Hariyo Ban Program Ii

HARIYO BAN PROGRAM II

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan

Date: [April 4, 2017, Revised: November 14, 2020]

Version: Final

[Contract/Agreement] Number: [AID-367-A-16-00008]

Activity Start Date and End Date: [July 15, 2016 to July 14, 2021]

Submitted by: [WWF in partnership with CARE, FECOFUN and NTNC] [Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal] Tel: [977 1-4410942] Email: [[email protected]]

This document was produced for review by the1 United States Agency for International

Development. It was prepared by WWF Nepal. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Published by WWF Nepal PO Box: 7660 Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal T: +977 1 4434820, F: +977 1 4438458 [email protected], www.wwfnepal.org/hariyobanprogram

Disclaimer Disclaimer: This Plan is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this Plan are the sole responsibility of WWF Nepal and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronoyms and Abbreviation ...... 2

1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Hariyo Ban II Conceptual Model and Result Framework ...... 8

3. Theory of Change ...... 9 3.1 Literature Review ...... 9 3.2 Theory of Change and Results Chain ...... 10

4. Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Approach ...... 18 4.1 Guiding Principles ...... 18 4.2 Overall Functioning of M&E system ...... 19 4.3 MEL structures and functions ...... 21 4.4 Indicators, baseline and targets ...... 24 4.5 Data collection and management ...... 24 4.6 Data quality assurance ...... 26 4.7 Data analysis and reporting...... 26 4.8 Coordination with others ...... 27 4.9 Capacity building ...... 27 4.10 Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) ...... 28 4.11 Plan for special reviews, evaluations and studies ...... 29 Annex 1: Summary of Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT) ...... 31 Annex 2: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS)...... 56 Annex 3: List of indicators with changes made (compared to Cooperative agreement) 143 Annex 3.1: List of indicators with changes made (compared to MEL Plan 2017)...... 149 Annex 4: Hariyo Ban II Working Areas ...... 156 Annex 5: CLA Plan Matrix ...... 158

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual model for Hariyo Ban II ...... 3 Figure 2: Results Framework Hariyo Ban II ...... 4 Figure 3: Results chain for Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON- identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL ...... 12 Figure 4: Results chain for R 1.1: Threats to target species reduced ...... 13 Figure 5: Results chain for R 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced ...... 14 Figure 6: Results chain for R 1.3: Market-based livelihood ...... 15 Figure 7: Results chain for Objective 2: Reducing climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL ...... 17 Figure 8: Three-tier participatory M&E System...... 20 Figure 9: Hariyo Ban II M&E unit ...... 22 Figure 11: Data Flow in Hariyo Ban Program - II ...... 25

LIST OF ACRONOYMS AND ABBREVIATION

A Assumptions AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative AT+ Aid Tracker Plus AWP Annual Work Plan BD Biodiversity BDC Biodiversity Conservation BNP Bardiya National Park BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest User’s Group BZ Buffer Zone BZUC Buffer Zone User Committee CA Conservation Area CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee CAPA Community Adaptation Plan of Action CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CBAPU Community Based Anti-Poaching Unit CBO Community Based Organization CCA Climate Change Adaptation CFD Community Forest Development CFOP Community Forest Operational Plan CFUG Community Forest User Group CHAL Chitwan Annapurna Landscape CNP Chitwan National Park CoP Chief of Party CSO Civil Society Organization DCoP Deputy Chief of Party DDL Development Data Library DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DFO Division Forest Office DIA-RP Differential Impact Assessment- Response Planning DIP Detailed Implementation Plan DIS Development Information Solution

DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation DQA Data Quality Assessment DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EFLG Environment Friendly Local Governance Framework FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal FTF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year G Gender Equality and Social Inclusion GCC Global Climate Change GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion GG Governance, Gender Equality and Social Inclusion GoN Government of Nepal Gov Governance GPS Global Positioning System HVC High Value Crops HWC Human Wildlife Conflict ICA Institutional Capacity Assessment ICB Institutional Capacity Building IP Implementing Partner IRBM Integrated River-Basin Management ISWMP Integrated Sub Watershed Management Plan IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated KISAN Knowledge-Based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal L Livelihood LAPA Local Adaptation Plan of Action LCPV Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley LDRMP Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan LFG Leasehold Forestry Group LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender LHFUG Leasehold Forest User Groups LOA Life of Activity LQ Learning Question M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MCAP Manaslu Conservation Area Project MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NA Not Applicable NAP National Adaptation Plan NGO Non-Government Organization NP National Park NRM Natural Resource Management NRs Nepalese Rupees NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation PA Protected Area PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PF Primary Format PGA Participatory Governance Assessment PHPA Public Hearing and Public Audit PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet PITT Performance Indicators Tracking Table PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PWBR Participatory Well-Being Ranking R Result RBM Result Based Management RC Result Chain SAS Statistical Analysis System SF Secondary Format SNP Shuklaphanta National Park SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science SWC Social Welfare Council T Target TAL Terai Arc Landscape ToC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VA Vulnerability Assessment WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WCCB Wildlife Crime Control Bureau WUG/A Water Users Groups/Association WWF World Wildlife Fund Y Year

1. INTRODUCTION

The Hariyo Ban Program II (Hariyo Ban II) is a five-year initiative funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) designed to build upon the advances made by the first phase of the Hariyo Ban Program in addressing biodiversity threats and climate vulnerabilities. Hariyo Ban II is being implemented from July 2016 to July 2021 by the same consortium of partners, including World Wildlife Fund (WWF-lead), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN) and National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC). Hariyo Ban II has the goal of increased ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) and the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). This will be achieved through two objectives: 1) Improve the conservation and management of Government of Nepal (GoN)-identified biodiverse landscapes - CHAL and TAL and 2) Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL. Governance and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) are cross cutting themes that will be mainstreamed across the two objectives of the Program, and livelihoods are nested under the biodiversity conservation component. Hariyo Ban II has been guided by the development hypothesis or the program level theory of change: “If stakeholders are better able to conserve and benefit from biodiverse natural resources and adapt to climate change in a manner that diversifies livelihood options, improves gender equality and social inclusion, and promotes good natural resource governance, then people and ecosystems in the target landscapes will be more resilient”. The development hypothesis has been unpacked and embedded into the theories of change (ToC) and results chains (RCs) for both of the objectives with integration of governance and GESI as cross cutting themes. Hariyo Ban II has been working at multiple levels, from site to landscape and national levels, using a strategic approach based on learning from phase one as well as on actions guided by the CHAL and TAL strategies. The Program has been working in biological corridors and river basins in TAL and CHAL, respectively, across 14 districts: Banke, Bardia, Dadeldhura, Dang, Kailali and Kanchanpur in TAL and Chitwan, Gorkha, Kaski, Lamjung, Manang, Nawalparasi, Syangja and Tanahun in CHAL. The Program has been focusing interventions on specific ‘working sites’ having common issues, threats and opportunities in the biological corridors in TAL while it will work in critical sub-watersheds in CHAL. The Program has put its efforts to pilot, leverage and scale up interventions to achieve the desired results in specific protected areas (PAs), critical corridors, and sub-basins. The major stakeholders for the Program include government institutions; natural resources management (NRM) groups, including Community Forestry User Groups (CFUG), Buffer Zone Community Forestry User Groups (BZCFUG), Buffer Zone User Committees (BZUC), Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMC) and Leasehold Forest User Groups

(LHFUG); other Community Based Organizations (CBOs); civil society; academia, research institutions, private sector, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Hariyo Ban II has focused 80% of program effort in CHAL, supporting the implementation of the new CHAL strategy promoting climate smart Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) in Gandaki basin, while 20% of program effort has been channeled to implement the revised TAL strategy focusing on recovery and conservation of focal species with combating wildlife poaching and illegal trade. Hariyo Ban II has Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) as an integral and overarching priority with the following objectives: • To ensure that program interventions are directed towards attaining the desired results with quality assurance building upon the advances in the first phase of Hariyo Ban through application of lessons learned. • To provide evidence based timely feedback on relevance and effectiveness of program logic and interventions to managers and partners, enabling them to practice adaptive management by making well-timed, informed decisions to maximize project impact. • To generate learning with testing of the program logic, including critical assumptions and integrating them into the project cycle, promoting adaptive management to achieve the desired results.

This MEL plan presents guiding principles, MEL approach, an overall description of Hariyo Ban II with the desired results, the theories of change (ToCs), results chains (RCs), critical assumptions (A) and performance indicators. This plan also presents the collaborative learning and adapting strategy (CLA), performance evaluation plan, and data management and reporting plan. Performance indicator reference sheets (PIRS) and performance indicator tracking table (PITT) have been prepared and presented as a separate annex. This MEL plan is a dynamic document to be updated and revised based on periodic reviews of effectiveness of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system and practices, validity of the underlying assumptions, relevance of the results chains, and usefulness of the indicators to measure results and outcomes. In particular, the performance management plan and results framework have been regularly reviewed and refined with adjustments to targets, timelines and results chains. Many of the elements of the MEL Plan were generated in a participatory manner with contributions from GoN, USAID and Consortium partners at a workshop organized in September 2016 in Kathmandu. This MEL plan was prepared using WWF standards for Program and Project Management (www.panda.org/standards) and details the Hariyo Ban II MEL approach, structures, functions, and strategies with operational details of implementation.

2. HARIYO BAN II CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESULT FRAMEWORK

The Conceptual model for Hariyo Ban II depicts threats to biodiversity, drivers, threat reduction results and ecosystem and human well-being targets (Figure-1).

Figure 1: Conceptual model for Hariyo Ban II

The overall results framework for Hariyo Ban II is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Results Framework Hariyo Ban II

The major interventions based on the identified threats and vulnerabilities that have been implemented by the program under the two main components or objectives are included below.

Biodiversity Conservation Objective 1: Improve the Conservation and Management of GON-Identified Biodiverse Landscapes -CHAL and TAL Nepal’s biodiversity and natural resources provide important ecosystem services and economic benefits for livelihoods. However, they are impacted by many threats that are often exacerbated by climate change. The threats to biodiversity and natural resources include unsustainable harvesting of natural resources, poaching of wildlife species and illegal harvest of important plant species including non-timber forest products, development of linear and hydropower infrastructure, fires, and illegal poaching. Hariyo Ban II has implemented various measures to reduce these threats that contributed to the implementation of the revised TAL Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2025, and CHAL Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2025. The intended results with the key interventions and major outcomes are included below: Result 1.1 Threats to target species reduced Key interventions: x Support GoN to implement protected areas management plans and target focal species conservation action plans x Support GoN for research, monitoring and conservation of target focal species x Support GON to establish original assemblage of target focal species x Support for increasing Human wildlife conflict (HWC) awareness implementing mitigation measures and mobilizing relief fund x Support to form, strengthen Community Based Anti-Poaching Unit (CBAPUs) and mobilize youth in reducing wildlife crime Major outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x Increased (maintained) population of target focal species x Protected areas management plans and species conservation action plans prepared and implemented x Zero poaching maintained x HWC affected households receive relief fund in a timely and equitable manner x Reduction of economic damage from HWC x Positive perception of people on conservation benefits x Growing engagement of youth in reducing wildlife crime

Contextual outcomes1: x Target focal species successfully reintroduced in their former range x Wildlife crime control bureau (WCCB) functional at landscape level x Judiciary, transportation system and other law enforcement agencies engaged in wildlife crime control Result 1.2 Threats to target landscapes reduced Key interventions: x Support GoN to implement CHAL and TAL strategies and action plans. x Scale up integrated river basin management (IRBM) approach in CHAL. x Support GoN for the preparation of GESI sensitive climate smart management plans of protected areas incorporating local solutions and indigenous knowledge. x Support restoration of wetlands and watershed management measures in Chure. x Support for restoration and management of critical habitats (grasslands, wetlands, floodplains and forests). x Support to reduce incidents and extent of damage from forest fire, management of invasive alien species and climate refugia. x Support to strengthen sustainable financing mechanisms for watershed management through payment for ecosystem services (PES). x Engage with GoN, donors, developers and communities in promoting wildlife friendly and climate smart infrastructure. Major outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x Biologically significant areas under improved management x Biodiverse areas/critical habitats show improved biophysical conditions x Improvement in the conservation of water sources Contextual outcomes: x Biodiversity friendly infrastructure standards/guidelines in place/implemented x Upstream downstream linkage strengthened x Landslide/vulnerable slopes stabilized

1 Contextual outcomes are those which would help us to intermediary track the progress towards major outcomes and results. All the contextual outcomes will be periodically monitored and assessed to link with overall outcomes.

Result 1.3 Market based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Key interventions: x Conduct value chain analysis for identified market based on-farm and forest products x Business plan preparation for small and medium scale enterprises based on the findings of value chain analysis x Block plantations of High Value Crops (HVC) in a commercial scale x Provide skill-based training focusing on women and youths for alternative income generation opportunities x Support to scale up eco-tourism activities Major Outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x People/household involved in conservation activities receive economic and other social benefits from small and medium enterprises x More women engaged in conservation friendly enterprises through entrepreneurship skill development x Increased employment of skill-based trainees x Increase in income/revenue generated by NRM groups from conservation friendly enterprises Climate Change Adaptation Objective 2: Reducing Climate Change Vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Ecological and human communities of Nepal are vulnerable to various climate hazards such as flood, landslide, drought, irregular rainfall, and decreased water supply. The adverse impacts of climate change are already apparent on the human communities while the impacts on ecological communities may be taking longer, but could appear suddenly as tipping points are reached. The ecosystems may be more vulnerable if they are also subjected to anthropogenic threats. Hariyo Ban II has worked towards reducing vulnerabilities and increasing adaptive capacities of these human and critical ecological communities. Result 2.1 Participatory climate vulnerability reduction measures integrated into local, district and national planning process Key interventions: x Support GoN to integrate climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) into a single plan. x Support GoN to mainstream integrated community adaptation plan of action (CAPAs) and local adaptation plan of action (LAPAs) into local planning process.

x Support GoN to facilitate vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning integration into local development planning process and in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) formulation. x Support GoN in CCA and DRR policy harmonization Major outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x CCA and DRR provisions integrated into local development plans and implemented Contextual outcomes: x CCA and DRR policy harmonized Result 2.2 Community readiness to adapt to and benefit from climate change increased Key interventions: x Support implementation of integrated CCA, DRR; and sub-watershed management plans. x Support implementation of selected LAPAs leveraging external resources. x Support to pilot sub-river basin and sub-watershed level institutions in Seti sub-basin. x Conduct awareness and training activities related to climate change impacts and adaptation. x Support to promote climate information systems for CCA and DRR. Major outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x Differential impacts of climate change addressed through implementation of adaptation/DRR plans. x Increased capacity of local institutions and stakeholders to adapt to climate change. x Institutional mechanisms for river basin management piloted Result 2.3 Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts Key interventions: x Capacity building of local institutions and community on climate induced DRR x Support to promote social safety net measures (rescue support, community safe house, psychological support mechanism and anti-GBV mechanism) x Support to link with insurance services for crops, livestock and enterprises. x Support to promote climate information systems for CCA and DRR. x Link integrated LAPA and LDRMP Plan with district level disaster response mechanism

Major outcomes (with indicators in PITT): x Reduced vulnerabilities/risks to landslides and flood hazards Contextual outcomes: x Increased practice to diversify improve livelihood through climate adaptive land use x Increased leadership positions held by women youth and marginalized people in NRM groups, with enhanced leadership quality.

x Improved technical and managerial capacity and/or performance scores of local organizations (CFUGs and other user groups) on improved biodiversity and adaptation.

3. THEORY OF CHANGE

As stated in the previous section, the key basis of theories of change and results chains is Hariyo Ban Program - II development hypothesis. This section includes brief literature review, objective wise theory of change with key assumptions and result chains.

3.1 Literature Review

Literature review was done to provide glimpse of the current knowledge base on theory of change, which included review of pertinent documents including from USAID. The review included basic concepts of ToC and results chain and their evolution, key elements; and, complementarity between two components. Theory of change is a short narrative, analogous to development hypothesis that shows the logic and causal relationships between the expected long term results and goal, the multiple levels of conditions or preliminary results needed to achieve the long-term results, and the set of approaches, strategies and actions to produce the enabling conditions, the preliminary results and the long-term goal (Anderson, 2005; Stem and Flores, 2016). USAID defines theory of change as the reasoning behind how and why a result is expected to be achieved in a context, often presented through if-then statements referencing evidences of causal linkages between the actions, the intermediate and long-term results (Automated Directives System (ADS) 201). Theory of change as a concept was first introduced in the 1970s and its use by international development agencies has been on rise due to its effectiveness to clearly articulate the complex processes of change or pathways for results. It further clarifies the underlying logics, assumptions or preconditions for the interventions to achieve the desired results while building common understanding or consensus on the logical coherence of the connections, and pathways between the planned interventions, desired intermediate outcomes and long-term goals in the given program contexts (Allen, 2010; Anderson, 2005; Biggs et al. 2016).

The process of building a theory of change according to Anderson (2005) can be summed up in five steps: 1) identifying the long-term outcome, 2) developing a pathway of change, 3) operationalizing the outcomes, 4) defining interventions and 5) articulating assumptions. The theory of change in conservation sector, has been mainly used in the form of results chains (Stem and Margoluis, 2016; USAID, 2015a). The result chains can be understood as graphical representation of the theory of change and provide a good framework for defining and testing common assumptions, learning about the conditions under which selected strategic approaches are effective and why they are effective (Stem and Margoluis, 2016; USAID, 2015a; USAID, 2015b). A good result chain must constitute of the following components: 1) results that must be achieved to produce desired changes in the given program context; 2) prioritized strategic approaches and interventions with highest potential to produce the desired changes or results; 3) intermediate results or outcomes and essential preconditions presented with directional development pathways for the interventions to bring about the desired changes; 4) assumptions about the program context and logic made for the development pathways to function; and 5) indicators to monitor and test assumptions and attainment of desired results from the intervention and pathways selected (Stem and Margoluis, 2016; Anderson, 2005). Thus, the application of the theory of change approach with a narrative of the underlying program logic or theory using “if- then” statements and their graphical or schematic representation in a logically coherent pathway from intervention to results using a result chain could be a better option (Stem and Flores, 2016; Stem and Margoluis, 2016). The use of results chain with narrative theory involves a brief description of the background context for the program, explanation of underlying logic for selection of the results and interventions, illustration of the causal linkages and pathways between the interventions and the results, explicit list of assumptions and risks, and measurable indicators with targets (Anderson, 2015; Stem and Margoluis, 2016; Stem and Flores, 2016).

3.2 Theory of Change and Results Chain

3.2.1 Theory of change- Objective 1: Improve the Conservation and Management of GON-Identified Biodiverse Landscapes -CHAL and TAL

The theory of change for Objective 1 is:

“If critical habitats and dispersal corridors including bio-diverse watersheds conserved, threats and climate vulnerabilities to ecosystems and species reduced, NRM institutions (GON and non-GON) are inclusive and accountable, community stewardship for conservation developed; then conservation and management of TAL and CHAL will be improved”.

The underlying assumptions across different results chains along with learning questions under objective 1 are given below:

There is no unanticipated event (epidemic diseases, natural disasters) that severely impact adaptation of reintroduced species in the new environment. Local employment conditions for trained human resources will not change substantially during the life of project. 3.2.2 Theory of change- Objective 2: Reducing Climate Change Vulnerability in CHAL and TAL

The theory of change for objective 2 is: “If local, sub-national and national stakeholders are able to conduct participatory climate vulnerability assessments, prepare integrated local adaptation and sub- watershed management plans and mainstream into local development planning process; and national and sub-national policies and plans incorporate climate change vulnerability reduction measures as an integral part of development planning process to prepare and implement climate smart development plans, then participatory climate change vulnerability reduction practices will be institutionalized that will lead to climate change vulnerability reductions in TAL and CHAL.” The underlying assumptions across different results chains along with learning questions under objective 2 are given below: GoN formulates a framework for integration of CCA and DRR. GoN prepares NAP within stipulated time (by second year of Hariyo Ban) for the program to be able to implement it. GoN formulates a framework for implementation of integrated river basin management approach

3.2.3 Results chains

Results chains are the graphic representation of the ToCs. Results chains have been developed for sub-objectives 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 under Objective 1, and for Objective 2. The results chains show the causal relationships between the intervention strategies and the desired results. They also show the detailed pathways explaining how the strategic interventions will lead to accomplishment of Hariyo Ban Program - II intended results. Results chains for objective 1 and each of its results (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) are given in figure 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Similarly, results chain for objective 2 is given in figure 7.

Figure 3: Results chain for Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL

Figure 4: Results chain for R 1.1: Threats to target species reduced

Figure 5: Results chain for R 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced

Figure 6: Results chain for R 1.3: Market-based livelihood

Figure 7: Results chain for Objective 2: Reducing climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL

4. MONITORING EVALUATION AND LEARNING APPROACH

4.1 Guiding Principles

Monitoring, evaluation and learning in Hariyo Ban II will be guided by a set of principles as follows: Results based planning, monitoring and performance reporting Following the overall framework of results-based management (RBM2), the Program has ensured that key program results (short term and long-term) are well articulated through a participatory planning process and owned by all involved. The results have been illustrated in the results chains and theory of change included in this plan. Appropriate monitoring and evaluation instruments have been developed to measure these results effectively, and a performance reporting system will be focused on highlighting these results. Staff have been continuously trained about internalizing this process. The Hariyo Ban Consortium partners and core team provided necessary support to facilitate this process. The Program identified accountability level across consortium partners, core team, thematic team and implementation team towards attaining the desired results. The intended results illustrated in the results chains are the basis for results- based monitoring. Strengthening institutional monitoring mechanism Strengthening the institutional monitoring mechanism among consortium partners, implementing partners and NRM groups is another cornerstone of the work in Hariyo Ban II. Learning from the first phase of Hariyo Ban revealed that focusing on activity level monitoring with project support is helpful in attaining the project objectives. However, strengthening of institutional mechanisms and capacities is vital for long term sustainability of the monitoring processes. This process was initiated towards the end of the first phase of Hariyo Ban. An M&E capacity assessment tool has been developed which is useful in assessing . monitoring capacity of the institutions. We have supported NRM groups and implementing partners to create an enabling environment for effective monitoring, including to develop policy provisions for program monitoring, create appropriate structures, allocate adequate resources for monitoring, foster monitoring practices, and integration of monitoring findings into decision making processes.

2 RBM is a management strategy by which all actors, contributing directly or indirectly to achieving a set of results, ensure that their processes, products and services contribute to the achievement of desired results (outputs, outcomes and higher-level goals or impact). The actors in turn use information and evidence on actual results to inform decision making on the design, resourcing and delivery of programs and activities as well as for accountability and reporting. (Source: Results based management handbook, UNDP, October, 2011)

Creating meaningful evidence of change for informed decision making Creating meaningful evidence of change for informed decision-making has been pivotal in Hariyo Ban II. Though monitoring and measuring changes are key functions of M&E, the information generated is not adequately useful to the Program Management, particularly in light of the timeliness and content. Reasons for this include data collection solely focused on reporting requirements primarily process and outputs, and limitations of the regular monitoring systems to track results level information. We have made efforts to address these issues in Hariyo Ban II with periodic outcome monitoring, assurance of data quality, robustness of data analysis, appropriate interpretation of information from the analyzed data, and well-timed flow of the information to the program managers for adaptive management. We have devised systems to track ultimate and intermediary outcomes from the beginning. In addition, harmonization of data needs of different stakeholders, including consortium partners and government agencies, have been pursued with improvements in the procedures for data collection and flow, processing and management of data, and secure transfer and storage of data, as well as timely communication of monitoring findings. Building Learning and knowledge management Hariyo Ban II has a proactive learning approach with emphasis on both the generation of new knowledge and building upon the existing knowledge base. Documentation of case stories timed with semiannual and annual performance reporting requirements emphasized. The knowledge or learning from both successes and failures are being recorded, analyzed, documented and shared. Intensive review and reflections have remained one of the main tools for this purpose. Development of common and clear understanding of the concepts and strategies, for Hariyo Ban Program – II across all levels Inadequate understanding of the key concepts and strategies, which are often formulated at the central level, is often an impediment in attaining desired results on the ground. M&E plays a key role in facilitating clear articulation, transfer, and building of common understanding and application of these concepts, plans, approaches, strategies, guidelines, standards and protocols from center to the field. Capacity building and orientation for both personnel from consortium partners, implementing partners, government agencies, as well as communities on the concepts, plans, strategies, standards and guidelines have been facilitated by the core team. M&E unit has been closely working with the Program team to ensure that the concepts, plans, standards, strategies and protocols designed and developed at the central level are applied in the field and are effective in producing intended results.

4.2 Overall Functioning of M&E system Based on the principles of results-based management, the M&E approach in Hariyo Ban II has been guided by the well-articulated theories of change reflected in program design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. M&E is being instrumental in improving overall

19 program effectiveness through regular field monitoring, periodic review reflections, M&E capacity building, timely and routine feedback for adaptive management. The key M&E strategies such as results-based planning and monitoring with alignment of annual work plan, sequencing of activities, strengthening of institutional M&E system with capacity building, and adaptive management to achieve and ensure sustainability of the intended results and envisioned five-year impact picture have been applied. Multiple M&E tools such as monitoring visits, review-reflection, data quality assessment (DQA), case stories, small assessments and studies are being used with well-timed sharing of monitoring findings, learning and recommendations for the adaptive management actions. Routine field monitoring is conducted to ensure that the program implementation follows the set standards and quality outputs are produced. Indicator based tracking and progress reporting are done with outcomes tracked from early stages. The output and outcome level data are being collected through an automated database system, capitalizing on the huge experience from the first phase of Hariyo Ban. The collected data are analyzed and key M&E findings are fed into the decision making process, contributing to adaptive management. Periodic review reflection meetings are conducted to update on achievements, issues, challenges and cross learning. Learning and knowledge management is pivotal in Hariyo Ban II. Proactive engagement, coordination and collaboration is maintained with GoN, USAID, consortium partners, academia and other key stakeholders. A three-tiered participatory M&E system (Figure 8), used in the first phase, is also used in Hariyo Ban II. The three tiers include program beneficiaries and stakeholders, field level program personnel, and program team at the central level.

