December 2013 Tracking Adaptation and Measuring ...pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10086IIED.pdf · Tracking...

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

I

www.iied.org www.idsnepal.org

TAMD PROJECT NEPAL-Q3 REPORT, DEC 2013

Acronyms

AP Adaptation Plan

CADP-N Climate change Adaptation Design and Pilot phase Nepal

CAPA Community Adaptation Plan of Action

CBO Community Based Organization

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CDO Chief District Officer

CFUG Community Forest User Group

CRM Climate Risk Management

CV Climate Vulnerability

CVP Climate Vulnerable People/Population

CVS Climate Vulnerable Settlements

DADO District Agriculture Development Office

DAG Disadvantaged Group

DCCC District Climate Coordination Committee

DDC District Development Committee

DDMU District Disaster Management Unit

DEECCCC District Energy Environment Climate Change Coordination Committee

DEEU District Energy and Environment Unit

DFCC District Forest Coordination Committee

DFID Department for International Development of UK government

DFO District Forest Office

DHM Department of Hydrology and Meteorology

DPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System

DSCO District Soil Conservation Office

DTO District Technical Office

EFLG Environment Friendly Local Governance

EU European Union

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HH House Hold

I/NGO International Non-Government Organization

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

IDS-Nepal Integrated Development Society-Nepal

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

ISET - N Institute for Social and Environmental Transition – Nepal

LAPA Local Adaptation Plan of Action

LFP Livelihoods and Forestry Programme

LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development Programme

MC Minimum Conditions

MLV Mountain-specific Livelihood Vulnerability

MoAD Ministry of Agricultural Development

MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

MoFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MoSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

MSFP Multi Stakeholder Forestry Project

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

NCCSP National Climate Change Support Programme


NGO Non Government Organization

NPC National Planning Commission

PLMG Public Land Management Group

PM Performance Measures

PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience

PVAT Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment Tool

REDD Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

SPCR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience

TAMD Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development

TCC TAMD Coordination Committee

TOC Theory of Change

UG Users’ Group

VDC Village Development Committee

VEECCCC Village Energy Environment Climate Change Coordination Committee

VFCC Village Forest Coordination Committee

WCF Ward Citizens Forum

WFP World Food Programme


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

1



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 2012-

February 2013.

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


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.


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

2 VDCs each

for Landslide

and Drought

vulnerability

Collect VDC level data/vulnerability

Disaster risk maps of district

Discuss among the TAMD team

and finalize

Rationale for the selection.

Achieved After field visit to

Rukum; Drought is no

longer considered as

climate change

vulnerability but slow-

on-set change

2. Selection of

2 VDCs for

Flood

vulnerability in

Nawalparasi

Collect VDC level data/vulnerability

Disaster risk maps of district

Discuss among the TAMD team

and finalize

Rationale for the selection.

Will be achieved

after field visit

Data collection visit to

Nawalparasi planned

3. T1 and T2

indicator

development

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

Partially

achieved

4. Develop

baseline for

i. Rukum

ii. Nawalparasi

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

Mostly Achieved

5. Match

communities/

wards for

development

across

interventions

Match communities/wards for

development across interventions

Finalise/recommend

Achieved in

Rukum;

Nawalparasi

remained

Field visit to

Nawalparasi planned


6. Finalise

methodology,

sampling

methods,

survey tools

and other

community

techniques for

testing/resear

ch in

Nawalparasi

and Rukum

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)

Achieved for

Rukum

Needs slight

adaptation on tools

and techniques for

specific context to

flood

7. Technical

feedback/prog

ress sharing

meeting

Identify potential experts for

workshop

Prepare for workshop

Organize one day workshop

Differed TAMD Team has

agreed to share

progress in respective

districts only;

Workshop organised

in Rukum

8. TAMD

Coordination

Committee

meeting

Prepare/organize meeting Differed TAMD Team has

agreed to share

progress in respective

districts only;

Workshop organised

in Rukum

9. Conduct field

study in

Rukum

Travel to Rukum from Kathmandu

Meeting with district level

officials/arrange for workshop

District level workshop

Test tools (HH survey


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

Achieved

10. Conduct field

study in

Nawalparasi

Travel to Nawalparasi

Meeting with district level

officials/arrange for workshop

Field visit to

Nawalparasi

planned


District level workshop

Test tools (HH survey


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

11. 3rd

Quarter

report

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


STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS/KEY ENTRY POINTS Stakeholders Map for TAMD Feasibility Study in Nepal:

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.

