88.2 losses due to No 82 15.9 77 15.3 2 .6 161 11.8 disaster at HH level Total 515 100.0 503 100.0 341 100.0 1359 100.0 Human 4 .9 17 4.0 25 7.4 46 3.8 Livestock 26 6.0 62 14.6 101 29.8 189 15.8 Agriculture 15 3.5 80 18.8 102 30.1 197 16.4 Types of losses Properties 21 4.8 231 54.2 105 31.0 357 29.8 Extreme harm to 424 97.9 410 96.2 333 98.2 1167 97.4 house Land 6 1.4 15 3.5 35 10.3 56 4.7 Total 433 100.0 426 100.0 339 100.0 1198 100.0 Below 10,000 52 12.0 3 .7 0 0 55 4.6 Property loses in 10000-29999 13 3.0 8 1.9 1 .3 22 1.8 monitory value 30000-49999 8 1.8 6 1.4 26 7.7 40 3.3

102

50000-99999 36 8.3 21 4.9 76 22.4 133 11.1 100000 and 324 74.8 388 91.1 236 69.6 948 79.1 above Total 433 100.0 426 100.0 339 100.0 1198 100.0

* Percentages total may exceed 100 due to multiple responses

Table 30a: Observed loses due to disaster at HH level

Single IDP PWDs Elderly Very Poor Total women Family (Ka) N N N N N N Experience Yes 330 85.7 43 100.0 268 86.7 427 88.2 471 82.2 1198 88.2 of losses due to disaster at No 55 14.3 0 0 41 13.3 57 11.8 102 17.8 161 11.8 HH level Total 385 100.0 43 100.0 309 100.0 484 100.0 573 100.0 1359 100.0

Table PF1 Land holding status of HHs

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Holding of Yes 148 67.0 187 82.4 71 56.8 406 70.9 registered land No 73 33.0 40 17.6 54 43.2 167 29.1 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Gender of the HH Female 51 34.5 82 43.9 27 38.0 160 39.4 member holding Male 85 57.4 102 54.5 42 59.2 229 56.4 the registered land Both 12 8.1 3 1.6 2 2.8 17 4.2 Total 148 100.0 187 100.0 71 100.0 406 100.0 1-4 33 62.3 62 72.9 27 93.1 122 73.1 Registered land 5-9 14 26.4 18 21.2 1 3.4 33 19.8 area in Ropani of 10-14 3 5.7 3 3.5 1 3.4 7 4.2 female member 15 and more 3 5.7 2 2.4 5 3.0 Ropani Total 53 100.0 85 100.0 29 100.0 167 100.0 1-4 56 64.4 74 72.5 29 74.4 159 69.7 Registered land 5-9 22 25.3 17 16.7 5 12.8 44 19.3 area in Ropani of 10-14 5 5.7 8 7.8 4 10.3 17 7.5 Male member 15 and more 4 4.6 3 2.9 1 2.6 8 3.5 Ropani Total 87 100.0 102 100.0 39 100.0 228 100.0 Family holding Yes 45 20.4 17 7.5 56 44.8 118 20.6 non-registered No 176 79.6 210 92.5 69 55.2 455 79.4 land Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Holding of non 1-4 37 82.2 14 82.4 51 91.1 102 86.4 registered land 5-9 6 13.3 3 17.6 4 7.1 13 11.0 area in Ropani 10-14 2 4.4 1 1.8 3 2.5 Total 45 100.0 17 100.0 56 100.0 118 100.0

Table PF2 Amount of earning from HH Income

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Hard core Poor Family (Ka)

