Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) in Nepal

Transcription

1 December 2013 Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) in Nepal D.C. Devkota, A. Shrestha, S. Fisher, P. Pokhrel, and N.B. Joshi Q3 Report - Feasibility Testing Phase

2 Acronyms AP CADP-N CAPA CBO CBS CDO CFUG CRM CV CVP CVS DADO DAG DCCC DDC DDMU DEECCCC DEEU DFCC DFID DFO DHM DPMAS DSCO DTO EFLG EU FGD HH I/NGO ICIMOD IDS-Nepal IIED ISET - N LAPA LFP LGCDP MC MLV MoAD MoFALD MoFSC MoHA MoSTE MSFP NAPA NCCSP Adaptation Plan Climate change Adaptation Design and Pilot phase Nepal Community Adaptation Plan of Action Community Based Organization Central Bureau of Statistics Chief District Officer Community Forest User Group Climate Risk Management Climate Vulnerability Climate Vulnerable People/Population Climate Vulnerable Settlements District Agriculture Development Office Disadvantaged Group District Climate Coordination Committee District Development Committee District Disaster Management Unit District Energy Environment Climate Change Coordination Committee District Energy and Environment Unit District Forest Coordination Committee Department for International Development of UK government District Forest Office Department of Hydrology and Meteorology District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System District Soil Conservation Office District Technical Office Environment Friendly Local Governance European Union Focus Group Discussion House Hold International Non-Government Organization International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development Integrated Development Society-Nepal International Institute for Environment and Development Institute for Social and Environmental Transition Nepal Local Adaptation Plan of Action Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Local Governance and Community Development Programme Minimum Conditions Mountain-specific Livelihood Vulnerability Ministry of Agricultural Development Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment Multi Stakeholder Forestry Project National Adaptation Programme of Action National Climate Change Support Programme I

3 NGO NPC PLMG PM PPCR PVAT REDD SPCR TAMD TCC TOC UG VDC VEECCCC VFCC WCF WFP Non Government Organization National Planning Commission Public Land Management Group Performance Measures Pilot Program for Climate Resilience Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment Tool Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategic Program for Climate Resilience Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development TAMD Coordination Committee Theory of Change Users Group Village Development Committee Village Energy Environment Climate Change Coordination Committee Village Forest Coordination Committee Ward Citizens Forum World Food Programme

4 Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Level of TAMD application- Scale and intervention (programme, national, project, etc.) 2 Planned activities for Q3 and progress since last quarter (Q2) 3 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS/KEY ENTRY POINTS 6 Existing stakeholders 6 Any new entry points/stakeholders 7 THEORY OF CHANGE ESTABLISHED 8 Local Theories of Change by Selected Interventions: at VDC Level 8 INDICATORS (TRACK 1 AND TRACK 2) AND METHODOLOGY 13 Indicators 13 Methodological approach 17 EMPIRICAL DATA COLLECTION (a) TRACK 1 (b) TRACK 2 21 Establishing baselines 21 CHALLENGES 27 CONCLUSIONS AND EMERGING LESSONS 28 ANNEXURES 29 Annex 1: DDC and VDC Score Card Templates used in Rukum District 29 Annex 2: List of District Interaction Workshop Participants in Rukum 32 Annex 3: Key Informants Interview (KII) Template used in Rukum 34 Annex 4: FGD Template used in Rukum 39 Annex 5: Household Survey (HHS) Template used in Rukum 42 Annex 6: Climatic Data of Rukum and Nawalparasi Districts 54 Annex 6: Photo Plates (Rukum District's Field Exercises) 60

5 TAMD Feasibility Study in Nepal - Quarter Three Report INTRODUCTION The TAMD feasibility study in Nepal is being undertaken for the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)-UK and Integrated Development Society (IDS)-Nepal, as the follow up to the previous study on TAMD appraisal and design conducted on October February In order to track adaptation at the national level and to measure progress against national development objectives, TAMD feasibility study in Nepal is aiming to develop a framework and to make meaningful conclusions from different indicators and M&E frameworks for different interventions in reference to vulnerabilities viz. landslide, flood and drought. Indicators are being selected and developed from existing frameworks of selected interventions, expert literatures relevant to Nepalese context and government data system, as well as from the TAMD framework and contextualised with climate risk data. It will allow assessing the contributions of a set of interventions to climate resilience and climate risk management and combined to understand changes at the national level. Cross verification will also be made through available secondary information on disaster and climate data at a national, regional or district level. The selected intervention communities will be matched and climate hazards - landslides, flooding and drought will be analysed. In this Quarter, after the selection of the study interventions and districts based on the methodological approach envisioned according to the country context during previous quarters, TAMD study in Nepal has undergone further stage of development and improvement with data and information collected from various secondary and primary 1

6 sources. At the end of the quarter-3, field testing and data collection work in Rukum district (out of 2 selected districts) has been completed. The data and information were collected at District/VDC/Community/HHs level, using various research tools and methods such as Field observations, District level stakeholders interaction workshops, DDC/VDC Scorecards, Key Informants Survey (KIS), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Households Survey Questionnaire (HHS) etc. The collected data and information are under the process/stage of being fed in and analysis. These research tools and methods i.e. DDC/VDC Scorecards (Annex 1), KIS (Annex 3), FGDs (Annex 4), HHS (Annex 5) developed and tested are presented in the Annexes. Level of TAMD application- Scale and intervention (programme, national, project, etc.) As per the TAMD Coordination Committee's (TCC) advice/guidance and the TAMD study team (a group of technical/expert consultants) technical recommendation, the TAMD feasibility study in Nepal has selected and is being piloted in two districts (i.e. Nawalparasi and Rukum) for three selected interventions (projects) viz. LGCDP, LFP and NCCSP Start-up Phase based on the set of selection criteria. This study particularly focused on climate vulnerability/hazard of flood risk in Nawalparasi district and landslide in Rukum district. In order to conduct study further down at the local level i.e. Village and Climate vulnerable communities, TAMD team have recently had field exercises in Rukum district for making VDC selection, conducting field tests and data and information collection at different levels of the district. After the wider consultations and interaction with district level stakeholders and relevant VDC representatives during the field visit, TAMD team have decided to select two high vulnerable to landslide VDCs i.e. 1) Shyalapakha VDC with LGCDP and LFP interventions and 2) Nuwakot VDC with only LGCDP interventions for VDC matching and further research at VDC/community/HH level in line with the TAMD feasibility study purpose. Similar approach will be adopted in Nawalparasi district as well. The detailed and evolved methodological approaches are presented in the proceeding section of this report. In addition, it has also become evident from the field exercises in Rukum that Drought cannot be considered as climate change vulnerability/hazard in the district, however, it has been affecting the local communities only as a slow-on-set-changes to climate. Hence, no separate study was conducted for drought as separate climate vulnerability like landslide and flood in Rukum and Nawalparasi district respectively as proposed in the previous quarters, however issues related with slow-on-set-changes have been incorporated into various research tools and techniques adopted for the study.