MoSTE/TCC

(MoSTE, MoFALD, MoAD, MoFSC, MoE, IIED-UK, IDS-Nepal, ISET-Nepal and NPC)

International Partner: IIED-UK

National Partner: IDS-Nepal

Climate Vulnerable People/

Beneficiary HHs of Selected

VDCs and Interventions

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)

Guidance/Advisory

Recommendations/

Technical support

Climate Vulnerable Wards/

Communities of Selected VDCs

( LGCDP/WCF, LFP/CFUG,

NCCSP/VEECCCC groups etc.)


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.

8



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

Local Theory of Change (ToC) Remarks

LGCDP/WCF 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.

LFP/CFUG 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.

NCCSP

VEECCCC

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.

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.

10



Assumptions on causal mechanisms between activities and outcomes:

DDC/National

Considering Tracking and Aggregation possibilities – NAPA/MoFALD/NPC

/VDC monitoring/MCPM/EFLG

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

Community: Extent and quality of

CRM/institutional measures

(specific to intervention: Ward Citizens

Forum, Community Forest User’s

Group, VEECCCC Community)

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)*

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)

Local Theories of Change on hazard and

intervention

Targeting Identified CVP in intervention

CVP participation

CVP concerns reflected in plans

CVP access to decision making

11



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

Outputs

WCF established and meets regularly

Total number of citizens participating in meetings

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

Targeting

% of participants at all ward level planning meetings per year who are Dalits &

Women

% 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

Outcomes

% citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were

TWO years ago

% 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)

Outputs

CFUG established and meet regularly


Majority of marginalised groups feel their views are considered and incorporated

into CFUG plans

% of participants who have received climate change training


% of CFUG internal income spent on addressing extreme events and hazards

Targeting

% of participants at all CFUG meetings per year who are Dalits & Women


% 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

Outputs

VEECCCC established and meeting regularly


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

Targeting

% of participants at all VEECCCC planning meetings per year who are Dalits &

Women


% 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.


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.


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


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)


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

Local/HHS (C4)

25. Exposed to socio-economic shock in last five

years

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

LGCDP/HHS (I4)

28. % citizens who say that the infrastructure

(roads, drinking water, electricity) offered by

the local governments better meet their needs

than last year

LGCDP/HHS (I5)

29. % of citizens that think that they are now more

involved in the decision-making process of

VDCs than two year ago

LGCDP/HHS (I6)

30. % of citizens that think they get increased

benefit from forest group and its resources

compared to two years ago

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


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

Study Villages/VDCs

Local InstitutionWard Citizen Forum /

Community Forest

Users GroupTheory of change

Targeting

Community resilience

as unit less score

- Generic resilience

indicators (expert

literature)

- Local hazard indicators

- Project indicators

Hazard outcomese.g. Agricultural

productivity per capita,

loss and damage from

flood/landslides

Development

outcomes

Contextual

indicators

Climate data

Socio-economic data

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


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.

Box-1

VDC Selection Criteria:

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.


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).

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.

Box-3

VDCs selected in Rukum in Q-3:

1. Shyalapakha VDC:

Very high landslide vulnerability

Presence of LGCDP & LFP interventions

2. Nuwakot VDC:

High landslide vulnerability

Presence of LGCDP intervention only

Box-2

VDCs proposed in Rukum in Q-2:

1. Shyalapakha VDC:



2. Arma VDC:

High landslide vulnerability

Presence of LGCDP & NCCSP Start-up

Phase interventions

3. Banfikot VDC:




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.


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:

22



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 1992-2011) and monthly minimum and maximum temperature recorded over

the last 20 years (from 1993-2012) 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

People

Death 1 - - - 3 5 - 2 15 -

Missing - - - - - - - - 3 -

Injured - - - - 2 - - 2 4 -

Affected Family 1 - - - 6 - - 235 - -

Animal Loss

- - - - 25 - - - - -


House Destroyed

Completely - - - - 6 - - 9 32 -

Partly - - - - - - - - - -

Shed Destroyed

- - - - - - - - - -

Land Loss No. - - - - - - - - - -

Unit - - - - - - - - - -

Public Property Losses

- - - - - - - Rs.1400000 - -

Estimated Losses (in Rs.)

