i

Hariyo Ban Program

Community-based Natural Resource Management Institutions in Nepal:

Why the future needs women

ii

© CARE Nepal 2014

All rights reserved

Any reproduction of this publication in full or in part must mention the title and credit CARE Nepal.

Published by

CARE Nepal

Central Office 4/288, SAMATA Bhawan

Dhobighat, Lalitpur

P.O. Box 1661, Lalitpur, NEPAL

Tel:+977-1-5522800, Fax:+977-1-5521202

E-mail: carenepal@care.org, Web: www.carenepal.org

Authors

This report was prepared by Women Leading for Change in Natural Resources Management (W-LCN),

Nepal. The study team was comprised of Meena Kunwar, Gopal Kafle, Kumar Bahadur Darjee, Mina Adhikari,

Punita Chaudhary and Bimala Dhungana.Technical guidance was provided by Dr. Manohara Khadka (W-LCN

Chairperson, Aug 2011-Sept 2014 and founder) and Dibya Gurung, Basundhara Bhattarai, and Sushila Nepali,

founders of W-LCN).

Illustration Credit

CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program

Illustration Prepared by: Uttam Nepal

Publication Service

Design & Layout: Shashi Neupane

Printed by : Munal Offset Printers, Tel. 531700, 523555

Disclaimer

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency

for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the responsibility of W-LCN Nepal and do

not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

iii

Table of Contents

List of tables vi

List of figures vii

Acronyms viii

Preface ix

Foreword x

Chapter 1: Introduction Background 3

Rationale: Translating good policy frameworks into action 4

Objectives 5

Significance of the study 5

Research questions 6

Chapter 2 : Study framework and analytical frameworkThe study framework: Gender in the NRM context 9

Analytical framework: A transformative approach to women’s participation and empowerment in NRM 10

Dimension-I: Women’s access to productive resources 11

Dimension-II: Links between ecosystems and social power 11

Dimension-III: Participation, power relations and women’s agency 12

Dimension-IV: Attitudes and capacity of forest actors for empowering women 12

Dimension-V: Gender-differentiated knowledge of biodiversity management 13

Chapter 3 : Methodology Approach 17

Study area and period 17

Data collection 17

CBNRM institutions studied 19

Composition of respondents 20

Data analysis 20

Study team 20

Challenges and limitations 21

Chapter 4 : Overview of study districts and gender situationMustang 25

Kaski 25

Chitwan 25

Kailali 25

Bardiya 26

Gender situation in the study area 26

iv

Chapter 5 : Participation and leadership in CBNRM institutionsMembership of executive committees 31

Women’s leadership in CBNRM groups 32

Trends in leadership 32

Perceptions of leadership qualities 34

Leadership selection criteria 34

Initiatives of female and male CFUG leaders 35

Background of leaders 35

Perceived barriers to women’s leadership 36

Chapter 6 Power dynamics in CBNRM institutions Buffer zone management structures 39

Conservation area management structures 40

Community forestry management structures 41

Chapter 7 Barriers to women’s leadershipInstitutional barriers 45

Gender insensitive processes and criteria for selecting chairperson 45

Unequal power relations in CBNRM management structures 45

Limited support from men in promoting women to leadership positions 45

Lack of investment in women and their leadership development 46

Women’s limited education, networks and access to information 47

Women’s limited control over CBNRM funds and resources 49

Political influence 49

Socio-cultural barriers 49

Social norms and perceptions of gender roles 49

Lack of physical security and acceptance 50

External barriers 51

Lack of awareness of Government policies and GESI Strategy by implementing actors 51

Limited implementation of GESI Strategy by implementing actors 52

Inadequate understanding, interest and capacity to deal with gender issues 53

Gender agenda not receiving priority in organizational processes and practices 54

Lack of ownership of gender policy agenda by government 54

Class and caste/ethnicity are yet to be integrated into the gender approach 54

Chapter 8 : Gender-differentiated knowledge and use of biodiversity resourcesKnowledge of plants in local area 57

Knowledge of wildlife in local area 57

Gender-differential use of plants 58

Gender-differential timber and fuelwood preferences 63

Perceptions of change in biodiversity 64

Women’s incredible role in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity 64

v

Chapter 9 : Summary of analysisLink between forest resources and gender power relations 67

Women’s exposure to gender-based violence 67

Women’s knowledge of biodiversity management is neglected 68

Implementing actors’ understanding, interest and capacity to deal with gender issues 68

Integration of class and caste/ethnicity perspective 69

Stakeholders’ views on how to strengthen women’s leadership 69

Chapter 10 Key findingsGendered participation and power dynamics 73

Factors hindering women’s leadership and empowerment 74

Chapter 11 : Recommendations for gender transformative change in the NRM sector

Hariyo Ban Program 79

Policy makers 80

Community forestry 80

Protected area/conservation area management 81

Implementing agencies 81

CBNRM institutions (right holders/beneficiaries) 82

Research institutes 82

References

AnnexesAnnex 1: Summary of data types and sources used in the study 91

Annex 2: NRM stakeholders interviewed at district level, May-August 2013 92

Annex 3: NRM stakeholders interviewed at national level, May-August 2013 92

Annex 4: In-depth interview checklist (CBNRM members) 93

Annex 5: Focus group discussion checklist 96

Annex 6: Key informant interview checklist (CBNRM institutions) 99

Annex 7: Interview checklist (forest stakeholders at district level) 100

Annex 8: Interview checklist (NRM stakeholders at national level) 101

Annex 9: Interview checklist gender dimensions of biodiversity (focus group discussion) 103

Annex 10: Leadership of executive committees of CBNRM, 2013 106

Annex 11: List of plants reported by female and male forest users, Ranikhola CFUG, Kaski, 2013 106

Annex 12: List of birds and wild animals reported by female and male f orest users, Sardikhola, CAMC, Pokhara, Kaski district, 2013 107

Annex 13: People’s perception of change in biodiversity, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski, 2013 108

vi

List of tables

Table 1: Matrix for identifying study areas 17

Table 2: Interviews types at different levels 19

Table 3: Number of CBNRM institutions consulted during the study period 19

Table 4: Composition of respondents to in-depth and key informant interviews by gender and caste/ethnicity 20

Table 5: Participants of focus group discussions by gender 20

Table 6: Socioeconomic composition by gender in the study area 26

Table 7: Population dynamics in the study area 27

Table 8: Composition of executive committees (average %) by gender and caste/ethnicity in the study area 31

Table 9: Composition of leadership of CFUGs by gender in the study area 33

Table 10: Composition of leadership in conservation areas by gender in the study area 33

Table 11: Perceived qualities of a CBNRM leader by gender 34

Table 12: Leadership criteria in CBNRM groups in the study area 34

Table 13: Gender-differentiated perceptions (% within gender) of barriers to women’s leadership in CBNRM institutions 36

Table 14: Average annual expenditure of CFUGs in the study area 47

Table 15: Awareness of Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations – 2008 among CBNRM members by gender 48

Table 16: Awareness of Buffer Zone Management Guidelines – 1999 among CBNRM members by gender 48

Table 17: Awareness of Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation’s GESI Strategy – 2008 among CBNRM members by gender 48

Table 18: Participation in decision-making of CBNRM institutions by gender in the study area 49

Table 19: Awareness of Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations – 2008 among stakeholders 51

Table 20: Awareness of Buffer Zone Management Guidelines-1999 among stakeholders 52

Table 21: Awareness of GESI Strategy - 2008 among stakeholders 52

Table 22: Name of plants in local area reported by gender, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski 57

Table 23: Name of wildlife in local area reported by gender, Bhimbali CFUG, Chitwan 58

Table 24: Gender-differentiated use of plants, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski 59

Table 25: Gender-differential use of plants, Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan 60

Table 26: Gender-differential preferences for timber species in study area 63

Table 27: Gender-differentiated preferences for fuelwood species in study area 63

Table 28: Stakeholders’ gender-differentiated views on ways to strengthen women’s leadership in the NRM sector 69

vii

List of figures

Figure 1: Interconnected relationships between biophysical and social elements in a landscape 10

Figure 2: Composition of executive committees (%) by gender in the study area 32

Figure 3: Gender inclusion in buffer zone management structures in study area (Chitwan and Bardiya) 39

Figure 4: Gender inclusion in conservation area management structures in study area (Kaski and Mustang) 40

Figure 5: Gender inclusion in community forestry management structures (Kaski, Bardiya, Kailali and Chitwan) 41

viii

Acronyms ACAP

BZCFUG

BZM

BZMC

BZUC

BZUG

CAM

CAMC

CARE

CAUG

CBNRM

CFUG

CHAL

DANAR

DFO

DNPWC

DSWCO

FECOFUN

FGD

GESI

HH

HIMAWANTI

ICIMOD

INGO

IUCN

NEFIN

NGO

Annapurna Conservation Area Programme

buffer zone community forest user group

buffer zone management

buffer zone management committee

buffer zone user committee

buffer zone user group

conservation area management

conservation area management committee

Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

conservation area user group

community-based natural resource management

community forest user group

Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape

Dalit Alliance for Natural Resources, Nepal

district forest office

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

District Soil and Water Conservation Office

Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal

focus group discussion

gender equality and social inclusion

household

Himalayan Grassroots Women’s Natural Resource Management Association

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

international non-governmental organization

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities

non-governmental organizationNIWF

NPR

NRM

NTFP

NTNC

PES

REDD

TAL

USAID

VDC

W-LCN

WWF

National Indigenous Women’s Federation

Nepali rupee

natural resource management

non-timber forest product

National Trust for Nature Conservation

payment for ecosystem services

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Terai Arc Landscape

United States Agency for International Development

village development committee

Women Leading for Change in Natural Resource Management, Nepal

World Wildlife Fund

ix

Preface

It has been said that the central moral challenge of the 19th Century was slavery; for the 20th Century it was the battle against totalitarianism; and that, now, in this Century, the attainment of gender equality is humankind’s paramount moral challenge (Kristof and WuDunn 2009). CARE International believes that lack of gender equality between women and men, girls and boys is one of the greatest impediments to human development across the globe. When over half of the world’s population is subjected to differential treatment, how could it not be? This is why CARE International is committed to addressing this fundamental issue. We work with women and girls, especially those who have been additionally marginalized because of caste, class or income status, to empower them whilst also creating an enabling environment around them, so that they can attain the equity and equality that is theirs by right.

A critical factor in this process is building up women’s leadership. By prioritizing the role of women in leadership positions, and by building their capacities and capabilities to deliver in such leadership roles in a highly effective manner, we believe we can make a difference.

The present study provides us with evidence of some fundamental barriers to leadership by women in Nepal, including in the important realms of climate change, conservation and forestry. There are the usual suspects: the inordinate amount of time spent by women on menial tasks, domestic chores, care giving and other gender-stereotypical roles increases their workload and diverts them from en-gaging in other more productive roles. There is also inadequate recognition of the need for institutional support to strengthen the leadership of women and other socially excluded groups, which means that women’s leadership is not prioritized. This prevents us from making the investment necessary to bring women into leadership positions as capable leaders. In addition, there is a widespread perception that women are not capable of being effective leaders. This is patently untrue and stems from the same patriarchal thinking that reinforces gender inequality around the globe.

The study has also identified some specific requirements of a ‘leader’, which are barriers to changing the picture of women’s leadership in conservation and related sectors. We find ourselves in a situation where the selection criteria for leaders perpetuate the current situation. By requiring a leader to have, among other things, previous experience of working in executive committees; social standing and respect; a certain level of education; and even more specific skills (such as in forest patrolling), the field of potential candidates becomes increasingly narrow and occupied mostly by men who have his-torically been more likely meet such criteria. As a result, we miss out on the wide array of women who have the potential and relevant competencies, but who may not be able to tick these or other qualifying boxes, at least not at this particular point in time.

In community forestry there are good provisions for the inclusion of women, such as for the mandatory presence of women as either chairperson or secretary, 50% representation of women in forest users groups, and the allocation of 35% of forest revenue for the pro-poor livelihoods of women and socially excluded groups. However, when local people, and even the relevant local government officials, are not aware of these provisions, it is highly unlikely that they will be implemented on the ground. There is a pressing need for ownership of these policy commitments at all levels if they are to be effectively fulfilled.

Some steps we believe will make a difference to this situation include a greater emphasis on engaging men to become advocates for women’s rights and gender equality, as well as investing more heavily across all sectors in female leadership. This will only work if women themselves also have a sense of agency, by which I mean that they believe in themselves and are committed to the process of learning, which is a fundamental requirement for effective leadership. Finally, I also believe that development practitioners can, and must, commit themselves to valuing the leadership of women, within their orga-nizations and at the community level, as well as in society more broadly.

I trust that you will find this study’s findings insightful and inspiring. Together, we can achieve greater equality in our age!

Cathy RileyAssistant Country Director – Program QualityCARE Nepal

x

Foreword

It is a well-documented fact that women and men have different understandings of issues, as well as different approaches to handling them. An example of this is the diverse knowledge of women and men in the field of conservation, of which this study provides clear evidence. It is hoped that this study will be useful to anyone wishing to analyze the current trends and approaches of women and men to conservation.

One of the factors discussed in the study is the increasing trend of out-migration in Nepal and the changes it has brought about in the lives of women. While men migrate to other cities and countries in search of a better education and employment, responsibility for the family and the outside world fall on to women. This also includes in the sector of conservation. Hence, to ensure the sustainability of conservation endeavors, it is essential to promote the leadership capacities of women.

While some efforts have been made to this end, women in Nepal, especially in rural communities, are still far behind in terms of leading natural resource management groups. There are a number of rea-sons for this; chief among them is a disparity in access to, and control over, resources – both financial and natural. Added to this is the fact that women are offered fewer opportunities than men to enhance their knowledge, skills and capacity, leading to an even greater gap between women and men in the leadership of natural resource management. It is, therefore, necessary to explore the challenges faced by female leaders in the field of conservation. The leadership barriers faced by women need to be studied and strategic plans need to be developed to increase the meaningful leadership of women in conservation and climate change.

The present study analyzes female leadership with an emphasis on the need to increase investment to enhance the leadership competence of women and socially excluded groups. Some other recommen-dations include changing the mindset of society towards women’s leadership, increasing the attention of stakeholders in relation to implementing gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) policies and strategies, and building a GESI-responsive policy environment. These recommendations will be valu-able in designing the future path of the Hariyo Ban Program to ensure that it is a GESI-responsive one.

I would like to extend my thanks to the team from Women Leading for Change in Natural Resource Management (W-LCN) for conducting the study. I would also like to acknowledge Shikha Shrestha for coordinating the study, Dev Raj Gautam, Ayusha Niroula, Richa Bhattarai and Deepa Shrestha for their support in finalizing the report and Susan Sellars-Shrestha for copyediting. I hope that this report will make a significant contribution towards understanding the challenges to women’s leadership and the formation of strategies to address the same.

Judy Oglethorpe Chief of Party Hariyo Ban Program

1

Chapter 1Introduction

Maya Devi Gautam, Chairperson in Chauke Swaara Lekmaardi CFUG, Phedikhola VDC - 2 in Syangja district, showing her community forest which is chaired by herself since 2072 B.S.

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program/ Deepa Shrestha

2

3

BackgroundThe management and use of natural resources is gendered. Women and men participate in and use natural resources, including biodiversity, differently, with different needs, power, information, and indigenous knowledge, and to meet different livelihoods needs and concerns (Paudel 1999; Khadka 2000; Nightingale 2002; Rai-Paudyal 2008). Nepal’s natural resources (forests, water, wetlands, rangelands, wildlife and soil) constitute the main resources on which around 83% of rural women and men depend to meet their socio-cultural, environmental and food security needs (Central Bureau of Statistics 2012). For example, most rural women derive basic resources from forest ecosystems including fuelwood, forage, fodder, leaf litter, and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). These resources have economic, social, cultural and religious value. Women’s indigenous knowledge, strategies and roles in conserving and using various plant and animal species are crucial in sustaining the environment, as well as the livelihoods of their households and communities (Khadka and Verma 2012).

While natural resource management (NRM) governance in Nepal is far from gender sensitive and responsive (Khadka 2009; Khadka and Bhattarai 2012), there has been renewed interest recently among the government, donors and development organizations in social and environmental goals, such as gender equality/equity, poverty reduction, climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation. This interest is presenting opportunities for making development practices in the NRM sector gender equitable. For example, the forest sector’s Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Strategy 2008 (Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation 2008) and the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008 (Department of Forests 2008), as well as forestry programs such as Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation-SDC’s Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Program (2010–2020) and CARE Nepal’s Hariyo Ban Program, are supportive of making policies, programs and processes in NRM gender inclusive. These policies and programs emphasize the need for the participation of both women and men in decision-making and benefit sharing from natural resources. The extent to which NRM policies and programs that are oriented towards social and environmental goals are implemented to benefit forest-dependent groups (women, indigenous peoples, traditionally excluded groups) and which socio-institutional and ecosystem factors support and hinder the meaningful participation of these groups are the subject of inquiry.

Moreover, the focus of international support in the NRM sector in Nepal has shifted to addressing environmental problems, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and deforestation and forest degradation. Women, in their multi-tasking roles as farmers, herders, herbalists, forest gatherers and conservationists (Momsen 2007) can play an important role in tackling these problems, provided NRM practices generate economic opportunities for women and support their leadership.

The Hariyo Ban Program, a United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded program, is designed to contribute to the sustainability of different ecosystems and people’s livelihoods at the landscape level amid multiple drivers of change (such as migration and climate change) and to the creation of an enabling policy framework. The program aims to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change and threats to biodiversity by restoring and conserving forests while improving livelihoods and building resilience to climate change in both people and ecosystems. It works through three core interwoven components – biodiversity conservation, sustainable landscapes management and climate change adaptation – with livelihoods, gender equality and social inclusion as crosscutting themes (www.wwfnepal.org). The program adopts a landscape management approach that focuses

4

on holistic and participatory conservation and development. This approach recognizes the need to consider human-environment relations with a greater focus on the consideration of gender-differentiated indigenous knowledge in biodiversity management, creating livelihood options for both women and men, and enhancing the capacity of women and men for NRM (Sharma et al. 2007). This study was conducted by the Hariyo Ban Program as a gender assessment of NRM practices in Nepal with a special focus on the analysis of participation, power dynamics and indigenous knowledge in two landscapes, namely, the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) and Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL).

Rationale: Translating good policy frameworks into actionEffective policies and processes determine the access to resources and opportunities of poor and disadvantaged groups. Forest sector policies, such as the community forestry policy, have been regarded as pioneering in promoting the engagement of women and other socially excluded groups in forest management and local development processes. The Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008 clearly recognize the need for the inclusion and proportionate representation of women, indigenous peoples and Dalits in the executive committees of community forest user groups (CFUGs), as well as their participation in income-generating activities. The Guidelines also state the need to include women in key positions (either as chairperson or secretary) (Department of Forests 2008, pp 11–12) and to spend at least 35% of the total annual CFUG income on livelihood improvement for women, indigenous people and Dalits.

Likewise, conservation policy in Nepal tends to be supportive of including communities in resource use and management. For example, the Buffer Zone Management Regulation, 1996 and Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 recognize the importance of people’s participation in conservation. The Regulation requires the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) to invest 30–50% of the royalties earned by national parks and protected areas in community development activities in and around protected areas (Gurung et al. 2008).

Besides sectoral policies, Nepal’s development strategies and plans recognize the need to mainstream gender. For example, following the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals, the Government of Nepal included gender equality and social inclusion in its 10th five year periodic plan, 2002–2007. The third pillar of the plan focused on mainstreaming excluded groups, with special emphasis on excluded caste/ethnic groups and women (Gurung et al. 2008). The gender equality and social inclusion agenda gained momentum in national debates after the ‘people’s war’ (waged between the Maoists and the state), which ended in 2006. The Comprehensive Peace Accord 2006 recognized gender inequality, social exclusion and discrimination, and poverty as driving forces behind the ten-year conflict (Tshering et al. 2013). The subsequent Interim Constitution 2007 (Government of Nepal and Cottrell 2009) strongly emphasized the need to address major development issues such as gender equality, governance and decentralized development and mandates state institutions to include at least 33% of women in executive bodies and organizations at all levels (ibid, p 2).

Several studies reveal that women play a critical role in the conservation of genetic resources, species and ecologically critical areas in various ecosystems, including in forests, agroforestry and home gardens (Momsen 2007; Karki and Gurung 2012). As research from Nepal and India (Agarwal 2010) has found, enhanced women’s participation in decision-making bodies in CFUGs improves forest governance, the sustainable use of resources and women’s self-confidence. Forest resources are also the main source of household food security for rural women. A case study from Bhutan shows that

5

women search for wild yams as food and conserve these when they are not confident that the income earned by men will be spent on food (Dorji 2012). However, despite women’s greater involvement than men in the collection and use of natural resources, they continue to be disadvantaged by insecure access and property rights to forests, trees and land resources (CIFOR 2013). Their exclusion from decision-making at different levels is a serious forest governance issue, which impacts on people’s livelihoods as well as on forests (Gurung et al. 2011; Khadka 2009).

While much NRM literature discusses the importance of women’s roles in natural resource management, including biodiversity conservation, little attention has been paid to understanding the gender dynamics of participation, power, and institutional and policy practices in advancing women’s leadership and decision-making power. Nepal is a good example of community-based conservation and development in which women’s knowledge tends to be crucial to the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use. However, the extent to which women’s indigenous knowledge has impacted on promoting women’s leadership is poorly understood. This assessment aims to analyze the gender dimensions of NRM with a particular focus on participation dynamics and factors affecting women’s leadership and decision-making roles, including the use of women’s indigenous knowledge of biodiversity use and management, in community forests, buffer zones and conservation areas.

ObjectivesThe general objective of this assessment is to explore the dynamics of gender power relations and indigenous knowledge related to the conservation and management of natural resources in two landscapes in Nepal, namely, the Terai Arc Landscape and Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape. The specific objectives are to:

l Review and assess the level of gender participation in NRM and the underlying factors influencing the meaningful participation of women

l Analyze the power dynamics in NRM groups and the underlying factors affecting women’s decision-making roles and leadership

l Develop an inventory of gender-specific indigenous knowledge on biodiversity resources (identification, conservation, management and utilization) for both flora and fauna

Significance of the studyThis study informs policy and implementation in the NRM sector, in general, and the forest sector, in particular, in two ways. First, it provides knowledge about how women and men’s different roles in household food security and natural resource use and management in Nepal result in gender-differentiated indigenous knowledge of biodiversity identification, conservation and management. This information is useful in the formulation of biodiversity policy and the management of ecosystem services, which need to take gender aspects into account, given the rapid socioeconomic and environmental changes taking place. Second, the study identifies the factors hindering and supporting women’s effective participation and leadership in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) institutions.

The findings of the study will contribute to the effective implementation of the Hariyo Ban Program in three ways. First, the study will help to sensitize and inform the program’s implementing actors and partners about the deep-rooted socio-institutional and cultural factors hindering and supporting the effective participation and leadership of women. Second, the study identifies critical gaps between official policy discourse and practice with regards to gender integration in the forest sector, which will be useful to the government and development organizations in informing their strategy on gender equality

6

and women’s empowerment. Third, the empirical evidence generated by the study will be useful for gender researchers and analysts to understand the socio-cultural and institutional aspects of NRM with a focus on participation, gender and social power dynamics, as well as women and men’s indigenous knowledge of biodiversity identification, conservation and management. Although the study focuses on the forest sector, the findings are relevant for other sectors in NRM including water, agriculture and the environment.

Research questionsThis assessment was guided by the broad research question: How have women’s leadership and meaningful participation in NRM are improved?This general question was furthered guided by the following specific questions:

l What is the status of the membership and inclusion of women and men in CBNRM institutions in the TAL and CHAL?

l How have leadership roles in CBNRM institutions changed over the last two decades? l Do social and gender norms, gender-differentiated access to, and control over resources,

and gender power relations influence women’s leadership?l Do women and men have different indigenous knowledge about the identification,

conservation, use and management of biodiversity resources in various ecosystems? l To what extent are NRM actors at the district and national levels aware of, and accountable

for, implementing the GESI policy of the government?

-

7

Chapter 2Study framework and analytical framework

Dr Manohara Khadka (W-LCN chairperson, Aug 2011 - Sept 2014 and founder) facilitating the women groups in Sardikhola CAMC in Kaski district.

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program

8

9

The study framework: Gender in the NRM contextThe term ‘gender’ is different from the term ‘sex’. While the former refers to the socially-constructed dynamic differences between women and men, the later refers to the universal, constant biological characteristics that differentiate them. In other words, gender refers to the economic, political and cultural attributes associated with being a woman or a man (Manfre and Rubin 2012, p 3–4). These attributes differ, both across and within countries and communities, and change over time.