7 Planned activities for Q3 and progress since last quarter (Q2) Activities Planned for Q3 and their Status: Key Activities Sub-activities Status Remarks 1. Selection of Collect VDC level data/vulnerability Achieved After field visit to 2 VDCs each Rukum; Drought is no Disaster risk maps of district for Landslide longer considered as and Drought vulnerability Discuss among the TAMD team and finalize Rationale for the selection. climate change vulnerability but slowon-set change 2. Selection of 2 VDCs for Flood vulnerability in Nawalparasi 3. T1 and T2 indicator development 4. Develop baseline for i. Rukum ii. Nawalparasi 5. Match communities/ wards for development across interventions Collect VDC level data/vulnerability Disaster risk maps of district Discuss among the TAMD team and finalize Rationale for the selection. Collect PMAS/DPMAS reports from MoFALD/DDC on disaster/agriculture losses and damages. Reports from VDCs and MOAD (last 5 years) Extract and compile baseline information for development indicators ( if available for 5 years) including contextual CBS and NLSS and any other sources (project baselines, secondary sources, if possible draw on insights from PAF) of: (a) DDC (b) VDC and (c) Climate vulnerable settlements (CVS) Monitoring versus evaluation, techniques that were successful. Develop and suggest improved indicators sheet for development /finalise Collect climatological data (Temperature, rain fall, disaster) Compile and analyse data (10 years if possible) on hazard - disaster data from MoHA Development data (NLSS) Data gap analysis Match communities/wards for development across interventions Finalise/recommend Will be achieved after field visit Partially achieved Mostly Achieved Achieved in Rukum; Nawalparasi remained Data collection visit to Nawalparasi planned Field visit to Nawalparasi planned

8 6. Finalise methodology, sampling methods, survey tools and other community techniques for testing/resear ch in Nawalparasi and Rukum 7. Technical feedback/prog ress sharing meeting 8. TAMD Coordination Committee meeting 9. Conduct field study in Rukum 10. Conduct field study in Nawalparasi Sampling-consider options for sampling i.e. several communities vulnerable to flood/landslide, stratified by project? Sample whole or standard sample size of flood/landslide vulnerable VDCs Modify VDC indicators for development and learning/flexible for discussion Development tracking indicators - finalise for testing DDC model indicators for discussion Proxies/vulnerability develop for discussion Finalize methodology, sampling, survey and community techniques Finalise tools (HH survey questionnaires, key informants survey, FGDs etc) Identify potential experts for workshop Prepare for workshop Organize one day workshop Achieved for Rukum Differed Needs slight adaptation on tools and techniques for specific context to flood TAMD Team has agreed to share progress in respective districts only; Workshop organised in Rukum Prepare/organize meeting Differed TAMD Team has agreed to share progress in respective districts only; Workshop organised in Rukum Travel to Rukum from Kathmandu Meeting with district level officials/arrange for workshop District level workshop Test tools (HH survey questionnaires, key informants survey, FGDs etc) in Rukum Refine/adjust/print tools based on testing Hire local enumerators (as per requirement based on sample size) / conduct orientation Conduct study in Rukum Travel to Nawalparasi Meeting with district level officials/arrange for workshop Achieved Field visit to Nawalparasi planned

9 11. 3 rd Quarter report District level workshop Test tools (HH survey questionnaires, key informants survey, FGDs etc) in Nawalparasi Refine/adjust/print tools based on testing Hire local enumerators (as per requirement based on sample size) / conduct orientation Conduct study in Nawalparasi Initial work on Q3 report Prepare draft report and share for inputs Send report Achieved 12. Data analysis Data tabulation, entry and analysis Data entry started for Rukum

10 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS/KEY ENTRY POINTS Stakeholders Map for TAMD Feasibility Study in Nepal: MoSTE/TCC Guidance/Advisory (MoSTE, MoFALD, MoAD, MoFSC, MoE, IIED- UK, IDS-Nepal, ISET-Nepal and NPC) International Partner: IIED-UK National Partner: IDS-Nepal Recommendations/ Technical support Rukum & Nawalparasi Districts (DDCs, TAMD relevant District-based government and non-government line offices including LGCDP, LFP, NCCSP Start-up Phase etc.) Climate Vulnerable VDCs of Rukum & Nawalparasi Districts (Selected VDCs and Interventions) Climate Vulnerable Wards/ Communities of Selected VDCs ( LGCDP/WCF, LFP/CFUG, NCCSP/VEECCCC groups etc.) Climate Vulnerable People/ Beneficiary HHs of Selected VDCs and Interventions Existing stakeholders At the central level, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) has chaired the TAMD Coordination Committee (TCC) comprising MoFALD, MoAD, MoFSC, MoE, NPC, IIED-UK, IDS-Nepal and ISET-Nepal as key members of the TAMD feasibility study project. Representatives of these ministries and stakeholder organizations are participating actively in the formal and informal meetings and regular interactions. They provide regular advice and guidance to the TAMD study team.

11 Moreover, TCC had selected two pilot districts (i.e. Nawalparasi and Rukum) with three interventions (i.e. LFP, LGCDP and NCCSP Start-up Phase) for TAMD feasibility study. After the selection of pilot districts and interventions, exploratory visit was conducted in Nawalparasi at the end of the previous quarter (Q2) and in this quarter (Q3), field exercises have recently been conducted in Rukum. These activities at selected districts have helped in identifying key stakeholders and to further test TAMD study tools and methods as well as collect relevant data and information at District/VDC/Community/HH level. Any new entry points/stakeholders While moving forward with the site selection and data and information collection processes further at the local level on various aspects, climate vulnerability and VDCs selection become crucial for making entry points and identifying local stakeholders. In the context of Rukum district, considering landslide vulnerability as the entry point, district level interaction workshop was organised in Rukum to share TAMD study objectives and to discuss on VDCs selection and generate ideas for finalising research tools and methods which will be used at different scale/levels. Moreover, key informant's surveys (KIS) were also conducted with concerned district based organisations and stakeholders identified for the district workshop. In order to select relevant VDCs for TAMD study and testing, a set of criteria was developed considering very similar contextual elements such as socio-economic status, climate vulnerability, presence of selected project intervention and demographics so that linkages between the selected project interventions can be ascertained between and within selected VDCs. By matching VDCs/community based on these elements, any differences between the unit-less scores generated can at least be partly attributed to the project intervention itself. This matching process is one of the key determinant factors in the process of VDC selection. Having considered above mentioned elements and factors, TAMD team have visited three VDCs viz. 1) Shyalapakha VDC (with LGCDP and LFP project interventions), 2) Arma VDC (with LGCDP and NCCSP Start-up Phase) and 3) Nuwakot VDC (with only LGCDP project) in Rukum district. After conducting field observation, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and VDC Score-cards at the visited VDCs, TAMD team finally decided to select only two VDCs 1) Shyalapakha VDC (with LGCDP and LFP project interventions) and 2) Nuwakot VDC (with only LGCDP project) for HHs level study and data and information collection and Arma VDC (LGCDP and NCCSP Start-up Phase) shall be covered up for Track 1 indicators only. A more or less similar techniques specifically adapted to flood vulnerability context in Nawalparasi district, will be adopted during the next field exercises in Nawalparasi.

12 THEORY OF CHANGE ESTABLISHED Hypothesis: Development projects either climate change focused or only development will have impacts on people s livelihoods that will increase their climate resilience. These changes in resilience can be measured and aggregated across different contexts. Based on the above hypothesis, following local Theories of Change (ToC) specific to the selected interventions for TAMD feasibility study in Nepal can be established/predicted. Local Theories of Change by Selected Interventions: at VDC Level Intervention/ Local Institution LGCDP/WCF LFP/CFUG NCCSP VEECCCC Local Theory of Change (ToC) Reducing poverty through Inclusive, responsive and accountable local governance and participatory community-led development by ensuring increased involvement of Women, Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis, disadvantaged groups in the local governance process and improved access to locally and inclusively prioritised public goods and services. Reduced vulnerability and improved livelihoods of poor and excluded rural people by enhancing assets of rural communities through more equitable, efficient and sustainable use of forest/ natural resources. The development and implementation of locally inclusive and responsive Local adaptation Plan of Action (LAPAs) that are integrated into village, municipality, district and sectoral planning processes, coupled with capacity building of these institutions, will result in the delivery of adaptation services that improve the adaptive capacity of the climate-vulnerable poor. Remarks NCCSP Start-up Phase has just started the formation of local bodies at Village level (VEECCCC) and District level (DEECCCC) after the accomplishment of its planning phase for further implementation of planned activities. No sufficient activities, outputs, outcomes and impact level indicators could 8

13 be found from further study at Community/HH level for NCCSP Community. Therefore, it has been realised that local theory of change for NCCSP cannot be established at this stage.

