hariyo ban program mid-term assessment of gesi indicators
TRANSCRIPT
Hariyo Ban Program
Mid-Term Assessment of GESI Indicators
Final Report
SUBMITTED TO:
WWF NEPAL
HARIYO BAN PROGRAM
Submitted by:
Nepal Development Initiative (NDI) Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
Shree Durbar Tole, Pulchowk, Lalitpur
Email: [email protected]
December 2019
Page | 2
Executive Summary
The Hariyo Ban Program II is a USAID-funded initiative designed to benefit nature and people of
Nepal. The Program period is of five years, from 15 July 2016 to 14 July 2021. The Hariyo Ban
Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as the prime recipient, with the
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC), and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN).
Hariyo Ban II covers the two landscapes: Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc
Landscape.
Hariyo Ban II program aimed to assess the progress of three Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI)
indicators through a mid-term assessment. Out of the 15 working districts in two landscapes,
Banke and Bardiya are from Terai Arc Landscape and Chitwan, Kaski, and Tanahun from
Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape were selected for the purpose of this study. As per the TOR, the
assessment was carried out in the same sample districts following the same methodology,
questionnaires, and checklists that were used during the baseline study with some additional new
questions to cross-check and verify the information. The assessment included household surveys
with 518 respondents, 10 Focus Group Discussions: two in each district, one with general members
and another with women or marginalized groups, and 250 executive committee interviews.
From the household survey, it was found that 82.43% of the female and marginalized groups
perceive that NRM members including men and decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and
socially inclusive behavior. This value is higher in Kaski compared to other sample districts.
Likewise, 99.23% of the respondents believe that the gender role has changed to some extent and
77.61% of the respondents believe that they have adopted new roles over traditional roles in the
past two years. These findings were validated by the FGD participants who felt that men and
decision-makers now show more gender-equitable and inclusive behavior compared to two years
ago. Similarly, among the 200 Executive women and marginalized groups respondents, 52.5% of
them perceived that they could perform their roles effectively. However, out of the 18 Dalit
executive female members interviewed, 12 of them feel that due to their educational background
and economic status, they are not very effective in performing their roles. Similarly, out of the
total 131 female executive members interviewed, including Dalit and other marginalized women,
70 of them (i.e 53.4%) do not feel like they are able to perform their roles effectively. The reason
behind their feeling was due to attending fewer meetings compared to the men due to their other
household responsibilities. Nonetheless, overall, the change is visible compared to the past two
Page | 3
years due to training, awareness-raising activities and other supports provided by the Hariyo Ban
program and other stakeholders such as Gaupalikas, Heifer International, Social Awareness Center
(SAC) Nepal, Feminist Dalit Organization (FEDO) and so on.
Comparison between baseline values and mid-term values for three indicators is shown in Table
1:
Table 1: Baseline versus mid-term value for the three indicators
Indicator
number Indicators Baseline
Value Mid-
Term
Value GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups
perceiving that NRM members including men and
decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and socially
inclusive behavior
78.96% 82.43%
GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM
groups) who believe that the gender roles have been
changed as a result of USG assistance
65.44% 77.61%
GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM
leadership positions perceiving they have been able to
perform their roles effectively
43% 52.5%
The overall value for each indicator has increased in the mid-term assessment. The district-wise
value for some sample districts is lower compared to baseline due to more clarity and
understanding of gender and social inclusion issues, respondents’ ability to differentiate between
gender-equitable and inclusive behavior and vice-versa, and replacement of some of the baseline
respondents/ executive members during mid-term assessment due to completion of previous
executive committees tenure, migration, out of village for personal reasons or even death in some
cases. Nonetheless, men are more open to doing household chores and women have entered into
some new roles, particularly on income-generating activities and local politics. Both male and
female are performing new roles as per their needs and context. However, a patriarchal mindset is
still deeply rooted among NRM members which require more tailored-made activities and
transformative approaches.
Recommendations
Some key recommendations are given as follows:
● More GESI sensitization and capacity building among NRM groups and committees
through a transformative approach is needed as almost everyone knows what gender
equality and social inclusion mean but progress towards transformation is slow. Unless
Page | 4
tailor-made and targeted interventions through awareness-raising activities, capacity
building support, and leadership development are carried out for at least the next 4 to 5
years, it would be difficult to change the attitude, behavior, and perceptions of the
community towards these issues in the long run.
● Though some women who are in the executive committees often go to the meetings to put
forward their agendas, others merely go to sign the decisions made by other committee
members towards the end of the meetings due to their household duties, lack of education
and confidence. This view was mostly expressed by 66% of the 18 Dalit female executive
members interviewed which requires immediate action for them to enable to attend the
meetings in a meaningful way. Some classes on literacy, numeracy and leadership
development should be provided to these women to boost their confidence.
● More awareness-raising activities and capacity building for marginalized NRM members
would enable them to raise their concerns during the meeting and stir the conversations
towards their agendas. This would help them to approve or disapprove of the decisions that
have a direct impact on their lives. Support on public speaking and decision making will
increase their confidence level and help them to perform better during the meetings.
● More coordination among the Gaupalikas and other stakeholders at the local level is vital
for addressing the root causes of gender inequality and exclusion. This would help the
project to remain more focused rather than spreading thin.
● Capacity building on designing and delivering training; and resource mobilization is
needed to make the NRM leaders self-sustainable in the long run. This will enable them to
design tailor-made training for different groups in the community and deliver them as
needed to raise awareness and address the root causes of inequalities in the days to come.
Page | 5
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 7
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 10
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 THE OBJECTIVE OF THE MID-TERM ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 11
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................................. 11
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ...................................................................................... 14
2.2 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3: FIELD FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 15
3.1 INDICATOR- WISE FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 16
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 30
4.1 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 31
ANNEX-I TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................ 33
ANNEX-II LIST OF NRM GROUPS ................................................................................................. 40
ANNEX III- QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY.......................................... 43
ANNEX IV- QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE FGD ............................................................................ 50
ANNEX V- QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE EXECUETIVE INTERVIEW ................................... 56
ANNEX VI- SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ............................................ 58
ANNEX VII- INDICATOR CALCULATION ................................................................................... 59
ANNEX VIII- DISTRIBUTION OF FGDS ........................................................................................ 60
Page | 6
ANNEX IX- LIST OF FGD PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................. 61
ANNEX X- LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED FOR EXECUTIVE INTERVIEWS ..................... 66
ANNEX XI- TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 83
ANNEX XII- SOME SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE FIELD ................................... 89
Page | 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proportion of respondents perceiving NRM members including men and decision-makers
show Gender Equitable and Socially Inclusive Behavior (Baseline vs. Mid-term) ..................... 16
Figure 2: FGD with marginalized groups, Gokul CFUG, Banke ................................................. 19
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents with better understanding in terms of gender equality and
social inclusion issues compared to past two years ...................................................................... 20
Figure 4: Proportion of members of NRM groups who believe gender roles have changed in the
past two years (Baseline vs Mid-Term) ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 5: FGD with women of Kailashi CFUG, Bardiya ............................................................. 23
Figure 6: Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions who believe
they perform their role effectively ................................................................................................ 26
Figure 7: FGD with marginalized group in Bhagar interlease forest, Tanahun ............................ 89
Figure 8:Chakrawati CFUG Tanahun ........................................................................................... 90
Figure 9: Sewing training by Padampur CFUG, Chitwan ............................................................ 91
Figure 10 :Federation of Community Forest Users, Banke .......................................................... 92
Figure 11: FGD with women of Kalikhola Deurali CFUG, Chitwan ........................................... 93
List of Tables
Table 1: Study areas of the mid-term assessment ......................................................................... 10
Table 2: Limitations and mitigation measures of the assessment ................................................. 12
Page | 8
Abbreviations
ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project
APR Annual Performance Report
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CHAL Chitwan Annapurna Landscape
CLAC Community Learning and Action Center
CSO Civil Society Organization
FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal
FEDO Feminist Dalit Organization
FGDs Focused Group Discussions
GESI Gender and Social Inclusion
INGOs International Non-Governmental Organizations
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation
NRM Natural Resources Management
NDI Nepal Development Initiative
PTT Performance Indicator Tracking Table
SAC Social Awareness Center
TAL Terai Arc Landscape
ToT Training of Teachers
ToR Terms of Reference
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Page | 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a number of individuals and institutions
for their immense support during the mid-term assessment. First and foremost, we would like to
express our sincere gratitude to the WWF team, for trusting us to do this mid-term assessment. We
are also indebted to the field staff of all five districts for their support and timely sharing of
information and providing other logistical and programmatic supports during the mid-term
assessment. Further, we are thankful to the members of NRM groups for helping us organize all
meetings. We also would further like to thank the participants of the Focus Group Discussions,
Executive interviews and Household survey from all the five districts for providing valuable
information needed for this assessment. We would not have completed this mid-term assessment
without their willingness to talk openly and share their insights and observations. Finally, we are
thankful to everyone whose name is not mentioned here but have provided direct and indirect
support during the mid-term assessment.
Page | 10
Chapter 1: Background
1.1 Project Background
The Hariyo Ban Program II is a USAID-funded initiative designed to benefit nature and people of
Nepal. The Program period is of five years, from 15 July 2016 to 14 July 2021. The Hariyo Ban
Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as the prime recipient, with the
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC), and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN).
Hariyo Ban II covers the two landscapes: Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc
Landscape. The Program works on two core and interwoven thematic components: (1) biodiversity
conservation and (2) Climate Change Adaptation. Market-based livelihoods, gender equality and
social inclusion, and governance are crosscutting themes for the Program.
The second phase of the Hariyo Ban program has been running in the fourth year and the mid-term
assessment of GESI indicators has been carried out to track the performance of the GESI focused
interventions. Findings from the assessment will be also helpful to make adjustments, if necessary,
in program approach and strategies to achieve desired results and enable the program to
disseminate results with relevant stakeholders at various levels.
1.2 Study Area
Hariyo Ban II works in 15 districts: six districts of TAL and nine districts of CHAL. Among the
15 districts, the following five districts had been selected for the baseline survey and were assessed
similarly for the midterm assessment:
Table 1: Study areas of the mid-term assessment
S.N Landscape of Nepal Districts
1 Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) Chitwan, Kaski, and Tanahun
2 Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) Banke, Bardia,
Page | 11
1.3 The objective of the mid-term assessment
The overall objective of this task was to assess the performance of three GESI outcome indicators
compared to the baseline values.
1.4 Scope of work
This assessment measured the performance of the three GESI indicators against the baseline
values. This assessment was treated as a midterm assessment where the same questions from the
baseline survey were used with a few additional ones. The detailed questionnaire is present in
Annex III, IV, and V.
GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members
including men and decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior
● Please share your understanding of gender equality and social inclusion in your context
with some examples. How has your understanding changed over the last two years?
● Do the NRM members show friendly behavior towards you?
● Do the NRM members use derogatory words while talking to you?
● Do you feel that the NRM leaders respond to your concerns fairly?
● Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders?
GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that the gender
roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance
● Please give examples of your understanding of traditional roles and new (non-traditional)
roles of women
● How have your family members’ roles and responsibilities in your household changed
within these two years?
● Do you feel that gender roles have been changed than five years ago?
● Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other than traditional ones recently?
GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions perceiving
they have been able to perform their roles effectively
● Please share your roles and responsibilities as an NRM member ( chairperson, Secretary,
treasure or his/her current position)
Page | 12
● Have you ever faced any difficulty performing your roles effectively?
● What kind of major decisions have you taken as an NRM leader?
1.5 Limitations of the Study
The assessment team identified the following limitations and followed certain measures to
overcome the limitations. They are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Limitations and mitigation measures of the assessment
S.N Limitations Mitigation measures
1. Some baseline values of the indicators were
quite high, so mid-term values for those
indicators had possibilities of falling below the
baseline values
● Appropriate probing
questions were included to
understand the cause of the
decreased value if any and
the information from these
questions was analyzed to
determine the causes of
such cases. Constant
monitoring of the field data
was done in order to spot
and correct anomalies
2. All the respondents present during the baseline
survey were not located or available during the
mid-term assessment due to migration, sickness,
out of the village for personal reasons or death.