Figure 8: Three-tier participatory M&E System

x At the level of program beneficiaries, monitoring sub committees of NRM groups, representatives of government agencies and CBOs, and communities themselves are

undertaking regular participatory monitoring of inputs, process, output and evidence of change providing prompt feedback for program improvement. x Field level program personnel are responsible and to ensure that the intended results are produced by program interventions following technical standards. The inputs, process, and outputs are being monitored followed by regular review-reflections, and learning documentation for adaptive management. Maintain database with collection, verification and entry of data into the web based (online) database system, as well as reporting of progress, will be supported. The field level program personnel will also facilitate joint monitoring with government agencies and other stakeholders followed by review and reflection with partner agencies. x At the central level, validity of program logic (ToC) is evaluated. The monitoring and data recording formats were developed and updated while the data or information collected are being analyzed and the findings shared with Hariyo Ban Core team and Consortium partners for adaptive management. In addition, the M&E team supported capacity building of the field program personnel as well as program beneficiary communities and stakeholders on MEL while facilitating outcome tracking, learning documentation and knowledge management.

4.3 MEL structures and functions

Hariyo Ban Program II has an M&E Unit responsible for operationalization of the result framework and implementation of the MEL plan. The M&E Unit comprises of M&E Specialist, an ME&D officer and one M&E Associate housed within the WWF Nepal Office in Kathmandu, along with one M&E associate based in each of the two landscapes in Pokhara and Kohalpur, and M&E personnel in each of the consortium partners (Figure 9). However, the positions of M&E Associates in Kathmandu and CHAL has been phased out since July 2020 as a result of the staff phase out plan of HB II. The M&E responsibility has been shifted to ME &D Officer in Kathmandu and Program Associate, in CHAL.

Figure 9: Hariyo Ban II M&E unit The role of M&E Specialist includes: 1) design performance monitoring, evaluation, and learning system; 2) prepare baseline data, organizes field surveys, and collects, analyzes and stores data; 3) support Chief of Party (CoP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP) to prepare semiannual and annual reports; 4) provide training on M&E; 5) oversee regular program monitoring; 6) analyze monitoring data, ensuring effective communication of results to key audiences, and keep PMU well informed; and 7) oversee the learning agenda. The main responsibilities of the M&E unit include: x Establish M&E system and preparation of M&E deliverables for USAID x Development of appropriate data collection templates and database management software x Provide relevant data/information required by consortium partners, core team, USAID, GoN and other stakeholders x Conduct data quality assessments on a regular basis internally and in coordination with USAID x Conduct field monitoring on a routine basis and organize joint monitoring visits of consortium partners, GoN and USAID x Facilitation of routine critical review and reflections on progress (thematic), achievements, issues, challenges, opportunities in program implementation for adaptive management as well as for management of learning and knowledge. x Conduct monitoring, analysis and documentation of key outcomes for Hariyo Ban II, including baseline and endline surveys as well as support program evaluations. x Oversee knowledge management with capture and application of learning following collaborative learning and adaptation approach and learning strategy. x Capacity building of Hariyo Ban II team, core partner staff and relevant stakeholders

in M&E. x Coordination and collaboration in periodic evaluations (including midterm/final evaluation by external evaluators), measurement of results, and conduction of research and studies. The M&E personnel of the consortium partners have been actively engaged to ensure operationalization and implementation of the M&E system and activities within their organization for Hariyo Ban II. They are the focal points for M&E communications between the consortium partners as well as between program team and M&E departments within their organization. They are responsible for maintenance of an updated database and secure management of program records at consortium partner level, orienting their program on use of M&E formats and database templates, and supporting their respective program managers and personnel in the preparation of regular progress and performance reports. They have been also made responsible for preparation of M&E formats specific to requirements of the Program in their organization along with coordination of monitoring visits and timely sharing of feedbacks from analysis of the monitoring data, progress reports, database records, performance reports, documented learning or knowledge, and review of program documents and guidelines. In addition, the consortium partners have arranged a full time M&E staff with following roles and responsibilities. x Ensure alignment of Hariyo Ban II interventions with intended results x Field monitoring of Hariyo Ban activities x Conduct review reflections for adaptive management and learning capturing x Database management x Performance reporting x Provide support to M&E unit in implementation of relevant M&E activities as needed The development of the M&E strategy and data collection instruments was completed first year of program implementation, along with conducting the baseline study. Training and orientation for program personnel on M&E strategy and frameworks and data collection tools were provided. The M&E training including coaching for data collection instruments and databases has been continued in the second, third and fourth year. Support will be provided as required in Year 5 as well. The Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) of Hariyo Ban activities, M&E AWP, field monitoring visits, and review reflections have been conducted in each of the five years of implementation while Hariyo Ban II assumption testing, small assessments, learning and knowledge documentation are practiced from the second year onwards. The midterm evaluation was conducted on the third year and the final evaluation is planned in the fifth year. Following steps for M&E implementation are taken: x Development of results framework, ToC and results chains clearly illustrating the

linkage between output, outcome and impact level indicators x Articulation of underlying assumptions across different results domains x Facilitate development of DIP x Development of M&E implementation strategy x Development of data collection instruments x Development of a well-articulated software for database management x Orientation and capacity development of staff and partners x Data collection, storage, analysis and use x Performance reporting x Learning and knowledge documentation and dissemination

4.4 Indicators, baseline and targets

A total of 47 indicators have been identified under two objectives and cross cutting themes, which include 19 standard indicators and 28 custom indicators. The detail of these indicators is provided in the Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT) and Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS). In Year 3, four additional indicators have been added upon the request by USAID. With this, there are total 51 indicators being reported since Year 3. However, Hariyo Ban has not reported progress for indicator under Objective 2- 2.1.3 Number of climate change adaptation plans being implemented in collaboration with EFLG Committees at different levels' because the EFLG Program ceased to exist. "The PITT has been prepared reflecting the baseline values, life of project targets and annual break downs for each indicator (Annex-1). The baseline information were derived from the first phase Hariyo Ban Program endline values reported in the program database and documents, as well as from the baseline survey, particularly for indicators unique to Hariyo Ban II. All the baseline information were derived by the end of June 2017. The methodology to measure the indicator values and outcomes identified in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) have been prepared (Annex-2) with information on their types, contextual linkages, annual breakdown of overall targets, sources of data, methodologies for measurements, disaggregation level, reporting frequency, and responsibilities for measurement and reporting. Besides, all the contextual outcomes are periodically monitored and assessed to link with overall outcomes related to indicators. In close consultation with USAID, indicator targets and progress are being reviewed every year and targets revised, as necessary.

4.5 Data collection and management

Hariyo Ban II has employed a comprehensive web based automated data management system to maximize efficiency in collecting, collating, processing, storing, and reporting program data.

Data Collection, Compilation and storage

All Hariyo Ban Program consortium partners are using standard data collection templates and tools. The M&E unit is responsible for developing these templates and tools in a participatory manner. These templates are periodically reviewed and revised to address gaps and to make them more practical based on the feedback from users. The frequency of data collection are designed to address reporting requirements and management needs. Data on participation and beneficiaries are disaggregated by sex, age, and caste/ethnicity. The caste/ethnicity disaggregation have been made in the following six categories: Dalit, Muslim, Brahmin/Chhetri, Newar, Janajati, and other. The age disaggregation are made as per the following age groups: 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34 and 35 & above. The automated online database management system developed under the first phase of Hariyo Ban has been valuable for data entry, processing reporting and storage of data records. The new automated online database management system is prepared to manage the huge database of the program. Roles and responsibilities of the Consortium partners and implementing partners are identified for data collection, entry and reporting. The data flow system within the Hariyo Ban Program is illustrated in Figure 10 below. The staff responsible for database management have been continuously trained in data collection, handling and management, and have access to software to generate reports from the data they entered/uploaded. The online system has stored the data in web-based portal. All consortium and implementing partners have kept a copy of the uploaded data/report generated in their computer and hard drives as a backup. In addition, the hard copies of the data are maintained in printed form and stored at the workplace.

HARIYO BAN II DATABASE ( M&E unit) Data sent for approval

Data flagged for WWF Nepal CARE Nepal NTNC FECOFUN correction

Field office Field office Field office Field office

Implementing Implementing partners Partners Figure 10: Data Flow in Hariyo Ban Program - II

4.6 Data quality assurance The Program has employed multiple safeguards to ensure that data are of high quality. All consortium partners have ensured data quality standards including validity, integrity, precision, reliability, and timeliness at all levels through actions such as standardized steps for data collection, collation, analysis, and reporting. Supervision, verification and data quality assessment are carried out regularly to ensure data quality. The data quality assurance plan is in place and include a number of levels of approval through the automated online database management system before the data is finally stored. The Data Quality Assurance plan for Hariyo Ban II include: x All Hariyo Ban II partners to use the same data collection and recording tools to ensure consistency. This includes using standard templates with relevant disaggregation required. x The program staff enters verified data into the automated database system while the M&E focal person of each partner examines the collected data to identify any inconsistencies or errors and verify the data before the data are approved into the database. x Provision of additional mechanisms to flag and correct errors in data before approval by the Hariyo Ban Program M&E unit and storage in the database. x Check and balance of data has been maintained through the automated online database software across each level through various levels of approval, i.e. from partners to M&E unit. Data Quality Assessment High quality data is the foundation of evidence-based decision-making. Hariyo Ban II has used the data quality assessment (DQA) checklist developed following the standard DQA procedures to verify and validate the measured values of the actual performance data ensuring that they meet the data quality standards. These assessments are essential to understand data quality strengths and weaknesses, ensuring that standard and consistent uses of definitions, data collection methods, and calculation techniques are used. In addition, each completed Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) in the MEL Plan has a section devoted to data quality issues with data limitations identified. The M&E unit has prepared a separate data management guideline for use by consortium partners highlighting data collection instruments, methodologies, data verification and DQA plans.

4.7 Data analysis and reporting

The collected data in program sites for different activities, verified and compiled by the database system, are being processed and analyzed. Hariyo Ban Program II has used Microsoft Excel, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), and/or Statistical Analysis System (SAS) to analyze the data as required and relevant. The data then are being used for performance reporting

26 of the indicators vs their targets and if the values do not meet or exceed the target (normally by 10%), then responsible program team are made liable to furnish explanations to support the diversions. Key indicators against program approaches are reviewed to discuss necessary adjustments while data analysis and reporting has supported informed decision making for the program with opportunities for continued innovation and reflection. The indicators and other relevant data were also entered and managed into the AidTracker Plus (AT+) till Year 2. From FY 2020 onwards, the data are being reported in the new system named- Development Information Solution (DIS) developed by the USAID in lieu of the AidTracker Plus (AT+). All relevant data created under Hariyo Ban II are submitted to the Development Data Library (DDL) in a machine readable, non-proprietary format and all relevant documents are uploaded in the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within the specified time period. The M&E unit has used data visualization techniques that made the available information accessible in visual and easy to understand formats. This includes the combination of maps, tables and graphs to explain trends and analysis in easily accessible formats. Further, the Global Positioning System (GPS) points have been collected for relevant data, and used in preparing relevant maps.

4.8 Coordination with others

The first phase of Hariyo Ban Program developed very good working relationships with a large number of communities, government agencies, CBO partners, NGO partners, academic institutions and other national programs (both USAID-funded and other donor funded). Hariyo Ban II has built upon these relationships and explored collaboration opportunities, particularly with the organizations and projects that were listed with detailed descriptions of future scopes for collaboration in reports during the first phase.

4.9 Capacity building

The Hariyo Ban Program has supported M&E capacity building in the institutions and individuals in order to ensure that the necessary M&E capacities and competencies required to guide attainment of intended results and outcomes are in place. Key M&E competencies and capacities required for attaining M&E results were assessed. The M&E unit has organized formal and informal means of capacity development, including formal training events to address gaps in required competencies while orientation and onsite coaching are done to brush up existing competencies. Some of the vital capacities required to undertake M&E roles include competencies in participatory results based program planning, M&E tools and formats, research methodologies, database management, data quality assessment (DQA), story writing, performance reporting, techniques for learning documentation and knowledge management as well as proficiency in

technical skills like handling of GPS and other equipment, application of statistical and web based database software, methodologies for evidence based monitoring and reporting, and procedures for review and reflections. The vital capacities required also include capabilities in inquisition, facilitation, communication, coordination, critical analysis, and strategic thinking. Opportunities and support for development of these key M&E capacities based on the gaps identified have been provided to Hariyo Ban II personnel from consortium partners and implementing partners, as well as to individuals from executive committees of NRM groups, monitoring sub-committees and communities. These capacity development trainings have been provided through formal trainings, orientation, and/or on-site coaching, with emphasis on generating and capturing learning. Cross learning exposure visits with review-reflection meeting events have also been supported for M&E capacity development.

4.10 Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA)

USAID defines CLA as “a set of practices that help us improve our development effectiveness.3”. Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) involves strategic collaboration, continuous learning, and adaptive management. CLA approaches to development include collaborating intentionally with stakeholders to share knowledge and reduce duplication of effort, learning systematically by drawing on evidence from a variety of sources and taking time to reflect on implementation, and applying learning by adapting intentionally4. Hariyo Ban II provides a platform for different stakeholders, including the consortium partners, GoN, USAID, civil society and the local communities to generate and share knowledge to enhance effectiveness and sustainability of program impacts. The Program’s development hypothesis, theories of change and results chains developed has guided CLA process to systematically and continuously refine program interventions to successfully achieve the program’s goal and objectives. To prepare a separate CLA Plan, the M&E Unit worked closely with USAID team and conducted series of pre-workshop meetings. The final workshop was organized on 14-15 March 2018, attended by Hariyo Ban core team, focal persons from consortiums, M&E focal persons, other key persons from program. USAID’s Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR), representatives from MEL project and M&E Director from KISAN II also participated in the event which helped to foster joint learning and replication. Interactive group work sessions focused on preidentified seven outcomes and the outputs from these group exercises were later reviewed and adopted to prepare the succinct CLA Plan. Detail plan matrix is appended in the Annex 5.

3 https://usaidlearninglab.org/qrg/understanding-cla-0 4 https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cla_maturity_matrix_overview_final.pdf

4.11 Plan for special reviews, evaluations and studies

Reviews The presence of an enabling environment with complementary policies and plans is crucial for Hariyo Ban II to achieve its goals. Local plans and policies in the working areas of the Program are reviewed with the intention of making them favorable and applying them to achieve the program objectives. The reviews have been chiefly focused on helping to improve GESI, governance and accountability in NRM policies and plans as well as linking local climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction plans with a focus on differential vulnerabilities reduction. The results framework, theory of chance and performance monitoring plan have been regularly reviewed and refined with adjustments to the intervention priorities, results chains, targets, and timelines, are made based on the feedback provided by the studies and assessments, evidence from the Program database and reports, and experiences from implementation of the Program. Periodic programmatic review at various level- cluster, site, river basin, landscape and center level are being organized where program team from implementing and consortium partners meet and discuss on the reflect on achievements and challenges faced. The events are helpful in identifying issues and devising a way forward. Studies/Assessments We learned from the first phase of Hariyo Ban that small assessments are important to document changes in a specific area in short period of time with a small amount of resources. Therefore, studies and assessments are conducted to document evidences of changes, test the validity of the program logic and assumptions, determine the relevance of the results chains and indicators, examine the effectiveness of program interventions and M&E practices, and experiences and learning. The findings of the studies and assessments are shared with consortium partners, core team and key stakeholders. The topics for assessment are identified in consultation with the Hariyo Ban II core team and consortium partners. Documentation of outcomes of Hariyo Ban II interventions are carried out on a regular basis. Evaluation Planning and Management A mid-term evaluation (MTE) in the third year and a final (ex-poste) evaluation at the end of the Program as required by project agreement with SWC have been planned. The MTE is completed in July 2019. The midterm evaluation has not only determined the program performance and effectiveness but also helped identify “what worked” to be scaled up or prioritized and “what didn’t work” to be dropped or modified to achieve the program goal and targeted results. The M&E unit plays a leading role in facilitating these evaluations. In addition, a baseline survey has been conducted in to determine the baseline values for the indicators in December 2017. Midterm assessment of GESI indicators was completed in December 2019. An endline or summative evaluation survey at the end of the Program is being

29 planned to measure the endline values for the indicators of results not regularly recorded in database and reports. Hariyo Ban provided support to the impact evaluation of livelihood interventions carried out by the MEL Activity-USAID. The program will also support and/or participate in the independent performance and/or impact evaluations organized by USAID.

Annexes

Annex 1: Summary of Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT)

T= Target, A= Actual, LOA = Life of Activity

namely: 198

1.1.1 Tiger 2018 (20 NA NA 235 NA 250 235 DNPWC NA 52 Population Num 13) Census size of key ber Outco report, 2019 Nationa 645 1 species of me Rhino Wildlife / l (20 NA NA NA 700 (USAID indiv NA 55 monitorin 2020 15) PMP 2.3.3- idual g 301 1) - Snow 2021 400 NA NA NA 20 20 leopard NA (20 17) 1.1.2 Num Species Annual Number of ber namely: technical rhino and of Outco Tiger reports, Ann Nationa NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 tiger poac 0 me DoF & ual l poaching hing 0 DNPWC incidents incid Rhino (20 2 0 0 0 0 reports 0 0 0 0 0 recorded by ents 16)

5 Baseline figures are derived from Hariyo Ban first phase final report.

31 Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) USG supported programs (USAID PMP 2.3.3- 2) 1.1.3 201 Adjusted Number of (20 LOA to CBAPUs Landsc Community Output 11- 4 39 34 278 278 reflect Num Formed ape, 5 40 16 - - based anti- Hariyo 201 actual ber District poaching Ban Ann 6) progress 3 of , units database, ual 351 CBA Palika, (CBAPUs) CBAPU Reports (20 PUs Outco Workin formed mobilized 12- 206 163 346 355 412 418 412 265 412 412 me g site and/or 6 201 mobilized 6) 1.1.4 Number of people that apply 2,5 improved Num Sex, 72 conservatio ber Hariyo Outco Caste/eth Ann Landsc (20 2,0 4,46 4 n law of Ban 2,071 3,046 4,120 3723 4,120 2,345 4,120 4,120 me nicity/ ual ape 11- 60 7 enforcement peop Database age group 201 practices as le 6) a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-6) 1.1.5 Value Assessme Base Landsc 88. Target of economic nt report/ line ape, 69 updated 44.35 loss (in Outco Landscap Document and District US 44.35 after the 5 USD USD/HH/ USD) due me e s from endli , D/ USD/HH/Year baseline Year to incidents park ne at Palika, HH value is of human- authoritie Prog Workin /Ye establish

6 Also includes CBAPU formed before Hariyo Ban

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) wildlife s ram g site ar ed conflict level (Ap recorded by and ril USG annu 201 supported al at 6 - programs inter Apr (USAID venti il PMP 2.3.3-3) on 201 sites 7) . 1.1.6 Num Number of ber protected of 1 area prote Hariyo (20 managemen cted Ban Ann 6 Output NA NA 11- 2 2 4 _ 6 6 t plans area database, ual 2 1 201 revised to man Reports 6) make age climate ment smart plans 1.1.7 Target Percentage 9.0 updated of project 9% after the Landsc supported (Ap baseline Assessme Base ape, households % of ril value is nt line District that HHs Outco Landscap 201 establish 7 report/Per and , 18% 18% perceive supp me e 6 - ed ception endli Palika, that relief orted Apr survey ne Workin amount is il g site paid in a 201 timely 7) manner 1.1.8 Landsc 50. Target Percentage Base ape, 58 updated of people % of line District % after the Outco Landscap Perceptio 8 perceiving peop and , (Ap 75% 75% baseline me e n survey that they le endli Palika, ril value is receive ne Workin 201 establish benefits g site 6 - ed

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) from Apr conservatio il n activities 201 7) 1.1.9 Adjuste Number of d LOA peer to reviewed Num reflect scientific ber publications of Hariyo actual Outco Ann 9 resulting publi NA Ban NA NA 3 3 7 10 13 13 progress me ual from USG catio database support to ns research and implementat ion programs Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Landsc Adjusted Num ape, 5 LOA to ber Hariyo District (20 reflect of Ban Ann 3 Output NA , 11- 3 1 0 3 the plans database, ual 3 Palika, 201 progress revis Reports Workin 6) ed 1.2.1 g site Number of Landsc Adjusted Num 14 sub- ape, LOA to ber Hariyo watershed District reflect 1 of Ban Ann (20 plans Output NA , 3 3 1 1 19 the 0 plans database, ual 13- 19 prepared/re Palika, progress Prep Reports 201 vised and Workin ared 6) implemente g site d Num Landsc Adjusted 14 ber ape, LOA to Hariyo of District reflect Ban Ann (20 plans Output NA , 6 6 1 1 1 22 the database, ual 13- 22 impl Palika, progress Reports 201 eme Workin 6) nted g site

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) Num Adjusted ber LOA to of reflect 1.2.2 Catc Ann Landsc the Number of hme Hariyo ually ape, 4 progress water nt/ Ban from District (20 1 source Outco Num NA database Year , 12- 6 8 12 12 3 3 3 23 1 (perennial) me 26 ber and 2 Palika, 201 conserved of reports, onw Workin 6) in 21 micro- wate ards g site watersheds r sour ces 1.2.3 Revised Number of Y5 target people and trained in adjusted sustainable Landsc LOA to 33, natural Num ape, reflect Sex, Hariyo 509 resources ber District the actual 1 caste/ethn Ban Ann (20 8,33 10,35 22,361 managemen of Output , 512 3,163 progress 2 icity /age database, ual 11- 500 8,000 6 8,000 0 3,500 1119 23,4807 t and/or peop Palika, group Reports 201 biodiversity le Workin 6) conservatio g site n as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-4) 1.2.3a Landsc 211 Revised Number of Num ape, ,46 Y5 target Sex, people ber Hariyo District 9 and 1 caste/ethn Ann 12, 40,00 42,5 40,00 61,38 20,00 142,90 participated of Output Ban , (20 11,137 27,817 8170 adjusted 3 icity /age ual 000 0 69 0 0 0 151,073 3 in peop database Palika, 11- LOA to group sustainable le Workin 201 reflect natural g site 6) the actual

7 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of overlap of communities between Hariyo Ban phase I and II.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) resources progress managemen t and/or biodiversity conservatio n 1.2.4 Revised Number of Y5 target hectares of and biologically adjusted Landsc 532 significant LOA to ape, ,97 areas under Hariyo reflect District 9 1 improved Outco Landscap Ban Ann 211, 159,8 970,524 692,39 the actual Ha , (20 25, 28,698 200,0 200,0 75,00 292,399 4 natural me e database, ual 402 99 278,126 8 8 progress Palika, 11- 000 00 00 0 resource Reports Workin 201 managemen g site 6) t as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-2) 1.2.5 Revised Number of Y5 target hectares of and biologically adjusted Landsc significant 75, LOA to ape, areas Hariyo 376 reflect District 1 showing Outco Landscap Ban Ann (20 18,4 12,54 48,86 the actual Ha , 193 20,00 20,00 17,714 5 improved me e database, ual 11- 200 12 3 9,800 1,673 50,535 9 2 progress Palika, 0 0 biophysical Reports 201 Workin conditions 6) g site as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-1)

8 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of geographic overlap between Hariyo Ban phase I and II 9 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of geographic overlap between Hariyo Ban phase I and II.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) Revised 1.2.6 Y5 target 481 Number of and (20 community adjusted Renewal Landsc 12- 49 117 83 67 730 forest - 50 150 100 797 LOA to Num ape, 201 operation Hariyo reflect ber District 6) 1 plans Ban Ann the actual of Output , 6 (CFOPs) database, ual progress CFO Palika, supported Reports Revised Ps Workin for renewal Y5 target g site and Impleme and NA 49 117 83 67 249 implementat nted - 50 150 100 316 adjusted ion the actual progress EG.10.2-5 Revised Number of Y5 target laws, and policies, or adjusted regulations LOA to that address reflect biodiversity the actual conservatio progress n and/or 10 No. Hariyo other (20 1 of Outco Ban Ann environmen NA NA 12- 2 2 2 3 2 19 1 24 7 polic me database, ual 2510 tal themes 201 ies Reports officially 6) proposed, adopted, or implemente d as a result of USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1-

10 The LOA target does not include baseline value because some of the policies work will be continued in the second phase as well.

Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted NR Revised s. Y5 target 14, and 1.3.1 Landsc 302 adjusted Revenue Individua ape, ,04 LOA to Hariyo generated l District 0 3,31 reflect 1 Outco Ban Ann 1,000 42,42 52,165,8 97,908 from NRs. Househol , (De 3,13 1,500, 3,000, the actual 8 me database, ual ,000 9,385 82 50,000,000 147,908,399 ,399 conservatio d & Palika, c 2 000 000 progress Reports n friendly Group Workin 201 enterprises g site 6 to Dec 201 7) 1.3.2 Revised Number of Year 5 people with target to improved meet the economic LOA benefits Landsc 79, derived Num ape, Sex, Hariyo 830 from ber District 1 Outco caste/ethn Ban Ann (20 10,9 10,31 30,000 27,870 sustainable of , 10,00 10,00 10,00 6,610 2,130 9 me icity /age database, ual 11- 50 0 11 natural peop Palika, 0 0 0 group Reports 201 resource le Workin 6) managemen g site t and/or biodiversity conservatio n as a result of USG

11 The LOA target does not include baseline value because Hariyo Ban II will be focused on scaling up green enterprise in those communities that have received livelihood related support in first phase.

1.3.3 Revised Number of Landsc Y5 target women Num ape, 292 and Caste/eth Hariyo entrepreneu ber District (De adjusted 2 Outco nicity Ban Ann rs engaged of , c 363 211 67 20 641 LOA to 0 me /age database, ual 350 200 55 661 in Wo Palika, 201 reflect group Reports conservatio men Workin 7) the actual n friendly g site progress enterprises Num Landsc Adjusted 1,1 ber ape, LOA to Sex, Hariyo 27 of District reflect caste/ethn Ban Ann (20 peop Output , 350 324 65 1,516 the actual icity /age database, ual 12- 1,516 le Palika, progress 1.3.4 group Reports 201 train Workin Proportion 6) ed g site 2 of skill- Assessme Revised 1 based Landsc nt/ 55 Y5 target trainees % of ape, Sex, Questionn Year % and employed train District Outco caste/ethn aire 3, 4 (20 48% 55% 68% 68% Adjusted ees , 0 50% me icity /age Survey and 12- (156) (192) LOA to empl Palika, (175) 68% group with skill- 5 201 reflect oyed Workin based 6) the actual g site trainees progress GNDR-2 Target Percentage updated of female after the Landsc participants year 2 ape, in USG- results % of Hariyo District 2 assisted Outco Landscap Ann 46% fema Ban , NA 45% 56% 45% 50% 2 programs me e ual 50% le database Palika, designed to Workin increase g site access to productive economic

Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL

Result 2.1 Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process 2.1.1 Year 5 Number of target Landsc vulnerabilit revised ape, 529 y Num Hariyo and District (20 2 assessments ber Landscap Ban Ann Adjusted Output , Palika 11- 4 9 8 1 22 3 conducted of e database, ual 4 10 8 6 2813 LOA to , 201 at sub- VAs Reports reflect Workin 6) basin, sub- the actual g site watershed, progress palika level Year 5 2.1.2 Num Landsc target Number of ber ape, 90 revised Hariyo LAPAs of District (20 and 2 Landscap Ban Ann prepared LAP Output , 13- 1 5 3 2 7 96 Adjusted 4 e database, ual 103 and/or A Palika, 201 LOA to Reports implemente prep Workin 6) reflect d ared g site the actual progress

12 This will be derived from indicators 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 13 The LOA target doesn’t include baseline value because most of the vulnerability assessments will be repeated in LAPA communities from phase I.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) Num Revised Landsc ber Year 5 ape, 70 of Hariyo target to District (20 LAP Landscap Ban Ann meet Output , 13- 18 20 21 1 18 7814 60 As e database, ual 20 23 20 15 LOA Palika, 201 impl Reports Workin 6) eme g site nted 2.1.3 Number of climate change Landsc adaptation Num ape, 6 plans being Hariyo ber District (20 2 implemente Outco Landscap Ban Ann of , 13- 0 33 5 d in me e database, ual 8 15 10 LAP Palika, 201 collaboratio Reports As Workin 6) n with g site EFLG Committees at different levels 15 2.1.4 Year 5 Number of target local bodies revised Landsc (Palika) and Num and ape, 6 PA ber Hariyo Adjusted District (20 2 authority of Outco Landscap Ban Ann LOA to , 11- 1 12 11 3 7 27 6 incorporatin local me e database, ual 1 13 10 7 34 reflect Palika, 201 g climate bodi Reports the actual Workin 6) change es progress g site adaptation and DRR provisions

14 The LOA target doesn’t include baseline value as this is mainly scaling up of LAPAs implemented in phase I. 15 Since EFLG Program does not exist, we are not reporting this indicator

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) in their plans EG.11-3 Year 5 Number of target laws, revised policies, and regulations, Adjusted or standards LOA to addressing reflect climate the actual change Num 4 progress Hariyo adaptation ber (20 2 Outco Ban Ann formally of NA NA 11- 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 me database, ual 316 proposed, polic 201 Reports adopted, or ies 6) implemente d as supported by USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1- 3) Result 2.2 Community Readiness to adapt to and benefit from climate change increased 2.2.1 Revised Landsc Number of 18, Year 5 Num ape, people Sex, Hariyo 744 target to ber District 2 trained in caste/ethn Ban Ann (20 1,72 meet of Output , 930 855 2,071 5,318 1,295 11,26017 9,965 8 climate icity /age database, ual 11- 5,000 1 4,000 1,330 LOA peop Palika, change group Reports 201 le Workin adaptation 6) g site supported

16 The LOA target does not include baseline value because some of the policies work will be continued in the second phase as well. 17 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of overlap of communities between Hariyo Ban phase I and II.

2.2.2 Revised Landsc 395 Number of Year 5 Num ape, ,33 people Sex, Hariyo target to ber District 1 2 participatin caste/ethn Ban Ann 48,6 58,24 135,4 meet of Output , (20 5,0 4,632 50,00 50,00 30,00 23,934 150,00018 9 g in climate icity /age database, ual 26 6 14,562 38 LOA peop Palika, 11- 00 0 0 0 change group Reports le Workin 201 adaptation g site 6) activities 2.2.3 Revised Number of Year 5 institutions target to with meet Landsc improved Num Adaptatio 2,1 LOA ape, capacity to ber n Hariyo 14 District 3 assess or of Outco capacity/ Ban Ann (20 , 23 75 70 18 16 20219 186 0 address instit me General database, ual 11- 24 70 70 38 Palika, climate ution climate Reports 201 Workin change risks s capacity 6) g site supported by USG assistance (EG.11-2)

18 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of overlap of communities between Hariyo Ban phase I and II. 19 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of overlap of institutions between Hariyo Ban phase I and II.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) 2.2.4 Revised Number of Year 5 people target to using meet climate LOA Impleme information nting risk or Landsc 195 reducing implementi Num ape, ,46 practices Hariyo ng risk- ber District 1 3 Outco & Using Ban Ann 24,4 26,98 69,436 reducing of , (20 2,4 1,482 30,00 30,00 30,00 16,498 100,00020 1 me climate database, ual 69 7 30,564 actions to peop Palika, 12- 00 0 0 0 informati Reports improve le Workin 201 on resilience to g site 6) indecisio climate n-making change as supported by USG assistance (EG.11-6) 2.2.5 Revised Number of Year 5 adaptation target to plans that meet are LOA Num Landsc implementi ber ape, 2 ng measures Hariyo of District (20 3 to address Outco Ban Ann adap NA , 13- 7 8 1 14 30 16 2 differential me database, ual 15 10 5 tatio Palika, 201 impacts of Reports n Workin 6) climate plans g site change and DRR on women and vulnerable communitie

20 The LOA target does not include baseline value because of high degree of overlap of communities between Hariyo Ban phase I and II.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) s/people 2.2.6 Year 5 Number of target institutions revised Landsc established Num and ape, 14 and ber Hariyo Adjusted District (20 3 operational of Outco Landscap Ban Ann LOA to , 13- 3 3 15 5 0 23 3 at sub basin, instit me e database, ual 7 4 1 24 reflect Palika, 201 sub- ution Reports the actual Workin 6) watershed s progress g site and micro watershed level Result 2.3 Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts 2.3.1 Year 5 Number of target people with revised improved Landsc and capacity to Num ape, Adjusted Hariyo recover ber District LOA to 3 Outco Ban Ann 1,77 from of NA , NA 492 2,584 1,945 1500 8,293 6,793 reflect 4 me database, ual 500 1,800 2 1,800 1,100 disasters peop Palika, the actual Reports including le Workin progress from g site climate induced disasters21 Landsc Year 5 2.3.2 ape, 2(2 target Number of Num Hariyo District 013 revised 3 CCA and ber Outco Landscap Ban Ann , - 2 20 6 _ 15 28 and 5 DRR plans of me e database, ual 1 8 6 5 43 Palika, 201 Adjusted implemente plans Reports Workin 6) LOA to d g site reflect

21 This indicator contributes to USAID Standard indicator EG.11-5.

Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups GESI 1.1 Year 5 Number of Hariyo Landsc 251 target NRM Num Ban ape, (20 revised groups ber database, District 17, and 3 Outco Ann integrating of NA Baseline , Sou 25 167 242 67 242 Adjusted 6 me ual NA 50 150 40 309 GESI grou and Palika, rce- LOA to provisions ps endline Workin IC reflect in plan and reports g site A) the actual policies progress GESI 1.2 242 Adjusted Number of Num Hariyo (20 LOA to Landsc NRM ber Ban 17, reflect 3 Outco Ann ape, groups of NA database Sou 25 139 238 238 the actual 7 me ual District NA 30 100 50 238 implementi grou and rce- progress , Palika ng the GESI ps reports IC provisions A) GESI 1.3 Target Women and updated members of after the ethnic and baseline marginalize value is Landsc 78. d groups establish ape, 96 perceiving Year ed District % 3 that NRM Outco Assessme 3 % NA , (De 91% 82% 99% 99% 8 members me nt reports and Palika, c including 5 Workin 201 men and g site 7) decision makers exhibit gender equitable

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) and socially inclusive behavior GESI Result 2: More women, youth, and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making and advocacy Target updated Wo after the me baseline n value is onl Wom establish y- en and GESI 2.1 ed 40 margi Wome Percent of Women % nalize n and leadership and & Ma d - margin positions in marginal rgin 74% alized - USG- ized - Year 5 aliz (wom Women and 87% supported Wom 87% target Landsc ed en marginalized - (wome community en (women revised ape, wo only- 87% (women n only- managemen Baseline Year only: only- and District me 47% only- 46% 46% 3 t entities Outco and 3 45% 46% Adjusted % NA , n- (margi (marginalized (margi 9 that are me endline and Margi (margina LOA to Palika, 23 nalize women 38%); nalized filled by a reports 5 nalize lized reflect Workin %; d marginalized women woman or d: women the actual g site Me wome men only - 38%); member of 60% 38%); progress n n 41%) margin a vulnerable marginal onl 23%); alized group ized men y: margi men (USAID only - 60 nalize only - PMP 1.3.2- 41%) % d men 41%) 1) Ma only - rgin 27%) aliz ed me n:3 2%

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) GESI 2.2 Target Proportion updated of women after the and men baseline (members Landsc 65. value is Baseline of NRM ape, 44 establish Sex, and Year groups) who District % ed 4 Outco caste/ethn endline 3 believe that % , (De 75% 78% 82% 82% 0 me icity /age reports/ and the gender Palika, c group perceptio 5 roles have Workin 201 n survey been g site 7) changed as a result of USG assistance GESI 2.3 Target Proportion updated of women after the and baseline marginalize Landsc value is 43 d groups in ape, establish Baseline Year % NRM District ed 4 Outco and 3 (De leadership % NA , 49% 53% 56% 56% 1 me endline and c positions Palika, reports 5 201 perceiving Workin 7) they have g site been able to perform their roles effectively GESI Result 3: More equitable access to and benefit sharing from natural resources for women and marginalized groups GESI 3.1 Year 5 NRs. Landsc Benefits Hariyo target (mill ape, received by Ban revised ion) District 111 4 women and Outco Landscap database Ann and Inco , (20 2 111 2.5 2.5 14.49 2 2 members of me e and ual 199 199 199 Adjusted me/ Palika, 17) ethnic and assessmen LOA to Reve Workin marginalize t reports reflect nue g site d groups the actual

s with ution Ban ape, sco progress 75% improved s database, District res 13 75% 4 Outco Ann (291 capacity (Nu NA Baseline , the 13% % 38% 35% 10% (291 75% (291 NRM 3 me ual NRM and/or mber and Palika, y (50) (50) (150) (40) NRM groups) groups performanc of endline Workin hav groups) ) e scores instit reports g site e (USAID ution rec PMP 1.3.1- s22) eiv 2) ed

22 Out of 400 NRM groups, 60% of the groups will have improved capacity.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) Gov 2.1 Revised Number of Year 5 LAPA Target to Landsc groups able Num meet ape, 28 to leverage ber Hariyo LOA District (20 4 resources LAP Outco Ban Ann NA , 14- 6 23 27 2 7523 58 4 from other A me database, ual 5 20 20 20 17 Palika, 201 sources, grou Reports Workin 6) including ps g site government agencies for CCA/DRR Governance Result 3: Improved technical capacity of user groups to advance local solutions on biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation issues Gov 3.1 Revised Number of Year 5 local Target to organization Landsc meet s receiving No. ape, LOA Hariyo U.S of District 4 Ban Ann assistance instit Output NA , NA 0 4 83 13 100 87 5 database, ual - 20 30 50 engaged in ution Palika, Reports implementi s Workin ng g site initiatives for local solutions Governance Result 4: Improved policy and enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation Gov 4.1 No. Hariyo Adjusted 4 Number of of Outco Ban Ann 24 LOA to NA NA 1 2 4 20 27 6 policies/Reg polic me database, ual (20 1 2 3 2 2 2925 reflect ulations/Ad ies GoN 12- the actual

23 The figure might change based on new local body structure.

25 The LOA target does not include baseline value because some of the policies work will be continued in the second phase as well. 24 This includes total number of policies supported in Hariyo Ban first phase under biodiversity conservation, sustainable landscape management and climate change adaptation.

Indicat Year 5 Justifica Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 LOA or Geo- tion for Type coded target Rep Bas (Outpu level revision Data orti elin t, Data (Natio S Source/ ng e5 MEL Plan MEL Plan Indicator Unit Outco Disaggre nal, N Collectio Fre (& Target Target me, gation Distric T A T A T A T A A A n Method que Ye (Revised (Revised Impact t, ncy ar) Target) Target) , Palika, Contex Ward) t) assistance engaged in advocacy intervention s (USAID PMP 1.3.1- 1) Gov 4.3 Adjusted Number of LOA to public reflect policies the actual introduced, progress adopted, No. Hariyo repealed, 30 4 of Outco Ban Ann changed or NA NA (20 1 3 2 1 7 8 polic me database, ual 1 3 2 2 2 9 implemente 17) ies Reports d consistent with citizen input [2.4.1- 12, USAID PMP 1.4.1- 1] NR 50 Revised M (wit Year 5 gro h target CBLD-8 ups imp and Number of IC rove Adjusted Num NRM NRM " NRM USG- Landsc A d LOA to ber group group groups assisted ape, res perf reflect of s: 150 s: 85 NRM groups: : 291 organization Type of Hariyo District ults orm 291 the actual 4 instit Outco Ann ISW ISW 291 ISWM with organizati Ban , : anc NRM progress 9 ution me ual MP MP ISWMP P increased ons database Palika, We e groups s/org comm comm committees: 2 commi performanc Workin ak - scor aniza ittees: ittees: ttees: 2 e g site 28 es tions 19 2 " improveme Me of nt diu NR m - M 176 gro & ups)

institutional LC ized with PV: USG 1 assistance YOUTH-3 Percentage Landsc of ape, participants % of Hariyo District 5 Ann in USG- yout Output Sex Ban , NA 11% 10% 1 ual assisted h database Palika, programs Workin designed to g site increase

Annex 2: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS)

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved (USAID DO2, IR 2.3) Activity Name: Species management, combating poaching and wildlife trafficking, habitat restoration, human wildlife conflict reduction Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.1 Population size of key species (USAID PMP 2.3.3-1) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Focal animal species include tiger, greater one horned rhino, snow leopard, elephant, common leopard, goral, pangolin, red panda, swamp deer, musk deer, wild water buffalo, blackbuck , gharial and fish species assemblage while focal plant species include Champ and Bijaya Sal. While reporting this indicator, Hariyo Ban II tracks the population size of Rhino, Tiger and Snow leopard. These three are the umbrella/flagship species, which will help to track health of other focal species and ecosystem. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of individuals of species Disaggregated by: Species (Tiger, Rhino and Snow leopard) Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator helps to better understand the population trends of focal species, apply in species management, anti-poaching activities and human wildlife conflict management. It also provides the indication whether our conservation initiatives are adequate to address the threats to these species or if there should be additional interventions required to contribute for the conservation of the focal species. Umbrella/flagship species approach will help to track health of other focal species and ecosystem. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: Combating illegal wildlife trade and poaching, CBAPU strengthening and mobilization and , Habitat restoration and management implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: National Tiger Census; National Rhino count; and national baseline survey of Snow leopard and other monitoring reports- DNPWC Annual reports Method of Data Acquisition: Directly from Government/national reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Tiger: 2018/2022 Rhino: 2021 Snow leopard: 2021 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL plan, Annual reports, Development Information Solution (DIS) DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.1 Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Trend analysis of population of the focal species Presentation of Data (optional): Graphical/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation Team Review (optional): NA BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 198 Tiger, Census 2013 645 Rhino Count, 2015 301-400 Snow leopard monitoring, 2017 LOA Target: Tiger: 250(including baseline) Rhino: 700 (including baseline) Snow Leopard: 20 (excluding baseline) Rationale for Targets (optional): The targets are set in line with GoN targets. GoN has targeted to double the tiger population by 2022 (T×2 by 2022). Similarly, to support maintain the historic population of Rhino in the country, an ambitious target of 700 rhino population is set. Hariyo Ban has also set the target to increase at least 20 additional individuals of snow leopards due to its interventions from baseline. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: National Baseline Units (optional): National CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Combating poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.2 Number of rhino and tiger poaching incidents recorded by USG supported programs (USAID PMP 2.3.3-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Poaching is the illegal killing of wild animals. It is one of the biggest threats to focal species. Hariyo Ban II focuses more on curbing tiger and rhino poaching. Poaching is curbed with integrated efforts of strengthening security systems, mobilization of community based anti-poaching units, and engagement of Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) in wildlife crime control activities. Bilateral

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.2 agreements with China and India have also contributed to reducing poaching activities across border and strengthening transboundary network for combating illegal wildlife trade. Hariyo Ban focuses on community based anti-poaching activities; identifying wildlife trade routes and focusing interventions in those routes. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of poaching incidents Disaggregated by: Species (Rhino and Tiger) Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) and CBAPU strengthening and mobilization, capacity building of judiciaries, postal/custom authorities, wildlife crime investigation, Real-time SMART patrolling of trade routes, implemented by consortium partners, specifically by WWF & NTNC. Data Source: GoN reports (Department of Forests and Soil Conservation (DoFSC) and Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), PA Offices and Division Forest Offices) Method of Data Acquisition: Directly used from the GoN reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL Plan, Annual reports, DIS System DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Non-linear relationship between rate of poaching and increased level of anti-poaching effort Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Graphical/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Program Officer-Wildlife trade monitoring & Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation Team Review (optional): NA BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): Tiger: NA Rhino: 2016 (Zero) LOA Target Tiger: Zero Rhino: Zero Rationale for Targets (optional): After the continuous four years of zero poaching of Rhino, the target of zero incidence of poaching of Rhino has been set. Hariyo Ban II aims to support the replication of zero poaching of rhino success in tiger also. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: National Baseline Units (optional): National CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.2 Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Formation/reformation, strengthening and mobilization of CBAPUs Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.3 Number of community based anti-poaching units (CBAPUs) formed and/or mobilized Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Communities are engaged through mobilization of CBAPUS to reduce threats to target species in coordination with government line agencies, NGOs and CBOs. - It is evident from experiences from phase I that successful management of protected areas and corridors depends upon cooperation and support of local people. The community based anti- poaching program has been found to be effective outside protected areas to reduce poaching of tigers, rhinos and other wildlife. The concept of formation/reformation and mobilization of CBAPUs involving local youths has evolved. However, to make them more effective, capacity building and institutional development is necessary. Formation is creation of new CBAPUs or reformation of the existing CBAPUs. - A CBAPU is considered mobilized when at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: o It conducts awareness programs and/or involves in capacity building activities in local communities on conservation, anti-poaching and controlling illegal activities in their forest and communities o It conducts patrolling in their forest o It provides information about illegal activities/overuse, reduction of human-wildlife conflict; and/or rescue of orphan/wandered animals o It conducts regular meetings and discuss on conservation, anti-poaching and controlling illegal activities in forest etc. All new CBAPUs that are formed/reformed are also mobilized.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of CBAPUs Disaggregated by: Newly formed/reformed and mobilized Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Identify areas where further interventions are needed to increase monitoring coverage to reduce illegal wildlife trade and poaching PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “CBAPU formation/reformation and mobilization” implemented by WWF & NTNC. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database, Reports Method of Data Acquisition: Regular data collection in Primary Format (PF)-1.1 & Secondary Format

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.3 (SF)-1.2 for CBAPU formation/reformation and PF-1.2 for CBAPU activities and uploaded into the system. Only CBAPUs which are supported financially and or technically by Hariyo Ban are counted. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually- formation/reformation of CBAPU and Annually for mobilization; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018, AoR & M&E Unit Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: None Known Data Limitations and Significance: Does not measure effectiveness of CBAPUs Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Location wise CBAPU mobilization Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1. Field staff of consortium partners review field reports before entering data online. 2. These data then to be reviewed by M&E persons of respective organization. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. and finally bring it forward for team review. Team Review (optional): Every six months (during the reporting period) by Hariyo Ban core team. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 - 201 CBAPUs formed: 2012-2016 – 351 CBAPUs mobilized (201 formed with support from Hariyo Ban and 150 formed with non-Hariyo Ban support) LOA Target CBAPU formation: Original 262; Revised to 278 (2020) including baseline CBAPU Mobilization: 412 – including baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): To support in minimizing incidents of wildlife crime and also support in achieving zero poaching of rhino and tiger through community engagement The target on formation has been revised as per actual progress. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.4 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.4 Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Formation/reformation, strengthening and mobilization of CBAPUs; strengthening and mobilization support of WCCB and other non-conventional partners Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.4 Number of people that apply improved conservation law enforcement practices as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-6) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): This indicator includes law enforcement personnel whose actions are likely to reduce the severity of a biodiversity threat or driver. It may include community members without law enforcement authority that support law enforcement actions as patrol participants. Examples of individuals receiving USG assistance that may count towards this indicator include but are not restricted to: police, park rangers, district prosecutors, judges, customs agents, and members of a WCCB and community-based patrolling unit (CBAPU).

Improved conservation law enforcement practices include procedures, analyses, technologies, intelligence systems, or other means by which enforcement of laws that conserve biodiversity is expected or demonstrated to be more effective and/or efficient than the status quo. Practices include those intended to: better deter, detect or disrupt environmental crime; improve the quality, quantity or use of crime scene evidence; increase the frequency of arrest and prosecution; and increase the likelihood that penalties (fines or jail sentences) are appropriately severe and served in full. The number of people carrying out improved practices to reduce underlying consumer demand for illegally or unsustainably obtained natural resources should NOT be reported here.