- - - - Rs.3539000 - - Rs.16494650 - -

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

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

People

Death 5 - - 3 1 - 1 1 4 -

Missing 5 - - - 3 - - - 6 -

Injured 7 - - - - - - - - -

Affected Family

43 - - 2105 3319 - - 875 1 9

Animal Loss

6 - - 1 - - - - - -

House Destroyed

Completely

41 - - 223 827 - - 20 - 9


Partly - - - 74 2692 - - - - -

Shed Destroyed

- - - - - - - - - -

Land Loss No. - - - 2144 - - - 50 - -

Unit - - - Bigha - - - Bigha - -

Public Property Losses

Khajura Dam 35M. Dhanewa Dam 125M.

Sugarcane farm

- - -

Flood on Dhanewa & Jharahi khola, 7, 8 & 9 ward affected

- - - -

Estimated Losses (in Rs.)

Rs.2000000 - - Rs.562900 Rs.28280310 - - - - -

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.


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

2002/03 3570.00 8600.00 2409.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 11875.00 17100.00 1440.00 960.00 1238.00 1290.00

2003/04 3570.00 8600.00 2409.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 11800.00 18215.00 1544.00 925.00 1093.00 1182.00

2004/05 3570.00 8600.00 2409.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 11000.00 18000.00 1636.00 435.00 593.00 1363.00

2005/06 3570.00 8600.00 2409.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 9850.00 16050.00 1629.00 435.00 560.00 1287.00

2006/07 3544.00 8084.00 2281.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 11800.00 14050.00 1191.00 925.00 975.00 1054.00

2007/08 3544.00 8084.00 2281.00 18650.00 31520.00 1690.00 1140.00 1500.00 1316.00 11800.00 16520.00 1400.00 925.00 821.00 888.00

2008/09 3750.00 10100.00 2693.00 18650.00 31705.00 1700.00 925.00 860.00 929.00 11800.00 10894.00 923.00 900.00 950.00 1055.00

2009/10 3750.00 11175.00 2980.00 18650.00 35435.00 1900.00 960.00 861.00 1104.00 11800.00 10511.00 1152.00 960.00 1050.00 1093.00

2010/11 3750.00 11288.00 3010.13 18650.00 41030.00 2200.00 960.00 979.20 1020.00 11800.00 27140.00 2300.00 925.00 1203.00 1300.54

2011/12 3562.00 9617.00 2699.89 16785.00 30213.00 1800.00 960.00 912.00 1000.00 11800.00 26190.00 2219.49 925.00 1480.00 1600.00

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 10,100.00 31,705.00 860.00 10,894.00 950.00 54,509.00 38,919.00 43,556.00 -4,637.00

2009/10 11,175.00 35,435.00 861.00 10,511.00 1,050.00 59,032.00 45,649.00 44,762.00 887.00

2010/11 11,288.00 41,030.00 979.00 27,140.00 1,203.00 81,640.00 62,135.00 42,386.00 19,749.00

2011/12 9,617.40 30,213.00 912.00 26,190.00 1,480.00 68,412.40 51,010.00 42,891.00 8,119.00

2012/13 10,330.00 16,013.00 922.00 26,550.00 1,156.00 54,971.00 39,673.19 43,402.00 -3,729.00


* This food balance is calculated with the preliminary population census data of the year 2010/11.


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

2002/03 46977.00 141505.00 3012.00 8080.00 16968.00 2100.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 18745.00 39364.00 2100.00 105.00 120.00 1143.00

2003/04 46507.00 14505.00 3043.00 9245.00 19610.00 2121.00 500.00 550.00 1100.00 18735.00 43113.00 2300.00 105.00 120.00 1143.00

2004/05 46507.00 137260.00 3016.00 9500.00 21014.00 2212.00 550.00 550.00 1000.00 18745.00 43113.00 2300.00 105.00 120.00 1143.00

2005/06 45500.00 131574.00 2892.00 9345.00 23154.00 2478.00 500.00 550.00 1100.00 18745.00 40100.00 2139.00 105.00 120.00 1143.00

2006/07 45490.00 116383.00 2558.00 9695.00 24250.00 2501.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 18830.00 45600.00 2422.00 120.00 132.00 1100.00