14 Assumptions on causal mechanisms between activities and outcomes: DDC/VDC Level Track-1 (T1) Indicators 1. Climate change mainstreaming/integration into planning (T1)* 2. Institutional co-ordination 3. Budgeting and finance (T1)* 4. Institutional knowledge/capacity (T1)* DDC/National Considering Tracking and Aggregation possibilities NAPA/MoFALD/NPC /VDC monitoring/mcpm/eflg 5. Use of climate information (T1)* 6. Participation (vertical and horizontal) (T1)* 7. Awareness among stakeholders (T1)* 8. Learning and flexibility 9. BAU functions (MCPM) Community: Extent and quality of CRM/institutional measures (specific to intervention: Ward Citizens Forum, Community Forest User s Group, VEECCCC Community) Targeting Identified CVP in intervention CVP participation CVP concerns reflected in plans CVP access to decision making Local Theories of Change on hazard and intervention Community and HH resilience (T2): 1. Contextual: Climate indicator/normalisation point 2. Outcome indicators specific to hazard 3. Feeds into no. of households with increased resilience and links to assessment of effect on core development systems identified by communities 4. Community: Proxies to vulnerability (hazard and intervention specific) unit-less scores / rankings

15 Identification and location of outputs, targeting and outcomes on the TAMD framework (by intervention) After conducting field exercises in Rukum and the detailed study of M&E frameworks of the three selected interventions for TAMD feasibility study in Nepal, following indicators related to outputs, targeting and outcomes for each intervention have been identified and can be located at VDC (local) level on the TAMD framework. For LGCDP/ Ward Citizens Forum (WCF) at VDC Level: Local CRM Indicators for LGCDP/WCF WCF established and meets regularly Total number of citizens participating in meetings Outputs Majority of marginalised groups feel their views are considered and incorporated into WCF plans % participants aware of risks of climate variability and disasters % of VDC internal income spent on addressing extreme events and hazards % of participants at all ward level planning meetings per year who are Dalits & Women Targeting % of participants at meetings from areas ranked as highly climate sensitive % of VDC internal income spent explicitly on women, children, DAGs, ethnic groups, disabled and old people per fiscal year % citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were TWO years ago Outcomes % citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity) offered by the local governments better meet their needs than last year % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision-making process of VDCs than two year ago For LFP/ Community Forests Users Group (CFUGs) at VDC Level: Local CRM Indicators for LFP/ Community Forests Users Group (CFUGs) CFUG established and meet regularly Outputs Total number of citizens participating in meetings Majority of marginalised groups feel their views are considered and incorporated into CFUG plans % of participants who have received climate change training

16 % of CFUG internal income spent on addressing extreme events and hazards % of participants at all CFUG meetings per year who are Dalits & Women Targeting % of participants at meetings from areas ranked as highly climate sensitive % of CFUG internal income spent explicitly on women, children, DAGs, ethnic groups, disabled and old people per fiscal year Outcomes % of citizens that think they get increased benefit from forest group and its resources compared to two years ago Increased assets for forest users groups Increased livelihoods choices for forest users groups For NCCSP/ Village Energy, Environment and Climate Change Coordination Committee (VEECCCC) at VDC Level: Local CRM Indicators for NCCSP VEECCCC VEECCCC established and meeting regularly Total number of citizens participating in meetings Outputs Climate change risks considered and incorporated into VDC and local plans % of participants who have received climate change training % of VEECCCC internal income spent explicitly on communities in areas ranked as highly sensitive % of participants at all VEECCCC planning meetings per year who are Dalits & Women Targeting % of participants at meetings from areas ranked as highly climate sensitive % of VEECCCC internal income spent explicitly on women, children, DAGs, ethnic groups, disabled and old people per fiscal year Outcomes NCCSP has just started the formation of local bodies at Village level (VEECCCC) and District level (DEECCCC) after the accomplishment of its planning phase (NCCSP Start-up Phase) for further implementation of planned activities. Therefore, it has been realised that in order to monitor and evaluate in line with TAMD feasibility study; no sufficient activities, outputs, outcomes and impact level indicators could be found from further study at Community/HH level for NCCSP Community.

17 INDICATORS (TRACK 1 AND TRACK 2) AND METHODOLOGY Indicators In Quarter-3, the initial entry point for the TAMD feasibility study is the Village Development Committee (VDC) where information regarding both climate change interventions and other development interventions are planned, budgeted and coordinated. Village Development Committees (VDCs) are the lowest local level government institutions where local level development plan, budget and implementation take place. However, there are other local forums such as the Ward Citizen Forums (WCFs) established by LGCDP, the platform for the need identification and participatory planning with the participation of local communities. Local groups/ user groups may also have their own plans and budget to implement the adaptation and development activities such as Community Forest User's Group (CFUGs) of LFP in Rukum district. Track 1 (T1) and Track 2 (T2) indicators have been developed based on background work and tested at DDC/VDC/Community/HH level in Rukum by the TAMD team. This currently focuses at two levels: monitoring within government systems (i.e. VDCs/DPMAS etc) and monitoring/evaluation at community level. The framework tries to see how these two might be linked through sample data points allowing the government to track climate projects and improvements in resilience at the local level. Red indicators (as depicted in the Figure on Causal mechanism above) are specific to an intervention while black ones provide the linkages between them. More indicators are being developed to test parts of the TAMD methodology, however a simplified version will be suggested for government tracking. Other indicators would be useful for evaluation through surveys or project M&E. The framework takes as its starting point by placing the emphasis on community based decentralised planning in Nepal and the NAPA priority of supporting community based adaptation. All 3 selected interventions (LGCDP, LFP, NCCSP Start-up Phase) attempt to work within this paradigm and many more will do so in the coming years (LGCDP II, MSFP, NCCSP, PPCR etc). Therefore, TAMD framework specifically seeks to track how different efforts contribute to community/ward/vdc resilience. Development of Track 1 (T1) and Track 2 (T2) indicators of selected interventions In Quarter-3, relevant T1 and T2 indicators have further been updatedand concretised for the selected interventions and vulnerabilities (i.e. landslide, flood and drought) from Rukum district. These indicators were developed and tested/refined further through discussion, meetings and interactions with stakeholders and HH survey at different levels in Rukum. Both T1 and T2 indicators require further detail work and refinement. Therefore, similar testing will be done in Nawalparasi district considering flood vulnerability in particular and these indicators will then be finalised.

18 Driving narratives for the indicators development: Track 1 (T1) Indicators VDC/DDC level T1 indicators were developed as presented in the following table. The score cards (see Annex-1) on these T1 indicators were also discussed and tested at the DDC and VDC level in Rukum district. The aim was to produce a list of relevant institutional indicators that can also be modified and adapted for DDC level and capture the main stages of progress in Nepal. The study also sought to combine these with the Minimum Conditions and Performance Measurement standards (MCPM) of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development and will consider if a small subset of T1 indicators might be recommended for incorporation into these MCPM indicators or into the Environmentally Friendly Local Governance (EFLG) indicators. Some of the TAMD areas were too complex and far away from the current situation in the VDC. i.e. dealing with uncertainty, and so the team considered to incorporate indicators on Business as usual (BAU) functioning, learning and flexibility as precursors to dealing with uncertainty and then the specific climate risk management indicators. T1 indicators primarily focussed at the VDC level as VDC is the lowest level of decentralised planning. However, the study assumes that through developing indicators at this level, it will provide some tools for the government to track what is going on and identify those DDCs and VDCs in need of further support. The TAMD study has also developed a few intervention specific indicators at the local level on CRM measures of the institutions specific to the interventions i.e. the functioning of the Ward Citizens Forum (WCF) in LGCDP, the Community Forest Users Group (CFUGs) in the LFP and VEECCCC Community in the NCCSP. The causal linkages with their outputs, targeting and outcomes indicators specific to each of the selected interventions are also presented in the preceding table above. T1 Indicators for VDC/DDC Level Track 2 Indicators at VDC/DDC Level I. Climate Change mainstreaming/integration into VDC/DDC Planning II. Institutional co-ordination III. Budgeting and finance IV. Institutional knowledge/capacity (VDC/District staff and ilaka representatives) V. Use of climate information VI. Participation VII. Awareness among stakeholders (District Council and Representatives of WCF and other civil society) VIII: Learning and flexibility IX. Business as usual (BAU) Functions: Functioning of local systems