Gender in NRM and development is not only about women and their issues; it is about the multi-dimensional factors that constrain or facilitate women’s participation in development processes and their access to, and control over, natural resources, opportunities and benefits. Thus, conceptualizing gender in the NRM context is about understanding the differences between (and among) women and men in terms of their roles, responsibilities, concerns, needs, knowledge, and power relations – and the interplay between these dimensions – with regards to conservation, development and the use of natural resources, as well as addressing gender imbalances (Nightingale 2006; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011; Manfre and Rubin 2012). Unlike the Women, Environment and Development (WED) approach, which focuses on understanding women only and conceptualizes women as a problem of, and solution to, environmental conservation, the Gender, Environment and Development (GED) approach attempts to understand socially-constructed differences and power relations between women and men and their effects on women’s advancement in natural resource management (Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; Nightingale 2006; Brown 2011). The gender approach to development in the NRM sector, thus, focuses on the transformation of unequal power relations between women and men and conceptualizes women’s inclusion in NRM, development and benefit sharing as their right (Krishna 2012). It also stresses equity issues among women and men on the basis of class, caste, ethnicity, age, occupation and geographical location (Verma 2001).

Power relations, gender norms, social perceptions, and men’s roles and behavior influence women’s effective participation in forest decision-making, leadership and benefit sharing (Colfer and Minarchek 2012; Manfre and Rubin 2012; Lama and Buchy 2002; Nightingale 2003). In the past several years, development practices in the NRM sector in Nepal have focused on women’s roles in conservation and natural resources management. Women were targeted as a way of attaining the goals of environmental conservation. As a result, women’s participation mostly focused on their physical contribution to the conservation and management of forest resources, which can be termed ‘instrumental participation’ (Nelson and Wright 1995, p 1). However, such participation is unlikely to advance women’s socio economic and decision-making power (Khadka 2009). A participation process tends to be transformative when it focuses on the process of empowerment, enables women and other traditionally excluded social groups to analyze problems that disadvantage them, and capacitates them to solve these problems (Lama and Buchy 2002). A number of NRM and gender scholars have argued for a shift in the current gender perspective, which tends to focus on women’s instrumental participation, towards addressing issues around gender inequalities and women’s empowerment (see Meinzen-Dick et al. 1997; Lama and Buchy 2002; Nightingale 2003, 2006; Ahlborg and Nightingale 2012).

Gender in NRM is considered a critical variable in shaping resource access, use and control. There are differences in access, control and rights over natural resources according to gender, which cuts across other social identifiers such as class, caste, ethnicity, age, culture, occupation and location (Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; Verma 2001; Lama and Buchy 2002; Nightingale 2003, 2006; Elmhirst and Resurreccion 2008; Ahlborg and Nightingale 2012). Social and power relations in South Asia, particularly in India and Nepal, generally advantage high-caste women when accessing certain resources. For instance, women from socially-privileged castes have more influence in forestry activities in the studied CFUGs than socially-discriminated Dalit women (Lama and Buchy 2002; Nightingale 2006; Buchy and Rai-Paudyal 2008). Therefore, examining the differences among women or men is equally as important as looking into the differences between women and men (ibid.). This view is also relevant in

10

the context of the Hariyo Ban Program in Nepal, which is being implemented in communities that are acutely unequal in term of access to resources and opportunities according to gender, caste, ethnicity and class, but are rich in biological and socio-cultural diversity with great potential for enhancing ecosystem and community resilience. As discussed later, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, caste and ethnicity is prevalent in both of the landscapes studied (TAL and CHAL).

In addition to persistent gender inequality, climate change is considered a major threat to women and men, ecosystems and biodiversity in Nepal. As women generally have fewer livelihood alternatives than men, they experience more food insecurity and vulnerability when impacted on by climate change (Vincent et al. 2011; Skinner 2011; Nellemann et al. 2011). A study from Nepal shows that the poorest of the poor, especially women-headed households, are more vulnerable to climate change (Gautam et al. 2007). Gender inequalities, combined with gender power imbalances and norms, and socio-cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors, make women more vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change (Neumayer and Plümper 2007; CARE 2009; Skinner 2011). At the same time, women are important actors in adapting to climate change. Women’s specific knowledge of maintaining biodiversity, through the conservation and domestication of wild edible plants, food crop breeding, and the conservation of indigenous seeds, forests and water springs is key to effectively adapting to climate change (Khadka and Verma 2012).

Therefore, understanding gender issues in NRM in the TAL and CHAL is essential for positive impacts on ecosystem and biodiversity resources, while enhancing women and men’s capacity to adapt to climate change, as well as their wellbeing and livelihoods. The focus on gender in the Hariyo Ban Program enables communities/target beneficiaries and program implementing actors to understand the linkages among ecosystems, biodiversity, climate change, and women and men’s wellbeing and livelihoods (see Figure 1), which helps these actors to implement local resource management practices and innovation that address women’s and men’s specific gender needs and constraints (Leach 1991; Verma 2001).

Analytical framework: A transformative approach to women’s participation and empowerment in NRMThis study is based on a gender transformative approach to women’s participation and empowerment in the NRM sector, which recognizes the role of power relations in the participation and benefit sharing process. In development, the concepts of ‘participation’ and ‘women’s empowerment’ have different meanings to different actors. For some, participation is seen as a way of accomplishing the aims of a project more efficiently or cost effectively, which is considered an ‘instrumental’ approach to participation. For others, participation is seen as an end in itself, which is a ‘transformative’ or ‘empowerment’ approach (Nelson and Wright 1995, p 1) While the instrumental approach to participation tends to be similar to the ‘techno-centric’ or ‘productivity’ view, which sees participation as a process of delivering

Figure 1: Interconnected relationships between biophysical and social elements in a landscape

11

technology and materials to target communities or groups, the ‘empowerment’ approach can be seen as a ‘process’ perspective that focuses on overcoming unequal access to resources and services and the marginality of people (Mosse 2005, p 33 cited in Khadka 2009, p 12).

As Stiefel and Wolfe argue (Stiefel and Wolfe 1994, p 5, cited in Cornwall and Brock 2005, p 17), everyone participates in society, whether as an effective actor or a passive victim. The real concern is to recognize the role of power relations that cut across caste, ethnicity, age, occupation, and gender in shaping participation and the benefit-sharing process and to ensure that people with limited power have access to, and control over, resources and development practices. As natural resource management is a political process and context driven (Mahanty 2002), the process of participation and women’s empowerment has to be transformative; it has to challenge the deep-rooted gender disparities faced by women and recognize women as active change agents, rather than vulnerable groups. Therefore, unlike the conventional ways of viewing women’s participation, which merely emphasize the ‘number’ of women participating as an indicator of their empowerment, this study considers women’s empowerment as a process of recognizing women’s agency and knowledge in sustainable NRM practices and ensuring women’s decision-making power and ownership of, and access to, resources. This study attempts to understand the factors and processes that determine the effectiveness of women’s participation in decision-making and leadership in CBNRM institutions by looking at five dimensions:

l Women’s access to productive resourcesl Links between ecosystems and social powerl Women’s participation and agency and gender power relations l The attitudes and capacity of forest actors for empowering womenl Gender differentiated knowledge of bio-diversity management

Dimension-I: Women’s access to productive resourcesResources such as information, awareness, technical and social skills, financial incentives and cash income opportunities, labor-saving technologies, and ecosystem services and goods can enable female and male forest users to lead CBNRM and play a proactive role in collective actions and decisions. However, access to these resources by women is an issue in the CBNRM institutions studied in the TAL and CHAL, which limits them from claiming their right to ecosystem services and goods and associated opportunities. As this study indicates, women have limited access to productive resources such as information about the forest sector’s GESI policy, collective funds, technical and leadership development training, and social networking with line agencies and other policy implementing actors.

Dimension-II: Links between ecosystems and social powerA variety of ecosystems exist in the CHAL and TAL that provide services and goods on which people’s livelihoods depend. Although women and men participate in the conservation, development and use of natural resources in their community-managed forests or conservation areas, their priorities in terms of strategies for resource conservation, use and distribution vary. The priorities and strategic focus of female leaders are, in some cases, different from male leaders when it comes to ecosystems management. Importantly, resource management and use are influenced by power relations in which people with a higher social status play the major role in decisions, to the exclusion of socially weaker groups (Lama and Buchy 2002; Malla et al. 2003). As seen in this study, female leaders of CBNRM institutions sometimes lose the leadership position when the condition of common property resources improves and when their use and management change due to their increased economic, political and conservation value. This study explored the dynamic relationship between the types of participation (passive, influential) and forest resource production and use, as well as the interplay of power relations in the process of resource use.

12

Dimension-III: Participation, power relations and women’s agencyMore than 50% of women in Nepal are involved in community forest management. As at 31 August 2012, 1,035 ‘women only’ CFUGs were managing 2.72% of community forests (1.7 million hectares), although the community forests managed by women are generally degraded and small (Buchy and Rai-Paudyal 2008). In addition, women are general members of 17,685 CFUGs, 504 buffer zone user groups (BZUGs), 6,712 leasehold forest user groups, 14 collaborative forest user groups, and 6 conservation areas in Nepal (Department of Forests 2012). Including women in formal and informal forest institutions does not mean that women are more empowered or that their decision-making and control over forest and biodiversity resource use, management and benefits is ensured. Among women, Dalit women are the most passive participants in community forestry (Lama and Buchy 2002), presumably due to their low social status. Although women play a critical role in NRM and biodiversity conservation (Khadka and Verma 2012), they continue to be disadvantaged by insecure access to, and property rights over, forests, trees and land (CIFOR 2013). Moreover, although women are included in community-based NRM institutions, their participation in decision-making remain less visible and less heard than that of men. Women’s exclusion from representation and decision-making tends to be greater in district and national forestry governance structures (Giri 2012).

Fundamental issues of participation and empowerment are related to power and power relations. Power can be defined as the degree of control over human, material, knowledge and financial resources exercised by different social groups or individuals within a community or an organization. The control of these resources becomes a source of individual and social power (Veneklasen and Miller 2007, p 41). Power is unequally distributed in the sense that some individuals and groups have greater control over resources than others. The distribution of power is mostly shaped by social divisions such as gender, age, class, caste, ethnicity and so on (Veneklasen and Miller 2007). Power as a strategic game is related to human interaction in the form of ideological manipulation, rational argument, moral advice or economic exploitation. Institutional power describes more systematic, regulated modes of power. Structural power is stable, hierarchical and difficult to convert. These three forms of power (strategic, institutional and structural) are interlinked and cannot be separated from each other (see Lemke 2003 in Gender Assessment Terms of Reference, Hariyo Ban Progrm 2013, p 7).

Power is relational and is ‘exercised’ not ‘possessed’ (Foucault 1978). The relational approach to power considers power as a process rather than a resource (Eyben 2008, p 36). Power is complex and manifested in different forms: visible (e.g., formal rules, structures, authorities and institutions), invisible (social norms, values, perceptions and ideologies), and hidden (social relationships and agenda setting) (Veneklasen and Miller 2007). Power relations between (and among) women and men influence the process and quality of women’s participation in decision-making and in the use, management and benefit sharing of natural resources (Lama and Buchy 2002). Ultimately, power relations are linked to poverty and exclusion. This study will analyze some dimensions of the interconnectedness among participation, power relations and women’s agency, namely: the composition of the executive bodies of CBNRM institutions in Nepal by caste, ethnicity and gender; social norms and values associated with the election and appointment of CBNRM leaders; and the process of agenda setting and decision-making with regards to access, use, management and benefit sharing of natural resources, including capacity development and the use of funds and women’s roles and influence over processes.

Dimension-IV: Attitudes and capacity of forest actors for empowering womenForestry actors (both individuals and institutions) who are involved in the design and implementation of forest policies and strategies play a crucial role in empowering women. The understanding, behavior, interests, attitudes and capacity of actors engaged in rural development influence development outcomes (Chambers 1997; Chambers and Pettit 2004). Ensuring women’s meaningful participation in the forest sector depends on the way forest actors have understood gender and participation and

13

their capacity to analyze the causes and impact of gender and social exclusion. In addition, translating policies into action requires constant facilitation with secure resources and commitments from the people in power. As Derbyshire (2012, p 405) argues, “Gender integration is a long-term process which requires time, resources, skill, and persistence, but there is clear evidence of positive change”. This view reminds us that merely having a gender inclusive policy in the forest sector does not lead to gender positive change unless financial resources and the skills and attitudes of forestry actors are supportive of gender equality and women’s empowerment. Accordingly, this study explores actors’ behaviors and attitudes with regards to the implementation of gender-inclusive forest policies and the empowerment of women by analyzing the awareness and interests of forest actors in the forest sector’s GESI policy; their understanding of women’s empowerment and gender; and the operational strategies and programs of the government, non-state actors and community institutions for the implementation of the GESI policy.

Dimension-V: Gender-differentiated knowledge of biodiversity management Although both women and men are involved in biodiversity conservation and use, women in their roles as farmers, herbalists, conservationists, forest gatherers, plant breeders, seed protectors and forest users are more involved than men in biodiversity conservation and management (Momsen 2007). Women in Nepal have tremendous knowledge of the medicinal and nutritional value of diverse plant species (Khadka and Verma 2012). Their knowledge, needs, interests and issues associated with biodiversity conservation and management are often different from men’s. Women have more varietal selection criteria than men because of the variety of ways that they use plant materials (Momsen 2007). Women’s knowledge of using plant materials and species has been crucial in their adaptation to climate change (Khadka and Verma 2012). However, despite women’s contribution to biodiversity conservation, they remain ‘invisible’ actors, at both the policy and implementation levels, and their contribution to biodiversity conservation is largely overlooked (Dhakal and Leduc 2010). Understanding women’s gender-specific knowledge and choices, and the extent to which they access resources and make decisions related to biodiversity, is not only relevant, but central, to achieving sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in Nepal.

Biodiversity everywhere is being impacted on by land use practices, land cover change, economic growth, climate change and globalization (Zimmerer 2010; Chettri et al. 2012). As women and men use the same biodiversity resources for different purposes, biodiversity loss will impact on them differently (Khadka and Verma 2012). The analysis of gender-differential knowledge about biodiversity identification, conservation, use and management is essential for developing additional operational strategies to reduce the adverse impacts of climate change and threats to biodiversity by recognizing women’s indigenous knowledge and capacity for the sustainable management of natural resource. However, such information is lacking in Nepal’s forestry sector. To address this gap, this study prepared an inventory of gender-differential indigenous knowledge of biodiversity resources in different ecosystems (forests, rangelands, grasslands and wetlands) in the study area.

14

15

Chapter 3Methodology

Field discussion in study area

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program

16

17

ApproachThe study followed a qualitative approach to data collection in order to explain the deep-rooted socio-cultural and institutional factors (including actors’ behaviors and attitudes) affecting women’s leadership and meaningful participation in CBNRM practices in Nepal. In addition, a literature review was conducted of publications related to gender, women’s leadership and participation, biodiversity conservation and management, gender-based violence, climate change, participation, and GESI in the NRM sector to develop a conceptual and methodological framework for the study. The GESI policies of the Government of Nepal and project evaluation and impact studies of development organizations were also reviewed to determine the importance given to the integration of a gender approach and issues and the development of women’s leadership in Nepal’s NRM sector, including forestry.

Study area and periodThe study was conducted from May to August 2013 in five districts of two landscapes – two in the TAL and three in the CHAL – which are the working areas of the Hariyo Ban Program. The districts were selected to represent the ecological zones and development regions of Nepal, as well as socioeconomic marginality, ecosystem diversity and people’s diversified livelihoods strategies in the program districts. The five districts selected were Mustang, Kaski and Chitwan districts in the CHAL and Bardiya and Kailali districts in the TAL (Table 1).

Table 1: Matrix for identifying study areas

Landscape District Development region

Socioeconomic marginality

Ethnicity/ caste diversity

Ecological zone

Ecosystems diversity

Livelihoods strategies

TAL

Bardiya Mid Western Low Indigenous peoples, migrants, Dalits, ex-kamaiyas (bonded laborers), BCNTs

Terai/Inner Terai

Forests, grasslands, agroforestry

Agriculture, tourism, NTFPs, migration, wage labor

Kailali Far Western High Indigenous peoples, BCNTs, Dalits

Terai/Inner Terai

Forests, agroforestry

Agriculture, wage labor, timber and NTFPs

CH

AL

Chitwan Central Low Indigenous peoples, migrants, BCNTs, Dalits

Terai/Inner Terai

Forests, wetlands, grasslands, agroforestry

Agriculture, wage labor, tourism, migration, timber and NTFPs

Kaski Western Moderate Indigenous peoples, BCNTs, Dalits

Mid hills Forests, agroforestry, wetlands

Agriculture, off-farm jobs, tourism, migration, NTFPs, daily wage labor

Mustang Western High Indigenous peoples High mountains

Rangelands Pastoralism, tourism, migration

Note: BCNT stands for Brahmin, Chhetri, Newar, Thakuri, which are considered privileged castes/ethnic groups in Nepal.

Data collection The study used both primary and secondary sources of data (i.e., a literature review). Five types of primary data were collected according to the research questions (see Annex 1 for detail data types and sources), namely, data related to:

l Access to productive resources and incentivesl Links between forest ecosystem management and gender power relationsl Gendered participation and power relations within CBNRM institutionsl Behavior and attitudes of NRM actorsl Links between women’s indigenous knowledge of biodiversity conservation and their

leadership position

18

For the interviews and focus group discussions, open-ended questionnaires and interview checklists were developed in English language and translated into Nepali language for use in the field. As different types of data were collected using different methods, the interview checklists used were different for each method (see Annexes 4–9). The primary sources of data were in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews and field observations in the community at the district and national levels:

l In-depth interviews: Twenty-five in-depths interviews were conducted with female and male chairpersons (current and former) and user group members of the selected CBNRM institutions in local level. The focus of the interviews was to explore the experiences and agency of the grassroots leaders with regards to leading CBNRM institutions as characterized by their diverse socio-cultural, environmental and development trajectories. In addition, three in-depth interviews took place with district-level stakeholders, including female and male leaders working in conservation and community forestry. The objective was to identify the factors that hinder and support female and male users to become leaders and the interplay of power between (and among) women and men within institutions.

l Focus group discussions: Twenty-three focus group discussions were conducted with female and male members of CBNRM institutions, separately and jointly, in order to explore issues of women’s leadership development from institutional and socio-cultural perspectives. The FGDs also played an important role in identifying gender-differentiated knowledge about the use and conservation of biodiversity resources.

l Key informant interviews: Key informant interviews took place mostly with district- and national-level NRM stakeholders and included four interviews with community people. At the community level, interviews with key resource persons (e.g., female health leaders, former chairpersons of CFUGs) took place to verify the data generated from the in-depth interviews and FGDs. The focus of the key informant interviews at the district level was to ascertain the perspective and level of awareness of forest/conservation stakeholders on the government’s GESI policy and their interest and capacity to address gender issues and promote women’s leadership in the NRM sector. A total of 22 respondents from 11 state and non-state actors were consulted. The state actors included forest and conservation institutions and the non-state actors consisted of non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations working in the forest sector (see Annex 2). At the national level, key informant interviews were held with senior technical and social experts, policy makers and decision-makers from the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Hariyo Ban Program consortium partners, and NGOs, civil society organizations and development organizations working in the forest sector. Eleven institutions were consulted in order to identify policy and implementation opportunities and gaps in terms of the promotion of the GESI Strategy and women’s leadership in the forest sector.

l Field observations: The study drew on participant observations at the community level to capture the indigenous knowledge of women and men on the use and management of biodiversity resources in a particular ecosystem and to understand their gender-differentiated roles and responsibilities in an informal way. In addition to these observations, the researchers made field notes after each meeting or interview, which allowed them to record their feelings and insights during the field work (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The focus of the field notes was on recording the researchers’ self-awareness including what they knew, how they knew, how they perceived the interviewees, how the respondents perceived the researchers after each interview, direct quotations from people, and descriptions of the events observed (Patton 2002).

19

A total of 23 FGDs, 25 in-depth interviews and 4 key informant interviews were conducted at the community level. In addition, 25 people were interviewed at the district level and 11 at the national level (Table 2). The types of organizations consulted at the district and national levels are given in Annexes 2 and 3.

Table 2: Interviews types at different levels

Interview typesCommunity level

District stakeholders

National stakeholders

Total no. of interviewsNRM executive

membersNRM user group

members

In-depth interviews 20 5 3 0 28

Key informant interviews 2 2 22 11 37

Focus group interviews (community level) - - - - 23

Total 22 7 25 11 88

CBNRM institutions studiedCBNRM institutions were the main unit of study and can be broken down into three types: those operating in community forests, those in buffer zones, and those in conservation areas. At the community level, seven different types of CBNRM institutions were studied: Community forest user groups (CFUGs), conservation area management committees (CAMCs), conservation area user groups (CAUGs); buffer zone community forest user groups (BZCFUGs); buffer zone management committees (BZMCs); buffer zone user committees (BZUCs); buffer zone user groups (BZUGs).

At least four CBNRM institutions were selected in each of the five study districts based on the following criteria:

l distance from the district headquarters (close to and far away from)l representation of caste/ethnic groups, including disadvantaged groups [e.g., ex-kamaiyas

(bonded laborers), ethnic minorities, Dalits]l led by women and men (past and present)l representation from mixed CFUGs, women-only CFUGs in community forests; BZMCs,

BZUCs, and BZUGs in buffer zones of protect areas; and CAUGs in conservation areas l resource rich in terms of forest area managed and forest and conservation revenuel more than 10 years experience in CBNRM (including period after CBNRM founded and

started forest protection and before handover)

In total, 35 institutions were interviewed at the community level involved in the management of community forests, buffer zone forests and conservation areas in the TAL and CHAL districts (Table 3).

Table 3: Number of CBNRM institutions consulted during the study period

CBNRM group AcronymTAL district CHAL district

TotalBardiya Kailali Chitwan Kaski Mustang

Community forest user group CFUG 3 5 4 7 NA 19

Conservation area management committee CAMC NA NA NA 2 2 4

Conservation area user group CAUG NA NA 0 NA 5 5

Buffer zone community forest user group BZCFUG 1 NA 2 NA 0 3

Buffer zone management committee BZMC 0 NA 1 NA 0 1

Buffer zone user committee BZUC 1 NA 1 NA 0 2

Buffer zone user group BZUG 1 NA 0 NA 0 1

Total 6 5 8 9 7 35

NA = Not applicable

20

Composition of respondents Sixty-five respondents were consulted for the in-depth and key informant interviews in the field, as well as at the district and national levels. The composition of respondents by gender and caste/ethnicity is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Composition of respondents to in-depth and key informant

interviews by gender and caste/ethnicity

Respondents by gender Dalits Janajatis Advantaged caste/ethnic groups Muslim Total

Men 7 11 17 1 36

Women 3 12 14 0 29

Total 10 23 31 1 65

% of total 15 35 48 2 100

In addition, 222 respondents were consulted for the 23 grassroots FGDs. More women than men participated in the FGDs (Table 5). By caste/ethnicity, 9% of participants in the FGDs were Dalits, 46% were janajatis (excluding Newars) and 45% were from advantaged caste/ethnic groups (Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars).

Table 5: Participants of focus group discussions by gender

Type of FGD No. of FGDsNo. of participants

Women Men Total

Women only 9 75 0 75

Men only 7 0 52 52

Mixed 7 44 51 95

Total no. 23 119 103 222

% of total 54 46 100

Data analysisThe respondents’ narratives collected from the field work were documented in a hard copy, after which they were categorized into different themes in order to ascertain patterns in the responses on issues around the quality of participation, access to resources and barriers to women’s leadership development in CBNRM institutions. Some qualitative data were categorized and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software in order to ascertain the pattern of responses on critical issues. Data related to the role of power and power relations in CBNRM institutions and gender-differentiated knowledge of biodiversity conservation and management were analyzed qualitatively. The results are presented in the form of descriptions, diagrams, matrixes and flow charts. Field notes were used for primary data analysis.

Study teamThe study team consisted of foresters (4), biologist (1), sociologist (1), and gender/NRM experts (2) with extensive expertise and experience in social, institutional, policy and development issues in relation to forestry, climate change and conservation in Nepal. While 5 members (2 men; 3 women) constituted the core research team, another 3 members (all women) guided and assisted the team on a voluntary basis on behalf of W-LCN. Dr. Manohara Khadka (chairperson of W-LCN, Aug 2011-Sept 2014), provided technical guidance throughout the study, including during the analysis, review and finalization of the research report.

21

The study team spent 33 days in the field, 15 days for interviews and a document search in Kathmandu, and 25 days for data management and verification, the literature review, data analysis and report preparation. The study team began data collection in Kaski district followed by Mustang, Chitwan, Kailali and Bardiya.