103

N N N N None 173 78.3 206 90.7 120 96.0 499 87.1 Less than 10000 5 2.3 7 3.1 1 .8 13 2.3 10000-19999 13 5.9 5 2.2 2 1.6 20 3.5 20000-29999 11 5.0 11 1.9 Skilled wage labor 30000-39999 5 2.3 3 1.3 1 .8 9 1.6 40000-49999 3 1.4 1 .8 4 .7 50 thusand and 11 5.0 6 2.6 17 3.0 more; None 151 68.3 182 80.2 82 65.6 415 72.4 Less than 10000 15 6.8 10 4.4 4 3.2 29 5.1 10000-19999 19 8.6 8 3.5 12 9.6 39 6.8 Unskilled wage 20000-29999 9 4.1 12 5.3 11 8.8 32 5.6 labor 30000-39999 3 1.4 3 1.3 7 5.6 13 2.3 40000-49999 4 1.8 2 1.6 6 1.0 50 thusand and 20 9.0 12 5.3 7 5.6 39 6.8 more; None 175 79.2 194 85.5 116 92.8 485 84.6 Less than 10000 13 5.9 8 3.5 4 3.2 25 4.4 10000-19999 21 9.5 11 4.8 3 2.4 35 6.1 Agriculture and 20000-29999 4 1.8 6 2.6 2 1.6 12 2.1 livestock rearing 30000-39999 2 .9 2 .3 40000-49999 1 .5 1 .4 2 .3 50 thusand and 5 2.3 7 3.1 12 2.1 more; None 214 96.8 216 95.2 125 100.0 555 96.9 Less than 10000 2 .9 2 .3 10000-19999 1 .5 4 1.8 5 .9 Micro enterprise 30000-39999 4 1.8 4 .7 40000-49999 2 .9 1 .4 3 .5 50 thusand and 4 1.8 4 .7 more; None 217 98.2 222 97.8 124 99.2 563 98.3 Less than 10000 2 .9 2 .3 10000-19999 1 .8 1 .2 Government service 20000-29999 1 .4 1 .2 50 thusand and 4 1.8 2 .9 6 1.0 more; None 221 100.0 225 99.1 123 98.4 569 99.3 Non-government Less than 10000 1 .4 1 .2 service 50 thusand and 1 .4 2 1.6 3 .5 more; None 215 97.3 217 95.6 120 96.0 552 96.3 10000-19999 1 .4 1 .2 Remittance 20000-29999 2 .9 2 .3 50 thusand and 6 2.7 7 3.1 5 4.0 18 3.1 more; None 165 75.0 141 62.7 100 80.6 406 71.4 Less than 10000 5 2.3 6 2.7 3 2.4 14 2.5 10000-19999 15 6.8 27 12.0 9 7.3 51 9.0 Others (Please 20000-29999 16 7.3 41 18.2 9 7.3 66 11.6 specify) 30000-39999 1 .5 4 1.8 1 .8 6 1.1 40000-49999 11 5.0 3 1.3 1 .8 15 2.6 50 thusand and 7 3.2 3 1.3 1 .8 11 1.9 more; None 76 34.4 81 35.7 52 41.6 209 36.5 Less than 10000 17 7.7 14 6.2 8 6.4 39 6.8 10000-19999 30 13.6 27 11.9 17 13.6 74 12.9 20000-29999 23 10.4 44 19.4 18 14.4 85 14.8 Total income 30000-39999 4 1.8 12 5.3 7 5.6 23 4.0 40000-49999 14 6.3 10 4.4 6 4.8 30 5.2 50 thusand and 57 25.8 39 17.2 17 13.6 113 19.7 more; Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0

