sectoral perspectives on gender and social inclusion: forestry (monograph 3)

7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 1/112

Sectoral Perspectives onGender and Social Inclusion

FORESTRY

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENT 2011

SECTORAL SERIES: MONOGRAPH 3



Sectoral Perspectives

Gender and Social Inclus

FORESTR

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENSECTORAL SERIES: MONOG



A co-publication o the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Developm

UK, and Te World Bank

© 2012, the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Development, UK,and Te World Bank

ISBN 978 9937 8592 3 3

Te ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily ref

the views o the Asian Development Bank or its Board o Governors or the governments th

represent; the Department or International Development, UK; or Te World Bank, its Boa

o Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.

Te Asian Development Bank, the Department or International Development, UK, and T

World Bank do not guarantee the accuracy o the data included in this publication and accep

responsibility or any consequence o their use.

Rights and Permissions

Te material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the Asian Development Bank, th

Department or International Development, UK, and Te World Bank encourage

dissemination o their knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, or

non-commercial purposes as long as ull attribution to this work is given.

Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to Stea

Abakerli, Te World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

Te Asian Development Bank

Srikunj Kamaladi, Ward No. 31

GPO Box 5017, Kathmandu, Nepal

Te UK Government Department or International Development

GPO Box 106

Ek t k L lit N l



Preface

Executive Summary Abbreviations/Acronyms

1. Introduction and Overview

2. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: Making It Happen in Irrigation

3. Checklist for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Annexes

Bibliography

List of Tables1.1 Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget

of the Government of Nepal, 2009-2010

1.2 Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of

Seven Sectors (otal of Program Budget), Including Direct and Indirect Contributio

1.3 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs,

Kavre and Morang (%)

2.1 Resource Use and Multiple Values 2.2 Differential Effects of Forest Quality Change on Excluded People

2.3 Differential Effects of Forest Management Regime Change on Excluded People

2.4 Policies and Progress Related to Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

2.5 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Budget of

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, 2009–2010

2.6 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of District Forestry Offices,

Kavre and Morang, 2008–2009

3.1 Analysis of Barriers

3.2 Responses to Exclusion

3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation

3.4 Roles and iming in Monitoring

Contents



Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion

2.1 Dimensions of Exclusion and Outcomes in Forest Sector

2.2 Workforce Diversity of Civil Personnel in the Forest Sector 2.3 Diversity of Civil Personnel in Forest Sector at Different Levels

List of Boxes

1.1 What is a REFLEC circle?

List of Annexes

1.1 Definitions of Socially Excluded Groups 1.2 Step 1 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Framework: Analysis of

Policy, Institutional, Program, and Monitoring and Evaluation Barriers

1.3 List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender Equality and Social Inclu

Budgeting Covering 22 Programs and Annual Plans of wo Ministries

2.1 Area under Different Forest Management Regimes

2.2 Other Major Policies in the Sector and heir Gender Equality and Social Inclu

2.3 Forestry Projects/Programs Currently Working in Nepal

2.4 Logical Framework of Selected Programs/Projects on Forestry

2.5 Monitoring Indicators Related to Gender, Poverty, and Social Equity

3.1 Policy Analysis Format

3.2 Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile

3.3 Program and Budget Analysis Format



Background and Objectives of GSEA 2011/Sectoral Series: Monograph 3

Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)

have been recognized by the Government of

Nepal and its development partners as critical

to equitable development. Particularly following

the Second People’s Movement (or Jana Andolan

II) of April 2006, the efforts of the government,

with the support of development partners, have

been aimed at transforming the country into an

inclusive and just state, with an eye to restruc-

turing existing power relations to ensure the

rights of all citizens, regardless of caste, ethnic-

ity, religion, gender, region, age, or class. he

Interim Constitution (2007) guarantees social

justice and affirmative action for women, Dalits,Adivasi Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis, and other

excluded or disadvantaged groups. It also pro-

poses the future restructuring of the state to

institutionalize an inclusive, democratic and pro-

gressive governance system, maximizing people’s

participation based on devolution of power, and

the equitable distribution of resources.he Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment

(GSEA), which was jointly produced by the

World Bank (WB) and the UK Department

of International Development (DFID), was

delivered to the National Planning Commission

Preface

graphs with practical guidance on how stream gender equality and social incl

seven key service-delivery sectors: agr

education, forestry, health, irrigatio

infrastructure (with an emphasis on roa

rural and urban water supply and sanitat

which additional sectors may be adde

future.

he current process of political transit

vides a very significant opportunity fo

inclusion and equitable developmen

Interim Constitution (2007) and the

Year Interim Plan (2008-2010) reflect

ments made for the social, political and e

transformation of Nepal. For the c

development partners, including DFIand ADB, mainstreaming gender equa

social inclusion in their overall work

dated by global and national agency di

For instance, in its country partnersh

egy (2010-2014), ADB recognizes the

“address gender, ethnic, and caste discrim

through policy reform, targeted inveand the mainstreaming of equal opp

measures in key sector investments”, a

to guide and ensure that in all ADB op

and sectoral assistance, gender and soci

sion concerns are adequately addresse




Nepal (World Bank, 2009) and the new strategy

being developed.In Nepal over the last few years there has been

a growing practice of developing gender- and

inclusion-sensitive interventions, especially in the

government’s sector-wide programs supported

by multiple donors (e.g., Local Governance and

Community Development Program [LGCDP],

health, education and rural transport SWAps[sector-wide approach]). Various sectors have

also developed their own GESI strategies (e.g.,

forestry, agriculture, health and local develop-

ment). his Series attempts to provide coherence

to GESI mainstreaming done by the government,

donor agencies and other development actors,

and to introduce a tool that can be commonly

applied across sectors for mainstreaming in poli-

cies, programming, budgeting, monitoring, and

reporting. he aim of the Series is to help make

the Government of Nepal’s goal of universal

access to key public services and resources a real-

ity for all Nepali citizens. A major focus has thus

been on identifying the specific barriers faced by

different groups and the resultant impact of thosebarriers; assessing policies, program modalities,

and project mechanisms that have worked best

to overcome these barriers; and identifying the

measures that work best to mainstream GESI in

sectoral programming.

Process of Developing GSEA 2011/SectoralSeries Monographs

Each of the sectoral assessments consisted of

document review, meetings with sector spe-

cialists and stakeholders, diversity and budget

analysis, some fieldwork, wider consultative

mately 30 participants in each w

with key stakeholders, namelyproject/program staff, donor age

resentative organizations. Literat

a major source of information fo

ment of these monographs; howe

work was also done by team mem

districts.

Draft versions prepared by side (health), Elvira Graner

Bijaya Bajracharya (agriculture/for

Jennifer Appave (water supply a

and Shuva Sharma (rural infrast

were used as background inform

upon where possible. As the GE

began to emerge as an importan

ADB, DFID and the World Ban

the sectoral assessments should

around this framework so that pra

the monographs would become

the approach. Due to its previou

the development and application

framework, the Human Resourc

Centre (HURDEC), a privateconsultancy firm of Nepal, was

by WB/DFID to lead the devel

sectoral series. Jennifer Appave was

by ADB to work with the HURD

January to June 2010 to prepare

Swiss Agency for Development an

(SDC) provided technical supporadvisers.

he team members who prepar

sectoral monographs in this series

1) agriculture—Jennifer Appave a

with inputs from Yadab Chapagai



Chapagain; 6) rural infrastructure—Chhaya Jha,

with inputs from Kumar Updhayay (HURDEC)and Shuva Sharma; and 7) water supply and sani-

tation—Jennifer Appave and Chhaya Jha. Deepa

Shakya and Sara Subba did the research for the

sectoral monographs while Dharmendra Shakya

and Ram Bhusal worked on the budget analysis

and staff diversity analysis. Sitaram Prasai and

Birbhadra Acharya (HURDEC) did the gender-responsive budget (GRB) assessment in Kavre

and Morang districts. Carey Biron edited all the

monographs except forestry, which was done by

Mary Hobley. Chhaya Jha guided the entire pro-

cess, and was responsible for the final writing of

all the monographs under the guidance of Lynn

Bennett, the lead researcher for GSEA.