2007/08 46490.00 149233.00 3210.00 9695.00 24900.00 2568.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 18850.00 46500.00 2467.00 120.00 130.00 1083.00

2008/09 46490.00 165425.00 3558.00 9700.00 24950.00 2572.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 18850.00 44200.00 2344.00 90.00 75.00 833.00

2009/10 44590.00 138749.00 3111.00 9400.00 23520.00 2502.00 500.00 550.00 1100.00 18800.00 46360.00 2465.00 88.00 88.00 1000.00

2010/11 46690.00 180373.00 3863.20 10750.00 33680.00 3133.02 500.00 500.00 1000.00 18830.00 46140.00 2450.35 88.00 88.00 1000.00

2011/12 44890.00 191337.00 4262.35 8400.00 26000.00 3095.24 450.00 495.00 1100.00 18830.00 54140.00 2875.20 90.00 180.00 2000.00


Crop/Food Requirements and Balance for Five major Crops in Nawalparasi District:

YEAR PADDY MAIZE MILLET WHEAT BARLEY TOTAL CEREAL NET-EDIBLE REQUIREMENT BALANCE*

2008/09 165,425.00 24,950.00 500.00 44,200.00 75.00 235,150.00 162,660.00 122,976.00 19,684.00

2009/10 138,749.00 23,520.00 550.00 46,360.00 88.00 209,267.00 127,282.00 123,477.00 3,804.00

2010/11 180,373.00 33,680.00 500.00 46,140.00 88.00 260,781.00 157,512.00 115,079.00 42,433.00

2011/12 191,337.00 26,000.00 495.00 54,140.00 180.00 272,152.00 163,378.40 116,570.00 46,808.40

2012/13 179,110.00 16,013.00 495.00 50,269.00 100.00 245,987.00 160,753.00 118,081.00 42,672.00


* This food balance is calculated with the preliminary population census data of the year 2010/11.


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.


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.


ANNEXURES

Annex 1: DDC and VDC Score Card Templates used in Rukum District

DDC Score Card: Planning Officer, Funding Officer, 0

N

1

25%

2

50%

3

75%

4

Y

Supporting evidence/narrative

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


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


VDC Score Card: VDC Secretary, Technical Officer 0

N

1

25%

2

50%

3

75%

4

Y

Supporting evidence/narrative

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)


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


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


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?

Name of Interventions/Projects

1

2

3

4

5

Duration:


4. Where are they operating? Name of project

1

2

3

4

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?

If yes, in which sector/type/number

Source

7. Which wards/settlements of these

VDCs are particularly vulnerable to

landslides?


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.

(prompts: changes in rainfall,

What changes? Effects Extent of the

change?

(rank 1-5)


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)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thank You----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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?


(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:


- to landslide

- to changes in the seasonal calendar

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The End---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Annex 5: Household Survey (HHS) Template used in Rukum

TAMD HH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

I. Household Information

A. General Information

S.N. Question Answer SKIP

A1 Questionnaire Number

A2 Name of VDC/Municipality

A3 Ward Number

A4 Name of Village/Community

A5 Name of Household Head

A6 Caste/ Ethnicity

BCTS ........................................................... 1

Adibasi/Janajati ............................................. 2

Dalit ............................................................. 3

Religious Minority (Muslim etc) ................... 4

Others (_____________) ............................ 5

A7 Gender of Household Head

Male ............................................................. 1

Female ......................................................... 2



A8 If the household is headed by female, give reason for being

household head

Husband is out of home ............................... 1

Widow .......................................................... 2

Separated ..................................................... 3

Male gave the role ....................................... 4

Social factor ................................................. 5

Other (_____________) ................................ 6

A9 Type of family Nuclear ......................................................... 1

Joint .............................................................. 2

A10 Type of house

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

A11 Type of house 5 years ago

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


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

16-35 Years

36-59 Years

60 and above Years

B3. Occupation Status

Types Description *(Code) Remarks

Primary (Main) Write only one code

Secondary

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


C. Agriculture and Livestock

C1. Do you have cultivated land? Yes No

C2. If Yes, please give following information.

C3. What are the cropping pattern /trend/types?

Fallow-rice ................ 1

Fallow-maize-rice .... 2

Wheat-rice-rice ........ 3

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


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) 1 2 3 4

5

C6. Is the majority of your agricultural land on steep slopes? Yes No


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

How many months your own

food production and regular

income is sufficient for

feeding your family?