104

Table PF3 On Farm and Off Farm

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Presence of Yes 113 51.1 108 47.6 19 15.2 240 41.9 kitchen garden/home No 108 48.9 119 52.4 106 84.8 333 58.1 garden at home premises Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Production of Yes 85 75.2 90 83.3 16 84.2 191 79.6 seasonal vegetables at the No 28 24.8 18 16.7 3 15.8 49 20.4 kitchen garden Total 113 100.0 108 100.0 19 100.0 240 100.0 Consumption of Yes 79 92.9 78 86.7 13 81.3 170 89.0 produced vegetables to fulfill No 6 7.1 12 13.3 3 18.8 21 11.0 daily vegetables requirement Total 85 100.0 90 100.0 16 100.0 191 100.0 Month of 0-3 Month 51 64.6 71 91.0 5 38.5 127 74.7 vegetable 0-6 Month 19 24.1 2 2.6 5 38.5 26 15.3 sufficiency to 0-9 Month 6 7.6 2 2.6 3 23.1 11 6.5 fulfill daily vegetable requirement from own vegetable 0-12 Month 3 3.8 3 3.8 6 3.5 production at kitchen garden Total 79 100.0 78 100.0 13 100.0 170 100.0 Selling surplus Yes 6 7.1 6 3.1 vegetable after fulfilling HHs No 79 92.9 90 100.0 16 100.0 185 96.9 daily vegetable requirement Total 85 100.0 90 100.0 16 100.0 191 100.0 Average annual Less than 2 33.3 2 33.3 income by selling 5000 vegetables 5000-9999 3 50.0 3 50.0 produced at 10000 or 1 16.7 1 16.7 kitchen garden more Total 6 100.0 6 100.0

105

Table PF4 Commercial Farming

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Very Poor Family (K) N % N % N % N % Yes 12 5.4 3 1.3 31 24.8 46 8.0 Vegetables No 209 94.6 224 98.7 94 75.2 527 92.0 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Total annual None 8 66.7 3 100.0 31 100.0 42 91.3 income by selling Less than 3 25.0 3 6.5 vegetables in NPR 5000 excluding the 10000 or 1 8.3 1 2.2 investment more Total 12 100.0 3 100.0 31 100.0 46 100.0 Yes 73 33.0 87 38.3 75 60.0 235 41.0 Cereal Crops No 148 67.0 140 61.7 50 40.0 338 59.0 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 None 53 72.6 84 96.6 75 100.0 212 90.2 Total annual Less than income by selling 11 15.1 1 1.1 12 5.1 5000 cereal crops in 5000-9999 3 4.1 1 1.1 4 1.7 NPR excluding the 10000 or investment 6 8.2 1 1.1 7 3.0 more Total 73 100.0 87 100.0 75 100.0 235 100.0 High Value Cash Yes 2 .9 2 1.6 4 .7 Crops No 219 99.1 227 100.0 123 98.4 569 99.3 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Total annual None 1 50.0 2 100.0 3 75.0 income by selling high value cash Less than crops in NPR 1 50.0 1 25.0 5000 excluding the investment Total 2 100.0 2 100.0 4 100.0 Yes 3 1.4 1 .4 12 9.6 16 2.8 Livestock No 218 98.6 226 99.6 113 90.4 557 97.2 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Total annual None 2 66.7 1 100.0 10 83.3 13 81.3 income by selling 5000-9999 1 33.3 1 6.3 high value cash crops in NPR 10000 or 2 16.7 2 12.5 excluding the more investment Total 3 100.0 1 100.0 12 100.0 16 100.0 Yes 2 .9 2 .3 Fruits No 219 99.1 227 100.0 125 100.0 571 99.7 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0 Total annual None 1 50.0 1 50.0 income by selling Less than livestocks in NPR 1 50.0 1 50.0 5000 excluding Total 2 100.0 2 100.0

106

Table PF5 Food Consumption Score (FCS)

