Hariyo Ban Program Mid-Term Assessment of GESI Indicators ...

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



Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as the prime recipient, with the




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 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 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



Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as prime recipient, with the




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


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 | 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


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





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


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 ्





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


37. If yes, What are the key factors behind these positive changes?/ यमद छ भन े यो सकारात्मक पररर्वकिनका

कारक ित्र्विरु के के िुन ्?





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 ्?


Page | 49




40. If no, What are the key factors towards the negative/ no changes?/ यमद छैन भन े यो नकारात्मक पररर्वकिनको


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


inclusion from Hariyo Ban II since past two year?(Capacity building, workshop,



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।्


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.


negative trend). Please provide some examples./ मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन

भएको छ ? उिारण मदनिुोस ।


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 ?





बोिेको देख्न ुभएको छ ? मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? कृपया



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


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 ?



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 ्।


traditional) roles of women./ परम्परागि भमूमका र ममििाको नयाुँ भमूमका बारे िपाईको बझुाईको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस



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


C) For general women

Indicator 1.3 and Indicator 2.2


inclusion from Hariyo Ban II since past two year?(Capacity building, workshop,



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?





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.





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?





बोिेको देख्न ुभएको छ ? मर्वगि दईु र्वषकको ििुनामा र्विाुँिरुको व्यर्विारमा कलिो पररर्विकन भएको छ (दरैु्व सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक)? कृपया



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


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 ?



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 ्


traditional) roles of women./ परम्परागि भमूमका र ममििाको नयाुँ भमूमका बारे िपाईको बझुाईको केमि उिारण मदनिुोस ।



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 ?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Hariyo Ban Program Mid-Term Assessment of GESI Indicators ...

Documents

Transcript of Hariyo Ban Program Mid-Term Assessment of GESI Indicators ...