● NDI tried its best to find the
previous respondents as
much as possible and where
not possible, the team
ensured to interview the
same category of
respondents to maintain
consistency.
Page | 13
Chapter 2: Methodology
The methodology of the assessment was the same as that of the baseline survey conducted in 2017
in order to measure the progress in a reliable and accurate manner that followed an inclusive
participatory approach. The assessment relied majorly on perception hence it was carried out using
both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, which were used to validate the information from
one another.
The methodology also included a review of the Hariyo Ban Program documents and reports. For
the household survey, the same respondents from the baseline survey were contacted where
possible. Among the three indicators, HH data was collected for only GESI 1.3 and GESI 2.2
through surveys. However, Focus Group Discussions covered all indicators, whereas Executive
Interviews were carried out for only the GESI 2.3 indicator. KOBO-ODK was used for collecting
and recording the data from the household survey. A total of 518 household surveys were carried
out. The same set of questionnaires and checklists employed in the baseline survey were used for
this assessment, with some addition of a few probing questions. With regard to qualitative data
collection, Ten Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 250 Executive Interviews were carried out
to gather the information. A more detailed breakdown of the FGDs, Executive Interviews and
Household surveys is given in Annex VI.
A comparison between baseline and current situation regarding the behavior, confidence,
understanding of their roles and decision-making process within the committees was made.
Women and members of ethnic and marginalized1 groups were consulted to see if men and other
decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior, whether any of the
traditional gender roles have changed and whether women and marginalized groups in NRM
leadership positions have been able to perform their role effectively. The assessment team
reviewed the tools and questionnaires used in the baseline survey in consultation with WWF Nepal
and further probing questions were added to check some of the high values of the baseline survey
and to analyze the current situation accordingly. For FGDs and Executive interviews, the same
participants of the baseline survey were consulted as much as possible. However, replacements
with the same category of respondents were considered as some of the executive members had
1 Marginalized groups: Groups that are made politically, economically and socially backward, are unable to
enjoy services and facilities because of discrimination and oppression, communities that are geographically
remote and whose populations fall below the human development standards. In this report, it refers to Dalit,
Janajati, Muslim, Newar and other ethnic minorities
Page | 14
completed their tenure in the NRM executive committees or had moved away permanently or even
passed away in some cases.
2.1 Data analysis and information disclosure
A coding manual was developed for the data entry and the entire questionnaire was coded
according to the indicators. For the analysis of quantitative data, Excel was used. For qualitative
data, field scripts were translated manually. The information was segregated thematically and
analyzed accordingly. The information from primary sources was triangulated, verified, compiled
and analyzed by comparing the baseline and the current situation. Based on the findings,
appropriate conclusions and recommendations were drawn. Data Quality was maintained
throughout the collection to the analysis of the data. The following measures were taken for quality
assurance:
● While translating the field script of the qualitative survey from the Nepali language to
English, special consideration was given to its accuracy through repetitive cross-checking
● NDI eliminated recursive data and provided reliable information.
● Privacy and confidentiality of the discussions were maintained and all possible measures
were taken in order to avoid anybody’s influence on the participant’s response.
● The team leader closely supervised and monitored all the activities.
2.2 Ethical Considerations
Consent with respondents was considered as an ongoing process and something that was sought
verbally at each stage of the fieldwork. Confidentiality was explained to the respondents of the
project area in terms of how the information will be used. The team also followed the following
guidelines:
● The consultant guaranteed the safety of respondents and the research team.
● Compliance with legal codes governing areas was ensured such as provisions to collect and
report data, particularly permissions needed to interview or obtain information.
● The participants were given information about the objective of the research and their
required involvement in the study (time, topics of discussion, tasks, etc.), and a brief
description of any political risks and benefits of association. They were also informed about
the intended use of the provided data.
● The participants/respondents were also requested to agree to the use of their data as
outlined in the information given to them.
Page | 15
Chapter 3: Field Findings
Two FGDs were carried out in each district with general members, women, and people of
marginalized groups. Through FGDs, information regarding the involvement of women in
different activities and the roles played by the NRM member related to the Hariyo Ban Program
were collected. The FGD participants expressed that in the past, men participated in income-
generating activities more extensively than the women, who were mostly involved with household
chores. In the recent past, due to various ongoing activities including Hario Ban’s support, gender
roles have changed to some extent and men are open to doing household chores whenever there is
a need and requirement. The details of FGDs are given in Annex VIII.
Similarly, the household survey also showed that the NRM executive members including the male
and decision-makers have started to show more respect and friendliness towards women and
marginalized groups and that the gender roles are also shifting. 99.23% of the respondents believe
that gender roles have changed to some extent in the past two years. According to Bharimaya
Gurung, a member of Khuidanda LFG, Tanahun “The male and decision-makers of NRM groups
show friendly behavior to us when we meet them on the road, or while doing any work or during
meetings.” In the meetings, women are provided with opportunities to express their views.
According to the respondents and our field observations, people have more clarity and
understanding regarding gender equality and social inclusion as well as gender-equitable and
socially inclusive behavior compared to the past two years. Better understanding and awareness
have a direct impact on the indicator values as respondents exhibit more conscious evaluation.
This also accounts for the lower mid-term value in some of the sample districts as well as across
some ethnic groups as opposed to the baseline value. The executive interviews revealed that
women have been increasingly taking part in NRM committees and understanding their roles as
committee members. However, in some cases, due to a heavy workload at the household level,
low educational background and self-confidence, they do not regularly attend the meetings.
The lower mid-term value than the baseline value in some districts and across some ethnic groups
was observed which was due to various reasons such as an increase in understanding, making
decisions as a team and not an individual, and new committee members with different educational
and understanding levels. The decrease in value for each group/district has been explained in more
detail in the respective indicator-wise findings. All the executive members interviewed were found
to be aware of their roles and responsibilities and committee members were found to be helpful
Page | 16
and supportive to each other regardless of caste and gender. More detailed indicator-wise findings
and analysis have been presented below.
3.1 Indicator- wise findings
Indicator GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that
NRM members including men and decision-makers2 exhibit gender equitable3 and socially
inclusive behavior
Indicator Baseline value Mid-term value
Indicator GESI 1.3 78.96% 82.43%
Figure 1: Proportion of respondents perceiving NRM members including men and decision-makers show
Gender Equitable and Socially Inclusive Behavior (Baseline vs. Mid-term)
In order to calculate Indicator GESI 1.3, the following questions were used as criteria as in the
baseline assessment:
2 Decision maker: A person who makes decision, especially at a high level in a formal or informal institution.
People holding key positions in NRM groups/institutions and having influential roles at house and societal level
are decision makers. Decision made by decision makers influences many things 3 Gender equitable: Gender equitable includes up scaling the engagement of men and decision makers to advance
gender equality and social inclusion at various levels. HB II has included an internal advocacy module, planned
to encourage men at decision making level inside the organizations to demonstrate their personal commitment of
gender equality and social inclusion about what that meant in practice for their everyday work. The project aims
to highlight the fact that gender equality and social inclusion is a concern of everyone.
Page | 17
● NRM leaders showing friendly behavior4
● NRM leaders not using derogatory words
● NRM leaders responding to concerns fairly
● Able to express views openly in front of NRM leaders
The baseline survey included 271 females whereas the mid-term assessment included 282 females
due to the replacement of the respondents. Out of these 282 female respondents, 79.79% reported
that NRM members including men and decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and socially
inclusive behavior. Among the respondents from the Janajati community, 79.46% feel that NRM
members including men and decision-makers show gender equitable and socially inclusive
behavior which is slightly less compared to the baseline value of 86.45% as shown in Figure 1.
One of the reasons for this was due to more understanding and clarity of the respondents on the
accommodative and inclusive behavior of the men and decision-makers of NRM groups compared
to two years ago. During the FGDs with the marginalized group and interviews with the executive
Janajati members, they expressed that due to their raised awareness on gender equality and social
inclusion in past two years, they now minutely observe and watch the behavior of the male and
decision-makers of NRM groups and see whether their behavior is as such and have realized that
the behavior that the male and decision-makers of NRM groups were showing was not really
gender-equitable and inclusive in the past.
There were 73 Dalit respondents in the household survey, including 48 women and 25 men. Out
of these, 8 were executive members, among which one was male and the rest were female
members. Overall, the proportion of the Dalit respondents who feel that the male and decision-
makers of NRM groups show gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior has increased from
57.14% to 87.67%. This was also corroborated by the 25 Dalit members interviewed during the
executive interviews, out of which 18 were female and 7 were male. According to Ganga Pariyar,
Secretary of Purnima CFUG, Banke, “There is an atmosphere of equality in our Users’ Group.
Earlier, women and members of marginalized groups were not given a chance to serve in high
posts such as chairperson, secretary, treasurer, etc. But now, I have been appointed as a Secretary
and am treated equally as other members.” However, the district-wise percentage for this indicator
in Banke and Tanahun has decreased from 84.72% to 68.06% and from 90.64% to 67.84%
respectively compared to the baseline. This is due to the change in the understanding and
4 Friendly: Showing interest in their wellbeing, helping in need, letting them speak and listening to their concerns;
shows respectful behavior;
Page | 18
perception of inclusive and gender-equitable behavior of the respondents compared to the past two
years. Further, different levels of understandings of the new executive members on these issues
also led to the lower indicator value in the mid-term assessment as the previous executive members'
tenure was completed some time ago and were not available for the interview.
Respondents from Kaski have also expressed that the behavior of the male and decision-makers of
the NRM groups has improved drastically from 56.49% to 96.18%. A comparison of the
respondents showing positive responses in the baseline and mid-term assessment is shown in
Figure 1. Among the total respondents, 98.24% of them viewed that the male and decision-makers
of NRM groups show friendly behavior and 90.54% reported that they could express their views
openly in front of the male and decision-makers of NRM groups. During the discussions, the
assessment team noticed that the respondents have become more expressive and confident while
sharing their views and perceptions. The details of the comparison are shown in Annex XI.
During the field data collection, the team observed that the respondents and beneficiaries have
increased knowledge and awareness on equality and inclusion, hence use their abilities to analyze
the NRM members including men and decision-makers’ behaviors. As a result, the overall value
is found to be increased to 82.43%. Since there are other several activities and initiatives that are
going on in the project areas, it is really difficult to differentiate between contribution and
attribution of the Hariyo Ban Program. Nonetheless, the progress that has taken place in these areas
is due to the contribution of the Hariyo Ban program’s training, orientations, and awareness-raising
activities, campaigns, and training and awareness-raising initiatives of other organizations working
in these areas including FMs, television, and Gaupalikas. Hariyo Ban II incorporated capacity
building activities which included internships for Dalit girl students, mobilization of change
agents, Training of Trainers (ToT) for LRPs and implementing partners, GBV awareness and
issue-based campaign program, gender-responsive budgeting, leadership development training,
advocacy plan preparation training, and cross-learning visits. Small grants to CSOs (CWES and
SCDC) for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community Forest User
Groups have also contributed a lot in raising awareness on developing and implementing GESI
responsive policies and practices; and GBV. As of now, 13,609 women and marginalized groups
attended the GESI and Governance related capacity building trainings in Hariyo Ban II trained.
Among them, a total of 8954 women participated in these activities. Out of total women
participants, 5449 constituted of marginalized women. 5
5 Hariyo Ban II Annual Performance Report Year 1- Year 3
Page | 19
The value for this indicator in the mid-term assessment has decreased for Banke and Tanahun
districts particularly among, Janajati, Muslim and Newar communities as compared to the baseline
value. When asked about the NRM members’ understanding of these issues compared to the past
two years, they said they now are more aware of the language used by the male and decision-
makers of NRM groups and their behavior towards them. Moreover, the members’ ability to
express their concerns/opinions they have during the meetings has increased. “I have participated
in training and workshop related to gender and social inclusion in recent years. I have a clearer
understanding of what constitutes inclusive and equitable behavior. I believe that the male and
decision-makers of NRM groups are adopting more inclusive and equitable behavior than before”
(Bidya Dhobi, FGD participant, Gokul Community Foresty Banke). Better understanding and
critical observation of the NRM members than before have directly contributed to the lower value
during the mid-term assessment as they gave their responses during the baseline study without
much thinking and understanding about these issues.