19 Development of Track 2 (T2) Indicators: There are several levels of Track2 (T2) indicators. DDC/National Level At this stage, the study will not be developing a separate set of indicators at this level but national priorities and indicators (e.g. NAPA/MoFALD/NPC/VDC monitoring/mcpm) are specifically taken into consideration to determine what this study will look at different levels. The initial aim is to gather data and information at VDC level which will then be aggregated to inform these national indicators / priorities. Community and VDC level Development Gateways There are several areas of indicators at this local level, some of which are selected to present a more simplified picture for monitoring at the VDC/DDC level and some of them would be required for a full evaluation of contribution/attribution purposes. The study also aims to prioritise a set of core indicators that are in the area of the intervention as well as tracking core development indicators related to the gateway systems (the system used in the LAPA to assess vulnerability) at community and VDC level. In addition, some proxy indicators related to vulnerability (hazard and intervention specific) and increased resilience at community/vdc level have also been identified and developed based on relevant expert literatures and government M&E systems. Expert literature has included assessment of Nepal specific literature such as ICIMOD's Mountain specific Livelihood Vulnerability (MLV) Index and assessment of the indicators taken in the three interventions' project documents and reports. Furthermore, perception of the community on vulnerability was also discussed during Focus Group Discussions in Rukum. This community data then feeds into a robust assessment of the number of households with reduced vulnerability and links to assessment of effect on core development systems identified. The Track 2 (T2) indicators along with the sources of information developed so far have been presented in the table below. Track 2 (T2) Indicators: Track 2 (T2) Indicators Source 1. Education level Expert literature/projects/nlss/cbs/hhs(b1) 2. Access to solar/electricity/improved stoves Expert literature/projects/hhs (G3) 3. Access to safe drinking water Expert literature/projects/hhs (G1) 4. Access to own land Expert literature/projects/hhs (C1) 5. Access to irrigated land Expert literature/projects/hhs (C2) 6. House type Expert literature/projects/hhs (A10) 7. Food self-sufficiency from own production Expert literature/projects/hhs (E1) 8. Annual income per HH Expert literature/projects/hhs (F) 9. Number of sources of income Expert literature/projects/hhs (F)

20 10. Livelihood diversification HHS (F,E,B3) 11. Means of communication Expert literature/projects/hhs (G1-10) 12. Agricultural/livestock Services Expert literature/projects/hhs (G1.11) 13. Access to governmental services Local/HHS (F1.8) 14. Health services Expert literature/projects/hhs(g1.8) 15. Access to support groups (Savings group/credit services/others) Expert literature/projects/hhs (G1.12) 16. Social networks Expert literature/hhs (I1) 17. Livestock holding Expert literature/projects/hhs (D1) 18. Access to roads / markets HHS (G1-2 &9) 19. Past exposure to local hazard last 5 years Local/HHS (H1) 20. Benefit from seasonal migration income or remittances Local/HHS (F-8) 21. Majority agricultural land on steep slopes Local/HHS (C6) 22. Reliance on fruit trees and vegetables Local/HHS (F-3) 23. Knowledge of climate change and risks Expert literature/hhs (I3) 24. Experienced change in agricultural productivity last five years 25. Exposed to socio-economic shock in last five years Local/HHS (C4) Expert literature/hhs (H1) 26. Ownership of an Ox Local/HHS (D1) 27. % citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were TWO years ago 28. % citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity) offered by the local governments better meet their needs than last year 29. % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision-making process of VDCs than two year ago 30. % of citizens that think they get increased benefit from forest group and its resources compared to two years ago LGCDP/HHS (I4) LGCDP/HHS (I5) LGCDP/HHS (I6) LFP 31. Increased assets for forest users groups LFP 32. Increased livelihoods choices for forest users groups LFP Climate data and contextual point: To contextualize the development indicators into wider context, the study have sought to create a climate data point or set of contextual information. Due to severe data shortages, it is unlikely that this will be a time-series analysis or will have much historical data, but we

21 are currently scoping how we might combine sources on a few areas such as rainfall, crop yields, loss and damage payouts. The study would seek to use this to create an easily assessable data point at the DDC/VDC level (i.e. through converting to a qualitative scale on the state of the information and the change in climate) as well as using a wider set of data for an evaluation context. Methodological approach Evolved TAMD Methodological Approach for TAMD Feasibility Study in Nepal-Quarter 3 Study Districts/DDCs Development outcomes Study Villages/VDCs Local Institution Ward Citizen Forum / Community Forest Users Group Contextual indicators Climate data Socio-economic data Theory of change Targeting Hazard outcomes e.g. Agricultural productivity per capita, loss and damage from flood/landslides Community resilience as unit less score - Generic resilience indicators (expert literature) - Local hazard indicators - Project indicators Methodology for Nepal TAMD feasibility test The purpose of the Nepal TAMD feasibility test is to examine changes in community and household resilience and how they might be measured and aggregated across different interventions to enable the government to track progress and measure effectiveness. It uses three interventions that are addressing specific hazards through community led planning. It will empirically test the following elements of the TAMD methodology: Contextual measurements of resilience through quintiles and unit less scores Local theories of change Contribution of local/vdc level institutions to community resilience Use of hazard specific outcome measures and a climate contextual point Use of the scorecards at the local level

22 To tie into national systems and priorities TAMD feasibility study: Proposes and tests a methodology for measuring and tracking changes in HH resilience (one of the 5 indicators chosen by MoSTE and PPCR to track (Monitoring and evaluation) Identifies possible outcome indicators for hazard specific resilience (Evaluation) Identifies potentially key national development indicators to track from community experiences of resilience (Monitoring) Tests a method of monitoring institutional resilience at DDC/VDC level (Monitoring) Suggests an evaluative methodology for comparing approaches to building resilience (Evaluation) The steps of the methodology are as follows: 1. Identification/Selection of VDCs and community within those VDCs based on vulnerability to hazards and relevant project interventions. Communities matched within a VDC across gateway systems and hazard risk. 2. Testing of DDC/VDC scorecard and data collection 3. Community level FGD on hazard, who is vulnerable and why, role of the intervention, local theories of change and what factors show success. This data is used to construct contextual indicators for proxies to vulnerability and outcome level indicators specific to the hazard. 4. Local institutional T1 indicators on each intervention s local institution and targeting 5. HH data collection on the proxies and some other core demographic data/contextual, and community outcome data 6. At VDC look for secondary sources of the identified outcome data at smallest scale available. 7. Climate (and other contextual data) translated into useful form and used to summarise trends with level of certainty and contextualise the outcome trends 8. Analysis includes differences of resilience changes between interventions and between hazards. Relevance of national development indicators to each hazard. Aggregation of changes in resilience if appropriate. VDC and Community Selection: In order to select relevant VDCs in Rukum district for TAMD study and testing further down at the local level, a set of criteria (presented in Box-1) was developed considering very similar contextual elements such as socio-economic status, climate vulnerability, presence of selected project intervention and demographics so that linkages between the selected project interventions can be ascertained between and within selected VDCs. VDC Selection Criteria: Box-1 1. Presence of at least one intervention out of three selected interventions; 2. Ranking of VDCs either very high or high vulnerability to landslide in Rukum and flood in Nawalparasi. 3. Similar Socio-economic and demographic context.