0-3 months

4-6 months

7-9 months

10-12 months & above

E2

If not sufficient for whole

year, what are your HHs

coping mechanisms?

1. Seasonal migration 2. Wage labour 3. Sale of land 4. Sale of livestock 5. Loan and pawning 6. Remittances


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


G. Access to services

S.N

. Question

Answer Now 5 years ago (In 2065)

G1 Do you have access

to:

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

Drinking water………….. 5

Toilet………………………. 6

Communication Services...7

Hospital/health post…......8

Market Centre……….....….9

Agro/Vets..........................10


Govt. Admin Services......11

Financial

services/Institutions...........12

Others ………......………..13

G2. Loan

Reason Source

Reason Source

G3. Energy

None

Improved cook stove

Biogas

Solar

Micro-hydro

Grid electricity

None

Improved cook stove

Biogas

Solar

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


4 Death of bread earner

5 Uncertainty in market prices

6 Others………………………

H2 Have you had a landslide in the last 12 months?

Loss and damage (Quantity)

1. Quantity of land………….. 2. Crops……………………… 3. Housing…………………… 4. Livestock…………………. 5. Human loss……………….. 6. Others..…………………….

H3

What are the natural disasters occurred in last 5 years affecting your family?

(Landslide / flood / drought)

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


…

3. Drought

1. Quantity of land 2. Crops 3. Housing 4. Livestock Human


…


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)

1 2 3 4 5

I. Participation:


I1 What CBOs are you a member of?

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

I2 How has being a member of such group benefited

you or your family members?

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


--------------------------------------------------------------The End------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other (specify) …………………….…………………………....9

I3 Have you taken any training or orientation on climate

change?

Yes .................................................. 1

No .................................................. 2

I4 Do you think the services of the VDC are more

accessible than 5 years ago?

Yes……………………………………...1

No……………………………………....2

I5

Do you think the infrastructure offered by the local

government better meets your needs than 5 years

ago?

Yes……………………………………..1

No……………………………………...2

I6 Are you more involved in VDC decision making than

5 years ago?

Yes……………………………………..1

No……………………………………...2

I7

Do you feel you can access more livelihood choices

(such as education, health, credit) than five years

ago?

Yes……………………………………..1

No……………………………………...2


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

1992 35.5 28 0 19.2 63.3 182.8 474.9 689.6 442.8 47.9 6.5 10.2

1993 39.1 16.4 91.6 127 80 322.6 346.7 459.7 205.7 0.3 0 0

1994 35.5 46.2 0 32.4 110.2 330.4 576.4 514.8 394.3 0 2 0

1995 27.5 49.8 52.7 22.4 82.9 646.3 334.6 819.1 237.7 0 74.9 7.6

1996 46.6 84.3 17.6 27.6 1.9 454.3 457.9 618.7 326.6 152 0 0

1997 32.2 7.8 13.9 135 113.8 378.3 699.6 582.8 316.7 65.7 26.3 99.3

1998 1.1 25.3 109.5 93.3 72.5 390.8 516.2 616.1 393 86.9 51.3 0

1999 17 1 109.5 13.2 235.5 327.8 808.3 639 473.4 117.1 0 4.2

2000 32.1 55.3 33.3 170.9 225.3 600.1 550.7 730 438.1 3.5 4 0

2001 7.3 29.6 15.3 64.6 189.7 534.9 617.8 621.9 243.3 48 0 1

2002 80.8 75.5 14.6 45.5 227.9 244.7 469.6 703.2 292.2 56.1 4.7 21.2

2003 0 94.3 69.7 11.3 37 366.8 662.4 0 467.8 15.7 11.4 10.4

2004 25.5 6 0 59 303.4 116.8 720 685.4 182.8 177 3 26

2005 68.5 41.8 58.1 4.9 13.5 204.6 818.9 689.8 254.1 101.9 0 0

2006 0 24 65.2 62.4 115.8 77.1 535.7 484.1 6.7 48 38.5 37

2007 22.2 96.2 121.5 25.5 156.5 250.2 468.7 466.9 314.9 16 0 7

2008 39 22.5 5 60.3 237.3 535.2 578.6 496.4 351.8 0 63 0

2009 0 21.7 18.6 0 28.5 133.5 271.5 473.2 512.5 479.5 91 0

2010 14 131 0 0 172 195.5 618.6 55.6 457.1 495.3 30 11.8

2011 0 7 34 17 107.6 314.5 546.9 386.5 322.3 20 21.4 0

Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM)