Figure 2: FGD with marginalized groups, Gokul CFUG, Banke
Page | 20
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents with better understanding in terms of gender equality and social
inclusion issues compared to past two years
Since the mid-term values for these districts and ethnic groups have decreased compared to the
baseline values, Figure 3 represents only the change in the understanding of the respondents so
that the reason for the lower value could be discerned. The figure shows the percentage of
respondents who believe that they have a better understanding of gender and social inclusion issues
compared to the past two years. In order to evaluate the change in respondents' understanding of
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion issues compared to the past two years, NDI added this
question in the study. The finding shows that respondents make a conscious observation of NRM
members’ behavior and have less approval of the existing behavior of the male and decision-
makers of NRM groups now compared to two years ago when they had little understanding of the
issues. The respondents thought that the male and decision-makers of NRM groups had gender-
equitable and socially inclusive behaviors in the past. The change was measured considering the
responses for the following questions:
● How has the behavior changed compared to the past two years?
● What are the key factors towards these changes?
The key factors responsible for these changes in the understanding of the people are Hariyo Ban
Programme, Self-Awareness and other different projects implemented by other organizations
including Heifer International and SAC Nepal in Banke district. According to the respondents,
programs broadcasted through FM, Radio, and Television have also played an important role in
Banke Tanahun Janajati Muslim
Better/Excellent 86.11 94.15 93.41 66.67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% of respondents with better understanding of Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Issues
Page | 21
bringing about the change in understanding. SAC Nepal provided a lot of training on gender
equality, child marriage and inclusion for the past three years and now also they provide
awareness-raising sessions, one hour each, three days a week. This shows that the behavioral
change of NRM members took place because of a combination of several capacity-building
activities and initiatives from the Hariyo Ban Program and other organizations.
There has also been a positive change shown by the male and decision-makers of NRM groups
regarding the use of derogatory words, showing friendly behavior, responding to concerns fairly
and the NRM members being able to express their views openly to the male and decision-makers
of NRM groups. Among the respondents, 69.69% perceived positive changes in male and decision-
makers of NRM group behaviors, such as being friendlier, a decrease in the use of derogatory
words, responding to their concerns fairly and also encouraging people to express their views and
opinion openly to the NRM leaders.
Interactions with different groups through FGDs have revealed that there are positive changes and
decreasing trends towards using derogatory words to Dalits and other marginalized groups and
showing more respect to them. Three FGDs with women only, five FGDs with general members
and two FGDs with marginalized groups highlighted this positive change shown by the male and
decision-makers of NRM groups in the recent past. “There is no discrimination against
marginalized people in our community. Due to street dramas, newspapers, campaigns, and
workshops, discrimination has decreased in the past two years. This has really contributed to more
acceptance and harmony in the community.”(Dalli maya Magar, FGD participant, Bhagar Inter
Lease Forest, Tanahun). Nonetheless, some of the FGD participants from the Dalit community in
Banke and Bardiya districts said that though there is no use of derogatory words explicitly in the
meetings and the public places, they still feel discriminated due to their caste while making
personal visits in the BCT and other Janajati households. This requires more transformative
approaches to address the root cause of discrimination.
A total of 66.06% of the respondents said that the friendly behavior of the men and decision-
makers of NRM groups is mostly due to the Hariyo Ban program along with other programs and
the self-awareness of the respondents. The details of the change in the use of derogatory words,
responding to the concerns and being able to express views openly to the men and decision-makers
of NRM groups are given in Annex XI.
Page | 22
Indicator GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that
the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance
In order to calculate GESI Indicator 2.2, the following questions were used as criteria, as in the
baseline assessment:
● Respondents perceiving that gender roles have changed
● Respondents performing new6 roles than the traditional7 ones
Indicator Baseline value Mid-term value
Indicator GESI 2.2 65.44% 77.61%
Figure 4: Proportion of members of NRM groups who believe gender roles have changed in the past two
years (Baseline vs Mid-Term)
Among the total 518 respondents (282 females and 236 males), 99.23% feel that the gender roles
have changed to some extent compared to the past two years. Among the total 282 female
respondents, only 75.18% perceived that the gender roles have changed, whereas, among the 236
male respondents, 80.51% perceived the same. Regarding the change in traditional roles, a total
of 77.61% of the total respondents reported that they have been practicing new roles rather than
6 New Roles: For women-involved in economic activities including going to offices, participating in user group
meeting, decision making etc. For men- supporting their spouse in household chores including cooking, washing,
looking after children etc. 7 Traditional Roles: For women -Household chores such as cooking food, washing cloths and dishes, looking after
children, fetching water etc. For men – decision making, involved in economic activities such as going to office,
earning money, working outside of house
Page | 23
the traditional ones, whereas 77.61% of the respondents performed both types of roles. The
comparison between the baseline and mid-term values of NRM members who believed that gender
roles have changed according to the district, sex, and ethnicity and marginalized women are shown
in Figure 4.
Among the respondents in Bardiya, only 50% believe gender roles have changed, which has
decreased compared to the baseline value of 81.94%. The women respondents particularly
mentioned that initially, they thought that even a small help on household chore from their
husbands was a change in gender roles. However, their perception is different now than before as
they have realized that those small bits of help from their male family members were during the
time of crisis only but not on a regular basis. The FGDs with general women in Samundre
Dandapani CFUG in Kaski, Kailashi CFUG in Bardiya, and Kalikhola Deurali CFUG in Chitwan
revealed that their understanding of traditional gender roles and new roles have changed
significantly in the past two years. Due to the change in understanding, the baseline value was
found to be higher than the mid-term value as responses given then were given with limited
understanding of gender roles. Male and female FGD respondents from Raptipidit Tatha Gulari
CFUG, Banke, expressed their understanding of traditional gender roles and new roles in a similar
manner. When probed more, both men and women said that whenever both men and women are
at home, it’s the woman who does the household chores and takes care of the children. But when
all members of the family are busy, or the women are sick or menstruating, or out for work, then
the male member does the cooking and other household chores.
Figure 5: FGD with women of Kailashi CFUG, Bardiya
Page | 24
Men still perform more work outside the home, earn a living, migrate for work, and do the plowing
and other types of work that require more strength. On the other hand, women are now doing some
income-generating activities, taking part in politics, holding some jobs and girls are attending
schools. “In the past two years, gender roles have changed significantly. For instance, after
coming home from work in the fields, in the past, only women were responsible for cooking food,
now men are also involved in the kitchen and do other household chores. Due to programs from
ACAP and Hariyo-Ban II, we are more aware of gender roles compared to the past” (Muna
Dhakal, FGD participant, Samundre Dandapari CFUG, Kaski).
Except in the Bardiya district, the other four sample districts have positive changes towards
shifting the gender roles. Men have become more open and accommodative for these changes. All
the girls attend schools now though they still have to do more chores than their brothers do. “My
wife does most of the household chores and my two daughters also help their mother before or
after their schools. I also do cooking and cleaning when my wife and daughters are not home or
sick. I am very flexible and don’t mind doing things at home. However, most of the time I work
outside the home or in the field” (Jit Bahadur Tharu, FGD participant, Raptipidit Tatha Gualri
CFUG, Banke). This confirms that some changes towards shifting traditional gender roles have
taken place but not up to the expectation of the project itself.
A total of 11 campaigns to reduce GBV were conducted in Chitwan, Kaski, Lamjung, Syangja,
and Tanahu engaging 903 members (520 women) from NRM groups in Year 2. In Year 3, a total
of 30 district and community level awareness campaigns on GBV and VAW in Hariyo Ban's
In the past two years, due to the programs done by Hariyo Ban such as training in sewing,
good governance, GESI and forest maintenance, our understandings and perceptions have
changed a lot. In our community only men were associated with meetings, decision
makings and working in the forests in the past. But now, women and marginalized groups
are equally considered and invited to these activities.
Chinimaya Tamang, FGD participant of Kalikhola Deurali CFUG in Chitwan
I get support from all members to perform my role effectively, however my husband doesn’t
support me at home, saying my place is at home and not at the committee.
Top Kumari Budhamagar
Member, Gailekh CFUG, Banke
Page | 25
working areas were completed in the presence of 1,275 community people and stakeholders at
various levels.8 Hariyo Ban program conducted a total of 519 CLACs, i.e. 485 in Phase I and 34
in Phase II. This affiliated, capacitated and mobilized 12464 women and 334 men for undertaking
social actions accordingly. As Post CLAC support is a key GESI Intervention of Hariyo Ban
Program II, the program supported those CLACs which were already engaged to carry out different
social actions in their own initiation. In such, 61 CLACS from Phase I have been supported in
Phase II as Post CLAC mobilization initiative. Nonetheless, a tangible impact of these initiatives
is yet to be seen. A total of 7 events were conducted in Year 1, 250 events in Year 2, and 433
events in Year 3 related to Governance and GESI capacity building. A total of 17,049 people of
which, 8954 were women and 4655 were people from marginalized groups were capacitated.
These activities have led to an increase in the awareness of GESI issues along with some changes
in the behavior and attitudes of the men and decision-makers of NRM groups and in the community
as a whole.
Though some positive changes can be seen in terms of gender roles, more effort and initiatives are
needed for transformative changes through targeted and tailor-made interventions as the
patriarchal mindset is still deeply rooted. Nonetheless, the changes that took place since the past
two years are mostly due to the Hariyo Ban program along with programs by other local
organizations such as Heifer Int, Social Awareness Center (SAC), Feminist Dalit Organization
(FEDO), Annapurna Conservation Area Project ( ACAP), etc.,
8 Annual Performance Report Year 3
Page | 26
Indicator GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions9
perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively
Indicator Baseline value Mid-term value
Indicator GESI 2.3 43% 52.5%
Figure 6: Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions who believe they
perform their role effectively
For this indicator, the 250 interviews with executive committee members were the basis to
calculate the value and the calculation was done according to the baseline calculation method. As
per the baseline, among the interviewees, male respondents from the BCT community (n=50) were
excluded, and the total number of respondents was considered as 200. Among these, there were
131 females, 69 males, 58 BCTs, 25 Dalits, 105 Janajatis, 1 Muslim, 10 Newars and 1 other.
The following criteria were used while calculating the indicator value:
● Participants perceiving, they have not faced any difficulties while performing their roles
● Participants who have made important decisions in NRM groups
The average mid-term value for this indicator is 52.5% which shows that there is an increment
from the baseline value (43%). The comparison between the baseline and mid-term value for this
9 These leadership positions include the position of chairperson/president, vice-chaiperson/vice-president,
secretary, joint secretary, treasurer and executive member.
Banke Bardiya Chitwan KaskiTanahu
nMale Female BCT Janajati Dalit Newar Total
Baseline 6.67 45.16 16.67 82.22 43.75 40.54 44.44 55.36 34.62 58.62 25 43
Mid-term 32.14 37.93 12.5 67.39 76.92 63.77 46.56 51.72 56.2 48 30 52.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 % of Women and Marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions performing their roles effectively
Baseline vs Mid-term
Page | 27
indicator is shown in Figure 6. Further probing questions were added to justify any differences in
the baseline and mid-term:
● The current roles and responsibilities as an NRM executive member
● Form of support, if any, received from Hariyo Ban program to perform their roles
effectively
● The positive or negative trend of nature of friendly behavior shown, the use of derogatory
words, the opportunity to put agendas and responding to concerns, and expressing views
openly.