23 District level interaction workshop was organised in Rukum to share TAMD study objectives and to discuss on VDCs selection and generate ideas for finalising research tools and methods which will be used at different scale/levels. The list of district interaction workshop participants at Rukum is presented in Annex 2. Moreover, key informant's interviews (KII) were also conducted with concerned district based organisations and stakeholders identified for the district workshop. Having considered above mentioned elements/factors of VDC/Community matching and District stakeholders' recommendations, TAMD team have accessed three VDCs viz. 1) Shyalapakha VDC (with LGCDP and LFP project interventions), 2) Arma VDC (with LGCDP and NCCSP LAPA project interventions) and 3) Nuwakot VDC (with only LGCDP project intervention) in Rukum district. After conducting field observation, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and DDC/VDC score-cards testing at the visited DDC/VDCs, TAMD team finally decided to select only two VDCs 1) Shyalapakha (with LGCDP and LFP interventions) and 2) Nuwakot (with only LGCDP intervention) for overall study but Arma VDC has been accessed for T1 indicators only. Further testing and data/information collection were also conducted at these two selected VDCs. Therefore, the selection of VDCs in Rukum in Quarter-3 had differed from the proposed VDCs in the Quarter-2 (see Boxes 2 & 3). Box-2 VDCs proposed in Rukum in Q-2: 1. Shyalapakha VDC: Box-3 VDCs selected in Rukum in Q-3: 1. Shyalapakha VDC: Very high landslide vulnerability Very high landslide vulnerability Presence of LGCDP & LFP interventions Presence of LGCDP & LFP interventions 2. Arma VDC: 2. Nuwakot VDC: High landslide vulnerability High landslide vulnerability Presence of LGCDP & NCCSP Start-up Phase interventions Presence of LGCDP intervention only 3. Banfikot VDC: Very high landslide vulnerability Presence of LGCDP & LFP interventions At the VDC level, the study has used LGCDP intervention as the control among three selected interventions that needs to be matched for climate vulnerability and development level in three accessed VDCs in Rukum. The LGCDP is an example of the development intervention that focuses purely on institutional strengthening and community participation without specific focus on climate change. It therefore gives us the opportunity to try to understand what implications are there for the other two interventions that seek to address climate change and how effective it is to focus purely on development or to include climate change explicitly in the development interventions.

24 Focus group discussions with community groups represented by selected interventions' beneficiaries viz. LGCDP/WCF group, LFP/CFUG group, NCCSP/VEECCCC community and representatives of disaster (Landslide) affected and most vulnerable people were carried out at respective VDCs in Rukum for further validating VDC selection, identification of most affected/vulnerable ward/community and to collect relevant data and information. The semi-structured questions specifically devised for FGD is presented in Annex 4. Similar approach will be adopted in Nawalparasi district as well. After these exercises at Shyalapakha, Arma and Nuwakot VDC, the decision for not conducting further testing and data/information collection at Arma VDC has been justified by the current state of NCCSP implementation. NCCSP Start-up Phase has just started the formation of local bodies at Village level (VEECCCC) and District level (DEECCCC) after the accomplishment of planning phase for further implementation of its planned activities. Therefore, it has been realised that in order to monitor and evaluate in line with TAMD feasibility study; no sufficient activities, outputs, outcomes and impact level indicators could be found from further study at Community/HH level in Arma. Sampling Method: The VDCs were stratified considering vulnerability as well as by intervention. All VDCs in Rukum were stratified in three groups (LGCDP only, LGCDP plus LFP, LGCDP plus NCCSP Start-up Phase), and further each strata was divided into four categories viz. 1) Very High, 2) High, 3) Medium and 4) Low according to vulnerability Level. One VDC in each stratum from either very high or high vulnerability level were selected. The VDCs thus selected were verified in district consultative workshop. The VDC Focus group discussion further selected three wards in each VDC as most vulnerable wards (three topmost wards were taken in each VDC) where purposively 30 HHs were selected. Half of the selected sample HHs comprised highly impacted by the intervention where as half were HHs highly impacted by the hazard. In Rukum, the selected wards were: 1. Shyalapakha VDC (LFP and LGCDP): Ward no- 3, 6 and 8 & 9 (combined) (Total=90 HHs) 2. Nuwakot VDC (LGCDP only): Ward no- 2, 4 and 7 (Total=90 HHs) 3. Arma VDC (NCCSP & LGCDP): HHs survey was not conducted in this VDC as the study found that the intervention was planned and budget has been received but actual implementation has not started yet, therefore only the institutional analysis was conducted for this VDC. Therefore in Rukum, altogether 180 HHs were interviewed (surveyed) for HHs information. In each selected VDCs; three FGDs Shyalapakha, two FGDs in Arma and one FGD in Nuwakot at VDC level and eight KIIs with eight relevant stakeholders were conducted to verify and articulate the collected information.

25 EMPIRICAL DATA COLLECTION (a) TRACK 1 (b) TRACK 2 As a continuation to the efforts made in previous quarters, empirical data and information collection have also been done in quarter-3. Status of development, selected interventions and hazard/vulnerability specific indicators, government gateway systems, climatic data from closest meteorological station, socio-economic and food/crop production situation in the pilot districts/vdc etc. are taken into specific account while collecting data. In order to empirically validate the TAMD feasibility study, data and information from various secondary as well as primary sources at different scales from local to national level are being collected as available with concerned stakeholders. For primary data/information collection in Rukum, various standard research tools were used such as interaction workshop/kii (Annex 3) at district level; FGDs at community/vdc level (Annex 4) and Household Survey (HHS-Annex 5) at Household level. Household level data collection in selected VDCs of Rukum has been accomplished during recent field exercises. Similarly, these exercises will be conducted in Nawalparasi during next field visit. Establishing baselines For the TAMD feasibility study in Nepal, reduced vulnerability and increased resilience/adaptive capacity at different scales from community to national level due to climate change adaptations (related) interventions and development interventions and correlation between them has to be established. Unfortunately, community level data sets are not available. Therefore, secondary as well as primary data related to the development and intervention specific indicators, gateway systems, climatic data from closest meteorological station, socio-economic and food/crop production situation, vulnerability and associated loss and damage have been explored and are being collected as available for TAMD purpose to establish baseline from different sources as mentioned below:

26 Climatic Data Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) of Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) in Nepal keeps the weather record climatologically at national level through its numerous weather stations across Nepal throughout the year. The raw datasets on monthly rainfall (precipitation) over the past 20 years (from ) and monthly minimum and maximum temperature recorded over the last 20 years (from ) have been collected from the DHM. Those records of raw data sets contained many missing or data not available (DNA) fields in the district records including selected districts of TAMD study. However, climatic data of Rukum and Nawalparasi districts have been compiled, worked out and presented in the respective tables of Annex 6. Disaster and its associated Loss and Damage data The main disasters/hazards in the Rukum and Nawalparasi districts are landslide, flood, fire, storm, earthquake etc but lack the detailed and reliable information on loss and damage due to these disasters/hazards. However, following data and information on losses and damages in both the study districts during the last 10 years are extracted from the database (record) provided by the Disaster Management Section/National Emergency Operation Centre of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA). The disaster related records are kept for each district according to the type of disaster by the Ministry, where flood and landslide are considered and recorded as one single disaster not as a separate disaster. Loss and Damage (Lives and Properties) in Rukum District: by Flood and Landslides over the past 10 years Year 2060 BS. 2003/04 AD 2061 BS. 2004/05 AD 2062 BS. 2005/06 AD 2063 BS. 2006/07 AD 2064 BS. 2007/08 AD 2065 BS. 2008/09 AD 2066 BS. 2009/10 AD 2067 BS. 2010/11 AD 2068 BS. 2011/12 AD 2069 BS. 2012/13 AD Death Missing People Injured Affected Family Animal Loss

27 House Destroyed Completely Partly Shed Destroyed Land Loss No Unit Public Property Losses Rs Estimated Losses (in Rs.) Rs Rs Remarks Source: Disaster Management Section, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2013 Loss and Damage (Lives and Properties) in Nawalparasi District: by Flood and Landslides over the past 10 years People Animal Loss House Destroyed Year BS BS BS BS BS BS. BS BS BS BS. 2004/ / / / / /04 AD 2005/ /07 AD 2007/08 AD 2008/09 AD AD AD AD AD AD AD Death Missing Injured Affected Family Completel y

28 Shed Destroyed Land Loss Partly No Unit Bigha Bigha - - Public Property Losses Khajura Dam 35M. Dhanewa Dam 125M. Sugarca ne farm Flood on Dhanewa & Jharahi khola, 7, 8 & 9 ward affected Estimated Losses (in Rs.) Rs Rs Rs Remarks Source: Disaster Management Section, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2013 Crop/Food Situation: The Crop Situation Update is issued by the Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD), World Food Programme (WFP), and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which is published twice a year. While periodic updates on the crop performance and food security situation are provided through Food Security Bulletins issued by MoAD and WFP on a quarterly basis. The Crop Situation Updates provide a comprehensive overview on the crop production situation while Food Security Bulletins provide an overview of the Food Balance. The Crop production situation over the last 10 years and the Food security situation over the last 5 years of the Rukum and Nawalparasi districts for five major cereal crops have been compiled and presented in the tables below.