Challenges and limitationsThe study team experienced several challenges and limitations. Adjustments had to be made to the selection of CBNRM institutions according to the situation in the field. The key challenges faced by the study team were:

l Study duration: The study duration was too short to cover minimum 4 in-depth interviews, 4 FGDs and 2 key informants’ interviews per CBNRM institutions (it was planned to cover 6-9 CBNRM institution per district) over 5 days, including travel. Because of the remoteness of one study districts (e.g., Mustang), the study team had to spend over 11 days in data collection.

l Study season: The study was carried out during the monsoon season, which prevented researchers from travelling to the more remote communities, especially in Bardiya and Kailali. Excessive flooding in Bardiya and Kailali during the study period affected the selection of CBNRMs. The study team was unable to go to Rajapur and Daulatpur VDCs) in Bardiya due to the risks associated with water hazard. Hence, the study team, in consultation with the Hariyo Ban Program field staff, had to select other CFUGs outside the TAL corridor to complete the study.

l Capacity and interest of study team: Finding field researchers with an interest in gender issues in NRM and an adequate conceptual and methodological understanding of qualitative research was one of the major challenges encountered by this study. W-LCN had to spend a lot of time mentoring researchers and following up to ensure that research ethics were adhered to and that data integrity was maintained. Local resource persons had to be hired to support researchers in the field. A lesson that can be drawn from this is that Nepal’s forestry sector is in need of developing and mobilizing female and male researchers with sensitivity, expertise and an interest in gender and social equity issues in NRM, as well as an understanding of development processes and exclusion in Nepal.

l Representativeness of CBNRM institutions: The CBNRM institutions studied do not necessarily represent all institutions in the country, or the Hariyo Ban Program. However, the quality and rigorousness of data analysis presented in this report provides a good overview of the opportunities and issues with regards to recognizing women’s agency and engaging them in leadership and decision-making positions in CBNRM institutions, and the implications of this for the sustainable management of natural resources, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction.

22

23

Chapter 4Overview of study districts and

gender situation

24

25

The study was conducted in Mustang, Kaski and Chitwan districts in the CHAL and Bardiya and Kailali districts in the TAL. This chapter gives an overview of the study districts and the gender situation in the study districts.

MustangMustang is a sparsely populated district in the high-mountains of the north-central part of Nepal. More than 98% of the total land in the district is rangelands (Verma and Khadka forthcoming). The district consists of 7 VDCs with 31 settlements, of which 2 VDCs, Chusang and Jhong, were included in the study. The district is divided broadly into two regions, Lower Mustang and Upper Mustang, and the study VDCs represents both. Some of the characteristics that make Mustang unique from other parts of Nepal are its places of archaeological significance, Tibetan cultural practices, sacred places, and indigenous governance practices, such as the appointment of mukhiyas (village leaders) and a local monarch who governs local development and resolves local conflicts (such as over property and physical abuse). Mustang lies in the rain shadow of the towering Himalayas, which makes it extremely dry with annual rainfall of around 250 mm (Lama 2011). Crop cultivation in the area is very limited due to the scarcity of water, lack of irrigation, low temperatures for long periods, and low or no rainfall (Lama 2011). Animal husbandry combined with mountain agriculture, financial remittances and tourism are the main sources of livelihoods in the study area.

KaskiKaski district is rich in biodiversity and has landscapes and natural resources with tourism value. It has diverse vegetation types ranging from sub-tropical, temperate and sub-alpine to alpine. Land in this district can be divided according to land use practices into forests (43.81%), agriculture (20.29%), rangelands (14.48%), shrub land (1.11%), settlements (0.53%), and mineral deposits and other (19.78%) (District Forest Office, Kaski 2012). Around 30% of total forests are managed by 468 CFUGs (ibid.). Chilaune, katus, utis, oak, gurans, bhojpatra and dhupi are the key timber species and bamboo, nigalo, lokta, chiraito and dalchini are the main non-timber forest products. The monitoring of 350 CFUGs revealed that only 36% of the total CFUGs tend to be active in terms of holding regular meetings, engaging in forest and organizational management according to their operational plan and constitution, and auditing and annual report submission to the District Forest Office (ibid.). Agriculture, animal husbandry, labor migration and tourism are the main sources of people’s livelihoods.

ChitwanChitwan district lies between 141 to 1,945 meters above sea level. It has an area of around 2,238 square kilometers, 40.60% of which is covered by national park. Lowland areas occupy around 39% of the total land and around 21% of the land is covered by hills. Chitwan has 33 VDCs and 2 municipalities. According to land use categorization, 62.92% of the total land is covered by forests including national parks, 26% by agriculture, 6% by shrub and grass lands, 4.92% by sand and gravel, and 0.15% by settlements (DDC, Chitwan 2002). Over 42% of the forest in Chitwan is sal forest. The majority of the district’s population is comprised of immigrants coming from hill districts and wage laborers from Bihar and Uttarpradesh, India. By caste/ethnicity, Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars constitute the major social groups followed by Dalits and indigenous peoples (e.g., Chepangs, Tharus, Tamangs, Magars, Danuwars, Limbus, Rais, Gurungs, Sunuwars, Sherpas and Kumals). Agricultural production, animal husbandry, forest products, and tourism are the main sources of livelihood.

KailaliKailali district is located in the Far Western Development Region of Nepal. It has 42 VDCs and 2 municipalities. The altitude in Kailali ranges from 109 to 1,950 meters above sea level. Over 79% of population relies on agriculture as their main source of livelihood. Ethnic groups such as Tharus

26

constitute the dominant population (43.7%), followed by Brahmins and Chhetris (28%), and Dalits (9%). Raji and Shonaha are ethnic minorities. Nearly a quarter (64 out of a total of 264) of the CFUGs in Kailali is ‘women only’. Around 57.4% of the total land is covered by forest and shrub land (ISRSC 2012). The forests contain sal, khair, sisoo, asna, haroo, baroo, and chirpine species. Cane and sabai grasses are the main non-timber forest products which constitute the main source of livelihoods of socioeconomically disadvantaged people.

BardiyaBardiya district is located in the Mid Western Development Region of Nepal and consists of 32 VDCs and 1 municipality. The district is rich in terms of biodiversity and culture. Indigenous ethnic groups such as Tharus and caste groups such as Brahmins, Chhetris and Thakuris are the main social groups. In Bardiya, 12.5% (35 out of a total of 278) CFUGs are ‘women only’. About 55% of CFUGs in the district have their own community or office building (Luintel et al. 2009). The district lies at between 138 and 1,279 meters above sea level and has a tropical to temperate climate. Approximately half (52.9%) of the land is covered by forests and shrubs (ISRSC 2012), with sal forest being the dominant forest type covering 82% of the total forest area (District Forest Office, Bardiya 2012). Cane, kurilo and sabai grasses are the major non-timber forest products.

Gender situation in the study areaIn all five study districts, women constitute the main workforce for agricultural production and household activities, including for the collection and use of natural resources. Men tend to be dominant in public services, wage labor in urban and foreign countries, trading, agribusiness (e.g., the production of apples in Mustang) and tourism. There is an unequal gender division of labor in land-based livelihood activities. For example, women work longer hours than men – 16 hours for women and 13 hours for men – in Mustang (Khadka 2011). Deep-rooted social perceptions and norms in relation to gender roles (the home is a woman’s domain and the market place and public spheres are a man’s) limit women’s participation in economic activities.

There is also a gender gap in education. As shown in Table 6, literacy rates for boys (aged 5 and above) are higher than for girls in all of the study districts. Women in Mustang, Bardiya and Kailali have lower literacy rates and education levels than men. In Kailali and Bardiya, for example, girls from marginalized ethnic groups have particularly low literacy rates as they drop out school in order to assist their mothers in household activities (focus group discussion with a women’s group in Kailali and Bardiya).

The gender gap is lower in Chitwan and Kaski in terms of graduate level education. Similarly, gender inequality is also marked in land ownership; only 3.6% of households in Mustang, 5.7% in Kailali, and 8.6% in Bardiya have women’s ownership of land, which is low compared to the national average of 10% (Central Bureau of Statistics 2012).

Table 6: Socioeconomic composition by gender in the study area

Landscape DistrictLiteracy rate% % of population literate

(graduate or equivalent)% of households with

house and land in women’s nameWomen Men Women Men

CHAL Mustang 55.8 75.4 0.5 2.7 3.6

Kaski 75.4 90.1 2.4 4.5 10.1

Chitwan 70.7 83.9 1.6 3 11.6

TAL Bardiya 57.9 73.5 0.3 1 8.6

Kailali 57.1 76.2 0.6 1.6 5.7

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics 2012

27

Table 7: Population dynamics in the study area

District Total households

Absent households

Total population Absent population (% of total)

Women Men Women Men

Chitwan 132,345 38,423 (29%) 300,897 279,087 2.2 15.7

Kaski 125,459 40,531 (32.3%) 255,713 236,385 3.5 20.4

Mustang 3,305 871 (26.4%) 6,359 7,093 6.9 13.9

Bardiya 83,147 17,966 (21.6) 221,496 205,080 3.0 10.6

Kailali 142,413 34,562 (24.3) 397,292 378,417 3.1 13.3

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics 2012

The out-migration of men is another driver of socioeconomic change in the study areas. Over 20% of the total households in the study districts have at least one member absent or living out of country (Central Bureau of Statistics 2012). While Kaski has more absentee households, Bardiya has a relatively low number of absentee households compared with other districts (see Table 7). By gender, more men than women migrate to foreign countries and urban areas. Women’s migration is less in Chitwan district than in other districts. Existing literature (Adhikari and Hobley 2011) in Nepal highlights the negative consequences of the out-migration of men on gender roles, which exacerbates women’s workload in agriculture production and natural resource management. How men’s out-migration has impacted on women’s access to income, community leadership, and adaptive capacity to cope with the negative effects of climate change are emerging issues for future research.

28

29

Chapter 5Participation and leadership in

CBNRM institutions

Community learning and action center (CLAC) women discussing about governance issues in CFUG in Lohi Aare Khotreke CFUG, Bandipur - 7, Tanahun district.

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program/ Deepa Shrestha

30

31

This chapter presents the findings of the study in terms of women and men’s participation and leadership in CBNRM institutions including the trends in women’s leadership, perceived leadership qualities, leadership selection criteria, the background of leaders, initiatives of women and men leaders, and perceived barriers to women’s leadership. Membership of executive committeesWhile the CBNRM groups in the study districts tend to include both women and men from different social groups in their executive committees, their level of representation varies. For example, more men than women are represented in CAMCs and BZUCs, but there were no women on the buffer zone management councils (BZM councils) – the key decision-making body in the buffer zone management structure at the landscape level (see Table 8). In contrast, women make up at least 30% of the total membership of CFUGs executive committees in the study area. While women’s membership in CFUGs committees in Chitwan is lower (30%) which is equivalent to the national average (30%), they represent more than 50% in Kailali and Bardiya.

By caste/ethnicity, janajatis (or ethnic groups) outnumber Dalits and advantaged castes in the CAMCs and conservation area management councils (CAM councils). However, janajatis are under represented in CFUGs and buffer zone management structures compared to advantaged caste/ethnic groups such as Brahmins and Chhetris.

Table 8: Composition of executive committees (average %) by gender and caste/ethnicity in the study area

District CBNRM groupExecutive com-

mittee mem-bers (no.)

Membership of exec-utive committee by

gender (%)

By caste/ethnicity (% of total membership)

Women Men Dalits Ethnic groups Advantaged castes

Kaski CFUG 468 37 63 7 14 79

CAMC 17 20 80 3 73 23

CAUG NA NA NA NA NA NA

CAM unit/council 3 13 87 7 66 27

Mustang CAUG NA NA NA NA NA NA

CAMC 16 13 87 3 80 17

CAM unit/council 2 13 87 0 80 20

Chitwan CFUG 64 30 70 5 25 70

BZCFUG (handover) NA NA NA NA NA NA

BZMC 1 0 100 4 13 83

BZUC 13 31 69 9 18 73

BZUG* 1779 NA NA NA NA NA

Bardiya CFUG 278 51 49 11 35 54

BZCFUG (handover) 59 NA NA NA NA NA

BZMC 1 0 100 0 21 79

BZUC 15 20 80 0 40 60

BZUG* 262 NA NA NA NA NA

Kailali CFUG 257 55 45 4 47 49

Source: District Forest Office, Kaski report, 2068/69 BS (2011/12 AD); ACAP database, 2013; field study 2013

*including BZUGs from whole national park

NA= Not available

32

Despite women being represent to some extent on the executive bodies of the various CBNRM institutions at the village, VDC, regional and transboundary levels, men are disproportionately represented in the leadership positions in these institutions.

Women’s leadership in CBNRM groups More men than women hold leadership positions across all CBNRM groups in the study area. As Figure 2 reveals, women make up only 12% of the total leadership in CFUGs executive committees in the study districts. This figure includes ‘women only’ CFUGs. Of the 951 mixed CFUGs (Department of Forest, CF Database, 2013) in study areas, only 67 CFUGs (28 in Kaski; 24 in Bardiya; 15 in Kailali; and none in Chitwan) had female leaders. This means that only around 7% of the total leaders of mixed groups are women.

In relation to CAMCs, the situation is even worse with women making up only 6% of the total leadership of CAMCs in the study districts. Of the 33 CAMCs in Kaski and Mustang district, only 2 had women leaders (both in Mustang). Of the 16 CAMCs in Mustang, 2 had a female chairperson. Only 1 CAMC in Kaski (i.e., in Machapuchre VDC) had a woman secretary, after more than 2 decades of conservation practices in that VDC.

The BZMCs and BZUCs responsible for planning and implementing conservation and development programs with national park revenue have been led by men since the implementation of the buffer zone management regime in the mid-1990s.

Figure 2: Composition of executive committees (%) by gender in the study area

Source: Field study 2013

Trends in leadershipMale forest users held the leadership role in most of the CBNRM institutions studied. As Table 9 shows, 6 out of the 18 CFUGs in the study areas were led by women at the time of the study. Thotnekhola and Patlekhola CFUGs in Kaski have selected female chairpersons as a way of managing conflicts that have emerged among the male members of the executive committee. However, the leadership has reverted from women to men in two CFUGs – Sankhoriya in Kaski and Gauri Mahila in Bardiya. Women’s time constraints was cited as one of the main driving forces for this change in leadership, as women have little time to spend on activities outside the home.

33

Table 9: Composition of leadership of CFUGs by gender in the study area

District CFUGLeadership phases**

RemarksPhase I(Until 1993)

Phase II(1994–98)

Phase III(1999–04)

Phase IV(2005–09)

Phase V(2010 to date)

Kaski Ghosteghat Woman Woman Woman Woman Woman Women-only CFUG

Lohoshepakha Man Man Man Man Man -

Patlekhola Man Man Man Man Woman -

Pragatishil Man Man Man Woman Woman -

Sankhoriya Man Woman Woman Woman Man -

Thotnekhola Man Man Man Man Woman -

Thulodhunga Man Man Man Man Man -

Bhimbali Man Man Man Man Man -

Kalika Pipaltar Man Man Man Man Man -

Ranikhola Man Man Man Man Man -

Bardiya Gauri Mahila Woman Woman Woman Woman Man Women-only CFUG

Janajagriti Man Man Man Man Man -

Janakarelia Man Man Man Man Man -

Kailali Janakalyan Man Man Man Man Man -

Janashakti Man Man Man Man Man -

Khotena Bhura Man Man Man Man Man -

Rannitappa Woman Woman Woman Woman Woman Women-only CFUG

Shivaparbati Woman Woman Woman Woman Woman Women-only CFUG

Source: Field study 2013

** This includes the period before and after the handover of the community forest to the CFUG (i.e., when the

group was a forest protection committee).

In conservation areas, it is mostly men who are leading the grassroots conservation institutions (Table 10). However, Jhong CAMC in Mustang has a female chairperson. The Annapurna Conservation Area Programme’s (ACAP’s) facilitation to make CAMCs gender inclusive together with the increased out-migration of men and youth has lead to the nomination of women from advantaged social classes as chairpersons. However, as discussed later, empowering disadvantaged women for community leadership is another issue.

Table 10: Composition of leadership in conservation areas by gender in the study area

Districts Conservation area institutions

Leadership by gender

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

Until 1993 1994–98 1999–04 2005–09 2010 to date

Mustang Chusang CAMC Man Man Man Man Man

Jhong CAMC Man Man Man Man Woman

Kaski Lwang CAMC Man Man Man Man Man

Sardikhola CAMC Man Man Man Man Man

Chitwan Barandabhar BZUC Man Man Man Man Man

BZMC Man Man Man Man Man

Bardiya BZMC Man Man Man Man Man

Shreeram Nagar BZUC Man Man Man Man Man

Source: Field study 2013

34

Perceptions of leadership qualitiesWhen asked what a leader looks like in CBNRM, female and male respondents mentioned a number of characteristics, but placed different weight on these. Most women and men considered those with experience as a social worker in their community and the time to perform community roles as good leaders (Table 11). In addition to these characteristics, men considered the person’s ability to control timber smuggling as an important trait of a leader and women said that a leader should be sincere, fair, and transparent in institutional activities and processes. Men also considered education, awareness of community forests and conservation areas, and the ability to coordinate with district line agencies and service providers to be important qualities of a CBNRM leader.

Table 11: Perceived qualities of a CBNRM leader by gender

What does a leader look like in your institution? Men (no.) Women (no.)

Social worker in community 41 33

Able to give time to community activities 26 25

Educated 24 17

Sincere and fair 1 11

Aware of community forests and/or conservation areas 15 11

Able to coordinate with district line agencies and service providers 15 10

Transparent in organizational activities 1 10

Economically strong, as leading a community institution is costly 6 9

Able to control timber smuggling 25 0

Source: Field study 2013

Leadership selection criteriaWho is selected or elected as a CBNRM leader depends on the criteria and processes that CBNRM institutions set for the position. In the study area, the members of CBNRM institutions gave importance to a variety of criteria. Nonetheless, none of the institutions (e.g., CFUGs, CAMCs, BZCFUGs, BZUCs or BZMCs) had any affirmative action mechanisms in place to bring women into leadership positions. As shown in Table 12, all of the CBNRM institutions interviewed gave greater weight to a candidate’s ability to give time for community activities, experience as a social worker with a good network among forest and conservation stakeholders at the local and district levels, and education level. None of the respondents from these institutions mentioned women or men’s roles in, or knowledge of, biodiversity conservation as an important criterion for selecting a chairperson.

Table 12: Leadership criteria in CBNRM groups in the study area

Criteria for selecting leader% response within groups

CFUGs CAMCs BZCFUGs BZUCs BZMCs

Able to give time 100 100 100 100 100

Educated 90 75 100 100 100

Able to coordinate with other agencies 78 50 67 67 100

Social worker with good social capital 83 100 100 100 100

Role in, and knowledge of, biodiversity conservation 0 0 0 0 0

Political intervention 11 0 67 67 100

Previous roles in executive committees 56 50 100 67 100

Ability to participate in forest patrolling 61 0 0 0 0

Able to manage conflict within group 11 0 0 0 0

Source: Field study 2013

35

The criteria for selecting a leader varied among the different types of CBNRM institutions. For example, political intervention and distribution of seats as per political representation was a strong criterion for selecting members, as well as the chairperson, in the executive committees of all types of the CBNRM institutions studieds (e.g. BZMCs, BZUCs and CFUGs). Unlike Kaski district, political influence was a strong criterion in the selection of leaders in CFUGs in Chitwan, Bardiya and Kailali districts. In addition, the buffer zone structures and CFUGs favor individuals who have worked as a member of an executive committee in the past. The ability to participate in forest patrolling was a high priority among CFUGs in these districts, which is discouraging women from running for leadership positions in CFUGs. Initiatives of female and male CFUG leadersIt is interesting to note that the types of activities and innovations initiated by female and male leaders of CFUGs are different. While female chairpersons are more interested in supporting the poor and female forest users, male leaders tend to be interested in social development in general, but not the promotion of gender and social equity specifically. As case studies from Kaski show, female leaders invest CFUG funds in income generating activities, such as the promotion of cash crops (e.g., broom grass) within community forests for Dalit households and nurseries for single women (Thotnekhola CFUG, Sarangkot). A female chair in Patlekhokla CFUG, Hansapur allocated NPR 0.1 million out of a NPR 2 million budget for a village road in order to connect the village to the main road. Women’s efforts to seek resources for the benefit of women as well as the community are also evident in TAL areas. In Janajagriti CFUG, Bardiya, a Dalit female chair decided to invest NPR 7,000 for a poor woman student to study to become a junior technician in agriculture. This chair was also able to mobilize CFUG funds to provide low-interest loans of NPR 40,000–80,000 per person (at 2% per month) to people migrating abroad for work. She also coordinated with a bel squash factory to provide employment opportunities for women, especially single women. Similarly, the female chairperson of the Shiva Parbati women’s CFUG in Kailali has been running an income-generating activity for poor women (the exchange of baby goats) and offers interest free loans to poor households. District stakeholders, especially the staff of the district forest offices, acknowledge the important role played by women in grassroots forest governance and protection. Women in CFUGs have a reputation for being honest and hardworking.

Financial transparency is very effective in the women-only CFUGs. Community forest conditions are also better in those [women-only] CFUGs compared to mixed CFUGs. (Field note, 21 June 2013 – shared by DFO in TAL)

When men were asked what new activities and processes they initiated during their leadership, most male chairpersons mentioned providing CFUG funds for road construction, the construction of fire lines, to hire school teachers and to construct or repair community buildings as their most important achievements.

Background of leadersThe study also explored why CBNRM institutions in the study areas selected former and current leaders to leadership positions and their socioeconomic and political background. The criteria forest users mentioned earlier confirms the responses gathered in the individual in-depth interviews. Forest users who were village leaders (e.g., VDC or ward chair), social workers (e.g., youth club chairpersons or women’s health workers), government employees (e.g., retired army personnel, teachers and health workers), relatives of the then chairperson, people with political connections, and people from economically well-off households and socially powerful were more likely to be elected or selected as chairpersons. The Dalit men and non-Dalit women who were working as chairpersons came from family backgrounds with a relatively good social status. This means those chairperson who are Dalit men and non-Dalit women are not the poor, but are relatively elite because they come from families

36

with a relatively good social status. People who are in a position of influence and have better access to information, social networks, and economic resources are more likely to be elected or selected as leaders in CBNRM institutions.

Perceived barriers to women’s leadershipDuring the in-depth interviews with female and male members of executive committees of CBNRM institutions, it was revealed that they viewed the barriers to women’s leadership of CBNRM institutions with different degrees of importance. However, both women and men see time constraints due to women’s increased workload at the household level, including farming and the collection of natural resources, as an important barrier to women’s participation in community leadership (see Table 13). While men cited inadequate capacity of women as another important barrier, women saw lack of family support and traditional social perceptions of gender roles as the most crucial factors hindering them from taking part in leadership roles. A few women, especially from lowland areas (Chitwan, Bardiya and Kailali) also mentioned women’s lack of own transport (motorbike) as limiting them from travelling to the district headquarters and villages with road accessibility for conservation and development-related work. Motorbikes are a common means of transportation in the lowland areas and can save a great amount of time spent on public transport. Men are far more likely than women to have access to a motorbike, which saves them a lot of time when visiting the district headquarters and establishing networks and coordinating with forest stakeholders.

Table 13: Gender-differentiated perceptions (% within gender) of barriers to women’s leadership in CBNRM

institutions

Barrier Men (%) Women (%)

Women’s workload 93 100

Lack of family support for women's empowerment 31 89

Traditional social perception of gender roles 39 78

Lack of education among women 62 61

Lack of access to information for women 15 57

Women's suppression at home 23 50

Lack of trust from men 23 50

No organizational priority on women's leadership development 47 50

Lack of financial resources 8 44

Lack of physical assets (e.g., motorbike) 15 33

Threat of legal action and gender-based violence 2 30

Inadequate capacity of women 85 11

Source: Field study 2013

The ways that women and men perceive the problems of women’s leadership development in CBNRM are confirmed by the analysis of their narratives and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

37

Chapter 6 Power dynamics in CBNRM

institutions

38

39

This chapter presents the findings of the study in terms of the power dynamics in the three different types of community based natural resource management structures: buffer zone, conservation area and community forestry.