● Examples and key factors behind said changes
Among the five districts, the percentage of NRM leaders who believe that they perform their roles
effectively has increased from the baseline value for Banke and Tanahun. A significant change
was observed in the Banke district, with an increase from 6.67% to 32.14%. According to the
respondents, they have received support in the form of training from the Hariyo Ban program along
with other radio programs, TV programs, meetings and training from other organizations to raise
their awareness and enhance their leadership skills which helped them to perform their roles
effectively. The behavior of men and decision-makers has also changed in the past two years.
According to Gita Tharu, a member of Sadabahar CFUG, Banke “The friendly behavior that is
shown by the men and decision-makers of NRM groups has changed positively in the past two
years, they have become more responsive, accommodative and friendly. I felt more gender
discrimination in the past compared to now. We women and people of marginalized groups were
never informed about any meetings, workshops or programs but now everyone is informed and
participation of women is seen higher everywhere compared to men. This is due to the training
and awareness raised by Hariyo Ban.”
Similarly, in Tanahun, the percentage of NRM executive members who believe that they perform
their roles effectively has increased from the baseline value of 43.75% to 76.92%. According to
Srijana Tiwari, secretary of Bachyangdi CFUG, Tanahu “Support through Hariyo Ban II, local
NGO networks awareness-raising programs and training has made everyone feel like they should
do something for their communities by involving women in committees, meetings, and programs.
I am able to do my role and perform other tasks that I want, they ask for my opinion in the meetings
too.”
All of the respondents from the executive committees were found to be aware of their specific
roles. They mentioned that the roles of a chairperson ranged from the overall functioning of the
Page | 28
user group, making decisions, formulation of guidelines/policies, giving directions for the call of
meetings, afforestation, fencing, monitoring of forests, and taking part in relevant training
regarding their roles. They also were involved in the dissemination of the results of the training to
the other members of the NRM user groups so that everyone gets an opportunity to learn. The
vice-chairpersons took on the roles of the chairperson when absent, and were involved in
afforestation activities, planting bamboo on river banks to prevent flooding and spreading
awareness on conservation. The secretary has been keeping meeting minutes, circulating meeting
notice, conducting awareness programs regarding conservation, and drafting requests for timber
use. A treasurer handled all the financial matters of the user group such as savings, costs, revenue,
audit, etc., and was involved in matters such as payment of forest fee.
According to Nirmala Nepali, Secretary of Gairi Bhanjhyang Kafal Danda CFUG, Kaski “I am in
accord with my responsibilities as a secretary. I inform members about meetings, keep the meeting
minutes, share CFUG related information attend all meetings, and present my views in meetings.”
Juna Ramdaya, the treasurer of Bachyandi CFUG, Tanahun was also found to be aware of her
responsibilities. “I take note of the revenues of the community forest, costs, expenditure and I make
sure to attend all meetings so that I am up to date.”
For the other three districts, Bardiya, Chitwan and Kaski, the mid-term value has decreased slightly
than the baseline value. Although the positive change in behavior of men and decision-makers has
been perceived through the executive interviews, the value for this indicator has decreased in
general as most of the executive members say that they take major decisions as a team, and not as
individuals. This led to lower value related to response to one of the assessment factors
“Participants who have made important decisions in NRM groups.” where individual decision-
making capacity was assessed. Because of this response, it was difficult to evaluate individual
decision-making capability as most of the executive members didn’t put forward their ideas
individually but formed ideas as a team. Similarly, some previous executive members who were
interviewed during the baseline study were not available during the mid-term assessment due to
the completion of their tenure some time ago. As a result, new members were replaced for the
interviews who have a different educational and understanding level on the overall GESI issues,
their roles, and responsibilities and evaluation of other executive members' behaviors. As a result,
the value of this indicator has decreased for three districts and across some ethnic groups where
such shifts were observed. In most of the instances, the interviewees clearly mentioned that there
are no such significant barriers or hindrances for them to perform their roles and most committee
members help one another to perform their roles if there is a need. The respondents also expressed
Page | 29
that there is hardly any internal conflict among the members. Nonetheless, due to low education,
account keeping skills and household duties, some women, particularly Dalit ones, mentioned that
they face difficulties to perform their duties effectively. According to Kaushila Lamicchane,
member of Devi Jarayi Patha BZCFUG, Bardiya, “Due to the lack of education, it takes time for
women to understand things, which hinders us in performing our duties well. We need more
support for building our capacities.” In some cases, women also do not get full support from their
family members to participate in the meetings.
Among general women and women from marginalized communities, an increase from the baseline
value of 44% to a mid-term value of 46.56% was observed. For men from ethnic and marginalized
communities, an increase from the baseline value of 40.54% to a mid-term value of 63.77% was
observed. However, among the marginalized groups, Dalits have a lower mid-term value compared
to the baseline. A total of 29 Dalit executive members were interviewed for the baseline survey
while only 25 Dalit executive members were interviewed during the mid-term assessment. Many
of the committee members have been changed since the baseline survey, hence in some committees
where two or three Dalit executive members were interviewed during the baseline survey, only
one Dalit executive member was in the committee while being interviewed for the mid-term
assessment. This accounts for the lower number of Dalit interviewees in the mid-term assessment.
Also, some Dalit executive members interviewed during the baseline survey have completed their
tenure some time ago, or have migrated to other regions, hence, six new members were interviewed
in lieu of the old members. Due to this factor, the indicator value has decreased slightly during the
mid-term assessment. Moreover, the new members have not yet been accustomed to their roles as
much or received training/ had practical experience to provide informed analysis. The educational
and economic background of the respondents was also found to be lower than the previous Dalit
executive members leading to a decrease in the mid-term indicator value.“Due to my lack of
education, I am fearful and hesitant while taking on roles and responsibilities. Being a full-time
tailor, I cannot give much time to the committee on a regular basis as well.”- (Himali Maya Sunar,
a Dalit member of Mangaladevi CFUG, Chitwan).
Although women are in executive positions, there is still much work to be done to increase their
capacities. Out of the 200 executive members whose responses were used for the indicator value
calculation, 131 were female and only 4 of them were chairpersons in different committees.
Moreover, 10 were appointed as vice-chairpersons, 26 were in the position of Secretary, one in the
position of Joint-Secretary, and 21 were working as treasurers.
Page | 30
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
The assessment calculated the quantitative values for GESI indicators and comparisons were made
between baseline and the mid-term values for the same. With the increment of 3.47% from that of
baseline study (78.96%), about 82.43% of women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups
have perceived NRM members including men and decision-makers that exhibit gender equitable
and socially inclusive behavior. Among the respondents, 69.69% of people have perceived positive
changes in their behaviors, such as the male and decision-makers of NRM groups being more
friendly, decrease in use of derogatory words, responding in an excellent manner to the concerns
of the people and also NRM members being able to express their views and opinion openly to the
male and decision-makers of NRM groups. A total of 99.23% of respondents believed that the
gender role has been changed compared to the past and 77.61% of respondents confirmed that they
have been practicing some new roles rather than the traditional ones. Also, the ability of the NRM
executive members to perform their roles effectively has increased up to 52.5% from a baseline
value of 43%. However, it was observed that rather than making an individual decision, they were
found to be making decisions as a committee which posed difficulty to the study team to assess
the individual capacity of the executive members.
Overall, all three indicators value were found to be increased in the mid-term assessment. This
means the program has contributed a lot in making NRM groups and Committees GESI sensitive
and making their behavior and attitude more gender-equitable and inclusive.
However, the district-wise value for some sample districts has a lower indicator value compared
to baseline due to more clarity and understanding of gender and social inclusion issues,
replacement of the new respondents/ executive members for surveys and executive interviews, and
the respondents’ ability to differentiate between gender-equitable and inclusive behavior and vice-
versa. The program has conducted several activities to strengthen the gender awareness and
capacity of communities through post CLAC support, internships, ToT for LRPs, and
implementing partners, GBV awareness campaigns, gender-responsive budgeting, leadership
development training, and advocacy plan preparation training and cross-learning visits. Visible
impacts of these activities are yet to be seen as the change in gender-equitable and inclusive
behavior is gradually taking place and a patriarchal mindset is still deeply rooted, however, people,
particularly men were found to be more accommodative and adaptive towards new gender roles
Page | 31
and gender equality. There are still some challenges within the committee as they are not
financially strong to carry out activities related to GESI and their priorities are different. And the
new executive committee members are yet to get training and awareness-raising activities through
Hariyo Ban II. Thus, it is very important for the project to provide skills to the NRM committees
on local resource mobilization and for being financially sustainable to carry out such activities at
the local level. As one time activities are not enough and can’t bring the desired change in the long
run, it’s important that NRM Committees have resources and skills to build their own capacities
and bring transformative changes in GESI with minimum technical support from the project.
4.2 Recommendations
The recommendations are given as follows:
● More GESI sensitization and capacity building among NRM groups and committees
through a transformative approach is needed as almost everyone knows what gender
equality and social inclusion mean but progress towards transformation is slow. Unless
tailor-made and targeted interventions through awareness-raising activities, capacity
building support, and leadership development are carried out for at least the next 4 to 5
years, it would be difficult to change the attitude, behavior, and perceptions of the
community towards these issues in the long run.
● Though some women who are in the executive committees often go to the meetings to put
forward their agendas, others merely go to sign the decisions made by other committee
members towards the end of the meetings due to their household duties, lack of education
and confidence. This view was mostly expressed by 66% of the 18 Dalit female executive
members interviewed which requires immediate action for them to enable to attend the
meetings in a meaningful way. Some classes on literacy, numeracy and leadership
development should be provided to these women to boost their confidence.
● More awareness-raising activities and capacity building for marginalized NRM members
would enable them to raise their concerns during the meeting and stir the conversations
towards their agendas. This would help them to approve or disapprove of the decisions that
have a direct impact on their lives. Support on public speaking and decision making will
increase their confidence level and help them to perform better during the meetings.
Page | 32
● More coordination among the Gaupalikas and other stakeholders at the local level is vital
for addressing the root causes of gender inequality and exclusion. This would help the
project to remain more focused rather than spreading thin.
● Capacity building on designing and delivering training; and resource mobilization is
needed to make the NRM leaders self-sustainable in the long run. This will enable them to
design tailor-made training for different groups in the community and deliver them as
needed to raise awareness and address the root causes of inequalities in the days to come.
Page | 33
ANNEX-I Terms of Reference
Hariyo Ban Program
ToR for ‘Mid-Term Assessment of GESI Indicators’
1. Introduction
The Hariyo Ban Program II is a USAID-funded initiative designed to benefit nature and people of
Nepal. The Program period is of five years, from 15 July 2016 to 14 July 2021. The Hariyo Ban
Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as prime recipient, with the
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC), and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN).
Hariyo Ban II covers the two landscapes: Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc
Landscape. The Program works on two core and interwoven thematic components: (1) biodiversity
conservation and (2) Climate Change Adaptation. Market-based livelihoods, gender equality and
social inclusion, and governance are crosscutting themes for the Program.
Monitoring and Evaluation in Hariyo Ban Program II is guided by the principle of results-based
management. With the interventions in about eight years including Phase I, communities in the
program areas have been benefited by engaging in different activities. As a part of result-based
management, M&E unit regularly measures the outcomes derived from program interventions.
The second phase of the Program has been running in fourth year. The program has implemented
many interventions, from field level to national level, in the last three years in order to achieve
these targets. The Program has 51 output and outcome level indicators with Life of Activity (LOA)
targets. These LOA targets are further divided annually or as relevant. Among 51 indicators,
progress of three outcome level indicators on GESI are scheduled to be measured in Year 3 and
Year 5. The baseline for these three indicators were established in 2017 by recruiting the
independent consulting firm- Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Since we had
Page | 34
completed baseline of these indicators lately in Year 2 (2017), we decided to postpone the
assessment to track progress on indicator to the beginning of Year 4.
With this assignment, the M&E Unit aims to track performance of GESI indicators over the period
by recruiting independent consultant or consultancy firm (hereafter referred to as the Consultant).