29 Area, Production and Yield of Five Major Cereal Crops in Rukum: Area in Hectare (Ha.), Production in Metric Ton (MT.) and Yield in Kilogram (Kg) per Hectare PADDY MAIZE MILLET WHEAT BARLEY YEAR AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD 2002/ / / / / / / / / / Source: Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) Crop/Food Requirements and Balance for Five major Crops in Rukum District: YEAR PADDY MAIZE MILLET WHEAT BARLEY TOTAL CEREAL NET-EDIBLE REQUIREMENT BALANCE* 2008/09 10, , , , , , , /10 11, , , , , , , /11 11, , , , , , , , /12 9, , , , , , , , /13 10, , , , , , , , Source: Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) * This food balance is calculated with the preliminary population census data of the year 2010/11.

30 Area, Production and Yield of Five Major Cereal Crops in Nawalparasi: Area in Hectare (Ha.), Production in Metric Ton (MT.) and Yield in Kilogram (Kg) per Hectare PADDY MAIZE MILLET WHEAT BARLEY YEAR AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD AREA PROD. YIELD 2002/ / / / / / / / / / Source: Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) Crop/Food Requirements and Balance for Five major Crops in Nawalparasi District: YEAR PADDY MAIZE MILLET WHEAT BARLEY TOTAL CEREAL NET-EDIBLE REQUIREMENT BALANCE* 2008/09 165, , , , , , , /10 138, , , , , , , /11 180, , , , , , , /12 191, , , , , , , /13 179, , , , , , , Source: Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) * This food balance is calculated with the preliminary population census data of the year 2010/11.

31 CHALLENGES Establishing ToC: NCCSP Start-up Phase has just started the formation of local bodies at Village level (VEECCCC) and District level (DEECCCC) after the accomplishment of its planning phase for further implementation of planned activities. No sufficient activities, outputs, outcomes and impact level indicators could be found from further study at Community/HH level for NCCSP Community. Therefore, it has been realised that local theory of change for NCCSP cannot be established at this stage. Empirical data collection: The TAMD feasibility study team in Nepal is facing many difficulties in getting data sets of the selected interventions and government database systems. There is a big challenge to access the data-set of the selected interventions. However, baseline reports, monitoring reports and final reports covering overall baseline and targets achieved at national or programmatic level of LFP, LGCDP and NCCSP interventions are available but data as such with the baseline and targets achieved by these interventions relevant to TAMD study at VDC/DDC level are not available from the concerned stakeholder. Consequently, making it further challenging to break down and establish relevancy and reliability through such data and information extracted from the reports of respective programmes at the ground level. Some of the crucial challenges and potential limitations of the TAMD feasibility study in Nepal are: Unavailability of local level data-sets of LFP, CADP-N/LAPA pilot and LGCDP programme; Reports with data compiled at DDC/VDC level are unavailable and seems unreliable to break down at VDC and community level; Identification of particular adaptation practices at community level is difficult for tracking in absence of data set or community level information; Lack of robust and up-to-date spatial as well as temporal data with concerned government line ministries and departments such as MoHA, MoSTE, MoFSC, MoAD, MoFALD, DHM, CBS/NLSS, concerned DDCs and VDCs.

32 CONCLUSIONS AND EMERGING LESSONS As per the TAMD Coordination Committee (TCC) decision on the selection of three project interventions namely LFP, CADP-N/LAPA Pilot or NCCSP start-up-phase and LGCDP and two pilot districts Nawalparasi for flood vulnerability and Rukum for landslide and drought vulnerability for TAMD feasibility study. In Quarter-2, the TAMD team had an exploratory field visit in Nawalparasi district and had preliminary meetings with various district officials including DDC and District Disaster Management Unit of the District Administration Office/CDO. Organized a stakeholder meeting in the Sukrauli VDC and organized Focus Group Discussion on flood vulnerability and adaptation measure adopted in Ghinaha and Nadiya tole community in Nawalparasi. In addition, the team visited the river training site and observed real situation of the field and collected information. The available information, preliminary interaction with DDC, VDC and community at that stage have helped the study to conceptualise T1 and T2 indicators framework. In Quarter-3, TAMD team has further expedited the work by gathering additional information related with the selected interventions and districts to identify potential VDCs within the selected district to conduct further study and real field testing of TAMD tools and methodology at local level. TAMD study in Nepal has undergone further stage of development and improvement with data and information collected from various secondary and primary sources. At the end of this quarter, field testing and data collection work in Rukum district (out of 2 selected districts) has been completed. After wider consultations and interaction with district level stakeholders and relevant VDC representatives during the field visit, TAMD team have selected three high vulnerable to landslide VDCs i.e. 1) Shyalapakha VDC with LGCDP and LFP interventions and 2) Nuwakot VDC with only LGCDP interventions for VDC matching and further research at VDC/community/HH level but 3) Arma VDC has been accessed for T1 indicators only in line with the TAMD feasibility study purpose. The data and information were collected at District/VDC/Community/HHs level, using various research tools and methods such as Field observations, District level stakeholders interaction workshops, DDC/VDC Scorecards, Key Informants Survey (KIS), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Households Survey Questionnaire (HHS) etc. The collected data and information are currently under the process/stage of being fed in. Analysis of all the collected data and information will be done after accomplishment of the similar exercises in Nawalparasi district for Flood vulnerability.

33 ANNEXURES Annex 1: DDC and VDC Score Card Templates used in Rukum District DDC Score Card: Planning Officer, Funding Officer, Supporting evidence/narrative N 25% 50% 75% Y I. Climate Change mainstreaming/ Integration into DDC Planning 1. Have specific measures to address climate change (adaptation/mitigation) been identified and funded? 2. Is there a DDC Climate change plan? 3. Are climate-relevant initiatives in the district screened for climate risks? II. Institutional co-ordination 1. Is there a body for co-ordinating climate change actions at the district level (unit etc) 2. Does the co-ordinating unit have authoritative persons representation the sectoral offices? 3. Is there long term funding for this unit and co-ordination? III. Budgeting and finance 1. Provision of specific budget allocation for CC 2. Mechanism of climate risk assessment and costing 3. Availability of fund for additional climate risk identified IV. Institutional knowledge/capacity (District staff and Ilaka representatives) 1. More than 25% of people involved in planning with climate change awareness 2. Some people with formal climate change training involved in planning 3. Capacity building plan on climate change for people involved in planning process V. Use of climate information 1. Annual planning affected by historical trends of climate variability from informal observation/experience

34 2. Availability and use of relevant climate information from DHM station or other reliable sources 3. Consideration of future climate projections for the next district plan VI. Participation 1. Are those living in landslide, flood or drought affected areas represented proportionately in DDC planning processes around climate change measures 2. Are the poorest and most marginalised represented proportionately in DDC planning processes around climate change measures 3. Is the participation of these groups sustained throughout the lifecycle of the climate change measures VII. Awareness among Stakeholders (District Council) 1. At least 50% of DDC Council members aware of potential or available responses to climate change 2. DDC Council members have information on climate sensitive sectors and district climate issues (Ag, Forest, drought, landslide) 3. DDC has institutional mandate for awareness raising and supporting access to CC info VIII. Learning and flexibility 1.The DDC has incorporated information on past disasters into future planning 2. The DDC has incorporated information on slow changes to the climate into future planning 3. The DDC has mechanisms in place to monitor responses and update plans after an unexpected change to the climate IX. Business as usual (BAU) Functions: Functioning of local systems A selection of 3 of the MCPM indicators from the LGCDP on DDC functions