Buffer zone management structuresThe process of inclusion and participation in decision-making by gender in buffer zone management structures is different from in community forestry and conservation areas. As shown in Figure 3, the institutional structure of the buffer zone is not gender inclusive at the higher-level decision-making bodies, although both women and men are organized into user groups at the settlement or ward level. Female and male members of households living in and around national parks form mixed or women-only user groups at the settlement or ward level. Representatives from these settlement-based community organizations then form user committees at the Ilaka (local unit of administration) or VDC level. According to the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, 1999, each user group has to nominate female and male members for the formation of the user committee at the VDC or Ilaka level. In practice, more men are nominated than women and men constitute the majority during the selection/formation of user committees. As only a few women are represented during the selection of user committees, they have less chance of winning votes or support for the position of chairperson, unless men vote for women, which is unusual. Most importantly, the traditional criteria (i.e., educated, capable of coordinating with line agencies, and able to give time) set by users filters out women from being elected as user committee chairpersons at the VDC level.

BZUC

BZMCMale leaders

Male leaders

Female and male leaders

BZUC

HH HH HH HHHH HHHH HH

BZUG BZUG BZUG BZUG

Individuals at settlement level.

Representatives from BZUGs from 9 wards / clusters – VDC level.

Ward wise or cluster wise women’s or men’s groups or mixed groups.

VDC wise representatives from

BZUCs, representative from DDC, park warden at transboundary level.

Figure 3: Gender inclusion in buffer zone management structures in study area (Chitwan and Bardiya)

As provided in the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, 1999, there can be up to 21 user committees in each buffer zone area. While Chitwan National Park has 21 user committees, Bardiya National Park has 19. The chairpersons of these user committees form the buffer zone management council (BZM council) at the park level, of which the chief of park (park warden) is the member secretary. As almost all chairpersons of the user committees are men and all men have voting rights to elect the BZM council and its leader, the chance of a women being included in the BZM council is negligible.

40

The BZM council, which is the apex body in the buffer zone management structure, is entrusted with mobilizing the share of park revenue to be used for conservation and development activities in the buffer zone. The council has an influential role in decisions over park revenue for conservation and development activities implemented by user committees and user groups. BZM councils have been run exclusively by men since the implementation of the Buffer Zone Management Regulation in 1996 and the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines in 1999. As women are excluded from the leadership and other key positions of the user committees and BZM councils, it is not surprising that the decision-making power and processes of buffer zone management structures remain exclusively in the hands of men. As a result, conservation and development programs designed and implemented at the VDC and transboundary level do not necessarily address women’s needs and concerns.

Conservation area management structuresGender exclusion is also apparent in conservation area management structures. The existing structure of ACAP is shown in Figure 4. Although women are included in the ward level sub-committees and groups (such as mother’s groups), their representation is very low in the VDC-level CAMCs. As at April 2013, there were 17 CAMCs in Kaski and 16 in Mustang. Of these, only two CAMCs in Mustang had female chairs. Similarly, there are 2 unit management councils in Mustang and 3 in Kaski, none of which have a female chair.

The CAMCs consists of 9 ward-level representatives (one from each of the 9 wards that make up a VDC), 5 nominees representing Dalits, women and disadvantaged groups, and 1 VDC chairperson (or the VDC secretary in the absence of an elected VDC). According to interviews with CAMC chairpersons, most CAMCs have only one woman as a member, who is nominated as the women’s representative. The highest position occupied by a woman in the conservation area management structure is the position of secretary (of the recently formed Machapuchre CAMC in Kaski) – and this is after 2 decades of conservation and development efforts by ACAP.

Even if women are included in CAMCs as members, their inclusion in the Ilaka (local unit of administration)/unit management council, the apex body in conservation area management, is nominal. It seems that only one unit management council in Kaski (Lwang) has recently elected 2 female members; this is out of 57 CAMCs in the 5 districts of ACAP. Women’s inclusion in leadership positions in CAMCs and unit management councils is a long way off. As discussed later, there are several reasons why women’s inclusion in decision-making positions is difficult in conservation area management structures.

CAMC (15 members)

Unit management

council

Mostly male leaders

Mostly male leaders

Female and male members

Sub committee

Sub committee

Sub committee

Sub committee

CAMC (15 members)

At unit management council level (2 representatives from

each CAMC)

Representatives from 9 wards in VDC, 5 nominated members

(women, dalit, indigenous people and disadvantaged groups), and VDC chair secretary – VDC level.

Ward wise women’s development groups, forest

management groups, tourism sub committees, mother’s groups, father’s groups.

Figure 4: Gender inclusion in conservation area management structures in study area (Kaski and Mustang)

41

Likewise, BZUCs and BZMCs in Chitwan and Bardiya National Park, and CAMCs and unit management councils in the ACAP area have decision-making power over the use, management and development of conservation resources, including financial resources. However, none of the female respondents we interviewed expressed their awareness of the sources or status of financial resources in these institutions.

Community forestry management structuresUnlike CAMCs and BZMCs, the institutional structure of CFUGs tends to be relatively more inclusive, as provision is made for female membership in both the executive committees and the settlement-level committees. Women can also be elected or selected as members of the executive committee. In addition, the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations, 2008 (2065 BS) recognizes women as forest users in the definition of users in the sense that each user household should provide the name of female and male members of the household during CFUG formation.

HH

Settlement level sub

committee

CFUG executive

committee

Settlement level sub committee

Female and male

representatives

Female and male users

Female and male members

as “users”HHHHHH

Figure 5: Gender inclusion in community forestry management structures (Kaski, Bardiya, Kailali and Chitwan)

The sub-committees and advisory committees in CFUGs are also reinforcing unequal power relations. The formation and operation of sub-committees within CFUGs is common practice in Bardiya, Kailali and Chitwan. Unlike CFUGs in Kaski, the CFUGs in these districts tend to manage relatively large community forest areas with good sources of forest revenue. These CFUGs have advisory committees and sub-committees for finance and monitoring, of which men constitute the main members and hold the coordinator positions. Former chairpersons, representatives of VDCs, members who are literate, and people with good social networks and linkages with district forest and conservation stakeholders are selected for these committees. None of these committees include women as important actors.

42

43

Chapter 7 Barriers to women’s leadership

Villager woman carrying grasses over head for livestocks in Halkhoriya Collaborative Forest Management Committee in Bara district

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program/ Deepa Shrestha

44

45

This chapter looks at the barriers to women’s leadership in CBNRM institutions in the study districts, which can be divided into three broad categories: barriers related to institutional capacity and governance of CBNRM institutions; barriers related to socio-cultural norms, perceptions and practices; and barriers related to external factors linked to the interests, capacity and resources of program/policy implementing actors.

Institutional barriers

Gender insensitive processes and criteria for selecting chairpersonThe criteria for selecting CBNRM leaders is techno-economic and political in the sense that the chairperson has to be able to deal with NRM stakeholders at all levels and to spare the time for community work. Both of these criteria are barriers to women’s leadership. CBNRM users select their leaders either by voting or consensus. Voting tends to be prominent in BZMCs, BZUCs and CFUGs with large financial resources. As women have weak social networks and are usually in a low position in political parties, it is not surprising that they are not selected as leaders in these institutional structures – especially as many of those voting and men. None of the committee members consider positive discrimination or affirmative action as an appropriate strategy for bringing women into leadership positions. Neither the community elites nor the program implementing actors on the ground have recognized the need to transform traditional gender roles and give female users the space to develop their leadership skills, which has implications for good governance in natural resource management.

Unequal power relations in CBNRM management structuresThe management structures of CBNRM institutions are reinforcing unequal power relations. Although women may participate at the lower levels of these structures, they tend to be excluded from leadership positions and from participation in, and leadership of, apex bodies. Although women are chairpersons in some CFUGs, men hold most of the leadership positions with the rationale that women have limited literacy and are unable to deal with forest offices and other stakeholders. Male committee members have been known to ‘blame’ female chairpersons for not being able to perform the leadership role effectively. Men are not happy supporting a female chairperson. At the same time, women feel that they are not able to properly lead CBNRM institutions due to their limited awareness, knowledge and leadership skills. Women’s limited access to information about funds, policies and other operational issues compared to men is also a barrier to their effective leadership.

Limited support from men in promoting women to leadership positionsMen can play a crucial role in empowering women, especially in bringing women into leadership positions. However, in practice, it is rare to see men playing such a role. In the CBNRM institutions studied, the men tended to be less interested in sharing power with women for political reasons. It is clear from the interviews with executive members in the buffer zone and conservation management areas that men hardly relegate power to women as chairpersons as they believe that to be a leader a woman must be competent, educated and able to give time. Men hardly challenge the traditional gender roles that limit women from being proactive within the household and at the community level, both politically and economically. For example, women’s increased workload in household activities is one of the crucial factors mentioned by almost all respondents interviewed as a barrier to women holding leadership positions in CBNRM institutions. However, men did not seem interested in sharing household work with women to enable them to do so. Even in educated families, women are compelled to do all of the household chores before participating in training and community meetings. When asked what needs to be done to increase women’s leadership and meaningful participation in their organization, the men opined that women themselves are responsible for securing leadership positions. In focus group discussions, female respondents were scared to tell their experiences and stories of inclusion/exclusion in their CFUGs in front of the male chairperson.

46

Lack of investment in women and their leadership developmentThe majority of CBNRM institutions studied paid little attention to investing in women’s capacity strengthening and gender-sensitive program design and implementation. These institutions generate income from a number of sources, such as the sale of forest products, users’ membership fees, fines and penalties, grants from national parks, conservation area revenue, and loan repayments. The sale of timber and non-timber forest products constitutes the main source of income, generating more than 60% of the total annual income in the CFUGs studied. The CFUGs in the CHAL in Chitwan district generate, on average, NPR 3.1 million (USD 31,100) annually from the sale of sal and sisoo timber and fuelwood (Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan 2012; Bhimbali CFUG, Chitwan 2012). In conservation areas, CAMCs generate income mostly from the sale of NTFPs such as nigalo and yarshagumba, as well as from tourism. In contrast, CBNRM institutions in buffer zones receive 30–50% of the total annual park revenue as grants, according to the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, 1999.

The total annual income of CBNRM institutions varies significantly by geographical region. For example, CFUGs in the Terai have more annual income than institutions in the mid-hills and high mountains (CECI 2000). The average annual income of CFUGs in the Terai, hill and mountain districts in the study areas was NPR 81,301, NPR 12,200 and NPR 8,201 (USD 838, 126 and 85), respectively (ibid., p 29).

CBNRM institutions spend their income on activities such as forest management, community development, capacity building, administration and income-generating activities, although expenditure patterns vary among districts. According to the audit reports of CFUGs, large parts of their income are spent on community development and forest management activities (see Table 14). Community development spending is focused on physical infrastructure, such as schools, electricity, drinking water, community housing, foot trails and temples. Expenditure on forest management includes operational plan revision, fire protection, salaries for forest watchers, cleaning and thinning, and plantation. The CFUGs in the Terai also spend funds on meetings and coordination allowances for members of their executive committee. In Chitwan, chairpersons and members of CFUGs are paid an allowance of NPR 700 and NPR 300 per meeting, respectively.

The CFUGs have mobilized their annual incomes in micro-credit schemes with a focus on assisting forest users in general in generating incomes. A total of 10 out of the 18 CFUGs studied have made provision in their operational plans for mobilizing community funds in the form of low-interest credit schemes and grants to the poorest households. However, none of the CFUGs make specific provision in their plans to facilitate women’s access to community funds for their socioeconomic and political empowerment. As Table 14 reveals, none of the CFUGs in Kaski, Bardiya, Kailali or Chitwan allocated and spent income on women’s leadership capacity building or enterprises that promote income generating activities for women. It was found that CFUGs in Chitwan district spent money on welfare-related activities, such as donations for religious activities, allowances for the elderly and disabled people, committee meetings and pregnant women. None of the expenses include investment in women and their capacity building, considering their disadvantaged situation in terms of economic and social power. Among the CFUGs studied, women-only CFUGs focused, to some extent, on pro-poor and gender-oriented programs. One out of four women-only CFUGs practiced equitable access to community resources and invested in girl’s education.

Women also received less in loans from CFUGs. Although there is a lack of sex-disaggregated data on micro-credit schemes, a study done in five districts of Nepal (Makawanpur, Dhading, Kaski, Tanahun and Myagdi) found that women receive a lower amount of loans from the CFUG funds than men, although micro-credit schemes did increase women’s access to financial resources (Pokharel et al. 2011).

47

Table 14: Average annual expenditure of CFUGs in the study area

District

Average annual expenditure of CFUGs (%)

Community development

Forest management

Income-generating activities Administration Capacity

strengthening Other

Kaski 42 32 22 2 2 0

Bardiya 33 18 26 4 9 12

Kailali 10.8 20.8 2.3 40.8 0 25.4

Chitwan 14 15 0.5 0.5 0 62.5*

Source: District Forest Office, Kaski; District Forest Office, Kailali, CFUGs audit reports from Bardiya and Chitwan

* In Chitwan, the category other includes expenses such as royalties to the government for the harvesting and selling of forest

products.

In buffer zones, a large amount of financial resources (30–50% of annual park revenue) are allocated to BZUCs and BZUGs through BZMCs. The annual income of the Chitwan National Park, for example, is NPR 99,896,147 (USD 1,029,567) for the fiscal year 2011/12 AD (2068/69 BS). These resources have been used for a range of conservation and development activities. Nonetheless, the resource mobilization strategy at the BZMC level lacks an institutional policy/mechanism that ensures women’s access to financial resources. According to the Buffer Zone Management Regulation, 1996, local conservation institutions such as BZUCs have to use park grants for conservation and development programs, in which 30% of the total budget has to be spent on conservation, 30% on community development, 20% on income generation and skill development, 10% for conservation education programs and 10% on administration activities. Focus group discussions with BZUCs and BZMCs reveal that these institutions generally follow this guideline and are spending the grant accordingly.

When asked the types of activities these institutions implement and whether or not they have programs on gender and women’s empowerment, the respondents said that some of the community development interventions, such as biogas installment, conservation awareness and training for local communities, are directly and indirectly helping women. Despite the fact that huge amounts of park revenue reach these grassroots institutions, they have inadequate capacity to mobilize such revenue for gender and women’s empowerment. Moreover, the female users interviewed rarely knew how park revenue was being used. In addition, neither the park authority nor civil society organizations involved in NRM have strategies to guide the use of park revenue to address existing gender inequality or strengthen women’s leadership capacity and their inclusion in buffer zone management governance.

In the past, development practices in buffer zone management areas tended to include some activities related to women’s empowerment, such as providing female members of BZUGs or BZCFUGs with women’s leadership training through external support (see BNPBZDP 2003; EFEA 2001). However, the effects of this training were minimal in terms of changing gender unequal power relations, because men still hold the key positions in the buffer zone governance structures and their roles are influential in buffer zone planning processes. As Buchy and Rai-Paudyal (2008) pointed out, focusing on women alone in capacity building activities will not help women’s empowerment unless men are sensitized on the issues surrounding power relations and internalize the need to consider gender issues in decision-making and resource distribution. At the same time, women’s leadership training will have little impact unless it is ‘owned’ by state and non-state actors and institutionalized at the state level as one of the gender strategies to promote women in decision-making positions.

Women’s limited education, networks and access to informationThe women in the CBNRM groups studied have limited education and social/political networks in the forestry sector. They also lack access to information about community forestry and buffer zone policies

48

and the availability and use of community funds and financial resources. For example, 45% of women interviewed had not seen the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008 compared to only 22% of men interviewed (Table 15).

Table 15: Awareness of Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations – 2008 among CBNRM

members by gender

Awareness level% of total respondents

Women Men

Seen it, but not read it 5 22

Seen it and read it 15 33

Seen it, read it and implemented it 5 11

Not seen it 45 22

Don't know and/or no response 30 11

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013Similarly, none of the women interviewed were familiar with the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999. Although some of the men were aware of these guidelines, only a few of them were trying to implement them, with a focus on women’s biogas installation programs and conservation training (Table 16).

Table 16: Awareness of Buffer Zone Management Guidelines – 1999 among CBNRM members by gender

Awareness level% of total respondents

Women Men

Seen it, but not read it 0 14

Seen it and read it 0 14

Seen it, read it and implemented it 0 7

Not seen it 24 14

Don't know and/or no response 76 50

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013Interestingly, none of the women or men interviewed in the CBNRM institutions mentioned that they had seen or was aware of the GESI Strategy 2008 of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (Table 17). A huge information gap exists with regard to information about progressive policies at the grassroots level. The limited awareness of women, particularly poor and socially marginalized women, about government policies has also been reported in other recent studies (see Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation 2013).

Table 17: Awareness of Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation’s GESI Strategy – 2008 among CBNRM

members by gender

Awareness level% of total respondents

Women Men

Seen it, but not read it 0 0

Seen it and read it 0 0

Seen it, read it and implemented it 0 0

Not seen it 14 0

Don't know and/or no response 86 100

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013

49

Women’s limited control over CBNRM funds and resourcesMost of the women interviewed did not know how much funds were available in their group and how these funds were spent. Only those women who were acting as treasurer were able to mention the sources of incomes for their institutions and the tentative amount of group funds. During the in-depth interviews with members of executive committees of CBNRM institutions, it was clear that men play a prominent role in deciding key issues such as the use of community funds, the lending of funds, forest resource distribution, the selection of participants for training, and coordination with line agencies and other stakeholders. As shown in Table 18, around 10% of respondents mentioned women’s roles in decision-making on these issues. Over 25% of respondents were of the opinion that both women and men take part in decision-making. Most female leaders interviewed (with the exception of female leaders in women-only CFUGs) opined that both genders participate in decision-making. This means that even if women hold leadership positions in some CBNRM institutions, their ability to influence the decision-making process needs to be strengthened.

Table 18: Participation in decision-making of CBNRM institutions by gender in the study area

Who decides on the following issues?Responses (% of total in-depth interviews)

Women Men Both genders Don't know Total

Use of community funds within group 11 39 32 18 100

Lending of funds to users 11 39 32 18 100

Forest resource use and distribution 11 32 39 18 100

Sending participants to trainings and workshops 10 43 29 18 100

Coordination with line agencies and other stakeholders 12 42 25 21 100

Source: Field study 2013

Political influenceParty politics tend to be a strong factor in the selection of the chairperson and members of the executive committees of CBNRM institutions in the study area. Consideration of political representation receives a high priority in the BZUGs and CFUGs in Chitwan, Bardiya and Kailali – more than in the CAMCs in Mustang and Kaski. As women are not in a position of power in the political parties in the study areas, it is often men who are selected to sit in the CBNRM groups. Similarly, CFUG members give low priority to the implementation of the GESI Strategy because of political pressure. In other words, it appears that CFUGs are influenced by party politics rather than the politics of people’s empowerment.

When stating the barriers for women’s leadership development in community forestry, a female chair of an NGO expressed"Political pressure is high in CFUGs. Sadly, influential people are doing the smuggling while real forest protectors have faced ‘forest punishment’." (Field note, Kailali, 21 June 2013)

Socio-cultural barriers

Social norms and perceptions of gender rolesSocial norms and perceptions of gender roles are another dimension affecting women’s leadership development and their participation in decision-making process. Deep-rooted social norms and perceptions of gender roles prevail in the study areas constraining women from taking the lead in CBNRM institutions. Traditional norms, such as that mukhiyas (village leaders) and priests should be men and that women should take care of the house, are prevalent in Mustang and Bardiya, and support the exclusion of women from CBNRM governance structures. For example, only men can be elected as village leaders or mukhiyas in Mustang. The mukhiyas decide on natural resource use and management, resolve conflicts, and plan development activities. As men have been working as

50

mukhiyas since time immemorial (Lama 2011), shifting the village headship from men to women is not possible unless men are supportive of the change and family members socially and morally support female members to become village leaders (Verma and Khadka forthcoming).

When asked whether a woman can be a mukhiya, a female member of the Jambachamba Mother’s Group, Chusang, Ward No. 3, Mustang said "Women would become mukhiyas like men, but women can’t be mukhiyas because mukhiyas have to be priests in a Buddhist monastery and women are not accepted as priests." (Member of mother’s group, Chusang VDC-3, 6 June 2013)

According to respondents, only sons can attend village meetings in most parts of Mustang. Households in which sons are absent from the villages have to pay a fine for his absence from village meetings. Daughters or daughter-in-laws rarely attend community meetings.

Lack of physical security and acceptanceDuring interviews with female chairpersons and users, especially in Chitwan, Bardiya and Kailali, the respondents constantly expressed their concern over lack of physical security and acceptance as barriers to women’s leadership development. According to them, a number of situations of violence against women have occurred in the CBNRM groups studied. Women reported having experienced physical, psychological and sexual violence, which has kept them powerless, both within and outside the house. In Bardiya, a woman CFUG member was attacked by timber smugglers, as a result of which she lost a hand. In Kailali, women’s groups reported cases of female CFUG chairpersons being embroiled in legal cases in the district forest office after their male colleagues misused community funds by forging the signatures of female chairpersons. Women also reported being abused and physically attacked by their husbands after these forest cases were filed.

"Women lost their motivation to become community forestry leaders in Kailali after male members of the executive committee of CFUGs took advantage of the sincerity of female chairpersons and misused their signatures in order to draw money from CFUG bank account. A female chairperson in our neighboring CFUG was jailed. Once she came out of jail her husband beat her because of her involvement in community activities, which he did not think appropriate for women." (A group of male forest users in Janakalyan CFUG, Kailali mentioned during focus group discussion)

Society in general and men in particular rarely accept women as important resources for social development. They view women as incapable and believe that women can’t do work other than household chores. At the same time, women are afraid of creating conflict at home by participating in community leadership (revealed in a focus group discussion with male members, Janakalyan CFUG, Kailali). As a case from Mustang shows, accepting women as mukhiyas is a long way off. In CFUGs, men don’t easily accept women’s leadership.

A women’s group from Janashakti CFUG, Kailali collectively expressed "In addition to lack of family support for women’s leadership development, male forest users in our society don’t accept women as leaders." (Focus group discussion).

A group of women in Janakalyan CFUG, Kailali also reported a case in which a female chairperson in a CFUG with a huge amount of forest resources was verbally abused and harassed by male members of her executive committee. Male colleagues can undermine women’s capacity by saying that women can’t maintain official records and that women are too honest and do not know how to manipulate

51

finances, which is considered a key skill for running a CFUG. For example, although a woman was chair during handover of the Janakalyan CFUG, in Kailali, she was pressured to leave the position by male forest users.

In a national workshop organized for female leaders of the district chapter of the Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal (FECOFUN) in Kathmandu, most women participants, especially those from the Terai, shared how women are experiencing gender-based violence and coping with it in the resource rich CFUGs. Specifically, they mentioned cases where women had been threatened by smugglers, harassed by men for being illiterate, and manipulated by male colleagues who wished to capture the leadership of resource rich CFUGs through informal networks or using hidden forms of power (Veneklasen and Miller 2007).

External barriersIt is not only the capacity and resources of CBNRM institutions that affect the development of women’s leadership in institutions, the roles, interests, attitudes and understanding of forest development implementing actors, such as the government and non-state actors (NGOs, civil society organizations, development practitioners), play a crucial role, as does political influence also. State and non-state actors have been implementing the state’s GESI policy, but with varying degrees of interest and ownership. Their understanding of, and attitude towards, gender issues and social equity determine which issues receive priority in the development agenda of community-based forestry management and conservation. This section discusses these dimensions.

Lack of awareness of Government policies and GESI Strategy by implementing actorsThe awareness and interest of forest and conservation actors can influence gender positive change on the ground. With this in mind, this study explored the level of awareness of national and district NRM actors in relation to gender policies in the forest sector. As Table 19 shows, the majority of respondents at both the central and district levels had either not seen or did not know about the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008. However, district stakeholders, especially the district forest offices, tended to be active in putting some of the gender strategy from the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations into place. There were also some stakeholders at the central level who had seen the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations, but not read them.

Table 19: Awareness of Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations – 2008 among

stakeholders

Awareness level% of respondents

District stakeholders National stakeholders

Seen it, but not read it 8 0

Seen it and read it 24 18

Seen it, read it and implemented it 32 28

Not seen it 16 0

Don't know or no response 20 54

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013

With regards to awareness of the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999, which emphasizes the representation and participation of women in conservation and development, over 50% of stakeholders at the national and district level were unaware of this policy and implementation of the policy by stakeholders is very low (see Table 20). Implementation of the policy to bring more women

52

into buffer zone management structures and leadership is yet to be institutionalized, given the very low representation and capacity of women in the BZMCs and BZUCs to influence decisions that benefit them.

Table 20: Awareness of Buffer Zone Management Guidelines-1999 among stakeholders

Awareness level% of respondents

District stakeholders National stakeholders

Seen it, but not read it 8 0

Seen it and read it 20 19

Seen it, read it and implemented it 8 27

Not seen it 44 0

Don't know or no response 20 54

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013

Interestingly, information about the GESI Strategy 2008 of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation has not reached the grassroots level and, hence; implementation of the strategy has been limited. Only a few national stakeholders seem to be trying to implement the strategy (Table 21).