This will help to report our progress in Semi Annual and Annual Performance Reporting (APR) –
both narrative and in Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT), in Year
4. Findings from the assessment will be also helpful to make adjustment, if necessary, the program
approach and strategies to achieve desired results and enable us to disseminate our results with
relevant stakeholders at various levels.
2. Objective
The overall objective of this task is to assess Hariyo Ban performance of three GESI outcome
indicators compared to the baseline values.
3. Rationale
The program has committed to deliver results on these three indicators which were to be measured
and reported towards the end of Year 3, as outlined in PITT. Considering the gap between the
baseline and midline, M&E unit planned this assessment for first half of Year 4.
This assignment will help to measure progress against the baseline value established in Year 2017
as a result of Program interventions over the period, as committed in the MEL Plan.
These GESI indicators, which are related to perception, shall need an independent consultant
ensure the integrity on the results, hence the M&E Unit plans to conduct the assessment by
recruiting the consultant.
4. Scope
Page | 35
This assessment will measure the performance of the following indicators against the baseline
values. This assessment will be treated as a midterm assessment of these three indicators.
1. GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM
members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially
inclusive behavior
2. GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that the
gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance
3. GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions
perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively
Though the Hariyo Ban Program II has largely covered the 15 districts in CHAL and TAL, working
with over 800 NRM groups, the assessment of these indicators will however concentrate on five
districts- Banke and Bardiya in TAL and Chitwan, Kaski and Tanahu in CHAL referring to the
sample districts taken during the baseline assessment. Overall, this would be the follow up
assessment (midterm assessment) of the baseline study conducted in 2017. 50 NRM groups
sampled from five aforementioned districts during the baseline study will be taken for this
assessment.
5. Methodology and Process
Collection of primary information from the respondents belonging to 50 NRM groups will be
ensured at possible to well compare the situation then and now. The baseline report of the Hariyo
Ban Program II will be referred for extracting information of respondents. Similarly, the same set
of questionnaires will be used for data collection from respondents which were used during the
baseline. For triangulation of data collected, five Focused Group Discussion (FGD) with the
women and marginalized executive members from NRM groups will be planned, two at each
district. The checklist for FGD will also be same as used for Baseline study. Overall, the
methodology of this assessment will be same as of the baseline study conducted during 2017.
Individual Survey by contacting respondents in case of indicator GESI 1.3, Focused Group
Discussions for all indicators and Key Informant Interview for GESI 2.3 will be the major
approaches for this assessment.
Page | 36
After the data collection, compilation and analysis, the Consultant shall present the findings to
Hariyo Ban team. Based on the inputs received, the draft midterm assessment report shall be
prepared and submitted in hard copy and an electronic copy for review on the stipulated date. The
Program team shall review and provide inputs. After addressing the inputs/comments, the
Consultant shall submit the final version of the report electronically as well as in two hard copies.
Soft copies of all data entered in excel or SPSS shall be submitted with the final report.
6. Team composition and responsibilities
Qualification and Competency of Consultant and or Team Lead.
● Master’s degree in Gender Studies and or Natural Resource Management
● Proven experience, skill and knowledge in evaluation particulalrly of undertaking
baseline/mid-term and endline study, with particular reference to gender and social
inclusion (GESI) in natural resource governance
● Experience in working with local context of TAL and CHAL will be an additional
advantage.
7. Specific technical deliveries and timeline
This activity is targeted to implement during August- September 2019.
Specific tasks
# of days (35
Timeline
days)
Page | 37
Inception report with plan 2 30 September 2019
Field work 12 October 2019
Data Entry, analysis and preparation of Draft
11
15 November 2019 report
Final report* (digital and hard copy) in English 5 30 November 2019
*The report shall clearly present the progress of indicators against the baseline values for three
GESI indicators and the list of respondents for survey and FGDs shall be appended in the report.
Soft copies of all data entered in excel or SPSS shall be submitted with the final report.
8. Budget
The consultant should submit financial proposals that include detailed breakdown of the survey
methodology, sampling size and budget. The proposed cost must include consultant remuneration,
local travel cost, communication cost, meeting cost, field cost and all other costs if any. The
maximum budget limit for this consultancy is NRs. 622,630 (Inclusive of 13% VAT and other
applicable taxes, if any). The payment is subject to tax deduction as per prevailing government
rules.
9. Coordination and communication
The consultant shall work under the guidance of M&E Specialist, GESI Coordinator and ME&D
Officer. M&E Associates under M&E unit at center and landscape level and M&E focal point from
Consortium Partners will be closely coordinated for completing the task. Field teams in CHAL
and TAL, of all consortium partners will be engaged at various points in the process.
Page | 37
Inception report with plan 2 30 September 2019
Field work 12 October 2019
Data Entry, analysis and preparation of Draft
11
15 November 2019 report
Final report* (digital and hard copy) in English 5 30 November 2019
*The report shall clearly present the progress of indicators against the baseline values for three
GESI indicators and the list of respondents for survey and FGDs shall be appended in the report.
Soft copies of all data entered in excel or SPSS shall be submitted with the final report.
8. Budget
The consultant should submit financial proposals that include detailed breakdown of the survey
methodology, sampling size and budget. The proposed cost must include consultant remuneration,
local travel cost, communication cost, meeting cost, field cost and all other costs if any. The
maximum budget limit for this consultancy is NRs. 622,630 (Inclusive of 13% VAT and other
applicable taxes, if any). The payment is subject to tax deduction as per prevailing government
rules.
9. Coordination and communication
The consultant shall work under the guidance of M&E Specialist, GESI Coordinator and ME&D
Officer. M&E Associates under M&E unit at center and landscape level and M&E focal point from
Consortium Partners will be closely coordinated for completing the task. Field teams in CHAL
and TAL, of all consortium partners will be engaged at various points in the process.
Page | 38
10. Proposal submission details:
Interested VAT registered individuals and or Consulting firms are requested to submit separate
technical and financial proposals along with an application letter and CV, electronically to the
sender as:
WWF Nepal
Hariyo Ban Program
Monitoring & Evaluation Unit
P.O Box 7660 | Baluwatar, Kathmandu
Annex 1: Budget template
S. No.
Description
Unit
# of Unit
Rate
Total Budget
(NPR)
1 Resource Person Fee (A) -
1.1
1.2
ANNEX-II List of NRM Groups
S.N Landscape District Name of NRM Group Municipality/
Rural
Municipality
Ward
No.
1 TAL Banke Sadabahar CFUG Raptisonari
Municipality
6
2 TAL Banke Raptipidit Tatha Gulari
CFUG
Raptisonari
Municipality
6
3 TAL Banke Gokul CFUG Daduwa Rural
Municipality
5
4 TAL Banke Purnima CFUG Daduwa Rural
Municipality
5
5 TAL Banke Janakalyan CFUG Raptisonari
Municipality
2
6 TAL Banke Bageshwori CFUG Raptisonari
Municipality
3
7 TAL Banke Gailekh CFUG Raptisonari
Municipality
1
8 TAL Bardiya Dalla BZCFUG Madhuban
Municipality
1
9 TAL Bardiya Buddha CFUG Rajapur
Municipality
7
10 TAL Bardiya Kalika CFUG Rajapur
Municipality
1
11 TAL Bardiya Bhawaniphata BZCFUG Thakurbaba
Municipality
4
12 TAL Bardiya Devi Jarayi Phata
BZCFUG
Thakurbaba
Municipality
2
13 TAL Bardiya Karmala BZCFUG Thakurbaba
Municipality
2
14 TAL Bardiya Kailasi BZCFUG Madhuban
Municipality
1
15 CHAL Chitwan Kali Khola Deurali CFUG Ichhakamana
Rural Municipality
7
16 CHAL Chitwan Somari CFUG Ichhakamana
Rural Municipality
7
17 CHAL Chitwan Padampur CFUG Kalika
Municipality
4
18 CHAL Chitwan MangalaDevi CFUG Kalika
Municipality
8
19 CHAL Chitwan Salbisna CFUG Bharatput
Metropolitan City
29
20 CHAL Chitwan Panchakanya CFUG Ratnanagar
Municipality
11
21 CHAL Chitwan RaniKhola CFUG Ichhakamana
Rural Municipality
7
22 CHAL Kaski Salleripakha CFUG Annapurna Rural
Municipality
4
Page | 41
23 CHAL Kaski Shanti CFUG Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
33
24 CHAL Kaski Gairi Bhanjyang Kafal
Danda CFUG
Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
33
25 CHAL Kaski Mulban CFUG Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
21
26 CHAL Kaski Aatmeko Aagan CFUG Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
22
27 CHAL Kaski Byadchaur CFUG Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
22
28 CHAL Kaski Samundre Danda Pari
CFUG
Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
22
29 CHAL Kaski Chharchare Surkhe Khola
Bhirgauda Kafaldanda
CFUG
Annapurna Rural
Municipality
1
30 CHAL Kaski Andherikhola CFUG Annapurna Rural
Municipality
3
31 CHAL Kaski Marga Jyoti Power Mahila
CFUG
Pokhara Lekhnath
Metropolition City
22
32 CHAL Kaski Gahate Pakha CFUG Annapurna Rural
Municipality
1
33 CHAL Kaski Bhakarjung CFUG Annapurna Rural
Municipality
3
34 CHAL Kaski Lumle CAMC Annapurna Rural
Municipality
6,7
35 CHAL Tanahun Bachyandi CFUG Vyas Municipality 13
36 CHAL Tanahun Kulung CFUG Vyas Municipality 14
37 CHAL Tanahun Chhapeli CFUG Vyas Municipality 14
38 CHAL Tanahun Khuidanda LFG Aabhukhaireni
Rural Municipality
?
39 CHAL Tanahun Kamaladevi CFUG Devghat Rural
Municipality
4
40 CHAL Tanahun Raniban Debighat CFUG Devghat Rural
Municipality
5
41 CHAL Tanahun Chakrawoti CFUG Devghat Rural
Municipality
5
42 CHAL Tanahun Raipur Kotre CFUG Suklagandaki
Municipality
2
43 CHAL Tanahun Ratmate Thakaldanda Bandipur Rural
Municipality
5
44 CHAL Tanahun Raniban CFUG Bandipur Bandipur Rural
Municipality
4
45 CHAL Tanahun Jumdanda CFUG Bandipur Rural
Municipality
6
46 CHAL Tanahun Raniban CFUG
Aanbukhaireni
Aabhukhaireni
Rural Municipality
6
47 CHAL Tanahun Jalbire Kadampani CFUG Suklagandaki
Municipality
12
Page | 42
48 CHAL Tanahun Bhaghar inter leasehold
forest (Bhaledunga LFG)
Bhimad
Municipality
3
49 CHAL Tanahun Piredhari LFG Devghat Rural
Municipality
4
50 CHAL Tanahun Bhaghar inter leasehold
forest (Dhuni LFG)
Bhiman
Municipality
3
Page | 43
ANNEX III- Questionnaire for the Household Survey
1. Name of the Enumerator/ सरे्वक्षकको नाम:
2. Date of Survey/ सरे्वक्षणको मममि:
3. Respondent’s Name/ व्यमिको नाम:
4. Contact No/ सम्पकक नम्बर:
5. Age group of respondent/ उमेर
a. 15-19/ १५-१९
b. 20-24/ २०-२४
c. 25-29/ २५-२९
d. 30-34/ ३०-३४
e. 35 and above/ ३५ मामि
6. Sex/ मिङ्ग
a. Male/ परुुष
b. Female/ ममििा
c. Others/ अन्य
7. Ethinicity/ जाि
a. BCT/ बािुन छेत्री
b. Dalit/ दमिि
c. Madhesi/ मधेसी
d. Janajati/ जनजामि
e. Muslim/ ममुलिम
f. Newar/ नेर्वार
g. Other/ अन्य
8. Household ID number/ घरेिू आईडी नम्बर:
9. District/ मजल्िा
a. Chitwan/ मििर्वन
b. Kaski/ कालकी
c. Tanahun/ िनिुुँ
d. Banke/ बाुँके
e. Bardiya/ बमदकया
Page | 44
10. Rural Municipality/ Municipality/ नगरपामिका
11. Ward No./ र्वडा नं :
12. Name of the NRM group/ NRM समिुमा लिान:
13. Position in NRM group/ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण र समारे्वशीसुँग सम्बन्धीि मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िररयो र्वन-II कायकक्रमबाट िपाईिे कलिो
सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो?