Verifying that improved practices are applied can be challenging. Official records and implementer observations are the best means of verification. Interview or survey instruments applied to law enforcement unit managers or community leaders may also be applied. In Hariyo Ban Program, number of people mobilized under CBAPUs and members of WCCB and other law enforcement agencies involved in strategic Combating Wildlife Trade interventions supported by program are considered.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity/age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): To increase monitoring coverage to reduce illegal wildlife trade and poaching PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: All activities related to: CBAPU formation/reformation, strengthening and mobilization, Support for WCCB strengthening and mobilization, Capacity building for frontline staff (park rangers and game scout), judiciary and customs and postal officials and transport workers implemented by WWF & NTNC Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database, Reports Method of Data Acquisition: For Year 1, online reporting by the consortium partners based on periodic assessment. Year 2 onwards, x SF 1.2 and PF 1.2 modules for data collection is used to monitor the total number of people participated/mobilized/ capacitated through different institutions (e.g. CBAPUs and others) and

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.4 interventions on all activities related for CBAPU formation/reformation, strengthening and mobilization” implemented through WWF, & NTNC. x S.F 1 module on workshop and P.F 1 module on trainings are used for data collection/acquisition A regular online reporting mechanism has been established and put in operation to collect data from these institutions to record/monitor the number of members who have participated to apply the improved conservation law enforcement practices. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of each of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018, AoR and MEL Unit Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Periodic analysis/assessment and verification during field visit to ensure the validity of number of people trained and applying conservation law enforcement practices. Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1. Field staff of consortium partners (WWF and NTNC) review field reports before entering data online. 2. These data then reviewed by M&E persons of respective organization. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): During the reporting period by Hariyo Ban core team. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (2,572) LOA Targets: 4,120 Rationale for Targets (optional): To achieve the zero poaching of rhino and tiger and to minimize other incidents of wildlife crime, Hariyo Ban II will focus on mobilization of all the 412 CBAPUs (201 in the first year and remaining 211 in year 2 and 3). By third year, Hariyo Ban targets to mobilize all CBAPUs existing in our working areas and continue to engage them till fifth year. In addition, members of WCCB, other law enforcement agencies and non-conventional partners will also be considered. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palikas Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 20 Feb 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.5 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.5 Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Human wildlife conflict preventive and curative measures Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.5 Value of economic loss (in USD) due to incidents of human-wildlife conflict recorded by USG supported programs (USAID PMP 2.3.3-3) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) refers to interaction between wild animals and people and its negative impact on people or their resources, or wild animals or their habitat. It occurs when growing human populations overlap with wildlife territory, causing loss of wildlife habitat and/or animals, and/or adversely affecting resources, crops or property of local communities. In some instances, the conflict causes loss of human life. HWC has emerged as a serious threat to conserve key species such as rhino, tiger and elephant. Economic loss includes crops and livestock, and property damage due to HWC. Value is originally measured in Nepalese Rupees (NRs) but is converted into US Dollars (USD) for the reporting purpose. Economic loss due to crop and livestock depredation will be measured by undertaking field assessment in selected sites, and property damage will be assessed from selected sites from protected areas/buffer zone and CFUG. . Data will be collected from divisional forest offices and PAs. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: USD Disaggregated by: a) Value of economic loss due to crop damage, b) Value of economic loss due to property damage Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator can be used as a basis to understand if the economic damage has been minimized because of our interventions and to assess the effectiveness of our interventions to minimize HWC. Helps minimize the risk of retaliatory killing and build local stewardship in conserving important wildlife species and their habitats including critical corridors and wetlands. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Activities related to HWC preventive measure (electric fencing; predator proof corral/enclosure, awareness, promotion of non-palatable crops, Rapid Response Team (RRT) etc.) and curative measures (HWC relief fund support, RRT Support) management” implemented by all partners. Data Source: Assessment report Method of Data Acquisition: Assessment report/ valuation documents of economic loss from Park authorities and Division Forest Offices Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Baseline (2017) and endline (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Baseline and endline reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: It only measures the value of economic damages caused by

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.5 HWC, not if the community have received the relief fund. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: During the economic loss assessment, the limitations will be assessed through tracking case stories. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Site wise comparative analysis from baseline and endline. Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Once the data is received (after baseline and endline); Hariyo Ban Core team will jointly review BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): April 2016 - April 2017 (USD 88.69/HHs/year) LOA Target: USD 44.35 USD/HH/Year Rationale for Targets (optional): At least 50% reduction in value of economic loss due to incidents of HWC from the baseline is targeted in Hariyo Ban intervention sites. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.6 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Preparation/revision of species conservation management/action plans Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.6 Number of protected area management plans revised to make climate smart Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Hariyo Ban II will focus that all protected areas management plans supported for revisions are climate smart and have integrated the GESI provision in them. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of protected area (PA) management plans Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Identify areas where further interventions needed to increase monitoring coverage

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.6 PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Preparation/revision of PA management plans” implemented by WWF & NTNC. Data Source: Protected Areas Management Plans GON Method of Data Acquisition: The document of PA management/action plans are referred while keeping the data record. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually during 2018, 2019 and 2020. Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Annual reports, DIS System DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Limited to only Plans prepared/revised Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation Team Review (optional): NA BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016-1 LOA Target: 6 (including baseline) Rationale for Targets (optional): GoN will identify the Protected Area Management Plans that need preparation/revision and support to revise six plans. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.7 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Human wildlife conflict mitigation and relief mechanism

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.7 Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.7 Percentage of project supported households that perceive that relief is paid in a timely manner Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Project supported households (HHs) refer to HHs within the working sites, receiving any kind of support from the program. Relief: Any support in cash or kind received against HWC by HHs Numerator: [Total Number of HHs (project supported) that perceive that relief amount is paid in timely manner] Denominator: [Total Number of HHs receiving project support interviewed] Unit of Measure: % of HHs supported Disaggregated by: Landscape Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Identify areas where people have positive perception towards the timely receipt of relief amount against where there is not. This helps to focus our intervention in those areas where people who feel they are not paid the relief timely. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Support simplify HWC relief fund guidelines, support improving the relief fund mechanism, support institutions to ensure that relief is paid in timely manner” implemented by NTNC, WWF and FECOFUN. Data Source: Assessment report and Perception survey during baseline and endline Method of Data Acquisition: Perception survey in HWC sites and questionnaire survey at each project supported HHs Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Baseline (2017) and endline (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Baseline and endline reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): After the data are received (baseline and endline); Hariyo Ban core team. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): April 2016-April 2017 - 9.09% LOA Target: 18% - Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on baseline value, the target is set to 100% increase of the baseline value Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional):

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.7 CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.8 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: HWC relief mechanism, livelihood support activities for conservation benefits Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.8 Percentage of people perceiving that they receive benefits from conservation activities Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Benefits received through activities related to conservation. This may include activities such as eco-tourism promotion, sustainable use of forest products, environment friendly energy use, compensation to wildlife victims and all livelihood activities etc. Numerator: [Number of people perceiving that they receive benefits from conservation activities] Denominator: [Total Number of people interviewed] Unit of Measure: % of people Disaggregated by: Landscape Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Support to simplify HWC relief fund guidelines, support to improve relief fund mechanism, ensure mechanisms to provide relief to the victims timely”, implemented by WWF and NTNC and “conservation enterprises and awareness activities” implemented by all partners. In fact, this includes myriads of conservation related interventions implemented in PAs, CAs and other areas. Data Source: Baseline and endline survey Method of Data Acquisition: Perception survey Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Baseline (2017) and endline (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Baseline and endline Reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.8 Presentation of Data (optional): Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Hariyo Ban Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): After the data are received (baseline and endline); Hariyo Ban core team. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): April 2016- April 2017 (50.58%) LOA Target: 75% Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on baseline value, the target is set as 75%. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.9 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target species reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): NA Activity Name: Publication of scientific papers Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.1.9 STIR-12 Number of peer-reviewed scientific publications resulting from USG support to research and implementation programs Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): This output indicator captures annually the number of scientific publications resulting from USAID support to research and implementation programs. This indicator is NOT cumulative and captures only new publications not reported previously.

‘Peer-reviewed publications’ are defined as and include scientific studies published in technical journals which conduct technical peer review of the submissions as part of their decision process; technical reports that are subject to external peer-review and then disseminated; and peer-reviewed conference proceedings.

This indicator does not include publications by USAID Staff.

STIR stands for the cross-cutting issue area of Science, Technology, Innovation and Research Unit of Measure: No of publications Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.1.9 Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: NA Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database Method of Data Acquisition: The data for this indicator are provided by the thematic leads Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: 2018 and 2019 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II Database, DIS System DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Thematic leads together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): After the data are received, the discussion on core team is made BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NA LOA Target: Original – 10; Revised to 13 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): The actual progress is kept as LOA. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, August 2020.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Sub watershed plan preparation, plan implementation through community mobilization Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.1 Number of sub-watershed plans prepared/revised and implemented Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.1 Concise Definition(s): “Hariyo Ban Program II has adopted river basin approach for reducing threats to landscape. Critical watersheds at the landscape level, were identified and recommended by the CHAL rapid assessment and TAL Strategy. Watershed approach should consider slope, land use, water resource management, soil erosion, land cover, community participation in watershed management. The Program supports ISWMP preparation for the critical watershed where plans are not in place and in cases where the plans are already in place, the Program supports to revise them as per the government guideline. Hariyo Ban II focuses on implementation of these plans. Watershed management is a rational utilization of the land for optimum production with minimum hazard to natural resources. It essentially relates to soil and water conservation in the watershed, which means proper land use protecting against all forms of deterioration building and maintaining soil fertility, conserving water for farm use, proper management of local water for drainage, flood protection, sediment reduction and increasing productivity, from all kinds of land uses. Integrated sub-watershed management planning is the process of creating and implementing plans and programs at sub-watershed level to sustain and enhance the natural heritage features and functions of a sub- watershed.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of plans Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): It is important to know number of plans developed and implemented to understand magnitude of interventions made. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Sub watershed plan preparation/revision, Plan implementation through community mobilization e.g. Forest plantation and restoration, river bank protection, landslide and gully treatment, conservation pond construction, HH level conservation farming, livestock management (stall feeding, grass/fodder plantation) etc., activities related to biodiversity conservation and climate change resilience building/adaptation.” implemented by WWF and CARE Nepal. . Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collection through regular monitoring in ISWMP prepared/revised ‘SF 1.10’ and ISWMP implementation ‘SF 1.11’ modules Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, MEL Plan, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: None Known Data Limitations and Significance: Quality of implementation not measured Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Table

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.1 Initial Review Conducted by (optional): ): 1. Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data online. 2. These data then provide the data and that is reviewed by M&E persons of respective organization. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data Team Review (optional): Biodiversity Conservation Advisor and Climate Change Adaptation Advisor together with Hariyo Ban core team in every six months BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (5 revised) 2013-2016 (14 prepared) 2013-2016 (14 implemented) LOA Targets : ISWMP Revision – Original 4; Revised to 3 - excluding baseline Preparation – Original 17; Revised to 19 (2020) -including baseline Implementation- Original 17; Revised to 22 (2020) -including baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on the learning from the first phase, Hariyo Ban supports to prepare/revise and implement the sub-watershed management plans in the critical sub watershed and implement them. Rationale for LOA Revision: Additional two plans Radha and Khudi Marsyangdi ISWMPs are prepared and implemented than original plan. Radha river watershed was identified during threats vulnerability assessment exercise conducted in May 2017 to establish baseline for phase II. Radha river is one of the major source for water in Suklaphanta NP and degradation of watershed in upstream has direct implication in biodiversity. Because of this, Radha river ISWMP was prepared in Y2. The stakeholders of PES pilot in Lamjung decided to adopt ISWMP for the implementation of PES related interventions. Hence, a new ISWMP for Khudi-Marsyangdi was prepared in Y3. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: ISWMP Implementation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.2 Number of water source (perennial) conserved in 21 micro-watersheds Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.2 Concise Definition(s): A micro-watershed comprising the catchment of a stream within a sub-watershed is the most appropriate management planning unit as it addresses the micro level planning related problems effectively.

The water source protection refers to various structural and vegetative measures applied for i) source protection, ii) catchment treatment and iii) improvement of distribution system for sustainability and proper utilization of the water sources, such as springs, Kuwas, streams/water storages and ponds. For this indicator, water source protection works must include at least two of the above-mentioned criteria in which fulfilment of the first criteria is mandatory. Source protection includes fencing, intake construction, slope stabilization, construction/maintenance of water collection tank/reservoir etc. Catchment treatment includes the measures like plantation, slope stabilization, rehabilitation of degraded land etc.

Objective of water source protection is to improve the quality and regime of water through soil conservation and watershed management. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of catchment/no of water source Disaggregated by: Landscape, district, sub-watersheds Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Measures of this indicator demonstrates progress towards increased water sources as well as water quality as a result of our interventions. This indicator is a reliable measure that demonstrates the magnitude of USG investments in ISWMPs and river basin functions. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Support the operationalization of river basin approach, prepare/revise and implement ISWMPs, promote upstream downstream linkage and integration of local knowledge and solutions” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Assessment reports and database Method of Data Acquisition: Data for this indicator are recorded and collected in ISWMP implementation module ‘SF-1.11’; data is acquired in consultation with field implementation team based on above mentioned criteria Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually from Year 2 onwards till Year 5 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL plan, DIS System, DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): M&E Unit together with Watershed and DRR Officer from CARE Nepal and Program Associate from WWF TAL based on database Team Review (optional): After the initial review Biodiversity Conservation Advisor and Climate Change Adaptation advisor of the Program together with Hariyo Ban core team BASELINE AND TARGETS

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.2 Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012-2016 (4) LOA Target: Original- 21, Revised - 26 (2020) excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban II supports to implement 8 ISWMPs. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+estimated Year 5 progress. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Sub watershed and micro watershed Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Capacity building of NRM groups Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.3 Number of people trained in sustainable natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-4) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Number of people who has successfully completed a training course. Successful completion requires that trainees meet the completion requirements of the structured training program as defined by the program offered.

Training courses are sessions in which participants are educated according to a defined curriculum and set learning objectives. The transfer of this knowledge, skills or aptitudes may occur through long-term academic programs, long-term or short-term technical courses, non-academic seminars, workshops, verifiable online courses, or courses in the field. Sessions that could be informative or educational, such as meetings, but do not have a defined curriculum or learning objectives are not counted as training.

Sustainable natural resources management is defined as managing natural resources in ways that maintain their long-term viability and preserve their potential to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Biodiversity conservation refers to direct and indirect actions (including sustainable natural resources management) with the goal of conserving biodiversity in ways that maintain their long-term viability and preserve their potential to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Support from the USG: This indicator counts training that were delivered in full or in part as a result of USG assistance. This assistance could include provision of funds to pay teachers, providing hosting

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.3 facilities, transportation, specialized equipment/supplies, or other key contributions necessary to ensure training was delivered. This indicator does not automatically count any course for which the USG helped develop the curriculum, but rather focuses on delivery of courses that was made possible through full or partial funding from the USG.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Measures of this indicator demonstrate progress towards sustainable natural resources governance and institutions, and can inform adaptive management of programs. This indicator is a reliable annual measure that demonstrates the magnitude of USG investments in biodiversity conservation and other natural resource sectors. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Trainings for capacity building of NRM groups on forest management, governance, GESI, community surveillance, CBAPU formation & orientation, species conservation, livelihood, skill based, forest operational plans preparation, watershed and soil conservation and delivery of Institutional Capacity Building of NRM groups etc. This will also include the trainings conducted through resource leverage from environment focused programs” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data for this indicator recorded and collected in the Training module ‘PF-1’ regularly by consortium partners Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: In the case of multiple training events, there is a possibility of double counting people trained, and the time extent per person may vary significantly. Attendance records may be incomplete or inaccurate, especially in the case of determining whether a participant completed an entire course. This indicator does not reflect the depth of skills and knowledge conveyed, or whether persons have developed the capacity to act, or taken direct action as a result of the training. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Sex, caste ethnicity wise participants in training. Presentation of Data (optional): Graphical representation of disaggregated by sex, caste/ethnicity of participants. Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data of trainings, if all of them meet the basic criteria of training. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (33,509) LOA Target: Original 20,000; Revised to 23,480 (2020)– excluding baseline

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.3 Rationale for Targets (optional): To achieve the overall objective of improving conservation and management in TAL and CHAL, it is required that we impart knowledge and skill on different conservation measures to different stakeholders from central, district to community level. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.3a Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: All activities related to biodiversity conservation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.3 a Number of people participating in sustainable natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Biodiversity conservation related activities include a range of activities such as awareness activities, campaigns, restoration activities etc. Double counting is allowed. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator is used to calculate total number of people in the project area participating and benefitting from the sustainable natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation activities. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness and capacity building activities in biodiversity conservation, day celebration, habitat conservation, livelihood interventions support and other support in Biodiversity Conservation (BDC)” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data are recorded and reported in all modules related to Biodiversity conservation including livelihood interventions. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.3a Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Double counting exists. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Sex, caste ethnicity wise participants. Presentation of Data (optional): Graphical representation of disaggregated by sex, caste/ethnicity of participants. Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation review the data during the semi-annual and annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (211,469) LOA Target: Original 120,000; Revised to 151,073 (2020) excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): To achieve the overall objective of improving conservation and management in TAL and CHAL, it is required that we aware and engage maximum stakeholders (from national to community level) on different conservation activities. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, Sub-basin, sub-watershed, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.4 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: CFOP renewal and implementation, Habitat improvement, Watershed management plan preparation and implementation, Plantation/regeneration, PA/Conservation Area (CA) Management Plan, proportionate areas of PA/CA/biological corridors and river basins on the basis of intensity of program implementation. Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.4 Number of hectares of biologically significant areas under improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.4 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Biologically significant areas are areas that (a) have been identified as important for biodiversity through national, regional, or global priority-setting processes, or (b) areas where natural resource management (NRM) interventions have the intent to positively impact biodiversity in areas described in “(a)”. Interventions sites • Core areas • Buffer zones • Corridors • Wetlands of international importance • Community forests

Improved natural resource management includes activities that promote enhanced management of natural resources for one or more objectives, such as conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystems services, strengthening sustainable use of natural resources, mitigating climate change, and/or promoting community participation in NRM.

Management should be guided by a stakeholder-endorsed process following principles of sustainable NRM and biodiversity conservation, improved human and institutional capacity for sustainable NRM and biodiversity conservation, access to better information for decision-making, and/or adoption of sustainable NRM and biodiversity conservation practices.

An area is considered under "improved management” when any one of the following occurs: management planning and actions are informed by local site assessments, stakeholder participation and other best management practices occur; human and institutional capacity is developed; management plan actions are implemented; monitoring and evaluation is established or improved; adaptive management is demonstrated; or on-the-ground management impacts are demonstrated (e.g. illegal roads closed, snares removed, no-fishing zones demarcated).

If a biologically significant area reported as showing improved biophysical conditions (indicator EG10.2-1) is also under improved natural resource management, then the corresponding hectares can be reported under both indicators. Hectares reported should include sustained improvements in previously reported hectares and new, additional hectares.

Higher = better

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Hectares of land Disaggregated by: Landscape Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Measures of this indicator demonstrate progress towards sustainable natural resources governance and institutions, and can inform adaptive management of programs. This indicator is a reliable annual measure that demonstrates the magnitude of USG investments in biodiversity conservation and other natural resource sectors. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Habitat improvement including plantation and natural regeneration, CFOP renewal, areas covered by sub-watershed, protected area and forest management plans, site specific management plans, invasive species management, corridor restoration, areas with activities to increase ecosystem resilience to climate change, areas under assessment and studies, implementation

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.4 areas within PAs and sub- river basins, PES areas, ISWMP, LDRMP, LAPA etc.” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II reports Method of Data Acquisition: For PA management plans, CFOPs and ISWMPs, total areas are counted to report the progress for indicator. In addition, proportionate area of river basins and corridors under improved natural resource management is reported based on the intensity and scale of activity implementation, in consultation with technical team. Previously reported hectares with sustained improvements along with new, additional hectares are considered to calculate progress. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annual and annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 20192020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Application of single management treatment as specified (Habitat improvement including plantation and natural regeneration, CFOP renewal, areas covered by sub- watershed, protected area and forest management plans, site specific management plans, invasive species management, corridor restoration, areas with activities to increase ecosystem resilience to climate change, areas under assessment and studies, implementation areas within PAs and sub- river basins, PES areas, ISWMP, LDRMP,) may not adequately ensure overall improvement in resource condition in that particular area. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Based on threat and vulnerability assessment strategically important sites have been identified and more than one management treatment is applied, as applicable and feasible, to ensure improvement in resource condition. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation together with M&E Unit Team Review (optional): Together with core team during the performance reporting time BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (532,979) LOA targets: Original 500,000; Revised to 970,524 (2020) excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban II will work in TAL and CHAL with focus on the protected areas, critical corridors and sub-river basins which makes a total of 2,015,243 ha of total area of TAL and CHAL. Considering the intensity of activities in these areas, we have considered only 10% area of national parks in TAL, 15% area of the conservation areas and 8 blocks of Seti sub-river basin in CHAL, 100% area of the corridors and 100% area of Dhorpatan Hunting reserve, where we are supporting the preparation of management plan. Thus, a total of 500,000 ha is targeted to bring under improved natural resource management Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress up to Year 4+Estimated Y5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.4 Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.5 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Habitat improvement/management (fencing, fire line, grassland, wetland, forest, corridors), implementation of ISWMPs, LAPA and LDRMP, Management plans, PES bio engineering, river bank protection, flood control, landslide control measures, water source protection, irrigation canal support/maintenance (command area), conservation ponds, species conservation actions (both flora and fauna) Plantation/regeneration, biodiversity monitoring plot establishment and monitoring, species translocation, integrated sites/NRM groups with habitat restoration works Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.5 Number of hectares of biologically significant areas showing improved biophysical conditions as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-1) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Biologically significant areas are areas that (a) have been identified as important for biodiversity through national, regional, or global priority-setting processes, or (b) areas where sustainable natural resource management interventions have the intent to positively impact biodiversity in areas described in “(a)”.

Improved biophysical conditions are demonstrated where there is biophysical monitoring data showing improvement, stability if previously declining, measurable degradation avoided, or a slower rate of decline in one or more natural resources over time. • Forests/grasslands • Land • Water/wetlands If an area reported as under improved management (indicator EG.10.2-2) also shows improved biophysical conditions, then the corresponding hectares can be reported under both indicators.

Higher = better

Improved biophysical condition should be reported for activities where the USG supported program was plausibly linked to the improvements observed. Partners should articulate clearly, through a short narrative, (a) the logical sequence of events (theory of change) that link the USG supported interventions with the observed biophysical change, and (b) the milestones that are being used within the program to gauge success. Hectares reported may include sustained improvements in previously reported hectares and/or new,

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.5 additional hectares. Hectares reported should include maintained improvements in previously reported hectares and new, additional hectares.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Hectares of land Disaggregated by: Landscape, District, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Measures of this indicator demonstrate the highest level of conservation effectiveness and can inform adaptive management of programs. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “CFOP renewal and implementation, Habitat improvement/management (fencing, fire line, grassland, wetland, forest, corridors), Watershed management plan preparation and implementation, bio engineering, river bank protection, flood control, landslide control measures, water source protection, irrigation canal, conservation ponds, species conservation actions (both flora and fauna), Plantation/regeneration, biodiversity monitoring plot establishment and monitoring, species translocation” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Online reporting by the consortium in SF-1.4, SF-1.10, SF-1.8, SF-1.6, SF- 1.7, SF-1.11, SF-3.2.2 and PF-1.14 template for data collection is used Previously reported hectares with maintained improvements along with new, additional hectares are considered to calculate progress. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS system, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018, USAID together with M&E Unit Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Some known data limitations when using this standard Indicator: (a) Precision - depends on the methods used, such as whether sampling is representative of whole area of intervention. (b) Reliability - is strong but comparability across different sites and different resources (and in different ecological zones) is difficult. (c) Biophysical change may or may not be detectable on an annual basis or even within the project cycle. Stability where it didn’t exist before is also within the definition of biophysical change. (d) Attribution to specific USG supported interventions can be challenging, therefore the need to provide narrative explaining causal effects. Does not mention the level/extent of improved conditions only that there was maintenance or improvement in a specified area. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Biophysical changes (terrestrial) can be measured at certain interval (5 years) to detect possible changes at very macro scale, Site specific changes can be measured through on site observation through photo point monitoring etc. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Activity and landscape wise comparative analysis Presentation of Data (optional): Cumulative over time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.5 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Biodiversity Advisor will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (75,376) LOA Target: Original 50,000; Revised to 50,535(2020)- excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): The target is estimated based on learnings and methodology developed during the first phase for measuring this indicator value. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.6 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: CFOP renewal and implementation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.2.6 Number of community forest operation plans (CFOPs) supported for renewal and implementation Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Community Forest Operation Plans (CFOPs) are the plans prepared by registered community forestry user groups for the management and utilization of the forests handed over to local communities. CFOPs need to be prepared/amended incorporating mechanisms for controlling deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing forest carbon stocks. The CFUGs implement the prepared/amended plans after approval from the respective Division Forest Offices (DFOs). Once the CFOPs are endorsed, we consider that the implementation process begins and are considered as implemented. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of CFOPs Disaggregated by: Landscape Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “CFOP renewal and implementation” implemented by all consortium partners.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.2.6 Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data is collected through regular monitoring using the CFOP module SF-1.8 and uploaded into the database system. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of each of the years ( 2018, 2019,2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Comparative analysis of number of CFOPs prepared and implemented. Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Graphs Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1. Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Technical Advisor-Biodiversity Conservation review the data during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): Renewal: 2012-2016 (481) Implemented: NA LOA Target: Renewal: Original -781; Revised to 797 (2020)- including baseline Implemented: Original 300; Revised to 316 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban has been supporting preparation and/or revision of community forest operation plans with provision of biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation. The program will continue support to prepare and/or renew the CFOPs along with support for implementation of these CFOPs. The program will support a total of 781 CFOPs with 300 new CFOPs preparation along with their implementation in Hariyo Ban II. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.10.2-5 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Policy support Number/Name of Performance Indicator: EG.10.2-5 Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes officially proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Policies, laws, and regulations include those developed and formally endorsed by governmental, non-governmental, civil society, and/or private sector stakeholders to address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental issues. However, if a measure (policy, law, regulation) is not yet adopted, it must at least be formally proposed within an official government process to be reported.

“Officially proposed” means that a relevant government official or agency with decision-making authority has proposed the measure publicly. Each piece of legislation can be counted once as “proposed” and once as “adopted,” if applicable. The indicator narrative should include an explanation of when each measure is counted. “Adopted” means officially codified or enacted by the government entity with decision making authority in their legal, regulatory, or policy system.

Legal, regulatory and policy reform has a role to play by incentivizing investment in reducing threats to biodiversity or encouraging more environmentally sustainable behavior. Depending on the context, regulatory and policy reform might include: zoning regulations to prevent or control development impacting biologically significant areas, standards for improved infrastructure, policies to conserve or allocate natural resources more effectively, regulations to encourage the development of renewable energy sources, or trans-boundary agreements related to the use of shared natural resources, among many others.

Laws, policies, and regulations that address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes may be integrated in scope (e.g., at a certain spatial scale or political boundary such as municipal, state, or national), or may address certain relevant sectors such as water, marine resources, forests, wetlands, species, land use, pollution, air, agriculture, infrastructure and energy. For policies that may affect biodiversity indirectly, it is essential that the indicator narrative explains the connection. For interpretation of this indicator, a qualitative description must be provided to explain what the number represents. Such explanation would answer questions like; What is the title of the measure? , At what stage is it? (e.g., officially proposed, adopted, or implemented?), How does the measure contribute to advancing biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental themes?, and What is/are the institution(s) that will be implementing and/or enforcing the measure, and at what scale (e.g., national, state, municipal, community)?