Table 21: Awareness of GESI Strategy - 2008 among stakeholders

Awareness level% of respondents

District stakeholders National stakeholders

Seen it, but not read it 8 0

Seen it and read it 0 0

Seen it, read it and implemented it 0 27

Not seen it 20 18

Don't know or no response 72 55

Total % 100 100

Source: Field study 2013

Limited implementation of GESI Strategy by implementing actorsInfluenced by the state’s restructuring processes as well as inclusive policy environments, various conservation and forest stakeholders at the national and district level have been trying to put the state’s GESI Strategy into practice. However, the degree of interest and action among the different stakeholders varies. Interestingly, the efforts of the district forest offices are encouraging, although sex-disaggregated data and analysis is lagging behind at the institutional level. The district forest offices in the study area are sensitizing forest users on the implementation of Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008. According to interviews with district forest office staff in nearly all districts, the district forest officer will not approve a CFUG’s constitution and operational plan unless women are included in two of the four key positions (chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary or treasurer). District forest offices have also forced CFUGs to include a woman while operating their bank account.

However, district forest offices don’t have gender-focused programs or organizational strategies and view interventions such as the distribution of improved cooking stoves and biogas, which are implemented through external assistance, as gender-related activities as these interventions reduce women’s drudgery. Thus, the district forest offices tend to be concerned with tackling some of the practical needs of women, rather than challenging skewed gender power relations directly.

Similarly, conservation institutions such as ACAP, the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) consider gender as a crosscutting issue and focus on women’s participation in the conservation and development interface. However, none of these organizations have an organizational gender equity policy or strategy

53

For example; ACAP focuses on women’s groups to engage women in conservation awareness and sanitation programs, but does not have a policy or strategy that supports gender equality in decision-making and benefit sharing or women’s empowerment in conservation. The NTNC and WWF are planning to follow the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008 for gender inclusion in conservation groups, but they lack an organizational gender policy or strategy.

CARE Nepal has gender budgeting and a gender-sensitive working modality and its two main pillars of development are ‘natural resources management’ and ‘women’s empowerment’. CARE Nepal has allocated over 50% of its budget to women’s empowerment. In addition, CARE has been extensively implementing the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008. For example, ensuring that benefits accrue to women has been the focus of training and other development programs by CARE. CARE has also supported the establishment and operation of women’s forums at the national and district level in order to provide female staffs (who constitute 50% of CARE Nepal’s total staff) with an opportunity to exchange and learn about gender issues, as well as come up with solutions to address them.

Other non-state actors mention the empowerment of women (as well as indigenous peoples, Dalits and forest users) in their organizational vision, but lack organizational gender strategies. As the types of programs they implement depend on external assistance, making gender issues and a gender approach an organizational priority is yet to be internalized within these organizations. As discussed later, the attitudes of NRM non-state actors are often political in nature, in the sense that they criticize donors if the later doesn’t provide funding to the former. Non-state actors lack organizational practices that focus on the critical analysis of development in the forest sector towards gender equality. Their interests lie more in getting a seat for women (and Dalits and indigenous people) in training and workshops and at the policy table. However, their capacity for understanding gender issues and influencing policy processes for gender transformative change is still limited.

Inadequate understanding, interest and capacity to deal with gender issuesInterviews with forest and conservation stakeholders, including staff and executive committee members of the Hariyo Ban Program consortium, reveal that there is inadequate understanding of what gender means in the context of natural resource management. Gender is equated by these stakeholders with ‘women’ and ‘women’s issues’. A male field staff member of an international non-governmental organization (INGO) referred the research team to a female staff member for the interview on the premise that, being a woman, she would know more about gender issues. Similarly, one staff member in a Hariyo Ban Program consortia opined that women lack the capacity and assertiveness to take up leadership positions, overlooking the structural inequalities and patriarchal norms that constrain women from attaining leadership positions:

"Women have problems. Men are supportive of women’s leadership, but women are not assertive. Talking about leadership is talking about ‘right’ and promoting leadership may not always be the priority at the grassroots NRM institutions. Because people expect livelihoods related benefits first, rather than empowerment." (Field note, 9 June 2013)

While some respondents consider lack of initiative or responsibility from women as a reason for their low representation in leadership positions, others expressed the view that the increased workload of women in care economy activities, lack of family support, and lack of comprehensive programs and policies for bringing women into leadership position are the key reasons. Female and male respondents in the district and national stakeholders expressed distinct views in terms of the problems and solutions for women’s leadership development in the NRM sector. While men mostly saw women’s weak capacity and society as gender equality issues, female respondents reported lack of ownership and interest in decision-making within their organization and lack of human and financial resources for gender-focused activities as factors impacting on gender equality.

54

Other factors contributing to the lack of understanding of gender issues by stakeholders include inadequate gender analytical skills and lack of gender resource persons among district and national level actors working in NRM, as well as social identity issues. Moreover, technical training, such as on biodiversity conservation, forest management and nursery management organized for grassroots institutions and field staff do not contain gender sessions.

Gender agenda not receiving priority in organizational processes and practicesNone of the stakeholders at the district level and hardly any at the central level mentioned an example where their regular meetings had an agenda related to gender issues in NRM and development. It is clear from the stakeholder interviews that their development agenda is focused on administrative, technical, and policy issues of forest resource use, community fund use, awareness raising, training, coordination and social inclusion, rather than reflecting critically on how their activities and programs have impacted on gender equality outcomes. In other words, change in organizational processes and practices from a gender perspective have not happened as part of the development agenda of NRM actors at the district and national levels.

With some exceptions, the majority of respondents expressed limited interest in gender topics at the decision-making level within their organization.

A member of the executive committee of a forest civil society organization (non-state actor) shared: "Our organization does not have a gender policy nor do the members of the executive board take the responsibility to take gender issues into account during our regular meetings. Men outnumber women in the meetings and the agenda of the former dominate in the meeting discussions and decisions. Gender issues hardly appear as important agendas in these meetings." (Field note, 8 June 2013)

Lack of ownership of gender policy agenda by government How to create and maintain ownership of gender policy and actions in government institutions is a critical issue. Policy and GESI experts at the national level shared examples that indicate a lack of ownership of the gender policy and its implementation at the institutional level. Donors have invested a lot of effort in developing the GESI Strategy of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. However, an institutional mechanism that supports the implementation of the strategy is lacking in Ministry. The Ministry has a gender focal person who does not have sufficiently clear terms of reference, authority, expertise or financial resources to take the lead in facilitating the process of gender integration and gender-focused work in the forest sector.

Class and caste/ethnicity are yet to be integrated into the gender approachThe women who do hold leadership positions in CBNRM institutions tend to come from highly advantaged socioeconomic and political backgrounds. Most of the female leaders in Kaski, Kailali and Bardiya belong to advantaged castes (Brahmins and Chhetris) and, in Mustang, most were from advantaged ethnic groups. Even in places (such as Bardiya and Kaski) where the leader is selected from among disadvantaged ethnic groups or castes, such as Dalits or Tharus, these leaders are relatively well off and have strong social networks with political bodies, NGOs and line agencies. However, class and caste/ethnicity perspectives are not included in the gender approach promoted locally and nationally. For example, there is no database of community leaders or of access to income-generating opportunities by class and ethnicity, either in government institutions or NGOs advocating for women’s empowerment and gender equality.

55

Chapter 8Gender-differentiated knowledge and use of biodiversity resources

56

57

This chapter presents the findings of the study in terms of the gender-differentiated knowledge and use of natural resources, perceptions of change in biodiversity, and women’s role in the conservation and use of natural resources.

Knowledge of plants in local areaIn focus group discussions held with women and men separately in Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski, participants listed a number of plants that they are protecting and using for their livelihoods. While both women and men generally reported the same plants, the list of these resources created by women was more extensive than that created by men (Table 22), which indicates that women are more involved in the use and conservation of plants than men.

Table 22: Name of plants in local area reported by gender, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski

Local plants reported by gender

By women and men By women By men

SN Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Ainselu Rubus elipticus Allo (nettle) Girardinia diversifolia Bilaune Maesa chisia

2 Amriso Thysanolaena maxima

Amala Phyllanthus emblica Chilaune Schima wallichii

3 Bedulo Ficus subincisa Angeri Lyonia ovalifolia Indryeni Cittulus colocynthis

4 Champ Michelia champaca Bantarul Dioscorea bulbifera Kafal Myrica spp.

5 Dudhilo Ficus nemoralis Banmara Lantana camara Malato Macaranga indica

6 Dhale katus Castanopsis indica Banso Brachiaria species

7 Khanyu Ficus semicordata Coffee Coffee arabica

8 Kaulo Cinnamon spp. Chuletro Brassica spp.

9 Lokta Daphne bholua Chutro Berberis aristata

10 Maledo Macaranga spp. Hadchur Viscum album

11 Mahuwa Madhuka indica Jhinganey Eurya auminata

12 Musure katus Castanospsis tribuloides

Kavro Ficus lacor

13 Neuro Poa polyneuron Kharu --

14 Nimaro Ficus roxburghii Koirala Bauhinia variegata

15 Nigalo Arundinaria spp. Kurilo Asparagus racemosa

16 Painyu Prunus cerasoides Machhaino Gaultheria fragmentissima

17 Pakhuri Ficus glabderrima Siru Imperata cylindrica

18 Raktachandan Pterocarpus santalium

Sisnoo Urtica dioica

19 Siltimur Litsea cubea Tanki Bauhinia purpuria

20 Timur Zanthoxylum alatum Titepati Artimisia vulgaris

21 Uttis Alnus nepalensis

22 Vyakur Dioscorea deltoides

Source: Field study 2013

Knowledge of wildlife in local areaThe members of Bhimbali CFUG in Chitwan (who used to reside inside Chitwan National Park, but were relocated to Padampur VDC-6) reported using various types of wildlife (animal, reptiles and birds) (Table 23). While both female and male forest users were aware of the same kinds of wildlife, their awareness was different. While women tended to be more aware of birds and snakes, men were more

58

focused on wild animals affected by poaching (e.g., wild boar, dolphin, langur, wild cat). Women’s focus on birds and snakes could be because they encounter these species on their frequent visits to forests to collect forage, fodder and fuelwood.

Table 23: Name of wildlife in local area reported by gender, Bhimbali CFUG, Chitwan

Local wildlife reported by gender

By women and men By women By men

SN Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Deer/chital Axis axis Ajingar Python molurus Wild boar/bandel

Sus species

2 Fyauro Pteropus spp. Hareu/green pit viper

Cryptelytrops albolabris

Dolphin Platanistagangetica

3 Gaur Bos gaurus Lizard Calotes versicolor Langur Presbytis entellus

4 Jackal Canis aureus Chibe/battai Coturnix coturnix Wild cat Felis chaus

5 Monkey Primates spp. Gangato Himalayapotamon

atkinsonianum

Goman Naja naja

6 Rhino Rhinoceros unicornis

Jureli Pycnonotus leucogenys

Dangre/sarau

Athene brama

7 Sloth bear Melursus ursinus Koili Eudynamys scolopaceus

Kalo dhanesh

Antracoceros albirostris

8 Tiger Panthera tigris Maina Acridotheres tristis Luiche Gallus gallus

9 Wild elephant Elephus maximus Owl Bubo bubo Parrot Phylum chordata

10 Fish/katla Catla catla Seto Bakulla Casmerodius albus

11 Frogs/assam Rana assamensis Theuwa Coracias benghalensis

12 Gharial crocodile

Gavialis gangeticus Wood pecker

Scolopax rusticola

13 Rat Bandicota bengalensis

14 Common snake Lycodon aulicus

15 Bhangera Petronia xanthocollis

16 Crow Corvus macrorhynchus

17 Dhukur Streptopelia decaocto

18 Duck/mallard Anas platyrhynchos

19 Fista --

20 Kalij Lophura leucomelana

21 Peacock Pavo cristatus

22 Saras Grus grus

23 Titra Francolinus gularis

Source: Field study 2013

Gender-differential use of plantsFemale and male forest users use plants in different ways. The different parts of plants are used to meet multiple livelihood needs such as for food, fuelwood, forage/fodder, leaf litter, and bedding materials, as well as for religious, cultural and medicinal purposes. As Table 24 shows, women and men use the same plants differently.

59

Table 24: Gender-differentiated use of plants, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski

Plant Category (tree, shrub, herb)

Uses by men Uses by women

Part being used Use Part being used Use

Ainselu Shrub Fruit Food Fruit, roots, branch-es

Food, fuelwood, living hedge, medicine

Allo (nettle) Herb Leaves, stem Fiber, medicine Leaves, stem Fiber, medicine

Amala Tree Fruit, stem, branch

Food, poles, medi-cine

Fruit, stem, branch-es

Food, pickle, fuelwood, medicine

Amriso Grass Stem, flower Broom (sweeping), soil conservation Stem, flower Broom (sweeping), fod-

der, soil conservation

Angeri Tree Stem, branch Poles Stem, branches, leaves

Poles, fuelwood, leaf litter

Badahar Tree Leaves, stem Fodder, timber Leaves, branches Fodder and fuelwood

Banmara Shrub Leaves, stem Bedding material, leaf litter Leaves, stem Leaf litter, fuelwood,

medicine

Banso Grass Leaves Forage Leaves Forage

Bantarul Climber Roots Food, vegetable

Bedulo Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches, fruit Fodder, fuelwood, food

Bilaune Shrub Roots, bark Medicine, poles Roots, bark, stem Medicine, leaf litter, poles

Champ Tree Leaves, stem Fodder, timber Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood

Chilaune Tree Stem Timber Leaves, branches Leaf litter, bedding mate-rial, fuelwood

Chuletro Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Chutro Shrub Fruit, bark, roots Food, medicine, dye Fruit, bark, stem, roots

Food, medicine, dye, fuelwood

Dhale katus Tree Fruit, stem, Food, poles, timber Fruit, stem, leaves,

branchesFood, poles, bedding material, fuelwood

Dudhilo Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Gurans Tree Flower, stem Medicine, aesthetic purposes, timber, medicine

Flower, stem Medicine, aesthetic purposes, fuelwood

Hadchur Herb Whole plant Medicine (for bone fractures) Whole plant Medicine (for bone

fractures)

Indryeni Climber Leaves, climber Fodder, rope Leaves, climber, bark Fodder, rope, medicine

Jhinganey Shrub Leaves, branches Bedding material, fuelwood Branches, leaves Fuelwood, bedding

material

Kafal Tree Fruit, branches, leaves, bark

Food, dye, bedding material

Fruit, branches, leaves, bark

Food, fuelwood, dye, bedding material, leaf litter

Kaulo Tree Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood

Kavro Tree Leaves, bark, flower Pickle, fodder, fiber Leaves, bark, flower Pickle, fodder, fiber

Khanyu Tree Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood

Kharu Grass/ shrub Leaves Forage Leaves Forage

Koirala Tree Flower, leaves Vegetable, fodder Flower, leaves, branches Pickle, fodder, fuelwood

Kurilo Herb Roots, shoots Vegetable, medicine Roots, shoots Vegetable, medicine (for infertility)

Lokta Shrub Bark Paper Bark, stem Paper, fuelwood

Machhino Shrub Leaves Essential oil, medi-cine

Leaves, branches, foliage, fruit

Essential oil, medicine, fuelwood, bedding material

60

Plant Category (tree, shrub, herb)

Uses by men Uses by women

Part being used Use Part being used Use

Mahuwa Tree Stem Timber, fuelwood Stem, leaves, branches

Timber, fuelwood, leaf plates, fruit, leaf litter

Malato Tree Stem Timber Stem, leaves Fuelwood, religious ceremonies

Maledo Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves Fuelwood

Musure katus Tree Fruit, stem Food, poles, timber Fruit, stem, leaves,

branchesPoles, bedding material, fuelwood

Neuro Fern/herb Leaves Vegetable, pickle Leaves Vegetable, pickle

Nigalo Shrub Stem, shoots Fence material, vege-table, handicrafts

Stem, shoots, leaves

Fence material, vegeta-ble, fodder, handicrafts

Nimaro Tree Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Painyu Tree Stem, barkReligious ceremo-nies, medicine, timber

Stem, leavesFuelwood, religious ceremonies, bedding material, fence poles

Pakhuri Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Raktachan-dan Tree Branches, leaves Fuelwood, bedding

material, timber Branches, leaves Fuelwood, bedding material

Siltimur Tree Roots, bark, fruit Medicine, food Roots, bark, fruit Medicine, food

Siru Grass Leaves Forage Leaves Forage

Sisno Shrub - - Leaves Vegetable, medicine

Tanki Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches, flower

Fodder, fuelwood, pick-le, vegetable

Timur Tree Fruit Spice, medicine Fruit, branches Spice, medicine, fuel-wood

Titepati Shrub Stem, roots, leaves

Medicine, essential oil Stem, roots, leaves Medicine, essential oil,

fodder, bedding

Uttis Tree Stem Poles, timber Stem, leaves, bark Fuelwood, leaf plates, medicine

Vyakur Herb - - Roots, fruit Vegetable, food

Source: Field study 2013

Likewise, in Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan men tended to use trees for timber and furniture, while women use plants for fuelwood. Both female and male forest users in this CFUG used different parts of plants for different purposes (Table 25). Clearly, women and men have different priorities for using plants.

Table 25: Gender-differential use of plants, Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan

Plant Category (tree, shrub, herb)

Uses by men Uses by women

Part being used Use Part being used Use

Amala Tree Fruit, branches Food, medicine, fence posts

Fruit, stem, branches

Food, pickle, fuelwood, medicine

Asuro Shrub Leaves , flower Mulch, manure, reli-gious purposes

Leaves, flower, roots

Mulch, green manure, medi-cine, bedding material

Badahar Tree Leaves, stem, fruit Fodder, timber, food Leaves, branch-

es, fruit Fodder, fuelwood, food

Bakino Tree Stem Timber, furniture Leaves, branches

Fodder, fuelwood, bedding material, leaf litter

Bamboo Shrub Leaves, stem, Fodder, furniture, bas-kets, mats Leaves Fodder, doko (basket), mats,

serving plates

Banmara Shrub Leaves, stem Bedding material, leaf litter Leaves, stem Leaf litter, fuelwood, medi-

cine

Banso Grass Leaves Forage Leaves Forage

61

Plant Category (tree, shrub, herb)

Uses by men Uses by women

Part being used Use Part being used Use

Bantarul Climber Roots Food, vegetable

Barro Tree Leaves, stem, seeds

Fodder, cough medi-cine, dye, tannin, oil

Leaves, seed, stem

Fodder, fuelwood, cough medicine, dye, tannin

Bayer Shrub Fruit, branches Food, fence posts Fruit, branches Food, fence

Bedulo Tree Leaves Fodder Leaves, branch-es, fruit Fodder, fuelwood, food

Bel Tree Leaves, fruit, stem

Religious purposes, juice, timber, medicine (diarrhea, dysentery)

Leaves, fruitReligious purposes, juice, medicine (diarrhea, dysen-tery)

Bhalayo Tree Leaves, fruit Sun shading cap, food, religious purposes Leaves, fruit Food, religious purposes

Bhorla Tree Leaves, branch-es Fodder, fuelwood Leaves, branch-

es, fruit Fodder, fuelwood, food

Bhuiama-la Herbs Roots, fruit Medicine Roots, fruit,

whole plant Medicine, mulch

Bilaune Shrub Roots, bark Medicine, poles Roots, bark, stem Medicine, leaf litter, poles

Boddhan-gero Tree Branches, stem Fuelwood, furniture Branches Fuelwood

Chhati-wan Tree Leaves, stem,

barkBedding material, timber, medicine

Leaves, stem, bark

Bedding material, fuelwood, medicine

Chilaune Tree Stem Timber Leaves, branches

Leaf litter, bedding material, fuelwood

Dabdabe Tree Leaves, stem, branches

Fodder, timber, fuel-wood

Leaves, stem, branches, bark

Fodder, timber, fuelwood, medicine (fever, diarrhea)

Datiwan Shrub Twigs Medicine Twigs, leaves Fuelwood, medicine (clean-ing teeth), religious purposes

Debre lahara Climber Leaves Fodder Leaves, bark Fodder, medicine (fever)

Gandhe jhar Herb Whole plant Fodder, mulch Whole plant Fodder, mulching

Gaujo Shrub Leaves Fodder Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Gayo Tree Leaves, branch-es, stem Fodder, timber, poles Leaves, branch-

es, stem Fodder, poles, fuelwood

Ghodta-pre Herbs Whole plant Medicine Whole plant Medicine

Gindari Tree Leaves, branch-es Fuelwood, fodder Leaves, bark,

branches

Fodder, fuelwood, medicine (worms, to cool body/soothe fever)

Gurjo Climber Vine Medicine (fever), tea Vine Medicine (fever), tea

Harro Tree Stem, leaves Furniture, fodder Leaves, stem, seeds

Fodder, fuelwood, medicine (coughs)

Haldu Tree Leaves, stem Ornamental platters, combs, furniture

Leaves, branches

Fodder, fuelwood, cough medicine

Jaluki Herbs Leaves Vegetable Leaves Vegetable

Jamun Tree Leaves, stem, bark

Fodder, furniture, dye, tannin

Leaves, stem, bark, fruit

Fodder, furniture, dye, tannin, medicine, fuelwood

Kadam Tree Stem Timber Leaves, stem Fodder, religious

Kans/khar Shrub LeavesRope, forage, bedding material, thatching material

Leaves Rope, forage, bedding mate-rial, mulch

Khamari Tree Stem Plough, timber Branches, foliage, bark

Bedding material, fuelwood, medicine (stomach ache)

62

Plant Category (tree, shrub, herb)

Uses by men Uses by women

Part being used Use Part being used Use

Khair Tree Stem, bark Tannin, dye, timber, medicine Stem, bark Tannin, dye, fuelwood,

medicine

Kukur daino Climber Leaves, roots Religious ceremonies,

medicineLeaves, stem, roots

Fodder, fuelwood, mulch, medicine

Kurilo Herb Roots, shoots Vegetable, medicine Roots, shootsVegetable, medicine (ton-sils), cattle feed (increases cow milk)

Kush Grass Leaves Religious ceremonies, forage Leaves Forage, mats

Kutmiro Tree Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood Leaves, stem Fodder, fuelwood

Kyamun Tree Stem, fruit Furniture, berries Stem, fruit, leaves Furniture, berries , fodder

Neem Tree Stem, bark, leaves

Medicinal (snake bite, scorpion sting) and religious purposes

Stem, bark, leaves

Medicinal (snake bite, scorpion sting) and religious purposes

Palans Tree Leaves, stem, gum, seeds

Rope, medicine, fodder

Leaves, stem, gum, seeds

Rope, bedding material, fodder, medicine

Rajbrikch-hya Tree Stem, bark, pods

Furniture, building, agriculture tools, charcoal, tannin, dye, medicine

Stem, bark, pods

Agriculture tools, tannin, dye, medicine, fuelwood

Saj/asna Tree Leaves, powder from bark

Fodder, medicine (wounds)

Leaves, powder from bark Fodder, medicine (wounds)

Sal Tree Stem, branches, bark Timber, fuelwood Stem, branch-

es, leaves

Fuelwood, leaf plates, fodder, medicine (diarrhea in cattle), bedding material

Sandan Tree Stem, branches Plough, yoghurt pot (theki)

Leaves, branches Fodder, fuelwood

Siris (kalo) Tree Stem, leaves Furniture, fodder,

mulch Stem, leaves Fuelwood, fodder, bedding material, mulch

Siris (seto) Tree Stem, leaves,

bark

Furniture, fodder, mulch, charcoal, tannin

Stem, leaves Fuelwood, fodder, bedding material, mulch

Satisal Tree Stem Furniture Stem, leaves Fuelwood, bedding material

Simal Tree Stem, podsFurniture (packing cas-es, planks), matches, cotton

Stem, flower, pods

Vegetable, cotton, medicine, of sacred value

Simali Shrub Stem, leaves Fence posts Stem, leaves Fence

Sindure Tree Leaves FodderBark, leaves, roots, branch-es, fruit

Fodder, medicine, fuelwood

Siru Grass Leaves Forage, bedding material Leaves Forage, bedding material,

mulch

Sisoo Tree Stem, leaves Timber, fodder Branches, leaves Fuelwood, fodder

Tanki Tree Stem, leaves Timber, fodder Branches, leaves, flower Fuelwood, fodder, pickle

Titepati Shrub Stem, roots, leaves Medicine, essential oil Stem, roots,

leavesMedicine, essential oil, fod-der, bedding material

Tuni Tree Bark, flower, branches Handicrafts, medicine Leaves, bark,

flower Medicine, fodder, fuelwood

Source: Field study 2013

63

Gender-differential timber and fuelwood preferencesWomen and men in the study areas have different preferences in relation to the use of plants for timber and fuelwood (Table 26). While men used criteria such as durability, market value and easy access as the main criteria for choosing timber species, women considered easy access and availability as the most important factors.