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

1992 2.1 10.2 0.5 0 142 139.7 405.6 383 150.8 202.3 9 0

1993 2.5 7.3 82 7.3 206.3 278 324.6 676.1 613.6 4.4 2 0

1994 15.2 0 50.8 0 25.3 166.5 197.3 435.9 382.1 0 0 37

1995 2.2 57 13.1 57 94.5 418.7 575.4 425.4 116.3 68.9 23.5 19.6

1996 41.5 76.9 0 76.9 16.1 566.5 736.6 278.7 246.2 85 0 0

1997 12.6 0 0 0 74.6 234.2 576.7 365.5 158.4 28.7 8.7 132.6

1998 9.2 19.8 56.2 19.8 32.3 184.1 538.2 765.4 171.4 150.5 3.6 0

1999 14.9 1 0 1 218.2 357.6 280.1 460.7 94.3 91.7 0 0

2000 6.3 23 43.6 23 173.1 917.8 364.4 303.3 139.7 0 0 0

2001 0 2.6 3.3 2.6 116.3 319.3 846.1 725.6 395.4 46.6 5.2 0

2002 34.8 25 1.6 25 233.2 441.3 578.6 285.9 217.9 0 9.3 0

2003 50.6 51.8 39.4 51.8 35.6 595.9 639.1 536 355.2 24.4 0 2.1

2004 59.6 0 0 0 136.5 257.3 420.6 203.9 334 61.9 11.9 2.7

2005 22.4 15.6 11.2 15.6 23.4 111 438.1 421.9 293.2 439.2 0 0

2006 0 0 40 0 1.8 469.1 392.6 432.5 158.1 56.6 0 57.4

2007 0 15 23 15 117.4 125.8 869.3 407.1 579.3 88.9 10.3 0

2008 7.4 4.4 3.8 4.4 69.1 290.3 356.2 271.6 131.2 66.2 0 0

2009 0 0 0 0 81.7 139.9 331.8 652.5 149.7 49.1 0 0

2010 0 20.7 20.7 20.7 222.9 320.8 555.8 517.4 0 36.6 0 0

2011 6.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 183.5 174.5 520.4 437.7 237 0 25.7 0



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 17.9 20.5 21.7 26.8 29 29.5 28.8 28.4 27.3 26.2 22.8 19.7