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of policies

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.10.2-5 Disaggregated by: Stage of development (proposed/adopted/implemented) Conservation law compliance category (wildlife trafficking/illegal logging and associated trade/illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing)

Conservation Compliance Law Disaggregate Definitions: • Wildlife Trafficking: Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address terrestrial wildlife trafficking, which is the illegal taking, possession, transport, sale or export of wild animals or animal parts. For this indicator there may be overlap among the number laws, policies, or regulations that address illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing. • Illegal Logging and associated trade: Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address illegal logging, which is the illegal taking, possession, transport, sale or export of trees or tree products, including trade in products containing illegally obtained wood or paper, as well as unlawful deforestation clear land for another use. • Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) Fishing: Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is the illegal taking, possession, transport, sale or export of aquatic (marine or freshwater) wildlife or wildlife products, as well as failure of fishers to declare fishing catch ("unreported") and failure of governments to create and/or enforce fishing policies ("unregulated"). For this indicator there may be overlap among the number laws, policies, or regulations that address wildlife trafficking.

Note: For all Conservation Compliance Law disaggregates, illegal taking is defined as the harvest, collection or killing of an animal or plant in violation of national law or international conservation and management agreements. Taking is always illegal when the species has protected status in the country of origin. For species in which taking is regulated, it is illegal if done in violation to the corresponding regulation. Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): An improved enabling environment through legal and policy reform is essential for ensuring that efforts and investments in biodiversity conservation have legal and strategic backing and institutional ownership. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: Data Source: Hariyo Ban II reports Method of Data Acquisition: The document of policies, laws and guidelines are referred while keeping the data record. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years ( 2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018, AoR and MEL team Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Policy actions are not under the full control of program. Due to rapidly changing sociopolitical context in Nepal, effectiveness of policies get highly unpredictable. Some known data limitations when using this standard Indicator; (a) Validity - If the intended result is an improved enabling environment, then the numbers of laws, policies, and regulations provides only a partial measure of success, given that effective implementation and enforcement are also critical. Laws, policies, and regulations may also not be well-designed or effective. Different scale strategies and plans have different scopes of impact. Narrative is critical for interpreting this indicator. (b) Timeliness - Preparatory

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.10.2-5 studies and stakeholder relationship building may be required prior to proposal, adoption, or implementation of the measure. (c) Precision - This indicator does not capture progress made along the way in terms of convening stakeholders, gathering and disseminating scientific evidence, fomenting inter-sector collaboration, and evaluating enforcement. Narrative is critical for interpreting this indicator. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Government and civil society participation and ownership is central in all policy initiatives. Coordination, collaboration and partnership with all relevant GoN and conservation stakeholders at all levels is a program implementation strategy. Central level steering committees and local level coordination committees have been formed and operational to discuss rapidly changing policy environment and timely review revision and formulation of relevant policies. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Graphs Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Technical Advisor- Biodiversity Conservation together with M&E Unit. Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team, annually (2018, 2019 and 2020) during reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012- 2016 (10) LOA Target: Original 6; Revised to 25 (2020)- excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): In the first year, the program will identify the policy needs in consultation with GoN and CSOs and will support formulation and/or revision of at least 6 priority policies during the LOA. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 3 March 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Small, Medium and large conservation friendly enterprises Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.3.1 Revenue generated from conservation friendly enterprises Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Conservation friendly enterprise is sustainable forest, agro-based enterprise and natural resource-based enterprise in terms of production and/or processing, and marketing that has no negative impact on the

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.1 local environment, community, society and economy. Benefits from operational conservation friendly enterprises include cash income, employment and/or training as part of the business plan. Conservation friendly enterprise can be at group or individual level. More specifically a green enterprise must be operational, and as relevant, observe one or the other of the following conditions: • Protects and restores biodiversity and ecosystems • Any harvesting of natural resources is sustainable • Minimizes energy use and improves efficiency of raw material use • Promotes integrated pest management, with extremely limited and preferably no use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides (No USAID funds will be used to purchase chemical fertilizers and pesticides) • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions • Minimizes waste and pollution

Working definition of enterprises in Hariyo Ban Program based on scale is as follows. Small enterprise is family -based, they are generally operated from home. This enterprise has an adverse impact on the home environment, depending on the type of enterprise (e.g., vegetable farming, poultry, pig, goat raising, wool carding, furniture repairing, welding, electric wearing etc.). This is originated at home. • Create part time employment • Up to NRs. 200,000 investment (excluding land and Building) Medium enterprise is either individual or group based (NRM group or Cooperative). Enterprise are based on local human resource and raw material (Plantation and processing of High value crops, Non- timber products, Fish, Livestock). • Create full time employment for 1 to 10 persons • NRs. 200,000 to NRs. 2,500,000 investment (excluding land and Building) Large enterprise is either in individual, group of individuals (Pvt. Ltd.) or cooperative. This enterprise required higher level skills, external raw materials and equipment (Processing and manufacturing of the products and Tourism). This enterprise is legally registered. • Create full time employment for more than 10 persons • More than NRs. 2,500,000 investment Revenue from conservation friendly enterprises is a gross income made by NRM groups or individuals. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: NRs. Disaggregated by: District, palika, and Enterprise Group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): More revenue generated will be supportive to alternative livelihood and hence expected to contribute in reducing pressure from the forests/corridors. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Small and medium conservation enterprises, ecotourism” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collection through annual database module i.e. Skill based training tracking PF-1.4, Revenue from Enterprise PF-1.4; and Small Assessments . Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years ( 2018, 2019, 2020 and2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.1 Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: 2019 Known Data Limitations and Significance: We rely on information provided by entrepreneurs Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: We encourage to maintain record keeping system at enterprise level PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Analysis of revenue generated by enterprises. Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Livelihood Specialist, Hariyo Ban Program will review the data, during the annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): Dec. 2016-Dec. 2017 (14,302,040) LOA Targets: Original- 9,255,000; Revised to 147,908,399 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): The initial target was an estimate from different enterprises that were planned in Y1. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Small, medium and large conservation enterprises; microcredit; skill based training; agro-forestry; eco-tourism Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.3.2 Number of people with improved economic benefits derived from sustainable natural resource management and/or biodiversity conservation as a result of USG assistance ( EG.10.2-3) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Number of people may be a direct count, or it may be determined by multiplying number of households with improved economic benefits by the average number of people per household.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.2 Improved economic benefits are positive changes in economic earnings or consumption due to sustainable management or conservation of natural resources, which can include wages, communal revenues, non-cash benefits, economic benefits from ecosystem services and reductions in the rate of loss of an economic benefit under threat.

Higher = Better

Number is specific to each year, not cumulative Working definition of enterprises in Hariyo Ban Program based on scale is as follows. Small enterprise is family -based, they are generally operated from home. This enterprise has an adverse impact on the home environment, depending on the type of enterprise (e.g., vegetable farming, poultry, pig, goat raising, wool spinning, furniture repairing, welding, electric wearing etc.). This is operated at household level • Create part time employment • Up to NRs. 200,000 investment (excluding land and Building) Medium enterprise is either individual or group based (NRM group or Cooperative). Enterprise are based on local human resource and raw material (Plantation and processing of High value crops, Non- timber products, Fish, Livestock). • Create full time employment for 1 to 10 persons • NRs. 200,000 to NRs. 2,500,000 investment (excluding land and Building) Large enterprise is either in individual, group of individuals (Pvt. Ltd.) or cooperative. This enterprise required higher level skills, external raw materials and equipment (Processing and manufacturing of the products and Tourism). This enterprise is legally registered. • Create full time employment for more than 10 persons • More than NRs. 2,500,000 investment

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This measure demonstrates project reach through conservation enterprises and may be reported in aggregate to US Congress or other stakeholders. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Small and medium conservation enterprises; skill based training; agro-forestry; eco-tourism.” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports from consortium partners Method of Data Acquisition: Online reporting by the consortium in PF 1.14 template for data collection is used. Data from small scale assessments and or outcome monitoring are also used. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years ( 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021)

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.2 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018 Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Double counting: same participants might have been participated and reported in multiple enterprises/activities. Number of people with improved economic benefits does not indicate the actual or relative size of the benefit, which may be a cash or non-cash benefit. The level of economic benefits derived from the program inputs may not be substantial at household level to feel that they are economically empowered. Validity is good, integrity is high, reliability and timeliness are reasonable. Precision is variable across programs but should be consistent within programs. Attending a skill based training does not automatically lead to improved economic benefits; though this assumption is being made. Number of people with economic benefits does not indicate the actual or relative size of the benefit, which may be a cash or non-cash benefit; nor does it take into account opportunity costs of foregone activities. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: - All CFUGs groups in our working area have conducted wellbeing ranking. Participants are selected based on wellbeing ranking focusing on poor and ultra-poor to maintain equity in the program support. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Livelihood Specialist, Hariyo Ban Program review the data, during the semi-annual and annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (79,830) LOA Target: 30,000 – excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): During the first year, the program will focus only on identification of target households and preparation of business plan. This will not lead to improved economic benefits. While throughout the project period, the program will support at least 20 small enterprises (such as vegetable farming, fish farming, wool weaving etc.), 25 medium enterprises (such as block plantation of Coffee, Tea, Cardamom, Chiraito, Cinnamon, Broom grass, Bel, Sisnu powder, Bamboo, Dairy, Essential oil, Citrus, Sal Leaf plate etc.) and 10 ecotourism sites in Kaski, Gorkha, Syangja, Karnali, Kamdi Nayagaun, Rajahar, Madi, Durjung-chumchet areas. Similarly, the program will assist communities to invest the revolving funds created during the first phase for small enterprises. Apart from that, skill development training will be provided as required. Hence, a total of 30,000 people will have improved economic benefits from our support. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working unit Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.2 THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Small, medium and large conservation enterprises; skill based training; agro-forestry; eco-tourism Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.3.3 Number of women entrepreneurs engaged in conservation friendly enterprises Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Women participated in technical and entrepreneurship training; engaged in conservation friendly enterprises with production at semi commercial/commercial scale, marketing of products Self-employed women trainees of skill based training

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of women Disaggregated by: Caste/ethnicity, age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This measure demonstrates project reach particularly to women, through conservation enterprises PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Small and medium conservation enterprises; skill based training; eco-tourism.” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collection through regular monitoring in the module of Skill based training PF-1.12and Enterprise Support PF. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years ( 2018, 2019 2020 and 2021)) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Known Data Limitations and Significance: The indicator measures only the number of women who have started as entrepreneur, it doesn’t measure their continual engagement/intensity of engagement in the enterprise Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.3 Data Analysis (optional): analysis of enterprise wise women’s engagement Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with GESI coordinator and Livelihood Specialist, Hariyo Ban Program will review the data during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (292) LOA Target: Original 605; Revised to 661 (2020) excluding baseline Rationale for Targets (optional): An average of 11 women entrepreneurs are expected to be engaged in each enterprise making a total of 605 women entrepreneurs during the LOA. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.4 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Skill based trainings Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 1.3.4 Proportion of skill based trainees employed Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): “Training is provided in various skills to promote employment of forest dependent PVSE and marginal farmers who are exerting unsustainable pressure on forests, in order to shift their livelihood dependency from forests to the service sector. This includes training to become ICS promoters; training in vocations such as electrical installation, plumbing, sanitation, mechanics, tailoring, and electronics; and training in the tourism sector such as housekeeping, cooking, and nature guiding.” “Employed” here refers to the employment status of the trainees either job placement or self- employment in own enterprises. Numerator: [Number of skill based trainees employed] Denominator: [Total Number of skill based trainees] Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity /age group

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 1.3.4 Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This will be linked with the livelihoods improvement program. Increased skills acquired by these groups will increase their opportunities to earn additional income from the service sector or establish their own enterprise. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Skill based training” implemented by all consortium partners Data Source: Assessment reports and Hariyo Ban database Method of Data Acquisition: Questionnaire survey with the skill based trainees and data recorded and reported in annual Skill based training tracking module PF-1.4. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Year 3 (2019) and Year 4 (2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Assessment reports, Hariyo Ban II database,, Annual/ reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: None Known Data Limitations and Significance: The indicator measures only the number of people who have started enterprise or engaged as employee, it doesn’t measure their continual engagement and intensity of engagement in the enterprise. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Livelihood Specialist, Hariyo Ban Program will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012-2016 (1127 trained persons; 55% employed) LOA Targets: number of trained persons – Original 1,477; Revised to 1,516 (2020): including baseline Employed: Original 60% (210); Revised to 68% (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on the results from the first phase, at least 60% of the skill based trainees would get employment opportunities. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual as of Year 4 Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GNDR-2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GNDR-2 Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Skill based trainings and enterprise support Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG- assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Productive economic resources include: assets - land, housing, businesses, livestock or financial assets such as savings; credit; wage or self-employment; and income.

Programs include: • micro, small, and medium enterprise programs; • workforce development programs that have job placement activities; • programs that build assets such as land redistribution or titling; housing titling; agricultural programs that provide assets such as livestock; or programs designed to help adolescent females and young women set up savings accounts.

This indicator does NOT track access to services, such as business development services or stand-alone employment training (e.g., employment training that does not also include job placement following the training).

The unit of measure will be a percentage expressed as a whole number. Numerator = Number of female participants engaged in livelihood interventions Denominator = Total number of male and female participants engaged in livelihood interventions The resulting percentage should be expressed as a whole number. For example, if the number of females in the program (the numerator) divided by the total number of participants in the program (the denominator) yields a value of .16, the number 16 should be the reported result for this indicator. Values for this indicator can range from 0 to 100. The numerator and denominator must also be reported as disaggregates. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): Information generated by this indicator will be used to monitor and report on achievements linked to broader outcomes of gender equality and female empowerment and will be used for planning and reporting purposes. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: Skill based trainings and enterprise support and technical trainings Data Source: Hariyo Ban database Method of Data Acquisition: Data recorded and reported in the modules: Skill based training PF-1.12, technical training on Livelihood reported in training PF module and Enterprise Support Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Year 3 (2019), Year 4 (2020) and Year 5 (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GNDR-2 Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, Database, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: The indicator measures only the number of people who have started as entrepreneur, it doesn’t measure their continual engagement/intensity of engagement in the enterprise. There is a chance of duplication of beneficiaries under technical trainings and enterprise development support. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Livelihood Specialist, Hariyo Ban Program will review the data during the reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (NA) LOA Target: 50% Rationale for Targets (optional): Since this indicator is calculated from three other indicators (1.3.2, 1.3.3 and 1.3.4), the target of this indicator will depend upon the respective indicators and will be decided from second year plan. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 3 March 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1: Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Vulnerability assessment at sub-basin, sub-watershed, district and palika; and enterprise level Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.1.1 Number of vulnerability assessments conducted at

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.1 sub-basin, sub-watershed, palika level Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Where existing vulnerability assessments carried out under national or donor processes are not sufficient for developing and implementing an adaptation program, vulnerability assessment should be conducted at sub-basin, sub-watershed, district and palikas level using best practices, at a relevant temporal and spatial scale for the envisioned program, and involving key stakeholders. In addition, livelihood enterprise level vulnerability assessments carried out using best practices which include the participatory identification of priority climate-sensitive sectors, livelihoods or systems; identification of priority populations and regions; assessment of anticipated climate and non- climate stresses; estimates of potential impacts; and assessment of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the system to climate stresses. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of Vulnerability Assessments Disaggregated by: Landscape, sub river basin (ISWMPs) District, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This will be used in preparation of adaptation plans PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Vulnerability Assessments for the preparation of Local adaptation plans of action (LAPAs) and integrated sub-watershed management plans (ISWMPs) integrating adaptation activities; revision of Protected Areas Management Plans; and enterprises” will be conducted by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II reports and database Method of Data Acquisition: Data collection through regular monitoring in Vulnerability Assessment SF module Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018 2019, 2020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Categories of vulnerable households are not available in case of ISWMPs and protected areas management plans Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor, Hariyo Ban Program review the data, during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (529) LOA targets: Original 22; Revised to 28 (2020); - excluding baseline

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.1 Rationale for Targets (optional): Vulnerability assessment will be conducted during the preparation of LAPA, ISWMP, protected area management plans, strengthening of enterprises, and upscaling and review of existing LAPA as per local restructuring by GoN. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, sub river basin (ISWMPs) District, Palikas Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1: Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change issues and preparation and implementation of adaptation plans Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.1.2 Number of LAPAs prepared and/or implemented Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Along with Vulnerability assessments, some new Local adaptation plans of action (LAPAs) and CCA and DRR integrated plans integrating adaptation activities will be prepared. LAPAs and CCA DRR plans are prepared in palika level. All adaptation plans are guided by the National Framework for Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA, 2011) and National Adaptation Programme for Action (NAPA, 2010). LAPAs and CCA DRR integrated plans in critical corridors and sub river basins are supported for implementation. For adaptation plans prepared in phase I and are beyond the working areas of phase II, technical supports are provided for implementation and counted under this indicator. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of LAPAs/CCA DRR integrated plans Disaggregated by: Landscape, District, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to track to what extent integration with DRR efforts required. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Preparation and or implementation of LAPAs and or CCA DRR integrated plans” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collection by regular monitoring using LAPA profile module SF- 3.1.1(B) and LAPA implementation SF module Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017,

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.2 2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Plan, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: This indicator does not indicate effectiveness and intensity of LAPAs and CCA DRR integrated plans prepared/implemented. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): ): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor, Hariyo Ban Program review the data, during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): Preparation: 2013-2016 (90) Implementation: 2013-2016 (70) LOA Targets: Preparation: Original 95, revised to 103 (2020) including baseline Implementation: 78– excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban II will focus on implementation of the LAPAs prepared during the first phase. Depending upon the need and considering restructuring by GoN, 5 new LAPAs are proposed to prepare. Recent local level restructuring by GoN, these palikas whose LAPAs are prepared are merged, which may substantially decrease the number of LAPAs that we will provide support for implementation. Hariyo Ban II will collaborate with local government to provide technical assistance for implementation of LAPAs from Phase I which is expected to contribute in achieving this target. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016. Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.3: This indicator is not reported because the EFLG Program ceased to exist from the beginning of Phase II

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1: Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Implementation of adaptation plans in collaboration with EFLG Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.1.3 Number of climate change adaptation plans being implemented in collaboration with EFLG Committees at different levels Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Hariyo Ban II has plan to work in collaboration with the EFLG Coordination Committees at relevant Palika, municipality and district levels while developing and implementing LAPAs, and mainstreaming CCA and DRR into local development. The program aims to share the provisions of the EFLG Framework with relevant stakeholders and encourage them to incorporate provisions into these local CCA and DRR plans and leverage EFLG grants through district coordination committees, Palikas and Municipalities for their implementation. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of CAPAs/LAPAs Disaggregated by: Landscape Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to track collaboration efforts required to sustain the plan in long run. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Implementation of adaptation plans in collaboration with EFLG” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban database, Reports Method of Data Acquisition: Regular monitoring Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of each of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL plan, DIS System, Baseline and endline reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor and core team of Hariyo Ban Program will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.2 BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 Rationale for Targets (optional): In the first year, the program will focus on increasing coordination and collaboration with EFLG Program. Focusing on the EFLGP implementing districts within Hariyo Ban working areas, the program has targeted to support implementation of 33 LAPAs in collaboration with EFLG program. But, due to recent local level restructuring by GoN, these palikas where EFLGP is implementing are merged , which may substantially decrease the number of LAPAs that we will implement in collaboration. Hence we may need to review this target. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.4 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1: Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Integrating CCA and DRR provisions in PAs, local bodies and communities Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.1.4 Number of local bodies (Palikas) and PA authority incorporating climate change adaptation and DRR provisions in their plans Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Hariyo Ban II has plan to work with local bodies and Protected Area (PA) authorities to incorporate CCA and DRR provisions in their plans. This will be carried out by integrating CCA and DRR provisions and mainstreaming in the planning process. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of Local bodies, PA authorities Disaggregated by: Landscape, District, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to track collaboration efforts required to sustain the plan in long run. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Support local bodies and PA authorities for integrating CCA and DRR provisions in plans” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban Reports and database Method of Data Acquisition: Regular reporting by field team Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019 2020, 2021)

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.1.4 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban database, DIS System, DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: This indicator only measures if the plans have incorporated CCA DRR provisions but does not indicate whether the integrated plans are implemented or not. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective CCA DRR specialist/program officers from consortium partners initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor and core team of Hariyo Ban Program review the data, during the annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (6) LOA Target: Original 31; Revised to 34 (2020) – excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): About 40% (31) of the local bodies where LAPAs will be implemented, are anticipated to incorporate CCA and DRR provisions in their plans. But, due to recent local level restructuring by GoN, these local bodies are merged , which may decrease the number of local bodies that will incorporate CCA and DRR provisions in their plans. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Name of local bodies changed due to restructuring of the local bodies. EFLG provisions deleted as the project does not exist at present. THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.11-3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.3: Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Support for Plans Policies formulation or revision Number/Name of Performance Indicator: EG.11-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or

100

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.11-3 standards addressing climate change adaptation formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as supported by USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1-3) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Climate change adaptation is increasing the resilience of natural or human systems (e.g. people, places, ecosystems or livelihoods) to actual or expected impacts of climate change, including through improved use of information, planning and action.

Laws, policies, plans, strategies, regulations, or standards considered under this indicator are measures developed to address climate change adaptation.

Plans, Policies or strategies, such as national adaptation plans (NAPs), Environment Policy and Climate Change Policy, stakeholder engagement strategies, and other nationally significant measures may be reported under this indicator. Nationally significant measures may include sector specific or provincial plans, strategies, policies, or industrial standards which, if successfully implemented, could have a significant impact on the country’s resilience to climate change.

“Formally proposed” means that a relevant government official or agency, organization, or non- governmental entity with decision-making authority has proposed the measure, according to established procedures, preferably publicly when this is appropriate to the given context.

“Adopted” means officially codified or enacted by a government, organization, or non-governmental entity with decision-making authority in its respective legal, regulatory, policy, or non-governmental system.

“Implemented” means that a measure is in force or being executed in the intended geographic locations and at the intended administrative levels.

If a measure is not yet adopted, it must at least be formally proposed within an official process to be reported. Each measure can be counted once as “proposed,” once as “adopted,” and once as “implemented,” if applicable, within the same reporting period or across multiple reporting periods. The indicator narrative should include an explanation of when each measure is being reported.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of plans and policies Disaggregated by: Stages of plans and policy and national/sub-national/regional level Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator is used to track national and subnational legal, regulatory, and policy progress in climate change adaptation, which supports the adaptation strategic objective of the Global Climate Change Initiative. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: NA Data Source: Reports Method of Data Acquisition: Consultation with CCA Advisor and Governance Specialist, who are engaged in policy related interventions supported by Hariyo Ban Program. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2017 and 2019 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP

101

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. EG.11-3 Location of Data Storage (optional):DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Climate change adaptation Advisor together with Governance Specialist Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team during reporting time BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (4) LOA Target: Original 2; Revised to 3 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): During the first year, program will support National Adaptation Plan (NAP) formulation process. Based on the plan, further policy/guidelines will be decided, where we can give our input. Hariyo Ban will however engage and support in any climate change related policies as and when required. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 3 March 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Trainings on climate change adaptation/climate resilience, ecosystem-based adaptation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.1 Number of people trained in climate change adaptation supported by USG assistance (EG.11-1) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Climate change adaptation is increasing the resilience of natural or human systems (e.g. people, places, ecosystems or livelihoods) to actual or expected impacts of climate change, including through improved use of information, planning and action.

102

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.1 Training is defined as a learning activity involving; 1) a setting intended for teaching or transferring knowledge, skills or approaches; 2) a formally designated instructor(s) or lead persons(s); 3) a defined curriculum, learning objectives or outcomes.

Training can include long-term academic degree programs, short –or long-term mon-technical courses in academic or in other setting seminars, workshops, conferences, on-the-job learning experiences, observational study tours, distance learning, or similar activities as long as it includes the three elements above.

Coaching and mentoring, meetings or other efforts that could have educational value but not have a defined curriculum or objectives are generally not considered to be training unless they meet the three definitional standards for training identified above.

For short term training to be reported and calculated under this indicator, the pretest and post-test is essential.

Only people who complete the training course are counted for this indicator. People who attend multiple, non-duplicative training may be counted once for each training they completed in the reporting period.

This indicator focuses on the delivery of trainings that was made possible through full or partial funding from the USG. This may include the provision of funds to pay instructors or lead persons, providing hosting facilities or other key contributions necessary to ensure the delivery of the training. This indicator does not include courses for which the USG only helped develop the curriculum. USG staff and implementers should not be included in the calculation of people trained.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): It will be used to measure the number of people with enhanced capacity to understand Climate Change issues. This will help indicate achievements, and gaps in capacity enhancement for future action. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Training for government and civil society representatives on climate change, disaster and gender-equitable and socially inclusive adaptation practices, Climate and disaster training and or capacity building” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition Online reporting by the consortium in Training module PF 1 for data collection is used. Participants signed sheet and or certification by organizers at consortium partners or implementing partners/grantees completed for each day of training event. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): November 2018, AoR and M&E Unit Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021

103

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.1 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Double counting: same participants might have been participated and reported in multiple activities. Does not measure the effectiveness of the capacity building or how it is applied Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor review the data during the semi-annual reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (18,744) LOA Target: 11,260 – excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): To achieve the overall objective of reducing climate change vulnerability in TAL and CHAL, it is required that we impart knowledge and skill on different climate change adaptation and mitigation measures to relevant stakeholders from district to community level. Hence at least 11,260 persons will be train in climate change adaptation of which at least 930 will be trained in the first year of the program, as planned in first AWP. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, Sub-basin, sub-watershed, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Capacity building on climate change adaptation and implementation of adaptation plans Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.2 Number of people participating in climate change adaptation activities Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Climate change adaptation related activities include a range of activities such as awareness activities (orientations, workshop), trainings, campaigns, implementation of the adaptation plans etc. Double counting is allowed.