35 VDC Score Card: VDC Secretary, Technical Officer Supporting evidence/narrative N 25% 50% 75% Y I. Climate Change mainstreaming/ Integration into VDC Planning 1. Have specific measures to address climate change (adaptation/mitigation) been identified and funded? 2. Is there a VDC climate change plan? (DRR = 50%) II. Institutional co-ordination 1. Is there a body for co-ordinating climate change actions at the village level (unit etc) 2. Is there long term funding for this unit and co-ordination? III. Budgeting and finance 1. Provision of specific budget allocation for CC 2. Availability of fund for additional climate risk identified (disaster fund 50%) IV. Institutional knowledge/capacity (VDC) 1. Some people involved in planning with climate change awareness 2. Some people with formal climate change training involved in planning V. Use of climate information 1. Annual planning affected by historical trends of climate variability from informal observation/experience 2. Availability and use of relevant climate information from DHM station or other reliable sources VI. Participation 1. Are those living in landslide, flood or drought affected areas represented proportionately in VDC planning processes around climate change measures 2. Is the participation of these groups sustained throughout the lifecycle of the climate change measures VII. Awareness among Stakeholders (Reps of WCF and other civil society) 1. At least 25% of stakeholders members aware of potential or available responses to climate change 2. Stakeholders have specific information on village climate issues (drought, landslide etc)

36 VIII: Learning and flexibility 1. The VDC has incorporated information on past disasters into future plans 2. The VDC has incorporated information on slow changes to the climate into future planning IX. Business as usual (BAU) Functions: Functioning of local systems A selection of 3 of the MCPM indicators from the LGCDP on VDC functions Annex 2: List of District Interaction Workshop Participants in Rukum S.N. Name of the Participants Designation Organisation 1. Mr. Ram Bdr. Shahi Planning Officer DDC 2. Mr. Kul Prashad Adhikari Senior ADO DADO 3. Mr. Bhupendra Pandey Program Officer DDMU/DAO 4. Mr. Binod Pd. Kanu Acting DFO DFO 5. Mr. Sudhir Shrestha Chief of the office Sub-Tropical Vegetables & Seed Production Centre 6. Mr. Ram Govinda Maharjan District Coordinator MSFP/Rupantaran 7. Mr. Bam Bdr. Khadka District Coordinator Care /CSP 8. Mr. Dandi Karki Chairperson FECOFUN 9. Mr. Narendra Bista Accountant DSCO 10. Mr. Keshan Kr. Kshetreeyal Secretary RSDC 11. Mr. Niraj Kr. Shrestha Program Officer RSDC 12. Ms. Jun Tara Budha Program Officer UMN 13. Mr. Ram Babu Shah Organisational Development Officer UMN 14. Mr. Durga Pd. Upadhyaya Team Leader UMN

37 15. Mr. Prem Bdr. Giri IAO DDC 16. Mr. Bhim Raj Oli Program Officer Concern Centre For Rural Youth 17. Mr. Amar Bdr. Bam Office Assistance DDC

38 Annex 3: Key Informants Interview (KII) Template used in Rukum Final Key Informants Interview (KII) Template for TAMD Nepal (District Development Committee (DDC)/ District Offices) Flood/Landslide /Drought SN GUIDELINES/ QUESTIONS Responses PART 1: CLIMATE INTERVENTIONS 1. Greetings and explain the purpose of the visit District: VDC/Ward: Respondent's Name: Position: Organisation: Contact/Phone: 2. How long have you been in this office? 3. What are the major climate related interventions (LAPA/LFP/MSFP/ PPCR/Hariyo Ban etc) operating in this district/vdc? 1 Name of Interventions/Projects Duration:

39 4. Where are they operating? Name of project Sector Name of VDCs PART 2: EXTREME EVENTS 5. What is the impact of the flood/landslide/drought over last 2 years? Number of events occurred Casualties (human) Loss & Damage (Estimate of N Rupees and which VDCs) Landslide Flood Drought 6. Do you have any data regarding losses/damage by Flood/Landslide/Drought climate related hazards? Source If yes, in which sector/type/number 7. Which wards/settlements of these VDCs are particularly vulnerable to landslides?

40 Arma Shyalpakha Nuwakot 8. What parts of the District are at risk of landslides in the future? Why? 9. What makes people in these communities particularly vulnerable to landslide? 10. Can you tell us how people and communities suffer from landslides? What changes in their livelihood? 11. What signs show when communities/households have recovered from landslides? (e.g. income increases, food sufficiency, crop yields, education, loss and damage decreased, type of housing construction, consumption of goods) PART 3: SLOW CHANGES TO THE CLIMATE 12. What are the major environmental changes experienced/observed in recent years in this DISTRICT? Please explain the major types. What changes? Effects Extent of the change? (rank 1-5) (prompts: changes in rainfall,

41 changing temperatures, changes in growing seasons, changing crop growth, changing number of dry days) 13. From each change, can you tell us what evidence might show how people/communities have suffered? (e.g. income, food sufficiency, crop yields, education, loss and damage decreased, type of housing construction, consumption of goods) Change: Cause Who particularly affected? Why? (Prompts: location of house/land? irrigation? income poverty, types of crops? land ownership, etc)

42 Thank You

43 Annex 4: FGD Template used in Rukum Focus Group Discussions (FGD) in Rukum Landslide/slow changes 1) [For climate vulnerable group: are you involved in a ward citizen forum or the community forest users group? If no, do you know about it?] 2) What has the [LGCDP/LFP/NCCSP] done in this VDC in the last 5 years? Who was involved? 3) How have people benefitted from it? (specific, this then x, then x) What benefits do you feel have been brought in? (KEY QUESTION) Landslides 4) When there are landslides who is most vulnerable in the community? (Suggestions: Location of land (steep slope), location of housing?) 5) Who takes longer to recover after a landslide? Why? (Suggestions: lack of diverse income sources, repeated exposure, lack of awareness, lack of money to replace losses, no access to services water, electricity, communication) 6) How can you tell when those people/households have recovered after the landslide? What signs are there? (New houses constructed? agricultural production resumed? replaced livestock? renewed access to electricity, water, education etc, income resumed) 7) What type of weather causes landslides?

44 (specific if rain, is it timing of rain, intensity, number of days, rain after a dry period?) 8) What wards are most vulnerable? Changes in rainfall / dry periods 9) Has there been a change in the growing seasons for maize in the last five years? What? [seasonal calendar maize/paddy] 10) What has been the cause? 11) Who is most affected by those changes? Why? -Need to go beyond immediate causes to the things behind them. If poor people, why? What about their livelihoods makes them most affected? (Suggestions: location/type of land, housing type, location/type of housing, no land ownership, use of livestock, types of crops (which?), no irrigation, income sources, just one source of income, repeated exposure? livestock type, services water, food sufficiency, education, health, sanitation, migration) 12) How can you tell when those people/households have recovered after the poor season? What signs are there? -Agricultural production? crop yields? increases in income? new houses? livestock? access to education, health, sanitation, electricity, migration ) 13) Are there any interventions in the area that have helped people cope with landslides and changes in the seasonal calendar? 14) What would help people cope with: - landslides - changes in the seasonal calendar 15) Which wards are most vulnerable:

45 - to landslide - to changes in the seasonal calendar The End

46 Annex 5: Household Survey (HHS) Template used in Rukum TAMD HH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE A. General Information I. Household Information S.N. Question Answer SKIP A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 Questionnaire Number Name of VDC/Municipality Ward Number Name of Village/Community Name of Household Head Caste/ Ethnicity Gender of Household Head BCTS... 1 Adibasi/Janajati... 2 Dalit... 3 Religious Minority (Muslim etc)... 4 Others ( )... 5 Male... 1 Female... 2

47 S.N. Question Answer SKIP A8 A9 A10 A11 If the household is headed by female, give reason for being household head Type of family Type of house Type of house 5 years ago Husband is out of home... 1 Widow... 2 Separated... 3 Male gave the role... 4 Social factor... 5 Other ( )... 6 Nuclear... 1 Joint... 2 Thatched roof/mudwall....1 Stonewall and corrugated iron roof/stone roof...2 Cement building, RCC roof 1 floor 3 Pillared house more than 2 floors...4 Thatched roof/mudwall....1 Stonewall and corrugated iron roof/stone roof...2 Cement building, RCC roof 1 floor.3 Pillared house more than 2 floors 4 A12 Is your house on a steep slope? Yes / No B. Family Description: Please specify, who are your family members? B1. Education Status Descriptions Male Female Total Illiterate

48 Literate only 0-5 (Primary) 6 - SLC (Secondary) IA/+2 (Higher Secondary) BA (Bachelor) MA (Master) PhD (Doctor) B2. Age Group of Household Members Descriptions Male Female Total 0-5 Years 6-15 Years Years Years 60 and above Years B3. Occupation Status Types Description *(Code) Remarks Primary (Main) Secondary Write only one code Note: 1. Agriculture/ Livestock 2.Service 3.Business/ Trade 4. Wage Earning 5. Household Chores 6. Politics/ Social Service 7. Job Hunting/Unemployed 8.Disabled 9. Old/ Ill Health 10. Others

49 C. Agriculture and Livestock C1. Do you have cultivated land? Yes No C2. If Yes, please give following information. S.N Land Type Owned land, self cultivated Owned land, Rented-out Rented-in Ropany/Bigh a Ana/ Kattha Paisa / Dhur Ropany / Bigha Ana / Kattha Paisa/Dhu r Ropany/Bigh a Ana / Kattha Paisa/Dh ur 1 Irrigated 2 Un-irrigated 3 Homestead 4 Fallow/Pastur e 5 Land in market centre C3. What are the cropping pattern /trend/types? Fallow-rice... 1 Fallow-maize-rice... 2 Wheat-rice-rice... 3

50 Potato-maize... 4 Maize-finger millet... 5 Maize-wheat... 6 Maize- vegetable... 7 Vegetable only... 8 Fruits... 9 Others (specify)...10 C4. Crop Production: Name of Crops Total Production (Now) Total production (5 years ago) Reason for changes (insert code) 1. Rice 2. Maize 3. Wheat 4. Millet 5. Barley 6. Potato 7. Buck wheat 8. Vegetables 9. Fruit 10. Other cash crops C5. How vulnerable are you to these changes compared to others in the Ward? (please rank 1-5, 1 is least, 5 is most able to recover) C6. Is the majority of your agricultural land on steep slopes? Yes No

51 C7. What is the quality of the soil on the majority of your land? 1 Abbal 2 Doyam 3 Sim 4 Chahar D. Livestock S.N. Question Name of cattle Numbers (Now) Numbers (5 years ago) D1. What livestock do you own? He Buffalo She Buffalo Cow Ox Goat Sheep Pig Poultry/Hen Other E. Food Sufficiency/Income S.N. Question At present 5 years ago E1 E2 How many months your own food production and regular income is sufficient for feeding your family? If not sufficient for whole year, what are your HHs coping mechanisms? 0-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months months & above 1. Seasonal migration 2. Wage labour 3. Sale of land 4. Sale of livestock 5. Loan and pawning 6. Remittances

52 S.N. Question At present 5 years ago 7. Other.. F. What was the source and level of your household income in the last 12 months? List income source Last 12 months (Quantity in Rs.) 5 years ago 1.Major cereal crops 2. Cash crops 3. Fruit/vegetables 4. Livestock sale 5. Livestock products 6. Forest products/ntfp 7. Job/service 8. Remittances 9. Wage labour 10. Pension 11. Rent 12. Enterprise/ small business 13. Other

53 G. Access to services S.N. Question Answer Now 5 years ago (In 2065) Type of services: Walking Time (Minutes) Distance (Km.) Walking time (Minutes) Distance (Km) All weather Road...1 Fair weather road...2 Primary/Secondary School.3 Higher Secondary/College...4 G1 Do you have access to: Drinking water.. 5 Toilet. 6 Communication Services...7 Hospital/health post...8 Market Centre....9 Agro/Vets...10

54 Govt. Admin Services...11 Financial services/institutions...12 Others G2. Loan Reason Source Reason Source None Improved cook stove None Improved cook stove G3. Energy Biogas Biogas Solar Solar Micro-hydro Grid electricity Micro-hydro Grid electricity Source of Loan (Code): 1. Government banks 2. Public banks 3.Saving & Credit Cooperatives 4. Money lender 5. Friends/Relatives 6.Other H. Social and climate related shocks S.N Question Event H1 Could you recall any socio-economic shocks occurred in last 5 years affecting your household? 1 None 2 Health problems / Disease/ epidemics 3 Accident

55 4 Death of bread earner 5 Uncertainty in market prices 6 Others H2 H3 Have you had a landslide in the last 12 months? What are the natural disasters occurred in last 5 years affecting your family? (Landslide / flood / drought) Loss and damage (Quantity) 1. Quantity of land.. 2. Crops 3. Housing 4. Livestock. 5. Human loss.. 6. Others... Type Year Loss and damage 1. Landslide 1. Quantity of land 2. Crops 3. Housing 4. Livestock Human Loss 5. Others 2. Flood 1. Quantity of land 2. Crops 3. Housing 4. Livestock Human Loss 5. Others 3. Drought 1. Quantity of land 2. Crops 3. Housing 4. Livestock Human Loss 5. Others

56 Other: Hailstorm / Earthquake / Snow / Windstorm H4 Within your Ward, how would you rank your vulnerability to landslides compared to others? (Rank 1 5, 1 will recover most slowly, 5 will recover most quickly) I. Participation: S.N. Question Answer SKIP I1 I2 What CBOs are you a member of? How has being a member of such group benefited you or your family members? None.. 1 Savings and credit group 2 Mothers group... 3 Community Forestry users group... 4 Agriculture and livestock production group... 5 WCF... 6 NGOs... 7 Other... 8 Increased access to loan... 1 Makes saving/deposit easy... 2 Agricultural inputs received (free of in low cost)... 3 Goat/ Piglets received... 4 Purchases Agricultural/Livestock Produce... 5 Acquire information... 6 Access to fodder/firewood..7 Access to NTFP 8

57 Other (specify)....9 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 Have you taken any training or orientation on climate change? Do you think the services of the VDC are more accessible than 5 years ago? Do you think the infrastructure offered by the local government better meets your needs than 5 years ago? Are you more involved in VDC decision making than 5 years ago? Do you feel you can access more livelihood choices (such as education, health, credit) than five years ago? Yes... 1 No... 2 Yes...1 No...2 Yes..1 No...2 Yes..1 No...2 Yes..1 No The End

58 Annex 6: Climatic Data of Rukum and Nawalparasi Districts Rainfall Rukum District: Past 20 years rainfall data from Musikot DHM station in Rukum Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)

59 Rainfall Nawalparasi District: Past 20 years rainfall data from Parasi DHM station in Nawalparasi Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)

60 Temperature Rukum District: Past 20 years temperature data from Musikot DHM station in Rukum YEAR/MONTH JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1993 max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max

61 min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) Temperature Nawalparasi District: Past 20 years temperature data from Parasi DHM station in Nawalparasi YEAR/MONTH JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC max min max min max min max

62 min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min

63 max min max min max min Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)

64 Annex 6: Photo Plates (Rukum District's Field Exercises)