he Sectoral Series Monograph would not

have made it to their current published form

without the diligence and creativity of the Himal

Books team responsible for the final edit

design support. Led by Deepak hapa, included Amrita Limbu (editorial assista

Chiran Ghimire (layout and design).

he monographs in this series should

sidered as learning documents that w

for sectoral data and analysis to be upd

improved based on sectoral experien

sharing of good practices. he monogthis series all have a common introduc

a common final chapter outlining the

steps in the GESI mainstreaming proce

is intended as a handy reference guide

titioners. he sectoral monographs ha

published in alphabetical order, cover

culture, education, forest, health, irrigati

infrastructure (roads), and rural and urb

supply and sanitation. Additional sector

included over time.

Notes1 For the World Bank, the gender-mainstreaming strategy (2001) and operational policy and Bank procedures

(2003) provide the policy framework for promoting gender issues as part of strategically focused analytical wdialogue and country assistance (World Bank 2006). he policy on gender and development (1998), Strategy

ADB results framework articulate ADB’s commitment to gender, and require that gender inequalities be addr

aspects of ADB work (ADB 2010). he principal elements of DFID’s gender policy and strategy are contained

(2000, 2002). A “twin-track” approach based on mainstreaming of gender issues in all areas and sectors, while ma

focus on the empowerment of women as a disadvantaged group, has been adopted (Jensen et al, 2006).

2 he UK government’s program of work to fight poverty in Nepal, 2009-2012.



he purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, itassesses the current situation of gender equality

and social inclusion (GESI) in Nepal’s forestry

sector. It identifies the barriers faced by differ-

ent groups in accessing forest resources and

other benefits (both those under state-managed

regimes and those managed by communities). It

considers the policy, legislative and social barri-

ers, and how various policies, processes and pro-

grams have worked to address them. Second, it

provides practical guidance on how to improve

existing responses and take further action for

more equitable access to forest resources, services

and benefits.

Forests play an important role in the lives

of nearly 80% of rural Nepali households thatderive some or all of their livelihoods from for-

est resources. For some, their livelihoods are

totally dependent on access to forest products;

for others, forests provide important household

products, inputs to agriculture, income and envi-

ronmental services.

Nepal is rightly famous for the major progressit has made since the 1980s in increasing access

of many hill forest users through community

forestry. In these areas forest management has

moved from a command and control system,

where access to forests was severely restricted,

Executive Summary

organizations have resulted in increasinand rights of the rural population to fore

ucts and services. Partnerships with lo

munities for resource management have

the loss of forests and biodiversity and g

income locally for wider community and

development. Despite these successes,

remaining 75% of state-managed fores

the highest degree of exclusion operate

use is illegal, and where punitive action is

Major advances in building more ju

agement and allocation systems for for

forest products are tempered by strong

of multiple forms of exclusion. Apart fr

nomic factors, social factors such as gend

ethnicity, location, and age greatly influeaccesses forest resources and decision

processes, and who receives benefits.

tance of forests (particularly in the a

forms of property regimes (common p

private, open access), and the enforce

rules all dictate the extent to which hou

gain, or are prevented from, access toHow far individuals are affected by thes

sions depends to a large extent on their

dependence, and, by implication, the diff

accessing and using resources.