104

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.2 Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity/age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to calculate total number of people in the project area benefitting from the climate change adaptation activities. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change adaptation and or mitigation and implementation of adaptation plans” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collected through training module, workshop module, LAPA implementation module and ISWMP implementation module are used to collect and record data for this indicator Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Does not measure whether activity leads to increased resilience/ climate adaptation. Double counting might exist. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011- 2016 (395,331) LOA Target: 150,000 - excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): To achieve the overall objective of reducing climate change vulnerability in TAL and CHAL, it is required that we aware and engage maximum stakeholders (from national to community level) on different climate change adaptation activities. Based on our experience from Hariyo Ban first phase, 150,000 persons are targeted to participate in climate change adaptation activities through different orientation programs, preparation of plans and engagement in adaptation plans implementation. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, Sub-basin, sub-watershed, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

105

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.2 Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change issues and preparation and implementation of adaptation plans and CFOPs renewal/implementation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.3 Number of institutions with improved capacity to assess or address climate change risks supported by USG assistance (EG.11-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Institutions with improved (i.e. better, additional, or greater) capacity to assess or address climate change risks are institutions that have new or increased ability to use approaches, processes, strategies, or methodologies to adapt to climate change.

The effects of climate change may occur suddenly or gradually, and can include floods, droughts, storms, landslides, salinization, sea level rise, desertification, heat or cold waves and biodiversity loss, among other effects.

Relevant institutions may include national, subnational, or regional government institutions (such as ministries, departments, or commissions), private sector entities, local civil society organizations (such as women’s groups or farmers’ cooperatives), and trade unions, among other governmental, nongovernmental, and private sector institutions. In Hariyo Ban Program, we count LAPA committees, ISWMP committees (sub/micro watersheds coordination committees), district and community level institutions working on DRR and CCA and selected NRM groups with support from the program for implementing CCA and DRR activities.

Indications of increased institutional capacity to assess or address climate change risks include, but are not limited to: • Using climate change data, information or analysis to inform decisions and actions • Improving administrative or organizational capacity of climate-change focused institutions • Devoting greater resources to climate change adaptation planning and action (e.g., human, financial, equipment) • Improved access to equipment or data • Engaging stakeholders and building networks related to climate change adaptation objectives • Building in-house technical expertise

This indicator measures both improvements in capacity to address climate change in institutions that do not focus exclusively on climate change as well as general institutional capacity improvements in climate institutions.

An institution can be reported as having its capacity improved in multiple years if it achieves meaningful

106

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.3 improvement in each of the years it is reported. However, each institution should only be reported once per fiscal year. Implementing partners may support improved institutional capacity by engaging with institutions through a variety of methods and over varying timeframes. Implementers may be asked to provide supporting documentation as requested in the Data Source Section.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of institutions Disaggregated by: Adaptation capabilities and General climate change capabilities Government institutions, District and Community level entities, NRM groups Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to track to what extent institutional capacity building enables successful climate change programs, and to indicate the coverage of Global Climate Change (GCC) efforts. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change issues, Preparation and implementation of adaptation plans at institution level, CFUGs which perform CFOPs renewal and implementation and CAPA committee implementing CAPA, Institutional support” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports The following information will be requested for each institution counted toward this result: 1) the name of the institution; 2) the established need for and type of additional capacity being targeted; 3) the nature and extent of the interventions utilized to improve capacity; and 4) a summation of the nature of the improved capacity for the institution(s) as a result of the specific approaches to address climate change issues. Method of Data Acquisition: Partners reporting on the Hariyo Ban database in the modules such as training, Institutional support, LAPA and ISWMP implementation, CFOP etc. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, Annual/Semi-annual reports, DIS System. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Precision- This indicator does not indicate effectiveness, only engagement and coverage. Narrative description is important. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): M&E unit together with Climate Change Adaptation Advisor will review the data, every six month during the semi-annual reporting Team Review (optional): The data then are presented and discussed among the Hariyo Ban core team BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2011-2016 (2,114) LOA Targets: 202 Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban will closely work with different community based institutions, support to improve their capacity to access or address vulnerabilities to climate change

107

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.3 risks. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.4 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change issues and preparation and implementation of adaptation plans Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.4 Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance (EG.11-6) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Climate information is important in the identification, assessment, and management of climate risks to improve resilience. Climate information may include, but is not limited to: (1) data such as monitored weather or climate projections (e.g., anticipated temperature, precipitation and sea level rise under future scenarios), and (2) the outputs of climate impact assessments, for example, the consequences of increased temperatures on crops, changes in stream flow due to precipitation shifts, or the number of people likely to be affected by future storm surges.

Any adjustment or new approach to the management of resources or implementation of actions that responds to climate change risks and increases resilience should be considered under this indicator.

Using climate information or implementing risk-reducing practices does not always involve expenditure of funds. For instance, a farmer may choose to harvest a crop earlier or plant a different crop due to a climate-related forecast.

Climate information can serve a variety of sectors such as agriculture, livestock, health, or natural resource or urban management. Using climate information may include, but is not limited to, conducting vulnerability assessments, creating plans or strategies for adaptation or resilience based on projected climate impacts, or selecting risk-reducing or resilience-improving actions to implement.

Examples of risk-reducing actions may include, but are not limited to: • In the agriculture sector, actions may include changing the exposure or sensitivity of crops, better soil

108

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.4 management, changing grazing practices, applying new technologies like improved seeds or irrigation methods, diversifying into different income-generating activities, using crops that are less susceptible to drought, salt and variability, or any other practices or actions that aim to increase predictability or productivity of agriculture under anticipated climate variability and change. • In the water sector, actions may aim to improve water quality, supply, and efficient use under anticipated climate variability and change. • In the health sector, actions may aim to prevent or control disease incidence and outcomes under anticipated climate variability and change outcomes. • In Disaster Risk Reduction, actions may aim to reduce the negative impacts of extreme events associated with climate variability and change. • In urban areas, actions may aim to improve the resilience of urban areas, populations, and infrastructure under anticipated climate variability and change.

Reporting under this indicator is not limited to the above sectors. Any individuals using climate information or implementing actions that respond to climate change risks and increase resilience with USG support should be considered under this indicator.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity and age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): These results will help to estimate the coverage and effectiveness of USAID’s portfolio. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness and capacity building activities in climate change issues Preparation and implementation of adaptation plans.” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data for this indicator are collected and recorded in the modules of Training, workshop, LAPA implementation (PES), ISWMP implementation and CFOP Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Double counting of same person might exist. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners will initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor will review the data, during the semi-annual reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS

109

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.4 Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012- 2016 (195,461) LOA Target: 100,000 – excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): Since Hariyo Ban first phase, we have been supporting the implementation of adaptation plans to ensure the implementation of risk reducing actions and improve resilience to climate change. Hariyo Ban II will also promote and motivate the use of climate information. Altogether, the program has targeted to reach at least 100,000 people who will be either using climate information or implement risk-reducing actions. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020 PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.5 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Implementation of adaptation plans addressing differential impacts Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.5 Adaptation plans that are implementing measures to address differential impacts of climate change and DRR on women and vulnerable communities/people Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Climate change does not impact all people within a community in the same way. As vulnerability is understood as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, there is differential impact of climate change in terms of their exposure sensitivity and adaptive capacity across gender, class, caste, ethnicity and disabled. Adaptation plans (LAPA) or ISWMPs which include measures to address differential impacts of climate change on women and vulnerable communities/people will be prepared and implemented. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of adaptation plans Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Implementation of adaptation plans addressing differential impacts.” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban database, Reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data for this indicator are collected and recorded in Training, LAPA implementation and ISWMP implementation modules .

110

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.5 Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years ( 2018, 2019,2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban database, DIS System, Reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons together with program officer from consortium partners will initially review the reports and provide information. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor and Hariyo Ban core team review the data, during the semi-annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2013-2016 (2) LOA Target: 30 - excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): Nearly 40% (30) of the LAPAs planned for implementation, are anticipated to implement measures to address differential impacts of climate change and disaster on women and vulnerable communities, on a pilot basis. But, due to recent local level restructuring by GoN, these LAPAs will be merged/upscaled, which may reduce the number of LAPAs that implement measures to address differential impacts of climate change and disaster on women and vulnerable communities. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016. Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.6 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.2: Community Readiness to adapt and benefit from climate change increased Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Implementation of ISWMPs and IRBM activities Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.2.6 Number of institutions established and operational at sub basin, sub-watershed and micro watershed level Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome

111

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Government of Nepal promotes linkage between micro-watershed management committees, sub-watershed management committees and sub-basin committee within the sub-basin based on common/pertinent issues amongst upstream and downstream communities. This demands establishment of institutions at sub basin, sub- watershed and micro watershed level and support them to become operational. Hariyo Ban II will support to establish and operationalize these institutions. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of institutions Disaggregated by: Sub river basin and sub watershed Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator helps to understand the institutionalization of watershed/micro watersheds in order to be sure about the sustainability of the structures in future. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Establishment of institutions at sub watershed and micro watershed level and their operationalization” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data collected and recorded in ISWMP implementation module Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018 and 2019, and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL plan, DIS System, Database, Annual/Semi- annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: It only measures the institutions that are established and operationalized but doesn’t measure their effectiveness. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons from consortium partners initially review the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor will review the data, during the reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2013-2016 (14) LOA Target: Original 14; Revised to 24 (2020) : excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): As the program has planned to support implementation of 7 sub- watershed management plans, one institution per sub-watershed will be established and strengthened. Since the smallest unit of sub-watershed is micro-watershed, at least one institution in priority micro- watershed will also be established and strengthened. This will make a total of 14 different institutions at sub-watershed and micro-watershed levels throughout LOA. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional):

112

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.2.5 GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, sub basin, sub-watershed, micro watershed, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.3.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.3: Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Capacity building with Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), with water source protection in pilot sites and leveraging, Flood early warning and risk awareness Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.3.1 Number of people with improved capacity to recover from disasters including from climate induced disasters Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of people with increased capacity to recover from existing disasters, and/or with increased capacity to avoid or reduce the impacts of future disasters that are induced due to climate change. Types of activity that increase capacity may include (but not limited to): 1. Capacity building at community • Establishment or improvement of flood, earthquake and landslide protection (e.g. through hard infrastructure and/or bioengineering; or DRR planning (excluding regular DRR planning) • Re-establishment of community infrastructure (e.g. water systems); and community institutions and/or their functions (e.g. CFUGs, water users groups, women’s groups) • Restoration of physical access to services, resources, markets, etc. • Reduction of human-wildlife conflict risk related to disaster • GESI capacity building activities that build capacity to recover from existing disasters or withstand future disasters better. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of people Disaggregated by: Sex, caste/ethnicity Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to estimate the outreach of the DRR work particularly on increased capacity. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness activities, campaigns, implementation of adaptation plans with focus on DRR” implemented by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban II Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data for this indicator are recorded in modules such as Training PF-1, workshop SF-1, LAPA implementation and ISWMP implementation SF-1.11 with focus on DRR

113

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.3.1 Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Double counting of participants who take part in multiple activities is possible. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1. Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data are reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at center verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate Change Adaptation Advisor review the data, during the reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (NA) LOA Target: Original 5,200; Revised to 8,293 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): During the program period, implementation of LAPAs, ISWMPs and through the improved capacity of institutions, a total of 5,200 people are planned to reach who will improve their capacity to recover from disaster including climate induced disaster. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.3.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.3: Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Integrating CCA and DRR plans and implementation

114

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.3.2 Number/Name of Performance Indicator: 2.3.2 Number of CCA and DRR plans implemented Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Hariyo Ban II will support for the integration of CCA and DRR plans and their implementation at district and sub-district levels. LAPA and LDRMP have the same unit ( palika), similar issues to be addressed and same people to be served. So, CCA and DRR integrated in reviewed plans considering GESI and governance issues also. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of plans Disaggregated by: Landscape, District, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This indicator will be used to estimate our outreach in the integration of CCA and DRR and later focus on their implementation. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Integrating CCA and DRR in the adaptation plans and their implementation” by all consortium partners. Data Source: Hariyo Ban database (offline) Method of Data Acquisition: Reporting by program officers Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June the years (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): , DIS System, Reports, database DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Respective M&E persons with program officers from consortium partners initially review the information. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Climate change adaptation Advisor review the information, during the reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2013-2016 (2) LOA Targets: Original 20; Revised to 43 (2020)- excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): About 25% of LAPAs are anticipated to have integrated DRR and implemented. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

115

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. 2.3.2 Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Integrate GESI provisions in NRM plans and policies Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 1.1 Number of NRM groups integrating GESI provisions in plan and policies Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Legal provisions to address unequal power relations between women and men and between different social groups For NRM groups we look for integrating the provisions of CFD guideline 2065 and other relevant guideline focusing on gender equality and social inclusion in their constitution, OPs, and annual plans. Special decisions made by NRM groups for integrating the CFD and other special provisions focusing on gender equality and social inclusion

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of NRM groups Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Deliver Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) packages” by all consortium partners. Data Source: Annual reports; reporting by consortium partners Method of Data Acquisition: Review of NRM policies and plans if GESI consideration has been integrated in them during Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Assessment reports, Hariyo Ban reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: It only implies the integration in the policies, not about the implementation status Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA

116

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.1 Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator and Governance Specialist together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (146) LOA target: Original 240; Revised to 309 (2020) excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): In Hariyo Ban II, the program targets to improve the governance of 60% of the NRM group. Of the several other criteria for good governance in NRM group, integrating GESI provision is also one; hence this target is set aligned with the governance target. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness to institutions on implementing GESI provisions of their plans Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 1.2 Number of NRM groups implementing GESI provisions Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Implementation of GESI provisions in NRM groups refers to: x Composition of executive committee (inclusive committee) x Execution of equitable benefit sharing mechanism (35% of groups revenue allocated for wellbeing of women and marginalized communities etc.) x Participation of women and marginalized groups in capacity building activities

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: Number of NRM groups Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): This gives a tentative picture on GESI mainstreaming at NRM institution level.

117

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.2 PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness to institutions on implementing GESI provisions of their plans & delivery of ICB package” implemented by all partners Data Source: Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment reports Method of Data Acquisition: Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment studies to review of the implementation of GESI provision as mentioned in the plans Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Special assessment reports and Hariyo Ban reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator and Governance Specialist together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (133) LOA Target: Original 180; Revised to 238 (2020) – excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): 75% of the NRM group integrating GESI provisions in their plans (75% of 240 groups) are anticipated to implement the GESI provisions. Rationale for LOA revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1 , 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness on GESI

118

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.3 Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Decision makers A person who makes decision, especially at a high level in a formal or informal institution. People holding key positions in NRM groups/institutions and having influential roles at house and societal level are decision makers. Decision made by decision makers influences many things. Gender equitable Gender equitable includes up scaling the engagement of men and decision makers to advance gender equality and social inclusion at various levels. HB II has included an internal advocacy module, planned to encourage men at decision making level inside the organizations to demonstrate their personal commitment of gender equality and social inclusion about what that meant in practice for their everyday work. The project aims to highlight the fact that gender equality and social inclusion is a concern of everyone. GESI responsive behavior Having good understanding how gender inequalities and social exclusion are compounded against women, girls and different social groups. And acting accordingly while designing and implementing interventions. Sensitive to assess how interventions might interact with and influence the attitudes and behaviors of the target groups and surrounding community. Numerator: [Number of Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior] Denominator: [Total number of Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups interviewed] Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness on GESI” implemented by all partners Data Source: Assessment reports Method of Data Acquisition: Perception/Questionnaire survey with women and ethnic and marginalized groups Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Year 3 (2019) and Year 5 (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Baseline and endline reports, DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): NA Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator together with M&E unit

119

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 1.3 Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (78.96%) LOA Target: 99% Rationale for Targets (optional): 25% increase of baseline is estimate LOA target Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1 , 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 2: More women, youth, and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making, and advocacy Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness on GESI Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 2.1 Percent of leadership positions in USG- supported community management entities that are filled by a woman or member of a vulnerable group (USAID PMP 1.3.2-1) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Community management entities are defined as: NRM groups

Marginalized communities are those who have traditionally been excluded from power and access to resources, and have been made economically and socially backward because of discrimination and oppression. This may include indigenous peoples, other ethnic or religious minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations, person with disabilities.

Vulnerable communities are defined as those that meet one or more of the following criteria: 1) Living on less than $1.25 per person per day; 2) Disadvantaged caste groups and ethnic and religious minorities (Dalits, Janajatis, and Muslims); 3) Affected by natural disasters (e.g. flood, landslide, drought, or earthquake) during the project intervention period.

Leadership position: To be counted in this indicator, women or members of a vulnerable group should be responsible for sharing information and representing the entity s/he is associated with in public forums; to help define the issues, problems, and solutions that the entity works on; and to influence decisions and outcomes associated with the entity or its initiatives. Leadership positions may be voluntarily obtained, appointed or elected.

120

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.1

Examples: • Persons serving as executive or head administrators of community management entities (in title)

Total number of leadership positions available on community managed entities should include titled positions (chair person, vice-chair, president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or the like). On non- formal committees, count available leadership positions as at least one per committee.

Hariyo Ban will work through NRM groups to support improvement of natural resource governance. Groups include: CFUGs, leasehold forestry groups (LFGs), buffer-zone user committees (BZUCs) and conservation area management committees (CAMCs) . These groups are facing challenges of elite capture, and of improving accountability, transparency and equitable resource management. The indicator will contribute in analyzing representation of women and other excluded people in these NRM groups’ decision-making bodies. Reported as percentage representation of women, Dalits and Janajatis in decision making bodies, which provides a reference for changes in percentage representation in subsequent years as a result of USG assistance. In terms of women, representation on CFUG Executive Committees as Chairperson or Secretary will also be measured as it is in line with Community Forestry Development Guideline 2065. Women along with Dalit and Janajatis representation in two out of four key positions, namely Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer, will be measured.

Numerator: [Number of women/vulnerable people holding leadership positions] Denominator: [Total number of available leadership positions]

To disaggregate by sex, use the total number of women and vulnerable group members, and the % of those who are female, and the percent who are male. Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness on GESI” implemented by all partners Data Source: Institutional Capacity Assessment and reassessment reports, Method of Data Acquisition: Survey of key positions of the NRM groups - Institutional Capacity Assessment and reassessment reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Baseline (2017), Year 3 (2019) and Year 4 (2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II MEL plan, DIS System, Baseline, Assessment and endline reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA

121

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.1 Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (women only 40% and marginalized only 55%) LOA Target: Original -Women only- 50% Marginalized women- 33%Marginalized men - 42% Revised to -Women and marginalized - 87% (women only- 46% (marginalized women 38%); marginalized men only - 41%) – (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): 10% increase from baseline is estimated LOA target. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 Progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 2: More women, youth, and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making, and advocacy Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness on GESI Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): NRM Groups include: CFUGs, collaborative forest management committees (CFMCs), leasehold forestry groups (LFGs), buffer-zone user committees (BZUCs), conservation area management committees and water users groups/associations (WUG/As). A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality.

Attitude and behavior of the people and what they practice in their personal and professional life are influenced by socially constructed roles based on sex or sexuality.

Numerator: [Number of Women and men (of NRM groups) who believe that the gender roles have been changed] Denominator: [Total number of Women and men (NRM groups) interviewed] Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional):

122

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.2 PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness on GESI” implemented by all partners Data Source: Baseline, midline and endline reports Method of Data Acquisition: Perception/Questionnaire survey Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Year 3 (2019) and Year 5 (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Baseline and endline reports and perception survey report DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): NA Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (65.44%) LOA Target: 82% Rationale for Targets (optional): 25% increase from baseline is estimated LOA target. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 2: More women, youth, and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making, and advocacy Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness on GESI Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome

123

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 2.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Key leadership positions of NRM groups and institutions i.e. chair person, vice chairperson, secretary and treasurer Women and marginalized in the key leadership positions are performing the defined roles by – themselves Numerator: [Number of Women and women and marginalized groups' in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively] Denominator: [Total number of Women and marginalized groups' NRM leadership positions interviewed] Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness on GESI” implemented by all partners Data Source: Baseline, midline and endline reports Method of Data Acquisition: Perception/Questionnaire survey with women and ethnic and marginalized groups Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Year 3 (2019) and Year 5 (2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Perception survey report, Baseline and endline reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator together with M&E unit Team Review (optional): Hariyo Ban core team; once the data/report is received. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (43%) LOA Target: 56% Rationale for Targets (optional): 30% increase of baseline is estimate LOA target. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ 14 Nov 2016. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 3.1

124

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 3.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (GESI) GESI Result 3: More equitable access to and benefit sharing from natural resources for women and marginalized groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Awareness on GESI Number/Name of Performance Indicator: GESI 3.1 Benefits received by women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups from NRM and adaptation interventions Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): As per the community forest development guideline, it is mandatory that each CFUG allocate at least 35% of its total revenue/income to women and marginalized groups. Numerator: [Amount of income/revenue allocated to women and member of ethnic and marginalized groups] Denominator: [Total amount of income/revenue generated by the CFUG] Unit of Measure: NRs. (in Million) Disaggregated by: Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Awareness on GESI” implemented by all partners Data Source: Assessment reports Method of Data Acquisition: Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment reports at NRM groups level Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional):DIS System, Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: NRM groups income could fluctuate annually depending on volume of forest produces collected and market price. Hence, the projected targets are just indicative. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): GESI coordinator and Governance Specialist together with M&E Unit Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Hariyo Ban Core team will review the data, every year during the annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (111million – total revenue; 12 million- allocated revenue for women and marginalized groups)

125

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. GESI 3.1 LOA Target: Income/Revenue: Original 10 ; Revised to 199 (2020) NRs. Allocated for women and marginalized groups: Original 0.35; Revised to 33.42 (17% of annual revenue) (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): It is anticipated that 35% of the total revenue generated by NRM groups will be allocated to women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4 is kept as LOA Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/ August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 1.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 1: Improved institutional capacity of user groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Institutional Capacity building of local institutions Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 1.1 Percent of local organizations with improved capacity and/or performance scores (USAID PMP 1.3.1-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Local organizations mainly cover NRM groups such as CFUGs, CAMCs, LHFGs, and BZCFUGs, . Initially, the project developed the Institutional Capacity Assessment (ICA) tool with reviewing and incorporating the existing governance tools such as Participatory Governance Assessment (PGA), Participatory Well-Being Ranking (PWBR) and Public Hearing and Public Audit (PHPA). Institutional Capacity Assessment (ICA) tool incorporated new parameters (technical capacity, managerial capacity, GESI, Fund mobilization and governance) and their sub indicators both covering the qualitative as well as quantitative scores. Therefore, the initial capacity assessment was conducted in targeted NRM groups in the beginning year of the program which was considered as a base line of NRM groups. Support to improve governance in poorly performing groups are provided based on the recommendations of the assessment. The capacity reassessment work will be conducted in the fourth year to track the progress, changes and outcomes. Numerator: [Number of organizations with improved capacity and/or performance score] Denominator: [Total number of organizations in assessment (401 NRM groups)] Unit of Measure: %. of institutions (No. of institutions) Disaggregated by: Landscape, district, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional):

126

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 1.1 PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Institutional Capacity building of local institutions” implemented by all partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Periodic Institutional capacity Assessment (ICA) and reassessment (2017 (as baseline), 2018, 2019 and 2020 Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional):, DIS System, Institutional capacity Assessment and reassessment reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): None Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: NA Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): M&E unit together with Governance Specialist initially review the data. Team Review (optional): Core team review the data soon after the report is drafted. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (49% good; 44% medium; 7% weak) – Source ICA (401 groups) LOA Target: Original 60% (240 groups); Revised to 75% (291 NRM groups) – 2020 Rationale for Targets (optional): Program supports a total of 400 groups, of which 60% (240) are anticipated to have increased performance score throughout the project period. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4 is kept as LOA Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): No of institutions CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 3 March 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 2.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 2: Improved capacity of user groups to leverage and mobilize resources Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: LAPA implementation support

127

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 2.1 Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 2.1 Number of LAPA groups able to leverage resources from other sources, including government agencies for CCA/DRR Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): LAPA is the Local Palika level adaptation plans. All adaptation plans are guided by the National Framework for Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA, 2011) and National Adaptation Program for Action (NAPA, 2010). Implementation of the adaptation plan requires collaboration between communities and different government agencies and non-government organizations, leveraging their resources. The local organizations such as LAPA committees are directly involved implementation of different activities listed in LAPA through their annual and/or multiyear planning process, mobilizing internal resources and leveraging additional resources from other government and developmental organizations such as Palikas and provincial government etc. More coordination and resource leverage is needed from other agencies to complete planned activities. This supports to develop confidence level of local organizations, joint collaborative actions, partnership, activity integration, promotion of local solutions and sustainability. Thus, Hariyo Ban II will support LAPA committees for resource leverage.

Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: No of LAPA groups Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “LAPA implementation support by resource leveraging, coordination and capacity building” implemented by all partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban II database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data are collected regularly using module of LAPA implementation SF. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, periodic performance reports, Database DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Intensity of work and their effectiveness is not considered while reporting this indicator. Likewise, the actual amount of resource leveraged cannot be predicted beforehand as it largely depends on the local government officials. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Hariyo Ban CCA Advisor and Governance Specialist

128

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 2.1 and Core team review the data, every year during the semiannual and annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012-2016 (28) LOA Targets: 75 Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on the result and learnings from the first phase of Hariyo Ban and special focus in resource leverage in Hariyo Ban II, it is anticipated that at least 96% of LAPA groups will be able to leverage resources for implementation of their plans. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 3.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 3: Improved technical capacity of user groups to advance local solutions on biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation issues Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Capacity building of local institutions Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 3.1 Number of local organizations receiving U.S assistance engaged in implementing initiatives for local solutions Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s Local solutions shall include strategies (approach paper), and practices focusing on biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation II with good potential to be effective and successfully applying local knowledge, skills and practices. the potential local. The best learning from this initiative (local solutions) shall be replicated in other program areas wherever relevant based on local interest.

Numerator: [100] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: No of institutions Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: Assessment and interaction with communities in TAL and CHAL; orientation to relevant communities/institutions for replication of local solution implemented by all partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban II database and Special reports Method of Data Acquisition: ; Data filled and submitted by program officers : Local solution SF offline

129

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 3.1 format; Consultation with Governance Specialist and Technical Advisor-biodiversity conservation Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years ( 2019, 2020, 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual/Semi-annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): NA Initial Review Conducted by (optional): M&E Unit together with Governance Specialist & Technical Advisor- Biodiversity conservation Team Review (optional Core team during the reporting time. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NA LOA Target : 100 Rationale for Targets (optional): The targeted local organizations are NRM groups, ISWMPs and LAPAs. Out of 499 groups (400 NRM, 78 LAPA, 21 ISWMPs, it is anticipated that at least 20% will implement the initiatives for local solution. This is a new area for Hariyo Ban II and more likely as a pilot, hence actual result may be much lower than planned. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 4: Improved policy and enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Policy engagement Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 4.1 Number of policies completing the following processes/steps of development as a result of U.S. assistance: Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2:

130

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.1 Stakeholder consultation/public debate; Stage 3: Drafting or revision; Stage 4: Approval (legislative or regulatory); Stage 5: Full and effective implementation (DG-1.4.1-2) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): Number of policies in NRM sector that move through at least one of the five stages. Policies can include laws, legal frameworks, regulations, administrative procedures, or institutional arrangements. Stages are defined as the following: Stage 1. Underwent analysis (review of existing policy and/or proposal of new policy). Stage 2. Underwent public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy. This could also include proposed repeal of an existing policy. Stage 3. Were newly drafted or revised. Stage 4. Received official approval (legislation/decree) of the new, revised, or repealed policy by the relevant authority (legislative or executive body). Stage 5. Were fully and effectively implemented by the relevant authority (this includes USG support to implementing the effective repeal of a policy). Note that the indicator has been revised to acknowledge that these processes are not always linear: Newly drafted laws can be defeated by a legislative body and require redrafting or new analysis; approved regulations can prove difficult to implement and may need to be revised. Because of this non- linear approach, double-counting is no longer a concern and is in fact appropriate: Operating units should indicate if multiple processes/steps were completed in a given year, as this more accurately represents work under a given activity. The disaggregate “Total policies passing through one or more processes/steps of policy change” will count the total number of policies that completed any process/step, regardless of the number of processes/steps each policy completed during the reporting year. Full and effective implementation must meet the following criteria: (1) The policy must be in force in all intended geographic regions/locations and at all intended administrative levels with all intended regulations/rules in place (“full”); (2) Any ongoing activities or tasks required by the policy (e.g., various kinds of inspection, enforcement, collection of documents/information/fees) are being executed with minimal disruptions (“effective”). For example, a new business registration procedure that has been rolled out to just four of six intended provinces would not meet these criteria (not full), nor would a new customs law that is on the books but is not being regularly enforced at the border (not effective). The program will focus on supporting policies formulation, revision and implementation ensuring that they complete the five stages of development; Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2: Stakeholder consultation/public debate and develop the detail policy advocacy plan; Stage 3: Advocacy plan implementation/drafting or revision; Stage 4: Approval (legislative or regulatory); Stage 5: Full and effective implementation. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: No of policies Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Preparation/revision of TAL/CHAL strategy, NAP, Protected area management action plan, buffer zone guideline, CAMC guideline, HWC relief guideline etc.” implemented by all partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban II database- offline Method of Data Acquisition: List of policies in the 5 different stages recorded in regular program reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually; June of the years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and

131

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.1 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, Annual reports. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Policy actions are not under the full control of program. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Governance Specialist Team Review (optional): Core team during the semi-annual and annual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2012-2016 (24) LOA Target: Original 10; Revised to 29 (2020) – excluding baseline value Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on the learnings from the first phase of Hariyo Ban, the program has targeted at least 10 policies to be developed/revised during the Hariyo Ban II period. In first year, the program will be engaged in NAP formulation process led by the Ministry of Population and Environment. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.2 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 4: Improved policy and enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Advocacy initiatives Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 4.2 DR.4.2-2 Number of civil society organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions (USAID PMP 1.3.1-1) Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: No Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

132

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.2 Concise Definition(s): Civil society organizations also include NRM groups such as CFUGs, CAMC and BZCFUGs. These organizations actively mobilized or involved in the whole policy advocacy process by identifying the advocacy issues, preparation of detail advocacy plan/integrated activities and its implementation process. Such advocacy supports to implement as well as address the major issues of BD (Biodiversity) and CCA related acts, policies and guidelines. The scope of the advocacy mainly be towards resolving local issues. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: No of organizations Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Advocacy plan sharing, CSOs consultation, feedback collection etc.” implemented by FECOFUN Data Source: Hariyo Ban II database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data recorded and collected on CSOs engaged in Advocacy Campaign SF module Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annually; December and June of the years (2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021) Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, MEL plan, DIS System, Annual/Semi- annual reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: This indicator does not measure effectiveness of engagement Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): ): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data. Team Review (optional): M&E unit together with Hariyo Ban Governance Specialist and Core team review the data, during the annual and semiannual reporting. BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NA LOA Target: 75 Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban II has targeted the preparation and implementation of advocacy plans and support at least 75 organizations to implement advocacy campaigns. Type of organizations and their numbers depend upon the nature of advocacy. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Landscape, District, Palika, Working site Baseline Units (optional):

133

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.2 CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 4: Improved policy and enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Policy engagement Number/Name of Performance Indicator: Gov 4.3 Number of public policies introduced, adopted, repealed, changed or implemented consistent with citizen input [2.4.1-12, USAID PMP 1.4.1-1] Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition(s): The indicator measures the number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures in the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment whose sub-elements are specific policy sectors. Public policies include any law, regulation, policy or similar directive that is formally adopted by either the legislative branch or a unit of the executive branch at any level. Introduced refers to draft legislation formally being presented and accepted for consideration by a legislative body. Adopted refers to new policies not previously existing. Repealed refers to existing or draft policies that are removed or prevented from establishment. Changed refers to an existing policy that has been substantively changed. Implemented means that the policy has been operationalized. Citizen input means that the public, citizens and/or civil society organizations have proposed language used in, provided comments incorporated into, or monitored the implementation of the policy.

The program will focus on review and implementation of the BD and CCA related policies such as forest act, Ramsar Strategy, Soil and Water Conservation act, TAL/CHAL strategy, NAP, CAMC guideline etc. with citizen input. The citizen input will involve engagement and mobilization of respective local (community and civil society) organizations in the program area for the policy advocacy initiatives. The respective local organizations as well as communities put their voices and inputs related the major issues, problems, proposition for changes, community benefits during the whole advocacy process that ultimately support on proper policies implementation and policy revision process. Numerator: [NA] Denominator: [NA] Unit of Measure: No of policies Disaggregated by: NA Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Community consultation, Input collection, support for revision/preparation of policies etc.” implemented by all partners

134

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. Gov 4.3 Data Source: Hariyo Ban database-offline Method of Data Acquisition: Assessment of the policies to find if they have been introduced/adopted/ changed due citizen inputs Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually during Year 2017. 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, performance reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: FY 2021 Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Governance Specialist together with M&E Unit Team Review (optional): Core team during annual reporting BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2017 (30) LOA Target: Original 8; Revised to 9 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): Hariyo Ban II will attempt to ensure that at least 80% of the plans supported at different stages (Gov 4.1) will be introduced, adopted, repealed, changed or implemented consistent with citizen input. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. PIRS Template: Version 1, 14 Nov 2016.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. CBLD-8 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Cross cutting theme (Governance) Governance Result 1: Improved institutional capacity of user groups Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Institutional Capacity building of local institutions Number/Name of Performance Indicator: CBLD-8 Number of USG-assisted organizations with increased performance improvement [IM-level] Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Indicator Type: Outcome

135

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. CBLD-8 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition (s): This indicator measures whether USG-funded capacity development efforts have led to improved organizational performance in organizations receiving organizational performance improvement support. Capacity is the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully. Capacity development is the process of unleashing, strengthening and maintaining such capacity. Capacity is a form of potential; it is not visible until it is used. Therefore, performance is the key consideration in determining whether capacity has changed. Organizational performance improvement reflects a deliberate process undertaken to improve execution of organizational mandates and may include adjusting internal processes, addressing internal or external obstacles, human capital development, establishing linkages, or other relevant efforts.

This indicator should only be used when an activity intentionally allocates resources (human, financial, and/or other) toward strengthening organizational capacity and undergoes a deliberate performance improvement process that is documented. The activity’s theory of change should reflect how the process of performance improvement is predicted to improve the outputs or outcomes that an organization produces. With support from the implementing partner, each organization being supported should determine how it will define and monitor performance improvement based on its organizational mandate and strategic goals and objectives.

The implementing partner can count an organization under this indicator if:

(a) an organization demonstrates that it has undergone and documented at a minimum the following four steps: 1. Obtain organizational stakeholder input to define desired performance outputs or outcomes. 2. Analyze and assess performance gaps (the difference between desired performance and actual performance). 3. Select and implement performance improvement solutions. 4. Monitor and evaluate performance, and

(b) an organization demonstrates that its targets for performance improvement have been met or achieved. The implementing partner sets annual targets for this indicator based on how many organizations will have improved organizational performance each year.

Organizations may choose their preferred approach and/or tools for documenting the process and achievement of performance improvement targets. The approach and/or tool may be one that has been or is being used by the organization prior to the implementation of USG-funded activities. One example of a broad performance improvement and measurement tool that USAID has endorsed is the Organizational Performance Index (OPI), which can be used for assessing performance across multiple domains. Other examples include university accreditation self-assessments, a balanced scorecard approach, Six Sigma, and many others. Data quality, including reliability and validity of the approach and/or tool should be documented to the extent possible in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (specifically the Activity MEL Plan for USAID). Unit of Measure: No of Organizations Disaggregated by: Landscape, district, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Institutional Capacity building of local institutions” implemented by all partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban Database and reports

136

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. CBLD-8 Method of Data Acquisition: Institutional capacity assessment and reassessment of local institutions Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually during Year 2018, 2019, 2020 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): DIS System, Institutional capacity Assessment and reassessment reports, performance reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table Initial Review Conducted by (optional): Governance Specialist together with M&E Unit Team Review (optional): Core team during annual reporting BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NRM groups ICA results: Weak -28 Medium -176 & Good – 197 ISWMP committees: NA (2017) LOA Target: Original - NRM groups: 240; ISWMP committees: 19 Revised to - NRM groups: 291; ISWMP committees: 2 (2020) Rationale for Targets (optional): Aligned with indicator Gov 1.1. Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020. Version 1, August 2020.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. RESIL-1 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1: Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Preparation of CCA and DRR plans and implementation Number/Name of Performance Indicator: RESIL-1 Number of host government or community- derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented or institutionalized with

137

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. RESIL-1 USG assistance [IM-level] Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Indicator Type: Outcome PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition (s): The indicator tracks the performance of activities working with national governments, regional and/or local governments and/or communities to develop implement and institutionalize risk management plans.

Risk is defined as the potential for an uncertain event or trend to have adverse consequences on lives; livelihoods; health; property; ecosystems and species; economic, social and cultural assets; service provision (including environmental services); and infrastructure.

Ideally, risk management plans should be nested within one another. The community plan should be nested within a local or regional government plan that should in turn be nested in the national plan. Activities can work at any of these levels and report under this indicator.

A risk management plan should: • identify risks (for example flooding, drought, landslide), • assess their likelihood (a 3 year drought versus a 50 year drought), and • develop strategies to reduce risk exposure (before the shock), mitigate the impact of the risk and increase ability to cope (during the shock), and reduce recovery time (after the shock).

Understanding that the implementation of plans takes time, the indicator disaggregates by the stage in implementation (proposed, adopted, implemented, and institutionalized).

Stages of Implementation: • Proposed: A plan is in the proposed stage when the activity has started working on or designing a risk management strategy in conjunction with the community or host government (all levels). A plan can be in this stage for multiple years. • Adopted: A risk management plan is in the adoption phase if the plan has been officially accepted by the stakeholders (e.g. local community leaders, local governments, congress). A plan is considered officially adopted when there is a written document outlining roles and responsibilities with signatures as applicable. • Implementation: A risk management plan is in the implementation phase if elements of the plan are being actively implemented. Implementation can be an ongoing process (examples of implementation activities are given in the Rationale section below). • Institutionalization: The end goal is to have the host government or community internalize the risk management plan and take over administration, financing and implementation, thus making the plan sustainable. Institutionalization will be different for government and community plans. Government institutionalization should be more structured and include a budget line item. Community institutionalization will be less formalized and will include more qualitative evidence that the community is invested and providing and/or securing resources (monetary or in-kind) that will sustain implementation past the end of the activity.

A plan should be reported under only one plan type (government or community.) But a plan should be reported under each stage reached during the reporting year. Implementing Partners (IPs) may report that a plan has been implemented in more than one year. For example, if in year one the community implements several actions under the plan to improve the management of water resources and in the next year works to develop a nursery to support reforestation efforts, the community can be counted and reported under the Implementation phase both years.

138

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. RESIL-1

Note: When the implementation stage is reached, implementing partners should consider creating a custom indicator that reports on the number of people or households covered by these plans. This would provide a critical link between this indicator and Feed the Future (FTF) outcomes measured at the household and/or individual level. Unit of Measure: No of Plans Disaggregated by: Landscape, district, Palika Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: “Integrating CCA and DRR in the plans and implementation” by all consortium partners Data Source: Hariyo Ban Database and reports Method of Data Acquisition: Data submitted by consortiums on LAPA & ISWMP implementation, habitat management and training modules; Special reports and plans Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually during Year 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, performance reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): 2020, Netra N Sharma, and Maneka Gurung (USAID) Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): NA Initial Review Conducted by (optional): M&E persons with thematic leads Team Review (optional): Core team during annual reporting BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NA LOA Target: Original - LAPA: 73; ISWMP: 8; Management Plan: 5; LCPV: 1

Revised to - LAPA: 78; ISWMP: 8; Management Plans: 6; LCPV: 1 Rationale for Targets (optional): This is new indicator and target is set aligning with other related indictors – 1.1.6; 1.2.1 and 2.1.2 Rationale for LOA Revision: Actual Progress as of Year 4+ Estimated Year 5 progress Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020.

139

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. YOUTH-3 Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted Linkage(s) to other USAID Results Statements (be specific): Resilience of targeted natural resources and related livelihoods improved Activity Name: Skill based trainings and enterprise support Number/Name of Performance Indicator: YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15-29) [IM-level] Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Indicator: Yes Indicator Type: Output PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION Concise Definition (s): Youth is a life stage when one transitions from the dependence of childhood to adulthood independence. The meaning of “youth” varies in different societies. Based on the Feed the Future (FTF) youth technical guide, the 10-29 age range is used for youth while keeping in mind the concept of “life stages,” specifically 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25-29 years as put forward in the USAID Youth in Development Policy. This indicator is intended to capture outcomes relating to working age youth, so will primarily cover working age youth ages 15-29. Partners may have different age range definitions for youth based on their specific country contexts.

The productive economic resources that are the focus of this indicator are physical assets, such as land, equipment, buildings and, livestock; and financial assets such as savings and credit; wage or self- employment; and income.

Programs include: • value chain activities and market strengthening activities working with micro, small, and medium enterprises; • financial inclusion programs that result in increased access to finance, including programs designed to help youth set up savings accounts • workforce development programs that have job placement activities; • programs that build or secure access to physical assets such as land redistribution or titling; and programs that provide assets such as livestock

This indicator does NOT track access to services, such as business development services or agriculture, food security or nutrition training.

The unit of measure for this indicator is a percent.

The numerator and denominator must also be reported as data points in FACTSInfo NextGen.

Implementing Partners (IPs) and Post teams have the option of reporting directly on this indicator using data that aligns with the indicator definition, or, to reduce IP burden, can use data from one of the two performance indicators listed below:

From indicator EG.4.2-7 Number of individuals participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs with USG assistance [IM-level]: c. For the numerator, use data on the number of youth participants.

140

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. YOUTH-3 d. For the denominator, use the total number of participants. Do not include “disaggregates not available”.

From indicator EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level]: c. For the numerator, use data on the number of enterprises with all youth proprietors. d. For the denominator, use the total number of enterprises. Do not include enterprises with a mix of youth (age 15-29) and adults (age 30+) or “disaggregates not available”.

To avoid double counting, IPs that are reporting on more than one of the indicators listed above should use data from the indicator with the largest number of participants in the denominator. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Caste/ethnicity /age group Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Sub-Activities/Sub-contracts/Sub-awards: Skill based trainings and enterprise support and technical trainings Data Source: Hariyo Ban Database Method of Data Acquisition: Data recorded and reported in the modules: Skill based training PF-1.12 , training and Enterprise Support Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually 2019, 2020, 2021 Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID: Netra Narayan Sharma (Sapkota), AOR Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: Shant Raj Jnawali, COP Location of Data Storage (optional): Hariyo Ban II database, DIS System, performance reports DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): NA Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: NA Known Data Limitations and Significance: The indicator measures only the number of people who have started as entrepreneur, it doesn’t measure their continual engagement/intensity of engagement in the enterprise. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: NA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): NA Presentation of Data (optional): Table/Time series Initial Review Conducted by (optional): ): 1 Field staff of all consortium partners review field reports before entering data. 2. These data reviewed by M&E persons of respective organizations. 3. M&E unit at higher level finally verify and approve the data Team Review (optional): Core team during annual reporting BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): NA LOA Target: NA Rationale for Targets (optional): This is new indicator and agreed to report progress as obtained and no targets are set. Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION

141

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. YOUTH-3 Data Reporting Units: NA Baseline Units (optional): CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: NA THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: Hariyo Ban Program Phase II/August 2020.

142

Annex 3: List of indicators with changes26 made (compared to Cooperative agreement)

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target Species reduced 1.1.1 Population size of key species This indicator is rephrased to make it 1.1.1 Population status and/or trends of Tiger: 52; Tiger: 250; Rhino: 1 (USAID PMP 2.3.3-1) ; LOA target consistent with USAID standard focal species maintained/increased Rhino: 55 700 revised to include baseline value indicator Years of zero 1.1.2 Number of rhino and tiger poaching Incidents of This indicator is rephrased to make it poaching: 2 1.1.2 Maintain zero poaching incidents recorded by USG supported poaching: Rhino: consistent with USAID standard Rhino:5; programs (USAID PMP 2.3.3-2) 0; Tiger: 0 indicator Tiger:2 Indicator target made explicit for 1.1.3 Number of Community based anti- Formed/ Formed: 278; CBAPU formed and mobilized; LOA 3 poaching units (CBAPUs) formed and/or Mobilized: Mobilized: 412 target revised to include baseline mobilized 61 value 50% 1.1.5 Value of economic loss (in USD) 1.1.4 Value of economic damage from reduction This indicator is rephrased to make it due to incidents of human-wildlife 44.35 4 human-wildlife conflict reduced in sample from consistent with USAID standard conflict recorded by USG supported USD/HH/Year sites baseline indicator programs (USAID PMP 2.3.3-3) value This indicator is rephrased to make it 1.1.5 Number of climate smart species 1.1.6 Number of protected area explicit as per planned intervention; 5 conservation management plans 5 management plans revised to make 6 LOA target revised to include prepared/revised and/or implemented climate smart baseline value 1.1.4 Number of people that apply improved conservation law enforcement Indicator added to comply with 6 NA 4,120 practices as a result of USG assistance USAID standard indicator (EG.10.2-6) This indicator is added to measure 1.1.7 Percentage of project supported effectiveness of relief mechanism 7 NA households that perceive that relief 18% supported by the project for reducing amount is paid in a timely manner HWC

26 Indicator removed, added, rephrased, target revised, in the PITT compared with the PITT in cooperative agreement.

143

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) This indicator is added to measure 1.1.8 Percentage of people perceiving that benefits received by the target group 8 NA they receive benefits from conservation 75% from conservation activities supported activities by the Program to incentivize biodiversity conservation Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced Indicator rephrased to make it more Sub-watershed explicit. Clearly mentioned LOA plans 1.2.1 Number of sub-watershed plans 1.2.1 Number of sub-watershed plans target for Sub-watershed management 9 7 Revised: 3 developed and implemented revised/prepared and implemented plans formed, revised and Prepared:19; implemented including the baseline Implemented: 22 value. 1.2.2 Number of water sources increased Indicator changed to make it 1.2.2 Number of water source (perennial) 10 and water quality improved in selected 7 26 measurable and target revised conserved in 21 micro-watersheds catchments accordingly 1.2.3 Number of people trained in 1.2.3 Number of people receiving training sustainable natural resources management This indicator is made consistent with 11 in biodiversity conservation and/or forest 20,000 23,480 and/or biodiversity conservation as a USAID standard indicator management result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-4) 1.2.4 Number of hectares of biological 1.2.4 Number of hectares of biologically significance (forest, wetlands and significant areas under improved natural This indicator is made consistent with 12 970,524 grasslands) under improved management 500,000 resource management as a result of USG USAID standard indicator (USAID standard indicator- 4.8.1-26) assistance (EG.10.2-2) 1.2.5 Number of hectares of high 1.2.5 Number of hectares of biologically biodiversity area showing improved significant areas showing improved This indicator is made consistent with 13 biophysical condition as a result of US 50,535 50,000 biophysical conditions as a result of USG USAID standard indicator assistance (USAID standard indicator assistance (EG.10.2-1) 4.8.1-1) 1.2.3a Number of people participated in Indicator added to measure the 14 sustainable natural resources management 151,073 program's outreach to people through and/or biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation This indicator has been added to 1.2.6 Number of community forest Renewal: measure the number of FOPs 15 operation plans (CFOPs) supported for 797Implemented: integrating biodiversity conservation, renewal and implementation 316 CCA, DRR, GESI and governance in their plans from USAID support

144

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) EG.10.2-5 Number of laws, policies, or regulations that address biodiversity conservation and/or other environmental Indicator added to comply with 16 25 themes officially proposed, adopted, or USAID standard indicator implemented as a result of USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1-2) Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted 1.3.1 Number of people benefitting from This is a sub set of USAID indicator 17 medium and large conservation friendly 6,965 Indicator deleted NA EG.10.2-3, hence removed to reduce enterprises duplication 1.3.2 Number of people with improved 1.3.2 Number of people with improved economic benefits derived from sustainable economic benefits derived from This indicator is made consistent with 18 natural resource management and 30,000 sustainable natural resource management NA USAID standard indicator conservation as a result of USG assistance ( and/or biodiversity conservation as a USAID standard indicator 4.8.1-6) result of USG assistance ( EG.10.2-3) 1.3.4 Number of women entrepreneurs 1.3.3 Number of women entrepreneurs Indicator rephrased to make it explicit 19 engaged in conservation friendly 605 engaged in conservation friendly 661 and measurable enterprises and other livelihood activities enterprises Indicator moved under GESI component as this is the denominator value for GESI 3.1 (Increased 1.3.6 Amount of revenue generated by benefits received by women and 20 NRM groups supported by Hariyo Ban II Indicator moved to GESI 147,908,399 members of ethnic and marginalized Program groups from income/revenue generated by NRM groups supported by Hariyo Ban Program) GNDR -2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs Indicator added to comply with 21 designed to increase access to productive 50% USAID standard indicator economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment[8] Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1 Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process 2.1.1 Number of vulnerability assessments 2.1.1 Number of vulnerability Indicator rephrased to make it more 22 conducted at district, sub-basin and species 22 assessments conducted at sub-basin, sub- 28 explicit level watershed, palika level Indicator target made explicit for new 2.1.2 Number of LAPAs prepared and/or Prepared: 103; 23 78 NA LAPA prepared and implementation implemented Implemented: 78 of existing LAPA; LOA target

145

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) includes baseline value

EG.11-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or standards addressing climate change adaptation formally Indicator added to comply with 24 3 proposed, adopted, or implemented as USAID standard indicator supported by USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1-3) Result 2.2 Community Readiness to adapt to and benefit from climate change increased 2.2.1 Number of people trained in climate 2.2.1 Number of people trained in climate This indicator is made consistent with 25 11,260 change adaptation supported by USG NA change adaptation USAID standard indicator assistance (EG.11-1) 2.2.3 Number of institutions with 2.2.3 Number of institutions with improved improved capacity to assess or address This indicator is made consistent with 26 capacity to assess climate change issues 202 NA climate change risks supported by USG USAID standard indicator (USAID Standard indicator 4.8.2-14) assistance (EG.11-2) 2.2.4 Number of people using climate 2.2.4 Number of stakeholders with information or implementing risk- increased capacity to adapt to the impacts This indicator is made consistent with 27 100,000 reducing actions to improve resilience to NA of climate change (USAID standard USAID standard indicator climate change as supported by USG indicator 4.8.2-26) assistance (EG.11-6) 2.2.6 Number of institutions established This indicator has been added in order 28 and operational at sub basin, sub- 24 to measure the success of piloting watershed and micro watershed level river basin approach 2.2.5 Number of adaptation plans that are 2.2.5 Adaptation plans that are implementing measures to address implementing measures to address This indicator has been rephrased to 30 differential impacts of climate change and NA differential impacts of climate change on include indicator 2.3.2 DRR on women and vulnerable women and vulnerable communities/people 29 communities/people Result 2.3 Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts Number of adaptation plans 2.3.2 Number of DRR plans that have implementing measures to address 30 20 Indicator deleted NA measures to address differential impacts differential impacts of DRR is covered by revised indicator 2.2.5. This indicator has been added to 2.3.2 Number of CCA and DRR plans measure integration of CCA-DRR 31 NA 43 implemented plans into one single plan for implementation.