Table 26: Gender-differential preferences for timber species in study area

District CBNRMTimber species preferred by men Timber species preferred by women

I II III IV V I II III IV V

KailaliJanakalyan CFUG, Pathari-ya-8

Sal Saj Jamun Karma Kadam Sal Saj Jamun Karma

BardiyaJanjagri-ti CFUG, Suryapatuwa-7

Khair Sisoo Jamun Karma Kadam Sisoo Jamun Kadam Khair Karma

ChitwanKalika Pipaltar CFUG, Da-hakhani-7

Sal Simal Saj Sadan Khamari Sal Asna Karma Sadan Khamari

KaskiThulodhunga CFUG, Puran-chaur-6

Champ Chilaune Katus Uttis Champ Chilaune Katus Uttis Mallato

MustangPangling Farmer Group, Kagbeni-1

Bhote pipal Salix Dhupi Blue

pine Walnut Salix Blue pine Paiyu Bhote papal Walnut

Note: I = Most preferred; V = least preferred Source: Field study 2013

Women’s preference for fuelwood species was similar to men’s in Kailali district, but different in other study districts (Table 27). Men considered accessibility and labor needed for chopping fuelwood as the most important factors in choosing fuelwood species, whereas women considered accessibility, durability of fire in oven, strength of heat, labor needed to chop, and weight when carried as determinants of their species preferences. For example, the women of Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski, identified chilaune as their most preferred species of fuelwood because it has good heating power, burns well and the fire remains for many hours. For these women uttis is a less preferred fuelwood species because it has poor heating capacity and does not produce good charcoal.

Table 27: Gender-differentiated preferences for fuelwood species in study area

District CBNRM

Fuelwood preferred by men Fuelwood preferred by women

I II III IV V I II III IV V

Kailali Janakalyan CFUG, Pathariya-8 Saj Sal Jamun Karma Saj Sal Jamun Karma

Bardiya Janjagriti CFUG,Suryapatuwa-7 Khair Asare Sisoo Jamun Karma Saj Sal Botdhagero Dhageri Padke

ChitwanKalika Pipaltar CFUG, Dahakhani-7

Botdhagero Dhageri Padke Saj Karma Sal Saj Karma Bhalukath Sindhure

KaskiThulodhunga CFUG, Puranchour-6

Jhiganey Mouwa Bilauni Bhorla Chilaune Katus Jhinganey Uttis Maledo

Mustang Pangling Farmer Group, Kagbeni-1 Dhupi Bhote

pipal Salix Bhojpatra Dhupi Salix Bhote pipal Walnut

Note: I = Most preferred; V = least preferred Source: Field study 2013

64

Perceptions of change in biodiversityBoth female and male respondents perceived a change in biodiversity resources over the past two decades. Respondents in Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski, reported that a number of plants and birds have disappeared, although a few species have increased over the past decades. They noted that some wild animals, such as porcupines, monkeys, deer and leopard have increased due to improvements in forest cover. In contrast, the jackal is disappearing because of illegal poaching.

Plants such as chanp and amriso are increasing due to the plantation of these species in private and conservation forests. However, plants such as chuletro, nigalo, neuro, kurilo, timur and allo are decreasing in conservation forests. Female respondents mentioned that the strict protection of forests, rather than active forest management, has diminished the growth of neuro and nigalo. According to them, neuro and nigalo can’t grow in dense forest with limited sunlight. Similarly, women, who are the custodians of indigenous knowledge on the processing and weaving of allo, can’t spare the time to continue such activities. The out-migration of men and youth has impacted on traditional occupations such as the making of cloth out of allo and the protection of indigenous knowledge. Allo needs to be harvested regularly to maintain good growth, which is becoming more difficult due to the shortage of labor in the villages. People reported that, while bakulla and dhukur are increasing, a number of birds are near extinction. They said birds such as piuras, luiches, titras, monals, bhangeras, parrots and rajarani charas are decreasing in their forests. However, the number of vultures has not changed (see Annex 13).

Women’s incredible role in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityDuring the interviews with female members of CFUGs, CAMCs, BZUCs and BZCFUGs, women mentioned the ways in which they are conserving plants and animals in their communities and protected areas. For example, women don’t collect fodder from high value trees such as champ (Michelia champaca) and protect such species from grazing and harvesting. Female respondents from CFUGs in Puranchour and Sarangkot mentioned that they have planted improved forage in their terrace raisers and along canals. They also said that they don’t collect forage, fuelwood and fodder from areas that are ecologically sensitive and conserve plants around water springs. These findings support research by Karki and Gurung (2012) from a case study conducted in Dolakha district. In Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan, women have planted and protected broom grasses and nigalo in a small patch (8 hectares) of community forest. While men’s involvement in timber smuggling and wildlife poaching was frequently mentioned during focus group discussions, none of respondents reported cases of women being involved in such illegal activities. The warden in one of the national parks mentioned an exceptional case where a couple was involved in rhino poaching. Women’s sincerity and ability to maintain transparency in the operation of CBNRM institutions was frequently reported by both female and male respondents when talking about women’s role in conservation and local development.

65

Chapter 9Summary of analysis

66

67

Link between forest resources and gender power relationsAs this study shows, only 10% of CFUGs in the study area are led by women. Women’s exclusion appeared strongly in the leadership positions of buffer zone area management and conservation area management structures at the landscape and VDC level. A few women hold leadership positions in settlement-level structures, but with limited capacity to influence decisions on conservation and development that benefit them. As shown in the interviews and focus group discussions from Chitwan, Kailali and Bardiya, those CBRNM institutions that have large productive forests and generate cash income from the sale of forest products, provisioning services (e.g., fees for the extraction of sand and boulders) and aesthetic services (e.g. ecotourism in Chitwan, Bardiya and ACAP) have been led by men from before the handover of the forests or conservation areas to the community.

Because of their higher social status, as defined by the patriarchal culture, practices, and customary governance of natural resource management (e.g., by mukhiyas in Mustang and Bardiya), men in all of the CBNRM groups studied are in a good position to negotiate with outsiders including contractors and deal with smugglers. Men also have good networks with line agencies and other service providers. This situation supports men in the exercise power, both at the household and community levels, while at the same time marginalizing women from such processes.

In contrast, women tend to be leaders in those community forests that are small, degraded and have plantations, but don’t have high value forest crops. Men tend to lead CFUGs that cover large areas of productive forest, such as sal forest, in Chitwan, Kailali and Bardiya districts. Men in these CFUGs are not ready to the share power with women and instead humiliate and harass women and even inflict violence or abuse on women (e.g., misuse of signatures of female chairperson, verbal threats, abuse) to maintain their power. Even in women-only CFUGs (in Kailali, Bardiya and Kaski), ‘power over’ situations still exist in the sense that men take over the leadership positions when the forest condition improves or if the forest has sal trees. Women’s exposure to gender-based violenceWhile female forest users are contributing significantly to forest restoration and conservation, they experience gender-based violence when taking part in leadership. A women’s group in Kailali described a number of situations in which women felt insecure in their leadership roles. Two female chairpersons in Kailali were physically attacked and their lives threatened. Female respondents also reported that women are more likely to encounter physical violence if they lead a CFUG with high-value forest crops.

As well as being threatened by other CFUG members, women in CFUGs have also experienced threats and violence from smugglers. A woman from Janakalyan CFUG, Kailali reported that a female chair of Samaichi CFUG, Dhangadi Municipality, ward No. 5 had to look for another (safer) place to live when threatened by timber smugglers. Female forest users working as chairpersons for the district chapters of FECOFUN Bardiya and other districts in the Terai mentioned that they receive constant threats from timber smugglers. These are but some examples of the insecurity faced by women working in community forestry.

Besides threats from outsiders, female leaders also suffer from misconduct on the part of their male CFUG colleagues. Male colleagues exert psychological pressure on female chairpersons to try to capture the leadership position.

68

"Men also harass women chairpersons, accusing them of not being able to keep records of income and expenditure; they also say that women are ‘too honest’ to deal with timber smugglers." A female chairperson in Thotnekhola CFUG, Kaski explained that "Male forest users of high social status embarrassed her after a few day of her leadership of the CFUG." She also said that a male forest user threatened her saying that "I [the man] will support forest encroachment during your [the woman’s] leadership tenure and put you in jail." (Field note, 20 April 2013)

This information indicates that the members of executive committees need to be sensitized about the concept of leadership, which is not about patrolling forests, but guiding forest users on the measures required for forest patrolling and ensuring inclusiveness and fairness in benefit sharing and decision making.

Women’s knowledge of biodiversity management is neglectedWomen’s knowledge of biodiversity management and their skill in forest conservation are neglected in the criteria used for leadership selection in CBNRM institutions. At the same time, many NRM practitioners have failed to realize the importance of gender-differential indigenous knowledge with regards to biodiversity conservation and the need to link such knowledge with the capacity of CBNRM institutions for sustainable development.

Implementing actors’ understanding, interest and capacity to deal with gender issuesThe concept of ‘gender’ is generally equated with ‘women’ by those working in CBNRM institutions and by many program and policy implementing actors. ‘Gender issues’ are seen as ‘women’s problems’ to be addressed by women. The strategy promoted for increasing women’s participation in CBNRM is more of an ‘instrumental approach’ than a ‘transformative approach’ to social change. The district stakeholders interviewed mentioned activities such as the formation of mothers’ groups, inclusion of women in conservation awareness programs, sanitation activities, training and non-formal education as examples of gender-oriented programs. None of the stakeholders had a strategic focus on a gender-transformative approach to change in the NRM sector and the ‘gender’ agenda received a low priority in their organizational and programmatic agendas. This study was unable to identify stakeholders with organizational gender policies/strategies in place or programs that target both women and men to be gender sensitive and supportive of women’s leadership development. A lack of capacity on gender analysis and poor understanding of gender concepts were clearly reflected in the attitudes and behavior of staff and members of executive committees of NRM stakeholders. For example, male staff directed the study team to female staff to talk to about gender issues. Members of civil society groups and NGOs working in NRM viewed the lack of financial resources and interest in gender issues as a key factor in the poor performance of their organization in terms of gender responsiveness and sensitivity.

At the national level, while NRM stakeholders do have an interest in integrating gender concerns and approaches, their interest and capacity varies widely. Donors, INGOs, and the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and its departments all expressed interest in integrating gender into NRM sectoral programs, but pointed to inadequate capacity, financial resources, and institutional ownership, as well as the attitude of individual staff, as barriers to implementing NRM programs and policies in a gender-sensitive way. In addition, NGOs tend to be critical of donors, development partners and the government when their political interests are unmet. Other institutional problems hindering the making of policy and practices in the NRM sector gender responsive and sensitive include the lack of a critical perspective and analytical capacity among NGOs working on gender issues in NRM and limited networking and synergies among NGOs for a collective voice.

69

Integration of class and caste/ethnicity perspectiveThis study focused on the participation of women and the relationships between women and men in CBNRM institutions. The analysis of the gender dynamics of participation and power relations between women and men of different classes and castes/ethnicities requires further study. This study revealed that women and men of high socioeconomic status are more likely to hold leadership positions and have strong social networks. When CBNRM institutions do have female and male chairpersons from disadvantaged caste/ethnic groups, they also come from wealthy economic backgrounds. What has (and has not) worked in conservation and development with regards to the livelihood improvement of poor women and men belonging to disadvantaged caste/ethnic groups and what approaches would ensure them of development opportunities are emerging subjects of discussions and debate.

Stakeholders’ views on how to strengthen women’s leadershipWhen asked what can be done to strengthen women’s leadership in NRM institutions including CBNRM institutions on the ground, stakeholders at the community, district and national levels provided some valuable solutions. The views of female and male respondents varied (Table 28). Female respondents thought that family support, economic opportunities, secure incentive rights through NRM legislation, GESI policy implementation, a gender budget and the allocation of funds for investing in women were important measures for the development of women’s leadership. Male respondents saw income-generating opportunities for women, family support, GESI policy implementation and women asserting themselves as the most important measures required to bring more women into leadership positions.

Table 28: Stakeholders’ gender-differentiated views on ways to strengthen women’s leadership in the NRM

sector

Measure Men % Women %

Family support 43 79

Income-generating opportunities for women 49 58

Access to forest and conservation incentives and incomes for women through NRM legislation 15 58

GESI policy implementation 46 55

Training (technical and social) for women 44 49

Budget for investment in women’s capacity development 22 49

Gender sensitivity training for both women and men 32 39

Provision of gender budget at organizational level 12 30

Gender sensitization for staff 17 27

Gender sensitization for men 29 24

Education opportunities for women 27 21

Women should take initiative and be assertive 44 19

Source: Field study 2013

As both women and men experience problems differently and have different needs in terms of development and conservation, it is not surprising that they have different ideas about what needs to be done for women’s leadership development.

70

71

Chapter 10 Key findings

72

73

This chapter summarizes the key findings of the study in relation to the gendered participation of women and men in CBNRM structures, including in decision-making processes, and the factors hindering women’s leadership and empowerment in CBNRM institutions.

Gendered participation and power dynamicsThe key findings in relation to women’s participation in, and leadership of, CBNRM institutions are as follows:

l Women’s participation in CBNRM institutions is different to men’s: Women and men participate in CBNRM institutions with different degrees of decision-making power, access to resources and information, and social recognition, and experience challenges differently.

l Women’s membership of executive committees in CBNRM institutions is skewed: While women and men in their identity as ‘ordinary forest users’ have access to membership of CBNRM institutions, their membership of executive committees and access to key positions, such as chairperson and vice-chairperson, is skewed. With the exception of CFUGs, women’s representation in the executive committees of CBNRM institutions, such as CAMCs and BZM committees is disproportionately low.

l Conservation area and buffer zone management structures are running in a gender exclusive way: The conservation area management and buffer zone management structures are running in a gender exclusive way in the sense that there are no women in the higher-level decision making bodies, such as BZUCs at the settlement level and BZM Councils at landscape level, although they are included in the settlement-level BZUGs. Their representation decreases in the VDC-level CAM Committees and settlement-level BZM Committees. Similarly, women are absent from the CAM Councils at the Ilaka level (local unit of administration).

l Although women are members of CBNRM institutions, they are seldom leaders: Women constitute on average around 39% of the members of CFUGs in the study area, which is higher than the national average (25%). However, only 7% of CFUGs in the study area (excluding leadership of women-only CFUGs) are led by women. Furthermore, men lead all of the BZMCs and BZM councils and only 2 of the 33 CAMCs are led by women.

l Women-only CFUGs offer women an opportunity to lead: Unlike the institutional processes in mixed CFUGs and mixed conservation area and buffer zone management structures, women-only CFUGs offer women an opportunity to lead and demonstrate their ability as change agents. The female leaders in women-only CFUGs have been focusing on the mobilization of community resources for the benefit of poor households and female forest users, despite the fact that the community forests they manage are small, degraded and generate little forest income. Women, have limited opportunity to demonstrate their competence in other CBNRM institutions, in which women’s participation as leaders and in decision-making is limited or non-existent.

l Men are taking over the leadership of CFUGs with high economic value: There has been a shift in the leadership of previously women-only CFUGs with high economic value community forests from women to men. Men’s interest in holding the leadership position tends to be high in women-only CFUGs with sal forest (e.g., in Kailali and Bardiya). Identifying the extent of men’s influence in women-only CFUGs was beyond the scope of this study and more research is needed to explore this situation, especially in the Terai.

l Men are supportive of women’s leadership when there is conflict, a shortage of men or when the forest has limited ability to generate income: Men tend to be supportive of bringing women into leadership positions in CBNRM institutions when they encounter conflict between male members of executive committees (e.g., in CFUGs in Kaski); when there is a shortage of men in the village due to out-migration (e.g., in Mustang); and when the forest being governed has limited potential to generate cash income from ecosystem goods and services. In contrast,

74

men tend to decline to select or elect women for leadership positions in resource rich CBNRM institutions. Men also tend to be supportive of women leaders with high sociopolitical and economic status.

l The criteria and processes for selecting leaders in CBNRM institutions are not gender sensitive: The criteria and processes for electing or selecting leaders vary among the CBNRM institutions. However, none of the criteria and processes is sensitive to the unequal gender power relations and the need to recognize women’s incredible contribution to, and role in, biodiversity conservation and management. The main criteria for leaders – able to give time, experience as a social worker, and educated – provide women with little space to engage in leadership roles. None of the CBNRM institutions investigated practice affirmative action or positive discrimination to bring women into leadership positions.

Factors hindering women’s leadership and empowermentThe key findings in relation to the barriers to women’s participation and leadership in CBNRM institutions are as follows:

l Social norms and perceptions of gender roles, women’s limited access to information and resources, and inadequate capacity of CBNRM institutions: Traditional social perceptions of gender roles and women’s agency, limited access to information and resources by women (e.g., lack of awareness of community funds, gender sensitive policies, and financial resource), and inadequate capacity of community forestry, conservation area, and buffer zone management organizations are the key factors in women’s exclusion from meaningful participation and leadership of CBNRM institutions.

l Limited interest of implementing actors: NRM program/policy implementing actors (e.g., government and non-governmental organizations, including associations of indigenous peoples and Dalits, and institutions on the ground) have limited interest in dealing with gender issues.

l Focus on ‘women’ rather than ‘gender’: The efforts of NRM program/policy implementing actors, including CBNRM institutions, tend to focus on including women in training and awareness programs and executive committees, with little attention to understanding the relationships between (among) women and men and how these relationships are socio-culturally and politically constructed.

l Poor understanding of ‘leadership’: Leadership in CBNRM institutions is equated with the physical ability of women and men to ‘patrol’ forests and undertake other tasks involved with the management of natural resources, rather than recognizing the potential of women for gender transformative change at the broader societal level. Community people and district stakeholders view leadership as a burden rather than an opportunity that recognizes the knowledge and experience of traditionally-excluded groups in the sustainable management and use of natural resources for positive development impacts. Neither NRM programs nor the approach to program implementation of CBNRM institutions and service providers have focused on the leadership development of women for sustainable NRM and socially equitable development. In addition, leadership development is not linked to resource use, access to resources or power relations within these institutions.

l Unchallenged gendered roles and power relations: Despite greater awareness among development practitioners, members of CBNRM institutions, government institutions and non-state actors of the unequal division of labor and power relations between women and men in the household sphere, these actors and institutions are not able challenge the gendered situation in the NRM sector. Men generally do not help women in their household (cooking, cleaning), reproductive (e.g., child care) and productive (e.g., collection of forage, fodder, water) duties, which has resulted in women working for longer hours and being involved in more activities than men. These duties limit women from participating in, and benefiting from,

75

the management of forests and other natural resources. In addition, women do not find time for community-level activities, which means that there is less likelihood of women claiming membership in the executive committees of CBNRM institutions or leading such institutions.

l Men not prepared to share power: Male members of CBNRM institutions are not ready to share the power with women or to tackle gender issues in a systematic way.

l Indigenous knowledge of biodiversity management not considered in leadership section criteria: Despite the incredible knowledge and experience of women in the identification, use and management of biodiversity resources, the process and criteria for leadership selection within CBNRM institutions does not consider this dimension.

l Gender-based violence: Policy makers and technocrats are yet to accept that gender-based violence is a key leadership barrier for women engaged in NRM sector. There have not been any policy endeavors and institutional mechanism to prevent and cope with cases of violence in the forestry and NRM sectors.

76

77

Chapter 11 Recommendations for gender

transformative change in the NRM sector

78

79

This study provides several insights into how women and men are participating in CBNRM institutions, including in leadership roles, and their gender-differential knowledge in relation to the identification and use of forest biodiversity. In this Chapter, recommendations are made as to some strategic and operational measures that can be applied in the Hariyo Ban Program, in particular, and more generally in the NRM sector by policy makers, implementing agencies, CBNRM institutions, and research institutes to recognize and promote women’s effective participation and leadership of CBNRM institutions. Hariyo Ban ProgramThe Hariyo Ban Program has undertaken several initiatives to address gender equality and social inclusion in its programmatic work, including biodiversity conservation, climate change and ecosystem management at the landscape level. However, the following recommendations are made for the Hariyo Ban Program to sensitize and capacitate its consortium partners and target communities in terms of empowering women and achieving gender equitable development outcomes.

l Engage men in sensitizing NRM stakeholders on gender issues: Men can play a crucial role in sensitizing large numbers of NRM stakeholders at the household, community, and state levels about the complex gender issues in NRM in Nepal’s highly unequal society. Engaging and sensitizing men within NRM institutions (the government, civil society, private sector, development projects, NGOs and CBNRM institutions) to understand and address gender issues is essential. Gender sensitivity training for female and male staff members and leaders of NRM institutions would help to increase the number of women in leadership and decision-making roles in CBNRM institutions.

l Recognize women’s leadership and associated gender issues as critical development agenda: Women’s leadership and associated gender issues need to be recognized by the Hariyo Ban Program as a critical development agenda and kept in mind during program planning and review processes.

l Build the capacity of partners and beneficiaries on GESI: Conduct capacity building training for Hariyo Ban program partners and beneficiaries on gender equality and social inclusion, including on:

♦ ‘Leadership status, opportunities, and factors hindering women’s leadership in CBNRM institutions’ as a session in any technical training (e.g., community adaptation action plan preparation, forest management, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation+ (REDD+), payment for ecosystem services (PES), biodiversity conservation and management) organized for local communities, project staff, partners and other stakeholders

♦ ‘Gender-differential knowledge in biodiversity conservation and management’ as a specific training designed and implemented for local communities, project staff, partners and other stakeholders

l Conduct gender assessments of, and capacitate, CBNRM institutions: Assess gender responsive budgeting and expenditure status (gender auditing) of CFUGs, BZM institutions and CAM institutions in the project areas and capacitate these institutions on gender and social equity sensitive planning and auditing with the aim to ensure budget and programs for empowering women in economic activities and community leadership.

l Create more economic opportunities for women: Support women’s groups within CBRNM institutions in order to secure their access to, and control over, income from forest management and conservation area management activities.

l Generate disaggregated data on leadership of CBNRM institutions: Generate data on leadership status (by gender, caste/ethnicity, age and economic wellbeing) in the different CBNRM institutions in the TAL and CHAL as baseline information for measuring change in women’s status in grassroots forestry and NRM.

l Disseminate study findings: Produce a policy brief on gender considerations in the NRM sector using the findings from gender studies, including this study carried out by the Hariyo Ban Program. Share the study findings at the national, district and local levels through civil society organizations, non-state actors, and networks of gender experts and researchers, and sensitize NRM stakeholders about the emerging gender issues and opportunities in the forest sector.

80

l Support implementation of the GESI Strategy – 2008 and integration of a gender perspective in policy: Support and facilitate the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and its departments to integrate gender and social issues and priority actions for empowering women and excluded groups in the ongoing forest sector strategy design process and outcomes. Likewise, support the Ministry and the DNPWC to integrate community-based conservation and a gender perspective while revising the conservation acts, policies and strategies.

l Cultivate competent local gender researchers in the NRM sector: To address the lack of dedicated and competent local gender researchers in the NRM sector, form partnerships with national non-state actors to conduct gender-focused research, capacity building and policy advocacy to support the identification and capacity of gender task leaders/specialists at the district and national levels and to strengthen their networking for providing services at the policy and practice levels.

Policy makersAs issues relating to leadership and power relations vary across community forestry, protected areas and conservation area management structures, the policy-level recommendations are divided into two categories: community forestry policy recommendations and protected area/conservation area management policy recommendations. In both, the roles of implementing agencies and donors are critical.

Community forestryl Amend community forestry legislation and policies to ensure women’s access to forest

income: Ensure women’s access to forest income and other financial benefits by incorporating gender-specific provisions into forest legislation, policies, and strategies, including the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations 2008. For example, provide for the allocation of at least 10% of the total annual forest income of CFUGs for women, especially poor women, under the Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations.

l Ensure leadership positions for women: Focus on measures that ensure leadership positions for women and disadvantaged social groups and undertake necessary activities to strengthen the leadership capacity of women.

l Establish a sex-disaggregated database on CFUG leadership, use and access to funds, and benefit sharing: Support and raise awareness of the need to establish and maintain a sex-disaggregated database on CFUG leadership, use and access to funds, and benefit sharing at both the CFUG and district forest office levels.

l Revive ‘gender working groups’ for implementation of the GESI Strategy 2008: Revive and support the effective operation of national gender working groups in the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, which were founded during the design of the Ministry’s GESI Strategy 2008. The gender workings groups can review what has (and has not) worked in terms of GESI policy/strategy implementation in the forest sector and identify measures for the better implementation of the policy. The Hariyo Ban Program, in collaboration with the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, donors and other NRM practitioners, could facilitate the process of revitalizing the gender working groups at the national level.

l Invest in women’s development: Consider women’s leadership development and their access to NRM-based income earning opportunity as important development agendas in the forest sector and ensure that state and non-state actors working in the sector have a budget for activities in these areas. In other words, forest stakeholders at all levels should commit to investing in women (e.g., women’s leadership development, income opportunities, technical training, and scholarships for technical education) to improve livelihoods and natural resource management.

l Include gender experts and female natural resource managers in policy-making processes: The inclusion of gender experts and female natural resource managers in policy making would support the identification of women’s gender issues and needs, and of solutions. However, the representation of women may not be sufficient until policy makers have an interest in, and the capacity to adequately to understand, gender issues from a policy and practice point of view.