min 4.6 8 7.8 12.8 16.8 18.8 20.3 20.4 18.4 13.9 9.6 6.4

1994 max 19.9 19.3 25.8 16.7 29.3 29.7 28.2 27.3 27.1 24.7 21.3 18.3

min 5.7 5.1 11.1 13 16.7 19.7 20.1 20.2 18.9 13.4 9.4 6.4

1995 max 15.7 18.2 23 28.1 30.8 29.6 28.1 28 27.7 26.3 21.6 18.4

min 4.5 6.4 10.1 13.5 18.3 20.6 20.4 20 18.7 15.1 9.6 6.3

1996 max 17.7 18.2 24.2 27.4 31.3 28.1 27.1 27.3 27.8 24.2 22.3 19.3

min 4.5 4.3 9.3 12.6 16.2 16.7 18.5 18.7 17.6 13.1 8.1 4.3

1997 max 16.5 18.5 23.2 24.3 28.2 29.6 28.4 27.7 27.4 23.5 20.8 16.5

min 3.1 4 8.5 10.8 13.6 17.1 18.8 18.7 17.3 10.5 7.9 4.3

1998 max 17.4 18.8 21.6 26.7 29.9 30.8 27.4 27.4 28 26.4 22.9 20

min 3.9 6.1 7.7 12.7 17.2 19.5 19.6 19.5 18.1 15.4 10.2 5.9

1999 max 17.8 22.2 26.2 30.3 29.2 27.7 27.2 26.6 27.4 24.6 21.9 18.7

min 4 8 10.2 14.7 16.8 18.1 19.3 18.8 18.2 13.7 9 6.3

2000 max 17.7 17.5 22.9 28.1 28.5 27.2 27.1 26.9 26.1 26.6 22.8 19.5

min 4.9 4.8 8.5 13.5 17.4 18.6 19.9 19.2 17.4 13.5 10.7 5.7

2001 max 19.1 21.8 23.6 27.6 27.2 27.7 27.2 27.8 27.7 26.3 23.2 19.2

min 4.5 7 9.3 13.4 16.3 18.9 20.1 19.8 18.2 14.9 9.9 6.1

2002 max 17.1 20.7 23.8 27.5 27.8 29 28 27.2 26.1 25.9 22.6 19.5

min 5.2 6.9 10.5 14.3 16.7 19.5 20.5 19.5 17.6 14.8 10.2 5.2

2003 max 18.5 19.1 23.7 28.5 30.1 29.2 27.6 27.9 26.4 26.7 22.5 18.7

min 4.6 5.5 11.5 13.4 15.1 18.2 18.9 19.2 18 12.9 8 5.1

2004 max 17.4 20.2 26.7 28.1 29.5 29.8 27.5 27.8 27.5 24.1 21 19.5

min 3.7 5.8 11.3 13.7 15.8 17.6 18.2 18.7 18.1 11.6 7.1 5.8

2005 max 16.4 19.4 24.4 27.9 30.9 32.2 27.7 27.5 27.6 25.6 22.5 20.6


min 3.5 5.6 9.1 12 15 18.2 18.5 18.3 17.4 14.3 6.3 4.8

2006 max 22.5 25.7 25.3 28 29.4 29.4 28.4 27.4 26.1 26.3 23.4 21.5

min 6.2 10.5 10.4 14 18.1 15.8 19.5 19.7 13.9 14.9 9.5 6.5

2007 max 19.8 19.4 23.3 29.1 29.1 29.6 27.5 28.2 26.9 27.1 22.5 20.7

min 5.1 6.8 9.9 14.8 16.5 19.4 19.6 20 18.3 14.8 9.3 5.8

2008 max 18.8 19.7 26.1 28.1 29.4 28.2 27.2 27.4 28.7 25.1 26.6 22

min 5 5.6 11.3 13.5 15.1 18.5 19.5 19.1 16.8 9.6 13 6.7

2009 max 21.7 23.5 26.5 28.9 31.2 28.9 29.1 30.3 28.8 27.1 27.6 25.5

min 5.8 6.7 10.5 19.5 14.3 16.1 16.1 17.7 19.5 19.7 17.4 10.5

2010 max 19.8 20.6 27.8 31.3 30.6 31.9 28.8 29.2 27.2 27 26.4 20

min 5 6.2 11.3 14.2 16.4 18 19.7 19.5 18.3 18.2 14 6.1

2011 max 18.8 18.1 19.3 27.8 30 29.8 28.5 28.7 27.4 26.3 23.0 21.9

min 4 3.5 5.8 12.3 15.4 17.7 19.2 18.9 17.9 13.7 9.8 9.2

2012 max 19 16.3 16.5 27.4 29.5 29.4 28.2 28.2 27.1 25.8 22.1 20.5

min 4.7 5.8 3.9 8.1 12 15.2 19 19 17.9 11.3 6.3 3.7


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

1993 max 20.6 25.8 31.8 37.0 38.8 38.8 36.0 34.8 33.2 31.4 26.9 21.2

min 7.9 10.8 14.6 20.9 24.3 24.5 25.2 24.6 23.1 19.0 13.9 9.6

1994 max 21.1 25.9 32.4 38.5 38.5 37.8 36.9 35.5 34.4 33.7 29.5 22

min 8.7 10.1 15.7 18.6 22.9 26.3 25.7 26 23.7 18 13.2 10.4

1995 max 23.3 26.1 33 40.3 44.4 44.7 44.9 38.9 32.3 31.3 28.9 20.1

min 7.4 9.9 14.5 18.4 21.4 25.4 23.3 23.6 23.1 22.6 14.4 9.4

1996 max 23.5 27.1 31.8 39.1 42 38.4 36.9 38.3 34 32.2 29.3 24


min 8.7 12.8 15.1 18.9 27.7 24.5 26 26.8 24.1 20.2 11.7 7.7