146

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups Indicator rephrased to NRM groups GESI 1.1 Number of NRM policies GESI 1.1 Number of NRM groups from NRM policies to better reflect 32 integrating GESI consideration at local, 8 integrating GESI provisions in plan and 309 the result. The target is also changed district or landscape level policies accordingly. Indicator rephrased to NRM groups GESI 1.2 Number of institutions GESI 1.2 Number of NRM groups from NRM policies to better reflect 33 implementing GESI provision in NRM 91 238 implementing the GESI provisions the result. The target is also changed plans accordingly. GESI Result 2: More women, youth and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making and advocacy Women and marginalized - GESI 2.1 Percent of leadership positions 87% (women GESI 2.1 Proportion of leadership position in USG-supported community only- 46% This indicator is made consistent with 34 in user groups that are filled by women and TBD management entities that are filled by a (marginalized USAID standard indicator members of ethnic and marginalized groups woman or member of a vulnerable group women 38%); (USAID PMP 1.3.2-1) marginalized men only - 41%) Governance Governance Result 1: Improved institutional capacity of user groups Gov 1.1 Number of local organizations Original governance indicator Gov (CFUGs or other user groups) with 35 240 Indicator deleted NA 1.1 and Gov 1.2 is merged to produce improved technical managerial capacity a new indicator. (See below) and/or performance scores Gov 1.2 Number of local organizations Gov 1.1 Percent of local organizations This indicator is made consistent with (CFUGs or other user groups) with with improved capacity and/or 75% (291 NRM 36 240 USAID standard indicator and target improved governance measured through performance scores (USAID PMP 1.3.1- groups) adjusted accordingly actions based on PGA 2) Gov 4.1 Number of Gov 4.1 Number of policies completing the policies/Regulations/Administrative following stages/processes/steps of Procedures in each of the following stages development as a result of USG assistance: of development as a result of USG Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2: Stakeholder assistance: Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2: This indicator is made consistent with 37 10 29 consultation/public debate; Stage 3: Stakeholder consultation/public debate; USAID standard indicator Drafting or revision; Stage 4: Approval Stage 3: Drafting or revision; Stage 4: (legislative or regulatory); Stage 5: Full and Approval (legislative or regulatory); Stage effective implementation 5: Full and effective implementation (USAID PMP 2.4-2)

147

Target (in SN Indicator in cooperative agreement cooperative Revised indicator Revised target Justification agreement) Gov 4.2 Number of local organizations Gov 4.2/DR.4.2-2 Number of civil receiving US assistance engaged in society organizations (CSOs) receiving This indicator is made consistent with NA advocacy initiatives based on policy USG assistance engaged in advocacy USAID standard indicator 38 advocacy plan 75 interventions (USAID PMP 1.3.1-1) Gov 4.3 Number of public policies Gov 4.3 Number of public policies introduced, adopted, repealed, changed or This indicator is made consistent with introduced, adopted, repealed, changed or 9 implemented consistent with citizen input USAID standard indicator implemented consistent with citizen input 39 8 [2.4.1-12, USAID PMP 1.4.1-1]

148

Annex 3.1: List of indicators with changes27 made (compared to MEL Plan 2017)

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA Goal: To increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan- Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal Objective 1: Improve the conservation and management of GON-identified biodiverse landscapes-CHAL and TAL Result 1.1: Threats to target Species reduced 1 Formation 262 278 Adjusted LOA to 1.1.3 Number of Community based anti-poaching reflect actual units (CBAPUs) formed and/or mobilized progress 2 1.1.9 Number of peer reviewed scientific Number of 10 13 Adjusted LOA to publications resulting from USG support to research publications reflect actual and implementation programs progress Result 1.2: Threats to target landscapes reduced 3 Number of 4 3 Adjusted LOA to

plans revised reflect the Number of 17 19 progress 1.2.1 Number of sub-watershed plans plans prepared/revised and implemented Prepared Number of 17 22 plans implemented 4 Number of 21 26 Adjusted LOA to 1.2.2 Number of water source (perennial) conserved water sources reflect the - 3 in 21 micro-watersheds progress

5 1.2.3 Number of people trained in sustainable 23,480 Revised Y5 target natural resources management and/or biodiversity Number of 20,000 and adjusted LOA - 1119 conservation as a result of USG assistance people to reflect the (EG.10.2-4) actual progress

27 Indicator removed, added, rephrased, target revised, in the PITT compared with the PITT in cooperative agreement.

149

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA 6 120,000 151,073 Revised Y5 target 1.2.3a Number of people participated in sustainable Number of and adjusted LOA natural resources management and/or biodiversity 8000 8170 people to reflect the conservation actual progress 7 500,000 970,524 Revised Y5 target 1.2.4 Number of hectares of biologically significant and adjusted LOA areas under improved natural resource management Ha - 278,126 to reflect the as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-2) actual progress 8 50,000 50,535 Revised Y5 target 1.2.5 Number of hectares of biologically significant and adjusted LOA areas showing improved biophysical conditions as a Ha - 1,673 to reflect the result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-1) actual progress 9 781 797 Revised Y5 target Number of and adjusted LOA CFOPs - 67 to reflect the 1.2.6 Number of community forest operation plans renewal actual progress (CFOPs) supported for renewal and implementation Number of 300 316 Revised Y5 target CFOPs - 67 and adjusted the implemented actual progress 10 EG.10.2-5 Number of laws, policies, or regulations - 6 1 25 Revised Y5 target that address biodiversity conservation and/or other and adjusted LOA No. of environmental themes officially proposed, adopted, to reflect the policies or implemented as a result of USG assistance actual progress (USAID PMP 2.4.1-2) Result 1.3: Market-based livelihood alternatives developed and promoted 11 3,755,000 9,255,000 50,000,000 147,908,399 Revised Y5 target 1.3.1 Revenue generated from conservation friendly and adjusted LOA NRs. enterprises to reflect the actual progress 12 1.3.2 Number of people with improved economic - 2,130 Revised Year 5 benefits derived from sustainable natural resource Number of target to meet the management and/or biodiversity conservation as a people LOA result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-3) 13 1.3.3 Number of women entrepreneurs engaged in Number of - 605 20 661 Revised Y5 target

150

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA conservation friendly enterprises Women and adjusted LOA to reflect the actual progress 14 Number of - 1477 - 1516 Adjusted LOA to people reflect the actual trained progress 1.3.4 Proportion of skill-based trainees employed 60% (210) 60% (210) _ 68% Revised Y5 target % of trainees and Adjusted employed LOA to reflect the actual progress Objective 2: Reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL Result 2.1 Participatory Climate Change Vulnerability reduction integrated into local, district and national process 15 - 22 6 28 Year 5 target revised and 2.1.1 Number of vulnerability assessments Number of Adjusted LOA to conducted at sub-basin, sub-watershed, palika level VAs reflect the actual progress 16 - 95 7 103 Year 5 target Number of revised and LAPA Adjusted LOA to 2.1.2 Number of LAPAs prepared and/or prepared reflect the actual implemented progress Number of - 18 Revised Year 5 LAPAs target to meet implemented LOA 17 - 31 7 34 Year 5 target 2.1.4 Number of local bodies (Palika) and PA revised and Number of authority incorporating climate change adaptation Adjusted LOA to local bodies and DRR provisions in their plans reflect the actual progress 18 EG.11-3 Number of laws, policies, regulations, or - 2 1 3 Year 5 target standards addressing climate change adaptation Number of revised and formally proposed, adopted, or implemented as policies Adjusted LOA to supported by USG assistance (USAID PMP 2.4.1- reflect the actual

151

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA 3) progress Result 2.2 Community Readiness to adapt to and benefit from climate change increased 19 - 1,295 Revised Year 5 2.2.1 Number of people trained in climate change Number of target to meet adaptation supported by USG assistance (EG.11-1) people LOA 20 15,000 14,562 Revised Year 5 2.2.2 Number of people participating in climate Number of target to meet change adaptation activities people LOA 21 2.2.3 Number of institutions with improved - 16 Revised Year 5 Number of capacity to assess or address climate change risks target to meet institutions supported by USG assistance (EG.11-2) LOA 22 2.2.4 Number of people using climate information 7600 30,564 Revised Year 5 or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve Number of target to meet resilience to climate change as supported by USG people LOA assistance (EG.11-6) 23 2.2.5 Number of adaptation plans that are - 14 Revised Year 5 Number of implementing measures to address differential target to meet adaptation impacts of climate change and DRR on women and LOA plans vulnerable communities/people 24 - 14 1 24 Year 5 target 2.2.6 Number of institutions established and revised and Number of operational at sub basin, sub-watershed and micro Adjusted LOA to institutions watershed level reflect the actual progress Result 2.3 Climate-related risks to people and ecosystems reduced through disaster risk reduction and management efforts 25 - 5200 1500 8293 Year 5 target 2.3.1 Number of people with improved capacity to revised and Number of recover from disasters including from climate Adjusted LOA to people induced disasters28 reflect the actual progress 26 2.3.2 Number of CCA and DRR plans implemented Number of - 20 15 43 Year 5 target

28 This indicator contributes to USAID Standard indicator EG.11-5.

152

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA plans revised and Adjusted LOA to reflect the actual progress Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) GESI Result 1: Improved internal GESI policies, standards, and governance practiced by user groups 27 - 240 67 309 Year 5 target revised and GESI 1.1 Number of NRM groups integrating Number of Adjusted LOA to GESI provisions in plan and policies groups reflect the actual progress 28 - 180 - 238 Adjusted LOA to GESI 1.2 Number of NRM groups implementing Number of reflect the actual the GESI provisions groups progress GESI Result 2: More women, youth, and marginalized people perform effective leadership, decision making and advocacy 29 Women Women and - Women and Year 5 target and marginalized - 92% marginalized - 87% revised and marginaliz (women only- 50% (women only- 46% Adjusted LOA to ed - 92% ; marginalized men (marginalized women reflect the actual GESI 2.1 Percent of leadership positions in USG- (women only - 42%) 38%); marginalized progress supported community management entities that are % only- 50% men only - 41%) filled by a woman or member of a vulnerable group ; (USAID PMP 1.3.2-1) marginaliz ed men only - 42%) GESI Result 3: More equitable access to and benefit sharing from natural resources for women and marginalized groups 30 1.0 10 - 199 Year 5 target NRs. GESI 3.1 Benefits received by women and revised and (million) members of ethnic and marginalized groups from Adjusted LOA to Income/ NRM and adaptation interventions reflect the actual Revenue progress 31 NRs. 0.350 3.500 - 33.42 (17% of annual Year 5 target

(million) revenue) revised and

153

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA allocated for Adjusted LOA to women and reflect the actual marginalized progress groups Governance Governance Result 1: Improved institutional capacity of user groups 32 Gov 1.1 Percent of local organizations with %. of - 60% (240 NRM - Adjusted LOA to improved capacity and/or performance scores institutions groups) 75% (291 NRM reflect the actual (USAID PMP 1.3.1-2) (Number of groups) progress institutions29) Governance Result 2: Improved capacity of user groups to leverage and mobilize resources 33 Gov 2.1 Number of LAPA groups able to leverage 10 17 Revised Year 5 Number resources from other sources, including government Target to meet LAPA groups agencies for CCA/DRR LOA Governance Result 3: Improved technical capacity of user groups to advance local solutions on biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation issues 34 Gov 3.1 Number of local organizations receiving - 13 Revised Year 5 No. of U.S assistance engaged in implementing initiatives Target to meet institutions for local solutions LOA Governance Result 4: Improved policy and enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation 35 Gov 4.1 Number of 10 29 Adjusted LOA to policies/Regulations/Administrative Procedures in reflect the actual following stages of development: Stage 1: Analysis; progress No. of Stage 2: Stakeholder consultation/public debate; policies Stage 3: Drafting or revision; Stage 4: Approval (legislative or regulatory); Stage 5: Full and effective implementation (USAID PMP 2.4-2) 36 Gov 4.2/ DR.4.2-2 Number of civil society 5 28 Revised Year 5 organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance No. of Target to meet engaged in advocacy interventions (USAID PMP organizations LOA 1.3.1-1) 37 Gov 4.3 Number of public policies introduced, 8 9 Adjusted LOA to

29 Out of 400 NRM groups, 60% of the groups will have improved capacity.

154

Target in MEL Plan (2017) Revised target SN Indicator Unit Justification Year 5 LOA Year 5 LOA adopted, repealed, changed or implemented reflect the actual consistent with citizen input [2.4.1-12, USAID progress PMP 1.4.1-1] 38 NRM NRM groups: 240 - NRM groups: 291 Revised Year 5 Number of groups: 40 ISWMP ISWMP committees: target and CBLD-8 Number of USG-assisted organization institutions/or ISWMP committees: 19 2 Adjusted LOA to with increased performance improvement ganizations committee reflect the actual s: 19 progress 39 - LAPA: 73 LAPA:18 LAPA: 78 Year 5 target RESIL-1 Number of host government or ISWMP: 8 ISWMP: 8 revised and community-derived risk management plans Number of Management Management Plans: 6 Adjusted LOA to formally proposed, adopted, implemented or plans Plans: 5 LCPV: 1 reflect the actual institutionalized with USG assistance LCPV: 1 progress

155

Annex 4: Hariyo Ban II Working Areas

Landscapes Corridors Working Sites Districts/ Palika 1. Brahmadev 1. Puntura Khola Sub watershed Parsuram Municipality and Ali Tal Rural Municipality (Northern flank of Corridor)/Jog Buda Area 2. Suklaphanta National Park and SNP-Hirapur Phanta, Ranital, Chaudhar flood plain, Buffer Zone(Southern part of Simalphanta, Suklaphanta ) the Corridor) Buffer Zone (BZ)-Bhimdatta Municipality 1, 3, Bedkot Municipality 6-10 2. Karnali 1. Daulatpur Ghat cluster Tikapur Municipality (Southern part), Kailali district Rajapur Municipality (Western Part), Bardia district 2. Balchaur Cluster Janaki Rural Municipality, Lamkichuha Municipality 3. Bardiya national Park (BNP) and BZ- Barahtal Rural Municipality, Bheriganga Northern BZ Municipality, Lekbeshi Municipality- Surkhet district TAL Thakurbaba Municipality, BNP - Bichakhauraha to Banghmachan, Chinghari Phanta, Hatti Machan 3. Kamdi 1. Western block Duduwa Rural Municipality, Kohalpur Municipality, Raptisonari Rural Municipality, Nepalgunj Sub Metropolitan City (Partly) 2. Banke National Park (BaNP) and Banke NP - Hattikhutte khola and Karaude Khola, Southern BufferZone Kusum Mahadeva (Grassland) BZ– Part of Kohalpur Municipality, Raptisonari Rural Municipality, 3. Eastern Block Rajpur Rural Municipality, Lamahi Municipality and Gadhawa Rural Municipality of Dang district 1.Barandhabhar 1.Northern Part Bharatpur Metropolitan City, Ichchhyakamana Rural Municipality, Kalika Municipality, Rapti Municipality 2. Chitwan National Park (CNP) CNP (Old Padampur, Ichharni, Beeshhazar & (Core area) + BZ Associated lakes) BZ- Ghoral CA & periphery, Palikas- Northern part of Gaidakot Municipality & Kawasoti Municipality 2.Daraudi 1. Lower part Sulikot Rural Municipality, Ajirkot Rural Municipality, Gorkha Municipality, Palungtar Municipality 1. Manaslu Conservation Area Chum Nubri Rural Municipality Project (MCAP) + BZ 3.Marshyangdi 1. Middle Marshyangdi Besishahar Municipality, Dordi Rural Municipality, Kwholasothar Rural Municipality, Marsyangdi Rural Municipality CHAL 2. ACA Narphu, Chame, Neshyang Nashong Rural Municipalities of Manang district (Bhimtang valley & Nar, Phu & Nisang valley) 3. Seti 1. Gaighat complex Devghat Rural Municipality in and Anbu Khaireni Rural Municipality in Tanahu and Bharatpur Metropolitan city in Chitwan 2. Sukhaurakhola sub-watershed Bandipur Rural Municipality and Byas Municipality - Tanahu 3. Jamune Pokharibanjyang Bhimad and Byas Municipalities and Myagde, Ghiring complex and Rhishing Rural Municipalities, -Tanahu district 4. Kyangdi Complex Syangja district ( Putalibazar Municipality) Shuklagandaki and Bhimad Municipalities in Tanahu district

156

Landscapes Corridors Working Sites Districts/ Palika 5. Phusre Khola- Phedikhola Phedikhola Rural Municipality in Syangja and Pokhara Block Lekhnath Metropolitan City (Kristinachnechaur, Pumdibhumdi, Nirmal Pokhari, Bharatpokhari) in Kaski 6. Panchase - Pokhara lake PES implementing sites- Annapurna Rural Municipality cluster (Ramsar sites) and Pokhara Lekhnath Metropolitan City (upperpart), Panchase Protection forest (Annapurna Rural Municipality and Pokhara Lekhnath Metropolitan City - Kaski district; Aandhikhola and Phedikhola Rural Municipality in Syangja; Kushma Municipality and Modi Rural Municipality in Parbat

7. ACA Kaski Block Machhapuchhre Rural Municipality 8. ACA Mustang 3 Rural Municipalities- Lomanthang, Dalome and Barha Gaun Muktishetra

157

Annex 5: CLA Plan Matrix

By When Action Task Responsible Resource (Timing) Outcome 1 Population status and /or trends of focal species (both fauna and flora) is maintained and/or increased in both the landscapes Strategic Collaboration (External collaboration to Continue Species Translocation) Review of existing collaboration Polices (Species Conservation Action Plan)/existing Technical team Time Nov-2018 mechanism / procedure scenarios Review of post-performance Technical Evidence base/ Achievement/ Advisory team/ Experts/ Financial resource May-2019 Success/ Challenges/Information Exchange/Opinion Technical team and Time of Experts Partnership exploration Explore potential for leveraging financial resource Advisory team/ Experts/ Financial resource Aug-2018 and technical expertise. Technical team and Time

Sensitization on the relevance of Policy makers to Community to support species Advisory team/ Experts/ Financial resource Dec-2018 translocation at different level conservation Technical team and Time Learning (M&E for Learning) Documentation of learning of past Preparation of documentation outlines with Thematic lead, M&E unit Financial resources Jul-2018 translocations responsibilities and external expert and time Execute documentation work

Post translocation assessment Performance monitoring and sustainability plans External expert Financial resource Dec-2019 Reflection/Adapting (Pause and Reflect) Reflection of learning documents Organize periodic pause and reflection workshop Expert Time Dec-2018 and post assessment report Proper documentation of adapted Refine the CLA Plan based on the feed-backs Expert Time Jun-2019 practices Outcome 2 Biologically significant areas in both the landscapes are showing improved biophysical condition

Strategic collaboration Sensitization workshops to local Joint planning and leveraging financial resource and Field staff (Program Technical support Jun-2019 GoN, upstream and downstream technical expertise including local traditional Officer) from expert team communities and knowledge and skills. of GoN cum production/disseminate of research financial resources synopsis, policy briefs from local

158

By When Action Task Responsible Resource (Timing) government

Learning Sharing of major learning Sharing workshop Landscape Coordinators, Budget from Local Jun-2019 Thematic Lead Adaptation Plan of Actions (LAPA), Integrated sub- watershed management plans (ISWMP), Payment for environmental services (PES) basket fund, resource leverage Review of Theory of Conduct workshop for review M&E Specialist and Regular M&E December 2018 Change/Results Chains Thematic Leads budget Adapting Revise Theory of Change/Results Revision internally Thematic lead, M&E Internal resources Feb-2019 Chains based on the review

Outcome 3 Revenue generated from conservation friendly enterprises increased Strategic collaboration Creating a livelihoods team within 1. Define specify agenda and sector 2. Scope/Areas Livelihood Specialist Internal Nov-18 consortium partners of engagement. 3. Stakeholders (private) analysis Bringing them together Joint Meeting. Collaborating with government/local Team Internal Sep-18 bodies/private sector Learning Opportunity Show to private actors Cross learning visits (national and international). Team Internal ongoing Trends (national/ international). Market opportunities. Prepare/discuss on business plan

159

By When Action Task Responsible Resource (Timing) Reflection/adapting Organization decision to work with Sharing for making common understanding. Team Internal Dec-18 private sector Show opportunities for financial leverage both from private and project Short term and long-term benefit. Private led demo site developed by Hariyo Ban Program. Resource allocation

Outcome 4 CCA, DRR provisions integrated into local development plans and implemented Strategic Collaboration Joint planning and learning Identification and prioritization of relevant Field Coordinator, Technical resource Aug-2018 meeting stakeholders supported by CCA and DRR person of district Orientation on differential impact Specialist line agencies Identification and prioritization of activities (internal staff) Budget allocation Human and Review and sharing of action plan financial resource Learning Develop IEC material Differential Impact Assessment- Response Planning Communications and DIA-Resource Dec-2018 (DIA-RP) as reference Documentation Officer, person Concept note supported by CCA and DRR Technical resource ToR Specialist person Human and financial resource Reflection/Adapting Participatory Review and Sharing of learning and challenges Central M&E team Human and Dec-2018 Reflection Meeting Identification of gaps and support strategies Thematic Focal Person financial resource Jun/Jul-2019 Prepare follow up action (CARE Nepal) CCA/DRR Specialists Field Coordinators Outcome 5 People who are differentially impacted by climate change and disaster reduce their vulnerability through appropriate responses Strategic collaboration

160

By When Action Task Responsible Resource (Timing) Re-orientation of stakeholders Re-orientation package development, communicate Lead – CCA Advisor Human and Mar–Apr- 2018 (about CCA DRR and its with stakeholders, organize the event and reporting Implementation – thematic financial importance to integrate in local specialist and field officers. level planning; highlights of LAPAs and ISWMPs) Support in policy Identify the support area, it is review or new Lead – CCA advisor; Human and Throughout the review/formulation formulation? provide technical and financial Core team financial year support Involve/contribute in government’s Communication and coordinate with local Thematic specialist and Human and Mar– May-2018 local level planning process government, sharing about CCA & DRR and its field officers. financial importance to integrate in planning process, participate and facilitate in planning process, Learning Extract applicable Prepare template for extracting recommendations, CCA advisor, M&E team Human and May- Jun-2018 recommendations from action points, conduct meetings/ workshop with and thematic specialist financial assessments and analyze existing thematic lead and specialist, analyze database and including from consortium database to develop action points feed into action points. partners

Sharing action points with program Finalize the action points in printed and digital CCA advisor, M&E team Human and Jun-2018 team/stakeholders (in local format; communicate with stakeholder, organize and thematic specialist financial language) sharing event Outcome 6 Increased leadership positions held by women youth and marginalized people in NRM groups, with enhanced leadership quality. Strategic Collaboration GESI action plan review Review and revise the plan GESI Coordinator Financial and Jun-2018 human resources internally available Learnings Gather information on GESI Collect relevant materials M&E Specialist Financial resource Jun-2018 mainstreaming across different GESI Coordinator available intervention of Hariyo Ban Document review Program and synthesis learning External and and knowledge Consult relevant institutions and experts internal human Analyze documents to synthesize resources GESI knowledge

161

By When Action Task Responsible Resource (Timing) Reflection/Adapting Thematic Reflection Thematic Review Reflection M&E team Human and Sep-18 Thematic Monitoring Thematic Lead financial resources internally available Outcome 7 Improved technical and managerial capacity and/or performance scores of local organizations (CFUGs and other user groups) for improved biodiversity and adaptation. Strategic Collaboration Form thematic group Communication CoP, DCoP and Governance Human and Jun-2018 Identify thematic group point person from Specialist financial resources consortium partners internally available Conduct bimonthly thematic meeting

Sharing of ICA and ICB tool and Communication for workshop Governance focal person Human and Apr- 2018 process with consortium partners Preparation of presentation about ICA tool and ICB and M&E person financial resources in participation of high level packages including progress/status internally available authorities, Team Leaders and Conduct workshop, feedback collection and focal person commitment Learning Human and financial resources internally available Review and update the ICB tool ICB packages roll out in field/NRM groups Governance Specialist and Human and Aug-18 Collect the feedbacks from local resource persons, focal person financial resources staffs and NRM groups internally available Compilation of ICB packages feedbacks through meeting Modification and sharing with working group Sharing of ICB process, progress, Communication for workshop Governance focal person Human and Dec-18 challenges and learning with Preparation from each consortium partner and M&E person financial resources consortium partners in Feedback collection and review internally available participation of high level authorities, Team Leaders and focal person

162

163

WWF Nepal PO Box: 7660, Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal T: +977 1 4434820, F: +977 1 4438458 Email: [email protected] , [email protected] Website: www.wwfnepal.org/hariyobanprogram

164