81

Protected area/conservation area managementl Amend the legal and policy framework for protected areas/conservation areas to support

women’s inclusion in buffer zone and conservation area management structures: Ensure the integration of gender and development perspectives while revising protected area management laws, policies, strategies and guidelines in order to promote people-oriented conservation linked development and support women’s inclusion in the conservation management structures and decision-making bodies from local to district and national level.

l Ensure women’s access to park revenue and other financial benefits: Ensure women’s access to park and conservation area revenue and other financial benefits by incorporating gender-specific provisions in protected area legislation. For example, ensure that at least 10% of the total park revenue goes to local women under the buffer zone management regime.

l Sensitize conservationists to the need for gender equality and social inclusion: Raise awareness of, and sensitize conservationists on, the importance of people-centered conservation for improving the livelihoods of NRM-dependent households and biodiversity conservation. Policy-level dialogue and capacity building on participatory conservation management planning with a focus on gender equality and social inclusion, both in the planning process and content of plans is needed to support change in conservation institutions and practices.

l Conduct capacity building of grassroots conservation institutions: Capacity building of the grassroots conservation institutions on gender responsive planning, gender budgeting and auditing, and gender integration in conservation area management planning is needed to integrate a gender perspective and strengthen women’s inclusion in the conservation sector.

Implementing agencies Promoting women’s leadership, economic opportunities, and the effective implementation of the government’s GESI policies requires some behavioral changes by policy and program implementing agencies (the government, non-state actors and development organizations). The following recommendations are made for implementing agencies working in the NRM sector:

l Conduct capacity building on gender-focused research, policy awareness and gender integration methodology: Conduct capacity building on gender-focused research/analysis, policy awareness, and gender integration methodology for NRM stakeholders (conservation and forest offices) at the district and national level. Collaboration and strategic partnerships between forest and conservation departments with organizations (NGOs, private sector, research institutes) working on gender and social issues in NRM would be the entry point for this capacity building activity.

l Allocate budgets for gender-focused programs and gender integration in project planning: Ensure that budget funds are allocated for gender-focused programs and gender integration in NRM project planning, monitoring and evaluation, and research.

l Support the government to establish a sex-disaggregated database on CFUG leadership, use and access to funds, and benefit sharing: Support government authorities working in community forestry and protected area management to establish a sex-disaggregated database (on CFUG leadership, access to and use of funds, and benefit sharing) at both the CFUG and district forest office levels and to use data from this database in annual progress reports and to identify issues and opportunities.

l Measure progress using gender sensitive indicators: Include gender sensitive indicators when reviewing and analyzing development programs related to forestry and conservation. Ensure progress is presented in the form of gender sensitive outcomes, such as change in leadership, skills, income, education opportunities, and participation in training and workshops by women, particularly from poor households.

l Identify and support gender task leaders: Identify gender task leaders (or a gender resource team consisting of both women and men) interested in, and with experience working on, gender issues at the district level; foster their networking and partnerships with district-level government and NGOs/civil society organizations; and mobilize them in gender-focused activities on the ground.

l Sensitize NRM stakeholders about issues surrounding women’s leadership: Sensitize NRM stakeholders at all levels about issues surrounding women’s leadership including the barriers to leadership and measures for women’s leadership development in the NRM sector.

82

l Establish partnerships with non-state actors for gender equality and social inclusion: Establish partnerships with non-state actors that have an organizational interest in, commitment to and capacity to deliver on gender issues in NRM at the policy, research and implementation levels. Engage these actors in assessing the impacts of development support in the NRM sector, reviewing and designing national NRM and gender policies/strategies in the NRM sector, and gender sensitization, integration and analysis training.

CBNRM institutions (right holders/beneficiaries)l Build the capacity of CBNRM institutions for gender equality and social inclusion:

Capacitate CBNRM institutions on gender and governance issues in NRM. Make sure that the operational plans and constitutions of CBNRM institutions contain explicit provisions to bring women into leadership positions and create income-generating opportunities for them.

l Strengthen women’s leadership capacity: Strengthen the leadership capacity and skills of female leaders of ward citizens’ forums, community learning and action centers, CFUGs, BZUC, and CAMCs and support their networking.

l Provide income-generating opportunities for women: Provide income-generating opportunities for female forest users through the promotion of agroforestry and planting of cash crops (e.g., cardamom, broom grass, medicinal plants and other NTFPs, as well as marketing). Also include women in PES mechanisms, REDD+ and value chain development activities for high value NTFPs.

l Ensure community adaption plans are gender sensitive: Ensure that community adaption plans related to climate change and biodiversity conservation are gender sensitive.

Research institutesl Support gender-focused research: Support case studies, impact studies, and institutional

analysis on CBNRM institutions and services providers from a gender lens (e.g., on capacity, decision-making processes, information/awareness, and organizational gender policy and practices).

l Study the gender-differentiated impacts of NRM: Conduct research on the gender-differentiated impacts of NRM and climate change adaptation policies on gender roles, power relations and women’s empowerment, and share the findings of this research at both the policy and implementation levels.

l Conduct in-depth studies on different types of community-based NRM practices: Balanced gender studies are required across the different participatory NRM models and regimes for climate change adaptation and biodiversity management. Focusing on the gender analysis of community forestry practices is not enough to provide a complete picture of how people-focused programs and policies are addressing gender issues, unless participation and power dynamics in participatory conservation area management, buffer zone management and community forest management are assessed. For this, in-depth studies on different types of community-based NRM practices are needed.

l Analyze the extent of women’s empowerment and changes in gender roles at the household and community levels: Given the increased out-migration of men and improved forest situations in women-only CFUGs, it would be interesting to analyze the extent of women’s empowerment and changes in gender roles and power relations at the household and community levels.

l Partner with national non-state actors to identify and develop the capacity of gender task leaders: To fill the gap in local gender researchers in the forest sector, form partnerships with national non-state actors to conduct gender-focused research, capacity building and policy advocacy to identify and develop the capacity of gender task leaders/specialists at the district and national levels.

83

References

ACAP (2010) Annapurna Conservation Area Project. Mukhpatra. Hariya Paila. Year 19, No. 31, Magh 2067 BS

Adhikari, J; Hobley, M (2011) Everyone is leaving – who will sow our fields? Effects of migration from Khotang district to the Gulf and Malaysia. Kathmandu: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, Nepal

Agarwal, B (2010) Gender and green governance: The political economy of women’s presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ahlborg, H; Nightingale, AJ (2012) Mismatch between scales of knowledge in Nepalese forestry: Epistemology, power, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 17(4): 16

Bajracharya, D; Banskota, M; Cecelski, E; Denholm, J; Gurung, S (1993) Women and the management of energy, forests and other resources. Mountain Population Employment, Discussion Paper Series, 3. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Bhimbali CFUG, Chitwan (2012) Auditing report 2068/69 BS (2011/12 AD). Unpublished report of Bhimbali CFUG, Chitwan

BNP (2012) Annual progress report. Bardiya National Park Office, Thakurdwar, Bardiya

BNPBZDP (2003) Project implementation report, January-June 2003, Royal Bardiya National Park Buffer Zone Development Project. Bardiya: BNPBZDP

Brown, HCP (2011) Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa. International Forestry Review 13 (2):163–176

Buchy, M; Rai-Paudyal, B (2008) Do women-only approaches to natural resource management help women? The case of community forestry in Nepal. In Elmhirst, R; Resurreccion, B (eds) (2008) Gender, Environment and Natural Resource Management. Livelihoods, Mobility and Interventions. London: Earthscan, pp 127–50

Byrne, S; Pokharel, B; Mahat, A (2009) Community forestry in Nepal: Improving livelihoods through forest resources. Kathmandu: Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry Project, Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, Nepal

Central Bureau of Statistics (2012) National population and housing census 2011. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal

CARE (2009) Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis handbook. United Kingdom: CARE International

CECI (2000) Community Based Economic Development Project: Institutional assessment of forest enterprise service providers and financial appraisal of forest user groups. Kathmandu: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Centre for International Studies and Cooperation (CECI), Kathmandu

Chambers, R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications

Chambers, R; Pettit, J (2004) Shifting power to make a difference. In Groves, L; Hinton R (eds) Inclusive aid: Changing power and relationship in international development. London: Earthscan, pp 137–62

Chettri, N; Shakya, B; Lepcha, R; Chettri, R; Rai, KR; Sharma, E (2012) Understanding the linkages: Climate change and biodiversity in the Kangchenjunga Landscape. In Arrawatia, ML; Tambe, S (eds) Climate Change in Sikkim. Patterns, Impacts and Initiative. Gangtok: Sikkim: Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Sikkim, pp 165–182

CIFOR (2013) Gender in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, CGIAR research program on forests, trees and agroforestry. Bagor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research

Colfer, CJ; Minarchek, RD (2012) Women, men and forest research: A review of approaches, resources and methods for addressing gender. Bagor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research

84

Cornwall, A; Brock, K (2005) Beyond buzzwords: Poverty reduction, participation and empowerment in development policy. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

DDC, Chitwan (2002) District Development Profile. Chitwan: Chitwan District Development Committee (DDC)

Department of Forests (2008) Community forestry development guidzelines and regulations, 2065 BS. Kathmandu: Department of Forests

Department of Forests (2012) Databases on community forestry, leasehold forestry and buffer zone forest management. Kathmandu: Department of Forests

Derbyshire, H (2012) Gender mainstreaming: Recognizing and building on progress. Views from the UK Gender and Development Network. Gender & Development Vol. 20 (3): 491–504

Dhakal, TD; Leduc, B (2010) Women’s role in biodiversity management in the Himalayas. ICIMOD, Sustainable Mountain Development 57: 16–17

District Forest Office, Bardiya (2012) Monitoring and evaluation report of FY 2068/69. Bardiya: District Forest Office

District Forest Office, Kaski (2012) Monitoring and evaluation report of FY 2068/69. Kaski: District Forest Office

Dorji, Y (2012) Women’s roles in wild yam conservation, management, and use in Bhutan. In Khadka, M; Verma, R (2012) Gender and Biodiversity Management in the Greater Himalayas: Towards Equitable Mountain Development. Kathmandu: ICIMOD, pp 37–42

EFEA (2001) Environment and Forest Enterprise Activity (EFEA). Annual progress report 2057/58 (2000/2001). Dang: EFEA Project Coordinator’s Office, Dang, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal

Elmhirst, R; Resurreccion, BP (2008) Gender, environment and natural resource management: New dimensions, new debates. In Resurreccion, PB; Elmhirst, R (eds) Gender and natural resource management. Livelihoods, mobility and interventions. London: Earthscan, pp 3–22

Eyben, R (2008) Power, mutual accountability and responsibility in the practice of international aid: A relational approach. IDS Working Paper. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, p 305

Foucault, M (1978) The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality. Volume I. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley. England: Penguin Books

Gautam, D; Jynvaly, S; Sharma, A; Amatya, S (2007) Study report on climate change adaptation on livelihoods of women farmers. Kathmandu: Action Aid, Nepal

Gilmour, DA; Fisher, RJ (1991) Villagers, forests and foresters. The philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press

Giri, K (2012) Gender in forest tenure. Prerequisite for sustainable forest management in Nepal. Available at: www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_5220.pdf (accessed 4 August 2014)

Government of Nepal; Cottrell, J (2009) The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2007): As amended by the first to sixth amendments: with English and Nepali side-by-side and introductory material in both languages. Kathmandu: United Nations Development Programme, Nepal

Guijt, I; Shah, MK (1998) The myth of community. Gender issues in participatory development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications

Gurung, M; Darjee, K; Khadka, M (2008) Buffer zone management policy: Implications on the livelihoods of excluded groups (A case study of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve) Nepal. Kathmandu: Social Inclusion Research Fund Secretariat. Available at: www.socialinclusion.org.np/researchdetail-218.hthml (accessed 4 August 2014)

Gurung, J; Giri, K; Setyowati, AB; Lebow, E (2011) Getting REDD right for women: An analysis of the barriers and opportunities for women’s participation in the REDD+ sector in Asia. Bangkok: USAID

85

Hickey, S; Mohan, G (eds) (2004) Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books

ICIMOD (1989) Women in mountain development: Report of the International Workshop on Women, Development and Mountain Resources: Approaches to internalizing gender perspectives. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

ISRSC (2012) District demographic profile of Nepal. Kathmandu: Informal Sector Research and Study Centre (ISRSC)

Iversen, V; Chhetry, B; Francis, P; Gurung, M; Kafle, G; Pain, A; Seeley, J (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecological Economics 58: 93–107

Jensen, RI (2006) Evaluation of DFID’s policy and practice in support of gender equality and women’s empowerment. London: Department for International Development (DFID)

Karki, S; Gurung, M (2012) Women’s leadership in community forestry in the middle hills of Nepal. In Khadka, M; Verma, R (2012) Gender and Biodiversity Management in the Greater Himalayas: Towards Equitable Mountain Development. Kathmandu: ICIMOD, pp 25–27

Kelles-Viitanen, A; Shrestha, A (2011) Gender equality and social inclusion: Independent evaluation. Kathmandu: Office of the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator

Khadka, M (2000) Are the women and poor better off? A study on their access to resources and participation in decision-making in community forestry management in Nepal. A Case Study from Dolakha (mid-hill) District of Nepal. M.Sc Dissertation. Ås, Norway: Norwegian University of Life Science

Khadka, M (2009) Why does exclusion continue? Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing

Khadka, M (2010) Actors’ interaction at the policy level and implication for exclusion: Nepal’s community forestry. In Gómez, GM; Berner, E; et al. (eds) Participation for What: Social Change or Social Control? The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies; HIVOS; Oxfam Novib

Khadka, M (2011) Gender analysis of climate change adaptive agri-business participatory action research activities in Jumla, 12–19 November 2011. Unpublished field report submitted to Integrated Forest Ecosystems and Watershed Services, ICIMOD, Kathmandu

Khadka, M; Bhattarai, B (2012) Gender dimensions of forest governance in Nepal. Hamro Ban Sampada, Newsletter of Forest Action Nepal. Kathmandu: Forest Action Nepal

Khadka, M; Verma, R (2012) Gender and biodiversity management in the greater Himalayas: Towards equitable mountain development. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Krishna, S (2012) Gender and sustainable livelihoods in India: Side-stream/mainstream. In Harcourt, W (ed.) Women Reclaiming Sustainable Livelihoods Spaces Lost, Spaces Gained. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 125–14

Kristof, ND; WuDunn, S (2009) Half the sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Kvale, S; Brinkmann, S (2009) Interview: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage

Lama, N (2011) Rangeland management and eco-tourism. In Kreutzmann, H; Yang, Y; Richter, J (eds) (2011) Pastoralism and Rangeland Management on the Tibetan Plateau in the Context of Climate and Global Change, 21–25 October, Regional workshop in Lhasa, PR China. Bonn: GIZ and BMZ, pp 87–101

Lama, A; Buchy, M (2002) Gender, class, caste and participation: The case of community forestry in Nepal. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 9(1): 27–41

Leach, M (1991) Engendered environment: Understanding natural resources management in the West 6 Africa forest zone. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 22(4): 17–24

86

Luintel, H; Ojha, H; Rana, B; Subedi, R; Dhungana, H (2009) Community forestry in Nepal: Promoting livelihoods, community development and the Environment. Kathmandu: ForestAction and Livelihood Forestry Programme

Mahanty, S (2002) Conservation and development interventions as networks: The Case of the India Eco-development Project, Karnataka. World Development 30(8): 1369–1386

Malla, YB; Neupane, HP; Branney, PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 78–90

Manfre, C; Rubin, D (2012) Integrating gender into forestry research: A guide for CIFOR scientists and programme Administrators. Bagor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research

Meinzen-Dick, R; Brown, L; Feldstein, HS; Quisumbing, A (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development Vol 25 (8): 1303–1315

Meinzen-Dick, R; Quisumbing, A; Behrman, J; Biermayr-Jenzano, P; Wilde, V; Noordeloos, M; Ragasa, C; Beintema, N (2011) Engendering agricultural research, development, and extension. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2002) Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2006) Sacred Himalayan Landscape (SHL) strategic plan: 2006–2016. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2008) Forest sector’s gender and social inclusion strategy, 2065 BS (Nepali). Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal.

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2010) Sacred Himalayan Landscape (SHL) interim implementation plan. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal and WWF, Nepal

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2013) Persistence and change: Review of thirty years of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal

Momsen, JH (2007) Gender and biodiversity: A new approach to linking environment and development. Geography Compass 1/2: 149–162

Mosse, D (2005) Cultivating development. An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto Press

Nellemann, C; Verma, R; Hislop, L (eds) (2011) Women at the front line of climate change: Gender risks and hopes. A rapid response assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, Norway. Ås, Norway: Birkeland Trykkeri

Nelson, N; Wright, S (1995) Power and participatory development. Theory and practice. United Kingdom: Intermediate Technology Publications

Neuman, WL (2003) Social research methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th Edition). London: Allyn and Bacon

Neumayer, N; Plümper, T (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. London: Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and Department of Government, University of Essex and Max-Planck Institute of Economics

Nightingale, AJ (2002) Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2(1): 17–23

Nightingale, AJ (2003) Nature-society and development: Social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum 34(2003): 525–40

Nightingale, AJ (2006) The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2006, 24: 165–185

87

Patton, MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications

Paudel, D (1999) Distributional impacts of community forestry programme on different social groups of people in the mid-hills of Nepal. MPhil dissertation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge

Pokharel, RK; Gyawali, AR; Yadav, RL; Tiwari, KP (2011) Increasing women access to financial resources through micro-credit of Nepal's community forestry. International Journal of Social Forestry 4 (1): 1–16

Rai-Paudyal, B (2008) Agrarian structures and distributive outcomes. A study of community forestry in Nepal. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing

Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan (2012) Auditing report 2068/69 BS (2011/12 AD). Unpublished report of Ranikhola CFUG, Chitwan

Rocheleau, D; Edmunds, D (1997) Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development 25(8): 1352–1371

Sharma, E; Chettri, N; Gurung, J; Shakya, B (2007) The landscape approach in biodiversity conservation: A regional cooperation framework for the implementation of the convention on biological diversity in the Kangchenjunga landscape. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Shrestha, TK (2003) Wildlife of Nepal. A study of renewable resources of Nepal Himalayas. Kathmandu: Curriculum Development Centre, Tribhuvan University

Skinner, E (2011) Gender and climate change: Overview report, cutting edge pack. London: Institute of Development Studies

Thoms, CA (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39(2008): 1452–65

Tshering, P; Gurung, D; Verma, R; Khadka, M (2013) Transforming women’s economic power and movements in rural development: Where are we now? Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Veneklasen, L; Miller, V (2007) A new weave of power, people and politics. The action guide for advocacy and citizen participation. Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing

Verma, R (2001) Gender, land and livelihoods: Through farmers’ eyes. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre

Verma, R; Khadka, M (eds) (forthcoming) Gender and pastoralism in the rangelands of the Hindu-Kush Himalayas: From the margins to new heights. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Vincent, K; Cull, T; Aggarwal, PK; Lau, C; Kristjanson, P; Phartiyal, P; Parvin, G (2011) Gender, climate change, agriculture, and food security: A CCAFS Training of Trainers Manual to prepare South Asian rural women to adapt to climate change. Cali, Colombia: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)

WOCAN; HIMAWANTI (2012) An assessment of gender and women’s exclusion in REDD+ in Nepal. Kathmandu: Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN), Nepal and Himalayan Grassroots Women’s Natural Resource Management Association (HIMAWANTI)

Zimmerer, KS (2010) Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35: 137–66

88

89

Annexes

90

91

Annex 1: Summary of data types and sources used in the study

Theme Data type Data sources

Access to productive resources and incentives

- Awareness of GESI policy in forest sector

- Technical and social skills development training opportunities for women

- Trend of investment in women's leadership and empowerment

- Women’s access to forest resources

- Women’s access to funds and financial incentives generated by forest ecosystems

- Labor and time reducing technologies offered by forestry programs

- Trend of diversified income-generating activities in NRM groups and access to annual income by women

In-depth interviews, FGDs, official documents, financial records and minutes of NRM group meetings, annual plans and strategies of forest stakeholders (district forest offices, DNPWC/, DSWCO, Hariyo Ban Program partners)

Links between forest ecosystem management and gender power relations

- Change in forest management and conservation practices over the last two decades, i.e., what biodiversity resources (subsistence, commercial, ecotourism, cultural value) are emerging or disappearing, how they are used, who is accessing these resources, who is in leadership positions, and who decides on resource use

- Institutional and social barriers for female leaders with regards to accessing technical services from the government and non-state actors

- Gender-differentiated knowledge about conservation, use and management of biodiversity in different ecosystems (forests, wetlands, rangelands, grasslands)

Key informant interviews, FGDs, observations

Gendered participation and power relations within CBNRM institutions

(Women’s agency and power relations)

- Women’s representation, voice and influence in NRM committees

- Women’s control over agenda, ideas and decisions on financial and other resources use and mobilization

- Role of informal power (violence against women, gender-differential perceptions of leadership in NRM groups, and societal perceptions of women and men)

- Criteria for selection/election of NRM leaders

- Decision-making process within CBNRM groups

In-depth interviews, FGDs, official documents and minutes of NRM group meetings, observations

Behavior and attitudes of NRM actors

- Actors’ awareness of, and sensitivity to, GESI policy and accountability in relation to gender issues of NRM

- Actors’ perception of women’s leadership in the NRM sector (opportunities, barriers and solutions)

- Actors’ interests and resource commitments for promoting gender equality (organizational GESI strategy, gender budget and programs)

Policy documents, annual plans and GESI strategies of implementing actors, expert interviews and Hariyo Ban Program stakeholders interviews

links between women’s indigenous knowledge of biodiversity conservation and their leadership position

(Women’s leadership and knowledge relationships)

- Type of women’s knowledge that receives weight in NRM groups

- Whether knowledge is one of the criteria for selecting leaders in NRM groups

Key informant interviews (with both women and men)

92

Annex 2: NRM stakeholders interviewed at district level, May-August 2013

District DFO DSWCO National parks NTNC WWF TAL Conserva-

tion areasDalit

NGOsNEFIN/NIWF FECOFUN Women

NGOs

Mus

tang

- √ - - - - ACAP - - - -

Kas

ki

√ √ - - - - ACAP - √ √ -

Chi

twan

√ - √ √ √ - - √ √ √ -

Kai

lali

√ - - - - - √ - √ √

Bar

diya

√ - √ √ √ √ - - - √ √

4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2

Annex 3: NRM stakeholders interviewed at national level, May-August 2013

Type of stakeholder Organization interviewed

Government Department of Forests, DNPWC, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

NGO/civil society organization HIMAWANTI, NIWF, FECOFUN, DANAR

INGO CARE, IUCN, WWF

Donor SDC

93

Annex 4: In-depth interview checklist (CBNRM members)

Date: ……………………………….District: …………………………Village name: …………………………………….

Type of interview (please tick mark) Chairperson/Leader Ex-chairperson Ordinary user

1. Profile of respondent

Full name:…………………………........ Address: …………………………………………

Age group: <30 30-40 40-50 >50 Gender:……………….

Literacy: Literate Illiterate Below SLC Above SLC

Current marital status: Married Single Divorced Widowed

Name of NRM group: …………………………........Address: …........................................

Groups formally register (Year): ……………………Forest area (ha): ….......

2. Leadership tenure (skip if you interview a non-leader)

2.1 Do you know which year you were selected as chairperson of your group? If yes, which year did you

become the chairperson? If not, why not?

2.2. Is it your first time as leader? If not, when was the previous period of leadership?

3. Leadership selection process (skip if you interview a non-leader)

Do you know how you were selected for the chairperson position?

If yes,

How did you get information about the need for chairperson election/selection?

Who played a key role in selecting you as chairperson? Why?

What were the roles of other women in selecting you as chairperson?

If no,

Who selected you as chairperson for your group?

When did you know you had been selected as chairperson for your group?

4. Motivational factors for leadership role (skip if you interview a non-leader)

What motivated you to be the leader of your NRM group?