1997 max 22.7 26 31.7 34.2 38.1 40.5 38.2 34.9 33.3 31.3 27.8 21.1

min 7.6 8.4 14.4 18.9 22.7 26.8 26.4 25.4 24.8 18.4 14 9.8

1998 max 18.8 26.1 28.5 35.1 41.1 40.9 33.3 30.6 28.9 27.3 25.9 24.6

min 9 11.9 14.1 23.7 30.2 27.7 25.2 21.1 19.5 17.2 17.4 11.2

1999 max 19.9 27.5 33.1 36.6 40.8 38.8 36.0 34.8 33.2 31.4 26.9 21.5

min 2.5 6.8 12.3 22 27.1 29.1 29.3 25 19.5 12.3 11.9 9.2

2000 max 20.6 25.8 31.8 37.0 38.8 38.3 36.7 33 32.4 31.8 26.4 22.7

min 11.8 14.2 13.8 22.9 27 27 27 26.4 24.5 20.7 17 8.3

2001 max 21.8 25.7 31.8 37.0 38.8 38.8 33.4 33 32.1 31.6 28.8 22.2

min 8.4 7.6 13 20.9 24.3 1 26.3 25.8 24.6 23 15.9 9.8

2002 max 22.6 25.2 31.2 34.9 34.5 34.9 34.6 33.6 31.2 32.5 29.6 23.5

min 7.3 11.1 15 21.1 27.2 27.6 27.6 26.8 24.9 20.4 14.6 10.3

2003 max 15.8 24.5 28.7 35.7 34.6 37.4 34.1 33.2 33.5 32.5 28.3 22.2

min 8 10.6 13.9 23.5 23 23.7 25 26 24.9 20.3 14.5 8.3

2004 max 18.7 25.7 32.6 35.5 36.3 34.7 33.6 34.4 33.9 30.7 28.4 24.5

min 6.7 9.8 18.8 22.5 23.2 25.1 25.4 25.8 24.1 18.6 12.7 10.4

2005 max 23.7 24.9 31.8 37.4 40.1 39.3 35 34.9 34.3 33 27.2 22.3

min 8.5 10.4 14.4 26.2 29.3 24.7 24.5 23.9 26 20.4 13.6 10.1

2006 max 21.8 28.4 32.1 37.8 37.7 34.4 36.2 36.1 34.3 32.7 27.3 23.5

min 8.5 12.9 15.5 18.2 21.7 25.6 26 24 24.1 19.6 14.2 10.4

2007 max 21.9 24.5 30.2 36.5 36.2 39.5 33.2 33.7 34.1 31.7 30 23.8

min 7 11 14.3 17.5 22.8 25.3 22.6 25.9 24.5 22.7 15.5 8.9

2008 max 22.1 23.6 31.4 36.5 36.9 36.3 34.3 35.9 35.1 30.8 26 23

min 8.2 8.6 14.5 16.3 22.4 23.3 24.5 24.4 21.7 18.4 14 10

2009 max 17.3 25 31.3 37.1 41.4 40.7 34.9 32.5 33 31.7 27.3 21.4

min 9.6 10.5 12 25 21.1 30.3 25.6 21.7 23.5 20.2 14.1 8.3


2010 max 19.6 24.4 33 38.3 39.4 42 41 40 37.3 32 22.9 21.5

min 7.1 10.1 16.5 21.4 22.3 23.9 24.4 25.4 25.3 20.1 10.5 6

2011 max 15.7 29.2 37.7 39 37.8 38.6 35 33.9 31.1 27.4 20.7 13.5

min 8.4 20.9 17.3 20.6 21.2 22.4 18.4 20.2 18 15.8 15.2 11

2012 max 20 24.6 29.4 37.1 40.4 40.5 35.9 34.6 32.7 30.8 20.5 10.8

min 7.5 8 12.8 21 24.2 25.7 25.1 22.7 18.6 12.6 9.3 5.9


60



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

Project materials

Climate Change

Keywords: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), TAMD, Nepal

International Institute for Environment and Development80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UKTel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055email: [email protected] by:

This research was funded by UK aid from the UK Government,however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the UK Government.

International Institute for Environment and Development80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UKTel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055email: [email protected]

December 2013 Tracking Adaptation and Measuring ...pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10086IIED.pdf · Tracking...

Documents

Transcript of December 2013 Tracking Adaptation and Measuring ...pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10086IIED.pdf · Tracking...