Gajuri Gangajamuna Khaniyabas Total-Hard core Poor Family (Ka) N % N % N % N % Main staples Maize, 0 15 6.8 29 12.8 13 10.4 57 9.9 rice, sorghum,millet 1 5 2.3 8 3.5 13 2.3 pasta, bread and 2 6 2.7 4 1.8 1 .8 11 1.9 other cereals 3 2 .9 7 3.1 3 2.4 12 2.1 Cassava, potatoes 4 3 1.4 5 2.2 1 .8 9 1.6 and sweet potatoes, 5 14 6.3 8 3.5 6 4.8 28 4.9 other tubers, 6 3 1.4 4 1.8 4 3.2 11 1.9 plantains 7 173 78.3 162 71.4 97 77.6 432 75.4 0 43 19.5 120 52.9 28 22.4 191 33.3 1 74 33.5 81 35.7 34 27.2 189 33.0 2 37 16.7 11 4.8 55 44.0 103 18.0 Pulses (Beans, peas, 3 16 7.2 1 .4 6 4.8 23 4.0 groundnuts and 4 7 3.2 4 1.8 1 .8 12 2.1 cashew nuts) 5 12 5.4 9 4.0 21 3.7 6 1 .5 1 .2 7 31 14.0 1 .4 1 .8 33 5.8 0 6 2.7 7 3.1 21 16.8 34 5.9 1 1 .5 1 .4 2 .3 2 2 .9 3 2.4 5 .9 3 1 .5 3 1.3 1 .8 5 .9 Vegetables 4 6 2.7 11 4.8 17 3.0 5 14 6.3 34 15.0 4 3.2 52 9.1 6 14 6.3 15 6.6 14 11.2 43 7.5 7 179 81.0 154 67.8 82 65.6 415 72.4 0 159 71.9 214 94.3 114 91.2 487 85.0 1 22 10.0 10 4.4 8 6.4 40 7.0 2 16 7.2 1 .4 2 1.6 19 3.3 Fruits 3 9 4.1 1 .8 10 1.7 5 8 3.6 1 .4 9 1.6 6 2 .9 2 .3 7 5 2.3 1 .4 6 1.0 0 75 33.9 113 49.8 63 50.4 251 43.8 1 87 39.4 104 45.8 58 46.4 249 43.5 Meat and fish (goat, 2 38 17.2 5 2.2 3 2.4 46 8.0 poultry, pork, eggs 3 10 4.5 5 2.2 1 .8 16 2.8 and fish) 4 2 .9 2 .3 5 5 2.3 5 .9 7 4 1.8 4 .7 0 179 81.0 209 92.1 121 96.8 509 88.8 1 4 1.8 4 1.8 8 1.4 2 2 .9 2 .3 Milk ( Milk yoghurt 3 4 1.8 1 .4 2 1.6 7 1.2 and other diaries) 4 8 3.6 8 1.4 5 1 .5 1 .2 7 23 10.4 13 5.7 2 1.6 38 6.6 0 129 58.4 157 69.2 36 28.8 322 56.2 1 3 1.4 6 2.6 10 8.0 19 3.3 2 8 3.6 8 3.5 1 .8 17 3.0 Sugar (Sugar and 3 11 5.0 8 3.5 1 .8 20 3.5 sugar products, 4 3 1.4 10 4.4 3 2.4 16 2.8 honey, sweets) 5 15 6.8 17 7.5 7 5.6 39 6.8 6 4 1.8 5 2.2 7 5.6 16 2.8 7 48 21.7 16 7.0 60 48.0 124 21.6

107

0 7 3.2 6 2.6 18 14.4 31 5.4 1 1 .5 4 1.8 2 1.6 7 1.2 2 1 .5 2 .9 3 .5 Oil (Oils, fats and 3 7 3.2 11 4.8 1 .8 19 3.3 butter) 4 12 5.4 12 5.3 4 3.2 28 4.9 5 15 6.8 38 16.7 5 4.0 58 10.1 6 8 3.6 9 4.0 2 1.6 19 3.3 7 170 76.9 145 63.9 93 74.4 408 71.2 0 13 5.9 2 .9 22 17.6 37 6.5 1 1 .5 4 1.8 5 .9 Condiments (spices, 2 4 1.8 2 .9 1 .8 7 1.2 tea, coffee, salt, fish 3 7 3.2 13 5.7 1 .8 21 3.7 power, small 4 12 5.4 13 5.7 3 2.4 28 4.9 amounts of milk for 5 15 6.8 23 10.1 7 5.6 45 7.9 tea) 6 5 2.2 9 7.2 14 2.4 7 169 76.5 165 72.7 82 65.6 416 72.6 Total 221 100.0 227 100.0 125 100.0 573 100.0

108

Photographs of Field Work

109