a. President/ अध्यक्ष्य
b. Vice-President/ उप - सभापमि/ उपाध्यक्ष
c. Treasurer/ कोषाध्यक्ष
d. Secretary/ समिर्व
e. Joint Secretary/ सिसमिर्व
f. Executive Member/ कायककारी सदलय
g. General Member/ सदलय
h. None/ लिान नभएको
i. Other position/ अन्य लिान
14. What types of support have you received from Hariyo Ban II program in the past two years
to promote Gender Equality and Social Inclusion?/ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण र समारे्वशीसुँग सम्बन्धीि मर्वगि दईु
र्वषकमा िररयो र्वन-II कायकक्रमबाट िपाईिे कलिो सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो? एउटा वा बढी छान्नुहोस ्
a. None/ केिी पमन छैन
b. Training/ टे्रमनङ्ग
c. Orientation/ अमभमखुीकरण
d. Campaigns/ अमभयान
e. Radio Programs/ रेमडयो क्रायकक्रम
f. Information, Education and Communication Materials (Booklets, pamphlets,
posters etc)/ जानकारी, मशक्षा र संिार सामग्री (बकुिेटस, पिाक पत्र, पोलटर
g. Others/ अन्य
15. Please tick the following options based on your understanding of gender equality and social
inclusion well as gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior./ अमििेको परररे्वशमा िपाईको िैङ्मगक
समानिा र समारे्वसी व्यर्विार प्रमिको बझुाई कलिो छ, िि मध्य एक छान्न ुिोस ्
a. None/ बझुाई नभएको
b. Poor/ कम बझुाई
c. Good/ राम्रो बझुाई
Page | 45
d. Very Good/ धेरै राम्रो बझुाई
e. Excellent/ अत्यन्िै राम्रो बझुाई
16. How has your understanding changed over the past two years? Please tick one from the
following options that describes your changes in understanding?/ िैङ्मगक समानिा र समारे्वसी व्यर्विारको
मर्वषयमा िपाईको बझुाई मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा कसरी पररर्विकन भएको छ? िि मध्य कुनै एक छान्न ुिोस ्
a. As it is/ केिी पररर्विकन नभएको
b. Better/ अझ राम्रो बझुाई
c. Excellent/ अत्यन्ि राम्रो बझुाई
d. More confused/ झनै नबमुझएको
17. What are the key factors towards these positive changes?/ यो सकारात्मक पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्
? एउटा वा बढी छान्नुहोस्
a. Hariyo Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
b. Self-awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other Projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
18. Do the NRM members show friendly behavior towards you regarding gender equality and
social inclusion?/ के NRM सदलयिरूिे िपाईिाई िैङ्मगक समानिा र समारे्वसीका कुरा बारे आमत्मय व्यर्विार देखाउनिुुन्छ?
a. Yes/ देखाउनिुुञ्छ
b. No/ देखाउनिुुन्न
19. If yes, Please tick the following options based on the nature of the behavior shown by NRM
executive members in your context./ यमद िो भन ेिि मध्य NRM समममिको कायककारी सदलयको िपाई प्रमिको व्यर्विार कलिो
छ ?
a. Good/ राम्रो
b. Very Good/ धेरै राम्रो
c. Excellent/ अत्यन्ि राम्रो
20. How has their behavior changed compared to the past two years?/ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको
व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ ? एउटा वा बढी छान्नहुोस ्
a. No change/ केमि पररर्विकन भएको छैन
b. More friendly/ िप ममिनसार
c. More accommodating/ अझ सिज
d. More responsive/ अझ उत्तरदायी
Page | 46
e. More authoritative/ अझ परुािनर्वादी सोि
f. More rude/ अझ रुखो
g. More democratic/ अझ िोकिामन्त्रक
21. If no, What are the key factors towards the negative/ no changes?/ यदि िोइन भन ेयो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको
र्वा पररर्विकन नभएको कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
22. If yes, What are the key factors towards these positive changes?/ यमद िो भन ेयो सकारात्मक पररर्वकिनका
कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्? एउटा वा बढी छान्नुहोस ्
a. Hariyon Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
b. Self awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
23. Do the NRM members use derogatory words or undermine your capability while talking
to you?/ के िपाई सुँग कुरागदाक NRM समममिका सदलयिरूिे कुनै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमलु्यन गरेर बोल्न ेगनुक भएको छ ?
a. Yes/ गनुकिुन्छ
b. No/ गनुकिुन्न
24. If yes, Please tick the following options based on the frequency of the use of derogatory
words or undermining capability by NRM executive members on your context./ NRM समममिका
कायककारी सदलयिे कमिको अन्िरािमा अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमिुयन गरेर बोल्न ेगनुक भएको छ
a. On a regular basis/ जमििे पमन गनुक िुन्छ
b. Frequently/ बारम्बार
c. Sometimes/ कमििे कामि मात्र
25. How has the Frequency of the use of derogatory words or underming capability by NRM
executive members changed in the past two years?/ मर्वगिको दईु र्वषकमा NRM समममिका कायककारी सदलयको
अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमलु्यन गरेर बोल्नेमा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ?
a. No change/ केमि फरक आएको छैन
b. Increased/ र्वमृि भएको छ
c. Decreased/ कम भएको छ
26. If no change or increased, What are the key factors towards the negative/ nochanges?/ यमद छ
भन े यो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको र्वा पररर्विकन नभएको कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
27. If decreased, What are the key factors behind these positive changes? यमद छ भन े यो सकारात्मक
पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन् ?
Page | 47
a. Hariyo Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
b. Self-awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
28. Do the NRM leaders (mainly executive members and key persons of user group) provide
opportunity to put agendas/ concerns and respond to your concerns fairly?/ के NRM का
पदामधकाररिरुिे िपाईको िासो र मिन्िाका मर्वषयिरुिाई राख्ने मौका मदएर उमिि िररकािे के सम्बोधन गनुकिुन्छ?
a. Yes/ गनुकिुन्छ
b. No/ गनुकिुन्न
29. If yes, Please tick the following options based on the opportunity that the NRM executive
members provide to put agendas/concerns and respond to your concerns./ यमद िो भन ेििका मदएका
मध्ये िपाईको मर्विारमा के NRM का पदामधकाररिे िपाईको िासो र मिन्िाका मर्वषयिरुिाई उमिि िररकािे सम्बोधन गनुकिुन्छ? मिनो िगाउनिुोस ्
a. Always/ सधै गनुकिुन्छ
b. Sometimes/ कमििेकािी गनुकिुन्छ
30. Has it either positively or negatively changed compared to the past two years?/ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको
ििुनामा यो सकारात्मक र्वा नकारात्मक कलिो िररकािे पररर्विकन भएको छ ?
a. No change/ पररर्विकन भएको छैन
b. Increased/ र्वमृि भएको छ
c. Decreased/ कम भएको छ
31. If no, What are the key factors towards the negative/ no change? यमद िोइन भन ेयो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको
र्वा पररर्विकन नभएको कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
32. If increased, What are the key factors behind these positive changes?/ यमद िो भन े यो पररर्वकिनका
सकारात्मक कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?एउटा वा बढी छान्नुहोस ्
a. Hariyo Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
b. Self-awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
33. Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders?/ के िपाई ंNRM का पदामधकाररिरुको
अगामड खलु्िा रूपमा आफ्नो मर्विार व्यक्त गनक सक्निुुन्छ?
a. Yes/ गनकसक्छु
b. No/ गनकसमक्दन
Page | 48
34. If yes, Please tick the following options based on your ability to express your views openly
in front of NRM leaders?/ यमद सक्निुुन्छ भन े NRM का पदामधकाररिरुका अगाडी यी ििका मध्ये िपाईको कुरा राखने क्षमिा
कुनिे जनाउछ ?
a. Medium/ मिकै छ
b. Good/ राम्रो छ
c. Very Good/ धेरै राम्रो छ
d. Excellent/ अत्यन्िै राम्रो छ
35. What is the change in your ability compared the past two years?/ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा िपाईको क्षमिामा
केिी पररर्विकन देमखएको छ ?
a. None/ छैन
b. To some extent/ केिी िद सम्म
c. Good/ राम्रो
d. Very Good/ धेरै राम्रो
e. Excellent/ अत्यन्िै राम्रो
f. Decreased ability/ घटेको छ
36. If none, What are the key factors towards the negative/ nochanges?/ यमद छैन भन े यो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको
र्वा पररर्विकन नभएको कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
37. If yes, What are the key factors behind these positive changes?/ यमद छ भन े यो सकारात्मक पररर्वकिनका
कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
a. Hariyo Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
b. Self-awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other Projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
38. Do you feel like gender roles have changed positively within the household and community
in general in the past two years?/ के िपाईिंाई घर -समाजमा िैङ्मगक भमूमकािरू यो दइु र्वषक मभत्रमा सकारात्मक रुपमा पररर्विकन
भएको जलिो िाग्छ ?
a. Yes/ भएको छ
b. No/ भएको छैन
39. If yes, What are the factors behind these positive changes?/ यमद छ भन े यो सकारात्मक पररर्वकिनका कारक
ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
a. Hariyo Ban Program/ िररयो र्वन कायकक्रम
Page | 49
b. Self-awareness/ आफै बझुद ैआइएको
c. Other Projects/ अन्य कुनै कायकक्रम
d. Others/ अन्य कुनै कारण
40. If no, What are the key factors towards the negative/ no changes?/ यमद छैन भन े यो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको
र्वा पररर्विकन नभएको कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?
41. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other that traditional ones recently?/
िपाईको मर्विारमा के िपाईिे आजकाि परम्परागि ्काम भन्दा नयाुँ काम गनक िाल्नभुएको छ?
a. Yes/ गरेको छु
b. No/ गरेको छुइन
Page | 50
ANNEX IV- Questionnaire for the FGD
A) For General Members
Indicator 2.2
1. What type of support have you received to promote gender equality and social
inclusion from Hariyo BanII since past two year? (Capacity building, workshop,
campaigns, radio program and so on)/ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण र समारे्वशीसुँग सम्बन्धीि मर्वधि दईु र्वषकमा िररयो र्वन-
II कायकक्रमबाट िपाईिे कलिो सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो? ( क्षमिा मनमाणक, कायकशािा, अमभयान रेमडयो, क्रायकक्रम आमद)
2. Please share your understanding of gender equality and inclusive as well as gender
equitable and social inclusive behavior in your context with some examples. Has your
understanding been changed compared to last two years? If yes, how?/ िैङ्मगक मिू
प्रर्वािीकरण, समारे्वशी र िैङ्मगक व्यायसंगि सम्बन्धीि केिी उिािरण मदई आफनो बझुाई प्रलििु् गनुकिोस्। मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा
केिी पररर्वकिन आएको छ? छ भन ेकसरी?
3. Have Hariyo Ban II supports led to perform more gender equitable and social
inclusive behavior Of NRM leaders? If yes, how?/ के िररयो र्वन २ िे NRM प्रमखुको व्यर्विारमा कुनै
िैङ्मगक न्यायसंगि र समामजक समारे्वसीको पररर्विकन िाएको छ ? यमद छ भन ेकसरी ?