5. Knowledge and leadership relationship

l While interviewing a leader: While selecting you as a leader, did your group considered your

knowledge as an important criteria for the leadership roles? If yes, what aspects of your knowledge

was considered or acknowledged during your candidacy for leadership (e.g., forest conservation,

social networking, forest management, medicinal plant use, empowering other women, etc.)?

l While interviewing an ordinary user: Did you remember any cases where your group considered

‘practical knowledge of a user’ as important criteria for selecting/electing leader? If so, which kind of

knowledge did the group consider and who was accepted (a man or woman) for their knowledge?

6. Awareness about leader’s roles/responsibility? (skip if you interview a non-leader)

You have been working as a chairperson for your group; can you tell us what you are doing (your roles and

responsibility?

94

7. Decision-making opportunities

In your experience, who makes the following decisions in your group (please tick mark)?Decisions about Women Men Both Not sure Reason

Group fund utilization (in general)

Lending funds to users (if any)

Forest opening/harvesting months and duration

Forest product distribution

Forest protection measures

Forest thinning/cleaning activities

Plantation in community forests/conservation areas

Biodiversity conservation and use (if any)

Water spring conservation

Erosion prone area conservation

Relationship building with government and NGOs

Sending participants for training and workshops

Support for poor and disadvantaged groups

Forest operational plan revision

Assembly date, time and venue

Committee meeting date, time and venue

Nominating members for executive committee

Sending women to training and workshops

Other (mention)

8. Participation opportunities

Who play the following roles in your group (please tick mark)?

Major roles Women Men Both Not sure

Putting forward agenda during committee meeting

Putting forward agenda during general assembly

Putting forward new ideas during meetings and assembly

Coordination with DFO and other government offices

Other, if any

9. Do you propose any agendas during committee meetings?

If yes, do other people listen? Why do they listen? If no, why?

10. Awareness level about policy and resource use at community level

Do you know (please tick mark)?

Awareness level on major issues Yes No If yes, explain

Do you know about the community forestry policy on fund utilization that en-sures the access of poor, Dalits and indigenous peoples to funds?

Do you know about the conservation policy that provides for spending 30–50% of the total income generated by a national park or protected area on local development?

Do you know the amount of funds available in your group?

Do you know where money comes from in your group?

Do you know whether your group has lent money to its members? If yes, for what purpose?

95

Have you ever borrowed money from your group? If yes, for what purpose?

Have you heard of any other policies of the forestry and/or environment sector? If yes, please mention.

Do you know whether your group sells timber or not? If yes, which species of timber?

Do you know whether your group sells non-timber forest products? If yes, which species of non-timber forest product?

Do you remember any cases of exclusion of female leaders from being reselect-ed in the leadership position when the forest started producing more income or other revenue?

11. What initiatives did you take during your leadership (skip if you interview a non-leader)?

12. In your opinion, what do you think the main person of your group looks like? Why is she or he the main

person?

13. Use of agency and gender-based violence (to be asked only of female chairs/ex-chairs)

a. Can you share a moment when you felt very happy when working as ‘group leader or chair’ in your

group? What did you do and what made you happy?

b. Can you share a moment when you felt very challenged or insecure about a situation when working as

‘group leader or chair’ in your group? What were the problems and how did you overcome them?

c. Do you know any kind of violence against girls and women in your village and/or NRM group? What,

how, when, and why did it happened? What did the community do for justice for the victim?

d. Can you please share the way your family is supporting you and your community leadership?

14. In your opinion, what would be the advantages of having a female leader in your NRM group?

15. In your experience, what would be the advantages of having a male leader in your NRM group?

16. In your experience, what are the barriers to female leaders leading a NRM group effectively?

17. In your knowledge, what are the barriers to male leaders leading a NRM group effectively?

18. In your experience, do you think female forest users are equally capable of leading NRM groups as their

male counterparts? If so, why?

19. In your opinion, what needs to be done to strengthen women’s leadership?

20. Do you know anyone in the forest or conservation/national park office? If yes, please mention their name

and how you know him/her?

21. Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge.

Now your time to ask us questions!

96

Annex 5: Focus group discussion checklist

Date: ……………………………….District: …………………………Village name: …………………………………….

Type of interview: Mixed group Women only Men only

(please tick mark)

Number of people attending FGD (by gender): …………….(by caste/ethnicity): …………….

Name of NRM group: …………………………........Address: …........................................

Group informally started to organize (year): …… Formally registered: …………Forest area (ha): ….......

1. Leadership selection process

1.1. Please tell us how you elect/select members of the executive committee of your group?

l How do you inform forest/conservation users of the need for committee selection?

l What are criteria are to be considered while selecting executive committee members?

l What are the criteria for selecting the chairperson?

l Did you consider the practical knowledge of a user as important criteria for selecting/electing

leader? If so, what kind of knowledge did you consider and who did you find (a man or woman)

had such knowledge?

1.2. Has your group ever selected/elected a female chairperson?

If yes,

l What was her name?

l Which year was she selected?

l How many years did she work as chair?

l Why was she selected (her reputation in village, caste, religion, education, assertiveness,

economic position, social network, ability to patrol and save forests, able to give time for social

work, etc.)?

l Was she also selected a second and third time? Which years was she selected?

l What encouraged her to be chair several times?

l Who took the major role and decision in selecting/electing the female chair?

l Was she a relative of the previous chair or an executive committee member? If yes, whose relative

was she?

If no,

l Why you were not able to elect/select a female chair in your group? What would happen to your

group if you selected a female chair?

2. Knowledge about selecting a male chairperson

l Please tell us how many men have worked as chairperson in your group?

l How did you select the male chairperson? Was it through election or anonymous expression of

interest from all users?

l Why did you select the current male chairperson (if there is no female chair at the moment)?

3. People’s perception of women’s and men’s agency for leadership role

l In your opinion, what would be the advantages of having a female leader in your NRM group?

l In your experience, what would be the advantages of having a male leader in your NRM group?

l In your knowledge, what are the barriers and challenges for women to become leaders in your group?

l In your knowledge, what are the barriers and challenges for men to become leaders in your group?

97

l Do you think female users are equally capable of leading NRM groups as their male counterparts? If

yes/no, why?

l In your opinion, what needs to be done to strengthen women’s leadership in your group?

4. Policy and resource allocation within NRM groups for women’s leadership development and their

economic empowerment

l Does your group have policies that help women to generate income and leadership?

If so, what are those policies?

If no, why?

l Does your group have any programs or budget for women’s leadership development and economic

empowerment? If yes, what are these? Where did the idea come from and what are the benefits to

women?

If not, why not?

5. Decision-making opportunities

Who makes the following decisions in your group (please tick mark)?

Decisions about Women Men Both Not sure Reason

Group fund utilization (in general)

Lending funds to users ( if any)

Forest opening/harvesting months and duration

Forest product distribution

Forest protection measures

Forest thinning/cleaning activities

Plantation in community forests/conservation areas

Biodiversity conservation and use (if any)

Water spring conservation

Erosion prone area conservation

Relationship building with government and NGOs

Sending participants for training and workshops

Support for poor and disadvantaged groups

Forest operational plan revision

Assembly date, time and venue

Committee meeting date, time and venue

Nominating members for the executive committee

Sending women for training and workshops

Other (mention)

6. Participation opportunitiesWho play the following roles in your group (please tick mark)?

Role Women Men Both Not sure Reasons

Putting forward agenda during committee meeting

Putting forward agenda during general assembly

Putting forward new ideas during meetings and assembly

Coordination with DFO and other government offices

Coordination with forest civil society and NGOs

Inclusion of new members in your group

98

7. Awareness level about policy and resource use at community level

Do you know (please tick mark)?

Awareness level on major issues Yes No If yes, explain

Do you know about the community forestry policy on fund utilization that ensures the access of female members of poor and disadvantaged groups to funds?

Do you know about the conservation policy that provides for spending 30–50% of the total income generated by a national park or protected area on local development?

Have you heard of any other policies in the forestry or environ-mental sector? If yes, please mention it.

Do you know how much money is available in your group?

Do you know where the money comes from?

Do you know where your group has spent the money?

8. Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge.

Now your time to ask us questions!

99

Annex 6: Key informant interview checklist (CBNRM institutions)

1. Profile of respondent

Full name:…………………………........ Address: …………………………………………

Age group: <30 30-40 40-50 >50 Gender:……………….

Literacy: Literate Illiterate Below SLC Above SLC

Occupation: ……………..

Name of NRM group: …………………………........ Address: …........................................

2. In your experience, what did you find to be the most significant development of your group (forest,

institutional, fund use, female leadership, GESI sensitization) over the last 20 years?

3. Please tell us the changes that have taken place in your group in terms of leadership over the last 20

years?

4. Does your group have a specific program on women’s leadership and empowerment?

a. If yes, what is it?

b. When did the program start? Where did the idea come from?

c. If no, what have been the constraints on the implementation of a female leadership program?

5. There are some forest and conservation policies and/or guidelines that emphasize the consideration of

gender issues in forestry. Have you seen and/or read any such policy documents and/or guidelines?

a. If yes,

i. which policy documents and guidelines have you seen?

ii. which policy documents and guidelines have you read?

b. If no, why?

6. What are some of the obstacles to implementing the forest sector’s GESI policy?

7. What needs to be done in your group in order to implement the forest sector’s GESI Strategy, 2008?

8. Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge.

Now your time to ask us questions!

100

Annex 7: Interview checklist (forest stakeholders at district level)

Date: ……………………………….District: ………………………… Village name: …………………………………….

Type of respondents DFO staff or DSWCO

PA Staff

Forest civil society(committee member)

Forest civil society staff

Women NRM NGO

Dalit NGO Indigenous

(please tick mark)

1. Profile of respondentFull name: …………………………........ Gender: …….………. Position: ……………Office name/address: …………………………………………………..

2. In your experience, what have you found to be the most significant achievements of community forestry or community-based conservation programs in your district over the last 20 years?

3. In your experience, what are the main barriers in community forestry or community-based conservation to bringing women into leadership positions?

4. Does your organization have a specific program on women’s leadership and empowerment? a. If yes, what is it? b. When did the program start? Where did the idea come from?c. If no, what have been the constraints on the implementation of female leadership programs?

5. Does your organization have any other programs that support dealing with gender issues in conservation and community forestry? If yes, explain them.

6. There are some forest and conservation policies and/or guidelines that emphasize the consideration of gender issues in forestry. Have you seen and/or read any such policy documents or guidelines?a. If yes, i. Which policy documents and guidelines have you seen? ii. Which policy documents and guidelines have you read?b. If no, why?

7. Have you seen, read and used the Gender, Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI) strategy or the Community Forestry Development Guidelnes of the Forest Ministry?

Yes, Seen it Read it Use it

a. If you have read it, what motivated you to read it? b. If you used it, in which activities or decisions have you used the GESI Strategy/the Community

Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations? c. If you have not seen it, why?d. If you have seen it, but not read it, why?e. If you have seen it, read it, but not used it, why?

8. What are some of the obstacles to implementing the forest sector’s GESI policy?

9. A review of community forestry shows that women’s participation in leadership roles tend to be very weak, although their roles seem very high in forest conservation, use and management. It is also difficult to know what percentage of women are taking a leadership role in community forestry. In your experience, why is it so? What are the problems of women’s exclusion in leadership position?

10. Do you think female leadership is necessary in the forestry sector? If yes, why?

11. What needs to be done to promote women’s effective leadership and their meaningful participation in decision-making and forestry sector activities?

12. What needs to be done in your organization in order to implement the forest sector’s GESI Strategy, 2008?

13. Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge. Now your time to ask us questions!

101

Annex 8: Interview checklist (NRM stakeholders at national level)

Date: ……………………………….

Name:………………………………Organization: ……………………………..Position:…………

1. Rapport building/setting the context for the interview

l Researcher introduces the topic of the research (rationale and objective) and acknowledges the time given by respondent.

l Could you please share your job experience in forestry/NRM in Nepal (when did you start your career, what is your training in and major areas of expertise, what are your main accomplishments?)

2. Perceived achievements/gaps in community forestry

l In your many years work in the forestry sector, in general, and community forestry, in particular, what have you found to be the significant achievements of Nepal’s community forestry?

l What have you found did not work well in community forestry? Why do you think it is not working or is still a problem? What potential does community forestry have in terms of gender and social equity issues?

3. Problems of women’s meaningful participation in the forest sector

l Several studies have highlighted the problem of passive participation of women in the forest sector when it comes to policy making, program design and decision-making (whether at the grassroots or in national level forest institutions); what do you think about this? Why is it so and what has caused such a situation? How can we address this problem? Who has the main roles to play in changing this situation and why?

l Do you think women’s participation in policy-making processes in the forest sector is meaningful? If yes/no, why?

l What measures are needed to have women’s effective voice and influence in the policy making process?

4. Women’s leadership promotion in the forest sector (skip if interviewing a non-leader)

l You are leading a GESI program and/or heading your institution, what motivated you to lead the program or institution?

l What are the main barriers for women to lead a forestry institution or program? What created these barriers?

l Do you have a role in decision-making in your organization? If yes, in which issues/areas do you take decisions (e.g., policy issues, fund allocation, staff recruitment, annual planning and budgeting, participate in training/meeting)? If no, why?

5. Implementation of GESI policy

l Have you heard or read of any policy related to gender, social inclusion and women’s empowerment in Nepal’s forestry sector? If yes, which policies have your seen or read ? If no, why?

l The GESI Strategy, 2008 and Community Forestry Development Guidelines and Regulations, 2008 of the Forest Ministry clearly recognize the importance of gender, social equity and poverty reductions. Do you think these policies are implemented in your organization? If yes, how have they been implemented and who is benefitting from the policies?

l If the GESI policies are not implemented as expected, what are the problems/reasons for not implementing these policies?

l Does your organization have a gender operational strategy? If yes, what is the focus of the strategy? If not, why?

l How much budget does your organization allocate annually for gender-focused programs and analysis?

102

l How supportive are the board members in your organization of gender integration (in the case of non-state actors)?

l What interventions are needed at the institutional and policy level to implement such policies effectively?

6. Actors’ roles in policy and actions in the forest sector

l Given that men dominate the Nepalese forest sector, how do you think such progressive policy discourses can be implemented?

l The sector is heavily dependent on external actors, especially donors in defining and implementing policies. At the policy and implementation levels actors have limited interest in implementing GESI policy. In such a context, how do you see the role of donors in the forest sector, especially in tackling gender equality and women’s empowerment issues? What should they do or change in their intervention approach or perspective of women’s empowerment?

l Women at the grassroots are participating in natural resource conservation and use, however, their participation remains very poor when it comes to economic opportunities and decision-making at all levels. In this context, how can the government, donors, NGOs, civil society and projects be pro-poor and pro-gender?

l Do you think that your organization can be a change agent to make the forestry sector pro-gender? If so, what issues do you see in your organization that need to be addressed to make its efforts gender-focused and sensitive? What measures are needed to make your organization pro-gender in the forest sector?

7. Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge. Now your time to ask us questions!

103

Annex 9: Interview checklist gender dimensions of biodiversity (focus group discussion)

Date: ………………………………. District: …………………………Village name: ………………………………

1. Basic information Women only Men onlyType of FGD:

Number of people attending FGD by gender and caste/ethnicity: ……..

VDC/ward no.: .……………………Altitude (m): ……….

NRM group name: ……………………………………Forest areas: ……………

Type of group: Women-only CFUG Mixed CFUG Conservation Group ..................

Ecosystem type: Forest Rengeland Grassland Wetland ..................

2. Frequency of forest/rangeland use

l Annually, when do you go into the forest (which months and how many days per month)? Why do you go into the forest? Which parts of the forest do you go to?

3. Timber use 3.1 Which timber species are available in your forest and on your farm land? Which parts and for which

purpose do you use these species?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

(e.g., bark, leaves, stem, roots,

branches, bulbs, seeds, fruits, shoots, resin)

For which purpose do you use?

(e.g., vegetable, pickle, medicine, edible/food, curry, spice, gum, cash income, cultural purposes, religious purposes, pollination, environmental

conservation, social networking)

What do you do for conservation for future

needs?

3.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these timber species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species

Increased Decreased No change Reason

3.3 If new species have appeared in your forest, what are these species and why have they appeared?

4. Firewood use 4.1 Which firewood species (e.g., trees, shrubs and bushes) are available in your forest and farm land?

Which parts and for which purpose do you use them?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

For which purpose do you use?

What do you do for conservation for future needs?

104

4.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these firewood species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species Increased Decreased No change Reason

4.3 If new species have appeared in your forests, what are these species and why have they appeared?

5. Fodder/forage use 5.1 Which fodder/forage species are available in your forest and farm lands? Which parts and for which

purpose do you use them?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

For which purpose do you use?

What do you do for conservation for future needs?

5.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these fodder/forage species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species Increased Decreased No change Reason

5.3 If new species have appeared in your forests, what are these species and why have they appeared?

6. Medicinal plants 6.1 Which medicinal plants are available in your forest and farm land? Which parts and for which purpose

do you use them?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

Which purpose do you use? What do you do for conservation for future needs?

6.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these medicinal plants species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species Increased Decreased No change Reason

6.3 If new species have appeared in your forest, what are these species and why have they appeared?

105

7. Birds 7.1 Which birds are available in your forest and how do you use them?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

For which purpose do you use?

What do you do for conservation for future needs?

7.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these bird species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species Increased Decreased No change Reason

7.3 If new species have appeared in your forest, what are these species and why have they appeared?

8. Animals 8.1 Which animals, insects, pests, and reptiles are available in your forest and how do you use them?

Local name of species

Which parts do you use?

For which purpose do you use?

What do you do for conservation for future needs?

8.2 Have you experienced any changes in the availability of these animals or pests or insects or reptiles species in your forest or farm land over the past decade?

Local name of species Increased Decreased No change Reason

8.3 If new species have appeared in your forests, what are these species and why have they appeared?

Thank you very much for giving us your valuable time and sharing your great experience and knowledge. Now your time to ask us questions!

106

Annex 10: Leadership of executive committees of CBNRM, 2013

NRM regime NRM groupCHAL districts TAL districts TOTAL

(No)

Leadership by gender (% of total)

Chitwan Kaski Mustang Bardiya Kailali Women Men

Community forestry

CFUG 64 (2) 421 (15) - 277 (45) 257 (56) 1,019 (118) 12 88

Buffer zone management

BZUG 1,107 (NA) - - 262 (NA) - 1,369 (NA) NA NA

BZUC 13 (0) - - 19 (0) - 32 (0) 0 100

BZCFUG (0) - - 59 (NA) - - - -

BZM Council 1 (0) - - 1(0) - 2 (0) 0 100

Conservation area management

CAMC - 17 (0) 16 (2) - - 43 (2) 5 95

CAM Council - 3 (0) 2(0) 5 (0) 0 100

Note: Figure in parenthesis is female leaders in the executive committee of the grassroots NRM institution; NA refers to data not available

Annex 11: List of plants reported by female and male forest users, Ranikhola CFUG, Kaski, 2013

By women and men By women By men

SN Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Badahar Artocarpus lakoocha Amala Phyllanthus emblica Bel Aegel mermelos

2 Bakino Melia azedarach Ansuro Justicia adhatoda Bhaise tapre Cassia occidentalis

3 Banmara Eupatorium odoratum Ban tarul Dioscorea bulbifera Bhalayo Semecarpus anacardium

4 Banso Brachiaria species Bayer Zizyphus mauritiana Bhuiamala Phyllanthus urinaria

5 Barro Terminalia bellirica Bilaune Maesa chisia Chhatiwan Alstonia scholaris

6 Bhorla Bauhinia vahlii Dabdabe Garuga pinnata Gurjo Tinospora reflexa

7 Bodhangero Lagerstroemia parviflora Datiwan Achyranthes aspera Khayer Acacia catechu

8 Chilaune Schima wallichii Debre lahara Smithia sensitiva Nim Azadirachta indica

9 Gayo Bridelia retusa Gandhe jhar Ageratum houstonianum Palans Butea monosperma

10 Ghodtapre Centella asiatica Gaujo Millettia extensa Satisal Dalbergia latifolia

11 Gindari Premna integrifolia Jaluki Monochoria hastata Simal Bombax ceiba

12 Harro Terminalia chebula Kalikath Myrsine semiserrata

13 Haldu Adina cordifolia Khamari Gmelina arborea Roxb

14 Jamun Syzygium cumini Kukur daino Smilax ovalifolia

15 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis Pire jhar Polygonum hydropiper

16 Kans Saccharum spontaneum Siris (kalo) Albizina lebbek

17 Kush Desmostachys bipinnata Siris (seto) Albizina procera

18 Kutmiro Litsea monopetala Simali Vitex negundo

19 Kyamun Cleistocalyx operculatus Sindure Mallotus philippensis

20 Rajbrikchhya Cassia fistula Siru Imperata cylindrica

21 Saj/asna Terminalia alata Titepati Artemisia dubia

22 Sandan Desmodium oojeinense Tuni Toona ciliate

23 Sisoo Dalbergia sissoo

24 Tanki Bauhinia purpurea

25 Tantari Dillenia pentagyna

26 Tapre jhar Cassia tora

Source: Field study 2013

107

Annex 12: List of birds and wild animals reported by female and male forest users, Sardikhola, CAMC, Pokhara, Kaski district, 2013

By women and men By women By men

Birds Birds Birds

SN Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Kanthe Dhukur Streptopelia decaocto Chibe Surniculus lugubris Bakulla Ardrea cinerea

2 Kalij Lophura leucomelanos Crow Corvus splendens Bhangera Padda oryzovora

3 Vulture Gyps bengalensis Dangre Athene brama Luiche Gallus gallus

4 Danphe Lophophorus impejanus Monal Tragopan satyra

5 Theuwa Coracias benghalensis Parrot Psittacula alexandri

6 Jureli Pycnonotus cafer Titra Ophrysia superciliosa

7 Koili Cuculus varius

8 Ullu Otus spilocephalus

Wildlife Wildlife Wildlife

SN Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Monkey Macaca assamensis Fish (Katle) Neolissocheilus hexagonolepis Piwusa

2 Porcupine Hystrix indica Rat Diomys crumpi Thar Hemitragus jemlahicus

3 Bear Ursus thibetanus Lokharke Funnambukus palmarum Leopard Panthera pardus

4 Deer Axis axis

5 Frog Polypedates maculatus

6 Gangato Paratephusa spinigera

7 Jackal Canis aureus

8 Lizard Varanus bengalensis

9 Snake Python molurus molurus

10 Tiger Panthera tigris

Source: Field study 2013

108

Annex 13: People’s perception of change in biodiversity, Sardikhola CAMC, Kaski, 2013

Biodiversity Local name Increased Decreased Not changed Reason

Plants Nigalo Yes Limited forest harvesting reduced germination of nigalo (mentioned by women)

Banmara Yes

Champ Yes Strict protection

Chuletro Yes

Ainselu Yes

Neuro Yes Increased tree cover and decreased forest harvesting has impacted on growth of neuro (mentioned by women)

Kurilo Yes

Amriso Yes Plantation, both on private and state lands

Kharu Yes

Timur Yes

Siltimur Yes

Allo Yes No regular harvesting leads to poor regeneration of allo. People have stopped allo collection and processing due to shortage of labor caused by out-migration of youth (mentioned by women).

Birds Piura Yes

Luiche Yes

Titra Yes

Monal Yes

Bhangera Yes

Vulture Yes

Dhukur Yes

Parrot Yes

Bakulla Yes

Rajarani chara Yes

Bees Yes Loss of flowering plants, use of pesticides in farms, and forests have only big trees

Animals Porcupine Yes Increased forest cover

Monkey Yes

Langur Yes Illegal poaching (trapped by Indian poachers 10 years ago)

Deer Yes

Leopard Yes

Source: Field study 2013

The Hariyo Ban Program is named after the famous nepali saying ‘Hariyo Ban Nepal ko Dhan’ (Healthy green forests are the wealth of Nepal). Thus the Program emphasizes the links between people and forests and is designed to benefit nature and people in Nepal. At the heart of Hariyo Ban Program lie three interwoven components – biodiversity conservation, sustainable landscape management and climate change adaptation. These are supported by livelihoods, governance, and gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) as cross-cutting themes. A consortium of four non-governmental organizations is implementing the Hariyo Ban Program with WWF Nepal leading the consortium alongside CARE Nepal, FECOFUN and NTNC.

CARE NepalCentral Office 4/288, SAMATA Bhawan, Dhobighat, LalitpurP.O. Box 1661, Lalitpur, NEPAL Tel:+977-1-5522800Fax:+977-1-5521202 E-mail: carenepal@np.care.org Web: www.carenepal.org

©CARE Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program/ Samjhana Wagle

Comm

unity-based Natural Resource Managem

ent Institutions in Nepal: Why the future needs w

omen (2014)

Hariyo Ban Program