4. Have you ever noticed if the NRM members using derogatory words or undermining
women and marginilised group members capability while talking to them? How it has
changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few
examples./ के िपाईिे कन ैNRM सदलयिे कुनै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमिुयन ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई िपेेर
बोिेको देख्न ुभएको छ ?मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? कृपया
केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
5. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
6. Do you feel that the NRM leaders (mainly executive committee members and key
persons of users group) provide opportunity to put agendas/ concerns and respond to
women and marginilised groups concerns fairly? Please provide few examples. How it
has changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? What are the key
factors behind these changes?/ िपाईको मर्विारमा के NRM का नेिािरु त्समापमन प्राकृमिक स्रोि व्यर्वलिापन समममिका
कायककारी सदलयको र पदामधकाररिरुिे िपाईको िासो र मिन्िाका मर्वषयिरुिाई र ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई उमिि िररकािे सम्बोधन गनुकिुन्छ
Page | 51
? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस । मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? यी
पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
7. Do you have any idea on how many women and members of marginilised groups are
in the leadership position of NRM committee? Please give the exact position and their
number./ के िपाईिाई NRM समममि मा कमि जाना ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुका व्यमक्त िुनिुुन्छ भन्ने कुरामा जानकारी छ ? यमद छ
भन ेउिाुँिरुको नाम र पद प्रदान गररमदन ुिोस ्
8. Please give examples of your understanding about traditional roles and new (non-
traditional) roles of women./ परम्परागि भमूमका र ममििाको नयाुँ भमूमका बारे िपाईको बझुाईको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
9. How have your and other family members roles and responsibilities in your
household changed within past two years? Please give a few examples of the roles
that have been changed./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको र िपाईको पररर्वारको भमूमका र मजम्मेर्वारीमा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ ?
कृपया पररर्विकन भएको भमूमकाको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
10. Do you feel that gender roles have been changed compared to the past two years?/
िपाईिाई मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा िैङ्मगक भमूमकामा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ जलिो िाग्छ ?
11. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other that tradional ones
recently?/ के िपाईिाई िाग्छ िपाईिे परम्परागि भन्दा नयाुँ भमूमका अपनाउन ुभएको छ ? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
12. What factors led to these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
B) For women and men of ethnic and marginalized groups
Indicator 1.3
13. What type of support have you received to promote gender equality and social
inclusion from Hariyo Ban II since past two year?(Capacity building, workshop,
campaigns, radio program and so on)/ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण र समारे्वशीसुँग सम्बन्धीि मर्वधि दईु र्वषकमा िररयो र्वन-
II कायकक्रमबाट िपाईिे कलिो सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो? ( क्षमिा मनमाणक, कायकशािा, अमभयान रेमडयो, क्रायकक्रम आमद)
14. Please share your understanding of gender equality and gender inclusive behavior in
your context with some examples./ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण, समारे्वशी र िैङ्मगक व्यायसंगि सम्बन्धीि केिी उिािरण
मदई आफनो बझुाई प्रलििु् गनुकिोस्। मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा केिी पररर्वकिन आएको छ? छ भने कसरी?
15. How has your understanding changed over the last two years? (both positive and
negative trend). Please provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा केलिो पररर्वकिन आएको छ?
दबैु सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक िकक मदई केिी उिािरण मदनिुोस।्
16. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
Page | 52
17. Please share your understanding of inclusive and socially inclusive behavior in your
context with some examples./ िपाईको बझुाई अनसुार समारे्वसी र समामजक समारे्वसीको उिारण अमघ राख्न ुिोस.
18. How has your understanding changed over the last two years? (both positive and
negative trend). Please provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन
भएको छ ? उिारण मदनिुोस ।
19. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
20. Have Hariyo Ban II supports led to perform more gender equitable and social inclusive
behavior of NRM leaders? If yes, how?/ के िररयो र्वन २ िे NRM प्रमखुको व्यर्विारमा कुनै िैङ्मगक न्यायसंगि र
समामजक समारे्वसीको पररर्विकन िाएको छ ? यमद छ भन ेकसरी ?
21. Have you ever noticed if the NRM members using derogatory words or undermining
women and marginilised group members capability while talking to them? How it has
changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few
examples./ के िपाईिे कन ैNRM सदलयिे कुनै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमिुयन ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई िपेेर
बोिेको देख्न ुभएको छ ? मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? कृपया
केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
22. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
23. Do you feel that the NRM leaders (mainly executive members and key persons of
user group) provide opportunity to put agendas/ concerns and respond to women and
marginlised groups concerns fairly? Please provide few examples. How it has
changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? What are the key
factors behind these changes?/ िपाईको मर्विारमा के NRM का नेिािरु त्समापमन प्राकृमिक स्रोि व्यर्वलिापन समममिका
कायककारी सदलयको र पदामधकाररिरुिे िपाईको िासो र मिन्िाका मर्वषयिरुिाई र ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई उमिि िररकािे सम्बोधन
गनुकिुन्छ ? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस । मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र
नकारात्मक)? यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
24. Do you have any idea on how many women and members of marginilised groups are
in the leadership position of NRM committee? Please give the exact position and their
numbers./ के िपाईिाई NRM समममि मा कमि जाना ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुका व्यमक्त िुनिुुन्छ भन्ने कुरामा जानकारी छ ? यमद छ
भन ेउिाुँिरुको नाम र पद प्रदान गररमदन ुिोस ्।
25. Please give examples of your understanding about traditional roles and new (non-
traditional) roles of women./ परम्परागि भमूमका र ममििाको नयाुँ भमूमका बारे िपाईको बझुाईको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस
26. How have your and other family members roles and responsibilities in your
household changed within past two years? Please give a few examples of the roles
Page | 53
that have been changed./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको र िपाईको पररर्वारको भमूमका र मजम्मेर्वारीमा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ ?
कृपया पररर्विकन भएको भमूमकाको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
27. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other that traditional ones
recently? Please give some specific examples./ के िपाईिाई िाग्छ िपाईिे परम्परागि भन्दा नयाुँ भमूमका अपनाउन ु
भएको छ ? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
28. Can you express your views openly infront of the NRM leaders? If yes, how?/ के िपाईिे
NRM नेिाको अगामद आफ्नो मर्विार खलु्िा रुपमा प्रलििु गनक सक्न ुिुन्छ ? यमद सक्न ुिुन्छ भन ेकसरी गनुक िुन्छ ?
29. How has it changed over the last two years? (both positive and negative trend). Please
provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र
नकारात्मक)? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस
30. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
C) For general women
Indicator 1.3 and Indicator 2.2
31. What type of support have you received to promote gender equality and social
inclusion from Hariyo Ban II since past two year?(Capacity building, workshop,
campaigns, radio program and so on)/ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण र समारे्वशीसुँग सम्बन्धीि मर्वधि दईु र्वषकमा िररयो र्वन-
II कायकक्रमबाट िपाईिे कलिो सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो? ( क्षमिा मनमाणक, कायकशािा, अमभयान रेमडयो, क्रायकक्रम आमद)
32. Please share your understanding of gender equality and gender inclusive behavior in
your context with some examples./ िैङ्मगक मिू प्रर्वािीकरण, समारे्वशी र िैङ्मगक व्यायसंगि सम्बन्धीि केिी उिािरण
मदई आफनो बझुाई प्रलििु् गनुकिोस्। मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा केिी पररर्वकिन आएको छ? छ भने कसरी?
33. How has your understanding changed over the last two years? (both positive and
negative trend). Please provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा केलिो पररर्वकिन आएको छ?
दबैु सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक िकक मदई केिी उिािरण मदनिुोस।्
34. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
35. Please share your understanding of inclusive and socially inclusive behavior in your
context with some examples./ िपाईको बझुाई अनसुार समारे्वसी र समामजक समारे्वसीको उिारण अमघ राख्न ुिोस.
36. How has your understanding changed over the last two years? (both positive and
negative trend). Please provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको बझुाईमा केलिो पररर्वकिन आएको छ?
दबैु सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक िकक मदई केिी उिािरण मदनिुोस।्
37. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
Page | 54
38. Have Hariyo Ban II supports led to perform more gender equitable and social
inclusive behavior of NRM leaders? If yes, how?/ के िररयो र्वन २ िे NRM प्रमखुको व्यर्विारमा कुनै
िैङ्मगक न्यायसंगि र समामजक समारे्वसीको पररर्विकन िाएको छ ? यमद छ भन ेकसरी?
39. Have you ever noticed if the NRM members using derogatory words or undermining
women and marginilised group members capability while talking to them? How it has
changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few
examples./ के िपाईिे कन ैNRM सदलयिे कुनै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमिुयन ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई िपेेर
बोिेको देख्न ुभएको छ ? मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? कृपया
केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
40. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
41. Do you feel that the NRM leaders (mainly executive members and key persons of
user group) provide opportunity to put agendas/ concerns and respond to women and
marginlised groups concerns fairly? Please provide few examples. How it has
changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? What are the key
factors behind these changes?/ िपाईको मर्विारमा के NRM का नेिािरु त्समापमन प्राकृमिक स्रोि व्यर्वलिापन समममिका
कायककारी सदलयको र पदामधकाररिरुिे िपाईको िासो र मिन्िाका मर्वषयिरुिाई र ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुिाई उमिि िररकािे सम्बोधन
गनुकिुन्छ ? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस । मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र
नकारात्मक)? यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
42. Do you have any idea on how many women and members of marginilised groups are
in the leadership position of NRM committee? Please give the exact position and their
numbers./ के िपाईिाई NRM समममि मा कमि जाना ममििा र मसमान्िकृि समिुका व्यमक्त िुनिुुन्छ भन्ने कुरामा जानकारी छ ? यमद छ
भन ेउिाुँिरुको नाम र पद प्रदान गररमदन ुिोस ्
43. Please give examples of your understanding about traditional roles and new (non-
traditional) roles of women./ परम्परागि भमूमका र ममििाको नयाुँ भमूमका बारे िपाईको बझुाईको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
44. How have your and other family members roles and responsibilities in your
household changed within past two years? Please give a few examples of the roles
that have been changed./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकमा िपाईको र िपाईको पररर्वारको भमूमका र मजम्मरे्वारीमा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ ?
कृपया पररर्विकन भएको भमूमकाको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस
45. Do you feel that gender roles have been changed compared to the past two years?/
िपाईिाई मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा िैङ्मगक भमूमकामा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ जलिो िाग्छ ?
46. Do uou feel that you have been performing new roles other that traditional ones
recently? Please give some specific examples./ के िपाईिाई िाग्छ िपाईिे परम्परागि भन्दा नयाुँ भमूमका
अपनाउन ुभएको छ ? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
Page | 55
47. Do you feel that you have been more confident in expressing your views in the NRM
committee compared to past two years? If yes, how?/ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा के िपाईिे आफ्नो मर्विार
NRM समममिको अगामद आिममर्वश्वासका साि राख्न सक्न ुभएको छ ? यमद छ भन ेकसरी ?
48. What are the key factors behind these changes?/ यी पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्व के के िुन ?
49. Are there any program activities have impacted you negatively as women? If yes,
what are they? Please provide some examples./ िपाई ममििा भएकोमा, के कुनै कायकक्रमको गमिमर्वमधिरुिे
िपाईिाई नकारात्मक रुपमा असर पारेको छ ? यमद छ भन ेत्यो कायकक्रमका गमिमर्वमधिरु के के िुन ्? कृपया केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।
Page | 56
ANNEX V- Questionnaire for the Execuetive Interview
GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions
perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively
1. Please share your roles and responsibilities as an NRM executive committee member (
Chair person, Secretary, treasure or his/her current position)
कृपया िपाइको NRM कायककारी समममि सदलयको पद अनसुारको भमूमका र मजम्मरे्वारीिरु र्वणकन गररमदन ुिुन अनरुोध गदकछु
2. What kind of support, if any, have you received from Hariyo Ban Program to perform your
role effectively in the past two years? Was it enough? के िपाइिे िररयो र्वन कायकक्रमद्वारा आफ्नो मजम्मेर्वारी प्रभार्वकारी रूपमा
मनभाउनको िामग केमि सियोग प्राप्त गनुकभयो? यमद पाउन ुभएको अर्वलिामा कलिो प्रकारको सियोग पाउनभुयो? के त्यो सियोग िपाइको मजम्मरे्वारी प्रभार्वकारी
रूपमा मनभाउनको िामग पयाकप्त मियो ?
3. Do the NRM members show friendly behavior towards you? How it has changed over last two
years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few examples. What are the key factors
behind these changes? के NRM सदलयिरूिे िपाईिाई आमत्म यव्यर्विार देखाउनिुुन्छ? मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो
पररर्विकन भएकोछ ? ( सकारात्मक र्वा नकारात्मक) कृपया केमि उधारण मदनिुोस्। यो पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन?्
4. Do the NRM members use derogatory words or undermine your capability while talking to you?
How it has changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few
examples. What are the key factors behind these changes? के िपाईसुँग कुरा गदाक NRM समममिका सदलयिरूिे कुनै
अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा अर्वमलु्यन गरेर बोल्न ेगनुकभएको छ ? मर्वगिको दईु र्वषकमा NRM समममिका कायककारी सदलयको अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग र्वा
अर्वमिुयन गरेर बोल्नमेा केमि पररर्विकन आएको छ?(सकारात्मक र्वा नकारात्मक) कृपया केमि उधारण मदनिुोस्। यो पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन?्
Page | 57
5. Do you feel that the NRM leaders (mainly executive committee members and key persons of
users group) provide opportunity to put agendas/concerns and respond to your concerns fairly?
How it has changed over last two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few
examples. What are the key factors behind these changes? के NRM का पिादिकारिहरुले तपाईको चासो ि दचन्ताका
दिषयहरुलाई िाख्ने मौका दिएि उदचत तरिकाले के सम्बोिन गननुहुन्छ? दिगत िनई िषुको तनलनामा यो सकािात्मक िा नकािात्मक कस्तो तरिकाले
परिितुन भएकोछ? कृपया केदह उिािण दिननहोस।् यो परििुतनका कािक तत्िहरु के के हुन ्?
6.Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders? How it has changed over last
two years (both positive and negative trend)? Please provide few examples. What are the key
factors behind these changes? के िपाई ंNRM का पदामधकाररिरुको अगामड खलु्िा रूपमा आफ्नो मर्विार व्यक्त गनक सक्निुुन्छ? मर्वगि दईु
र्वषकको ििुनामा िपाईको क्षमिामा केिी पररर्विकन देमखएको छ ? (सकारात्मक र्वा नकारात्मक) कृपया केमि उधारण मदनिुोस्। यो पररर्वकिनका कारक ित्र्विरु के के
िुन?्
7. What are the factors that have helped or hindered you in performing your role effectively?
िपाईिरुिाई आफ्नो भमूमका प्रभार्वकारी रूपमा परुा गनकको िागी के के ित्र्विे सियोग र्वा बाधा पयुाकउछन?्
8.What kind of major decisions have you taken as a NRM leader? NRM पदामधकाररको रूपमा िपाईिे अमििे सम्म कलिा
प्रमखु मनणकयिरु मिनभुएको छ ?
Page | 58
ANNEX VI- Summary of field activities carried out
District NRM Groups
HH Survey
Interviews FGD Days Man Days
Chitwan 7 72 35 2 9 18
Kaski 13 131 65 2 13 26
Tanahun 16 171 80 2 13 26
Banke 7 72 35 2 6 12
Bardiya 7 72 35 2 7 14
Total 50 518 250 10 48 96
Page | 59
ANNEX VII- Indicator Calculation
The indicator value was computed using the data from HH survey and Executive interview. Score
for different criteria was given as 0 and 1. Positive answer was given 1 and negative answer was
given as 0. The score for the indicator was calculated using the following:
Indicator Evaluation Question Criteria
GESI: 1.3 1) Do the NRM members show friendly behavior towards you? 2) Do the NRM members use derogatory words while talking to you? 3) Do you feel that the NRM leaders respond to your concerns fairly? 4) Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders?
Positive answer 1,3 and 4 and negative in 2
GESI: 2.2 1) Do you feel that gender roles have been changed than five years ago? 2) Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other that traditional ones recently?
Positive answer in both
GESI: 2.3 1) Have you ever faced any difficulty performing your roles effectively? 2) What kind of major decisions have you taken as a NRM leader?
No in 1 and yes in 2
Page | 60
ANNEX VIII- Distribution of FGDs
District NRM Group FGD Type
General Members Women Marginalized Group
Kaski Lumle CAMC and SamundreDandapari CFUG
Lumle CAMC SamundreDandapari CFUG
________
Tanahun Raniban (Bandipur) and Bhaghar Inter lease hold Forest (Bhanjyang LFG
Raniban (Bandipur)
_______ Bhaghar Inter lease hold Forest (Bhanjyang LFG
Banke Gokul CFUG and Raptipidit Tatha Gulari CFUG
Raptipidit Tatha Gulari CFUG
______ Gokul CFUG
Bardiya Kailashi CFUG and Karmla BZCFUG
Karmla BZCFUG Kailashi CFUG ________
Chitwan KalikholaDeurai and Panchakanya CFUGs
Panchakanya CFUGs
KalikholaDeurai ________
ANNEX XI- Tables
Table F: % of women and members of marginalized groups perceiving that NRM leaders show
Gender Equitable and Socially Inclusive Behavior
GESI Banke Bardiya Chitwan Kaski Tanahun Total Female Male BCT Dalit Janajati Muslim Newar Others
YES 68.06 94.44 94.44 96.18 67.84 82.43 79.79 85.59 84.52 87.67 79.38 33.33 80 0
NO 31.94 5.56 5.56 3.82 32.16 17.57 20.21 14.41 15.48 12.33 20.62 66.67 20 0
Table F1: Disaggregation according to Sex and Ethnicity (Number of women and members of
marginalized groups perceiving that NRM leaders show Gender Equitable and Socially Inclusive
Behavior)
District
BCT Dalit Janajati Muslim Newar Others
F M F M F M F M F M F M
Banke 6 13 4 2 14 9 1 0 0 0 0 0
Bardiya 8 12 1 5 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chitwan 2 1 4 5 29 25 0 0 0 1 1 0
Kaski 31 38 24 8 10 5 0 0 0 0 8 2
Tanahun 12 19 7 4 40 31 0 0 2 1 0 0
Page | 84
Table F2: % of respondents who believe that NRM leaders show friendly behavior
Show
Friendly
Behavior Banke Bardiya Chitwan Kaski Tanahun Total F M BCT Dalit
Janaj
ati Muslim Newar Others
YES 94.44 95.83 100 100 98.24 98.07 97.52 98.73 99.4 98.63 97.67 33.33 100 100
NO 5.56 4.17 0 0 1.76 1.93 2.48 1.27 0.6 1.37 2.33 66.67 0 0
Table F3: % of respondents who believe they can express their views openly
Express
Views
Openly
Bank
e Bardiya Chitwan
Kask
i Tanahun
Tota
l Female Male BCT Dalit Janajati Muslim Newar Others
YES 75 98.61 94.44 98.47 85.96
90.5
4 86.88
94.9
2
94.0
5
90.4
1 88.37 33.33 100 100
NO 25 1.39 5.56 1.53 14.04 9.46 13.12 5.08 5.95 9.59 11.63 66.67 0 0
Page | 85
Table F4: Friendly behavior
Factors
Bank
e
Bardiy
a Chitwan
Kask
i Tanahun
Tota
l
Femal
e Male BCT Dalit Janajati
Musli
m
Newa
r
Other
s
Only Hariyo Ban 0 8.20 2.82 7.09 5.99 5.28 5.58 4.93 6.83 7.14 4.10 0 0 0
Hariyo and others 75.76 50.82 97.18 66.93 53.89
66.0
6 65.80
66.3
7
67.7
0
58.5
7 65.57 100 60 100
Others 24.24 40.98 0 25.98 40.12
28.6
6 28.62
28.7
0
25.4
7
34.2
9 30.33 0 40 0
Table F5: Derogatory Words
Factors
Bank
e
Bardiy
a Chitwan
Kask
i Tanahun
Tota
l
Femal
e Male BCT Dalit Janajati
Musli
m
Newa
r
Other
s
Only Hariyo Ban 0 12.50 0.00 10.78 4.82 6.37 7.11 5.42 9.09 5.45 5.17 0 0 0
Hariyo and others 71.64 57.50 100.00 60.78 52.41
59.1
5 57.82
60.8
4
62.1
2
56.3
6 55.17 100 50 100
Others 28.36 30.00 0 28.43 42.77
34.4
8 35.07
33.7
4
28.7
9
38.1
8 39.66 0 50 0
Page | 86
Table F6: Respond to Concern
Factors
Bank
e
Bardiy
a Chitwan
Kask
i Tanahun
Tota
l
Femal
e Male BCT Dalit Janajati
Musli
m
Newa
r
Other
s
Only Hariyo Ban 0 10.29 5.41 9.68 4.49 6.24 2.80 2.01 7.24 6.56 5.94 0 0 0
Hariyo and others 78.13 48.53 91.89 68.55 51.28
62.8
1 19.60
27.6
4
68.4
2
57.3
8 57.53 100 80 100
Others 21.88 41.18 2.70 21.77 44.23
30.9
6 77.60
70.3
5
24.3
4
36.0
7 36.53 0 20 0
Table F7: Express their views openly
Factors
Bank
e
Bardiy
a Chitwan
Kask
i Tanahun
Tota
l
Femal
e Male BCT Dalit Janajati
Musli
m
Newa
r
Other
s
Only Hariyo Ban 0 6.35 0.00 7.14 3.26 4.14 4.94 3.41 3.97 6.98 3.85 0 0 0
Hariyo and others 76.32 49.21 100.00 42.86 65.22
61.8
3 58.64
64.7
7
57.1
4
53.4
9 69.23 0 100 33.33
Others 23.68 44.44 0.00 50.00 31.52
34.0
2 36.42
31.8
2
38.8
9
39.5
3 26.92 0 0 66.67
Page | 87
Table G: % of respondents who believe that Gender Roles have changed
GES
I Banke Bardiya Chitwan Kaski Tanahun
Tota
l Female Male BCT Dalit Janajati Muslim Newar Others
YES 86.11 59.72 88.89 87.02 80.7
77.6
1 75.18
80.5
1
85.1
2
73.9
7 73.64 33.33 0 81.82
NO 13.89 40.28 11.11 12.98 19.3
22.3
9 24.82
19.4
9
14.8
8
26.0
3 26.36 66.67 0 18.18
Table G1: Number of people who believe that gender roles have changed (Disaggregation according to Sex and Ethnicity)
District
BCT Dalit Janajati Muslim Newar Others
F M F M F M F M F M F M
Banke 8 11 4 3 16 7 1 0 0 0 0 0
Bardiya 6 8 1 2 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chitwan 2 1 4 5 31 27 0 0 0 1 1 0
Kaski 31 41 26 8 10 5 0 0 0 0 8 2
Tanahun 16 28 11 4 64 44 0 0 2 2 0 0
Page | 88
Table G3: % of NRM leaders who believe they perform their roles effectively
Banke Bardiya Chitwan Kaski Tanahun
Male 63.77 55.56 14.29 88.89 80
Female 19.04 30 11.11 62.16 74.3
BCT 14.29 30 0 70 70.59
Janajati 53.33 44.44 22.22 70 76.19
Dalit 0 0 0 62.5 100
Newar 0 0 0 0 100
ANNEX XII- Some selected photographs from the field
Figure 7: FGD with marginalized group in Bhagar interlease forest, Tanahun
Page | 90
Figure 8:Chakrawati CFUG Tanahun
Page | 91
Figure 9: Sewing training by Padampur CFUG, Chitwan
Page | 92
Figure 10 :Federation of Community Forest Users, Banke
Page | 93
Figure 11: FGD with women of Kalikhola Deurali CFUG, Chitwan
Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
Shree Durbar Tole, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal
Disclaimer: This assessment is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.