In community forestry (which has be




ria for membership particularly exclude distant

users; the costs of entry, especially the time thatneeds to be invested in group formation, exclude

the time-poor who tend to be the extreme poor;

socio-cultural barriers render Dalits particularly

wary of exposing themselves to ridicule and rejec-

tion; and occupational (and caste-based) exclu-

sion, particularly to blacksmiths who are reliant

on reliable access to firewood for charcoal, andgender-based exclusion because membership

was only registered in the name of the household

head (in most cases, male). Decision-making

exclusion and the consequent effects on access to

resources and other benefits result from unequal

power relations, which all affect the degree to

which excluded groups feel they are able to par-

ticipate. here are multiple reasons why people

are excluded or exclude themselves from group-

based activities: their own self-perception of hav-

ing nothing to say that others are prepared to

listen to; experience of more powerful people dis-

regarding them and not seeking their opinions;

their relations with more powerful people—not

being prepared to speak out in front of them incase they say something that causes offence to

their “patron”; their lack of education, which

means they cannot easily participate in events

that require literacy or numeracy; their lack of

time to go to meetings and build the confidence

to speak; and simply not having access to infor-

mation about what is happening, so having no

opportunity to be part of an event—rendering

them voiceless. hese are all experienced to dif-

ferent degrees by Dalits, and also by women.

Recent policies and revisions to community

forestry guidelines do recognize some of these

managed systems and is not incor

the whole sector.Change needs to occur within i

through the processes used to b

It is not just government organ

systemic change is required: it al

many of the civil society organi

sector. Behavior change is require

deep-seated resistance to changitory practices, both in the wor

community groups. Social mobiliz

itation processes need to focus on

and not welfare-based approach

understanding of the rights and

of individuals as citizens to have

decisions, and share in benefits. So

audits have become accepted toolsbut need to be implemented m

with meaningful participation o

poor and the excluded, with fol

that demonstrate there is value in

Behavior change without syste

change in forest sector institution

to reproduce the gap between finpoor implementation.

Internalization and instituti

these approaches through policy, s

ing, systems and structures have

Key constraints include the low l

caste and ethnic diversity within th

vey of 6,836 civil personnel in the

reveals that there is overrepresen

Brahmin/Chhetris (57%), and N

Women comprise only 3.25%, D

Muslims 1.6% of the total staff

departments within the Ministry



to fulfill their mandate due to a lack of clarity

about their roles and responsibilities, inadequateresources, their low positions in the hierarchy

and limited authority, and an institutional fail-

ure to link their work to the routine work of the

ministry. GESI in programming, budgeting, and

monitoring and evaluation has not been effective,

even after concerted effort by different agencies.

In spite of the challenges still faced by theforest sector, there has been a range of good

practices generated. hese occur in three key

areas of change: building the voice and influ-

ence of excluded groups, improving their access

to assets and services, and finally changing the

rules of the game to remove some of the barri-

ers to their inclusion. Among them are build-

ing a strong civil society and the developmentof new partnerships between government and

NGOs. his has begun to clarify and demarcate

the roles of government staff as regulators, ser-

vice providers and enablers, and NGOs/com-

munity-based organizations as facilitators of

poor and excluded people’s voice, accountability

mechanisms and governance structures. herehas been an undeniable improvement in access

to assets and services, with further work devel-

oped to try to overcome some of the locational

exclusion factors in the arai. here have been

changes in the rules of the game—most notably

the success in enshrining community forestry in

law and operational practice. his has continued

to be refined and developed as lessons have been

learned.

here are some practical operational steps that

need to be put in place to overcome the barriers

identified, capitalize on the good practices, and

monitoring and evaluation to include str

systems that are disaggregated by sex, canicity/regional identity, and location. Mo

and reporting should capture informa

track changes in access to assets and

improvements in voice and influence, an

in policy and legal frameworks and com

based governance structures. In additi

necessary to put in place the mechanismand organizational and human capacity

for effective GESI mainstreaming. Unle

are clear linkages between personal rewa

tures and performance against GESI cr

is going to be difficult to institutionali

practices within the sector. Changing

behaviors and structures requires that

the longer-term exclusion issues are adsuch as promoting the conditions fo

to employment in the forestry sector

investment in scholarships, changes to

tent of training courses of forest staff, an

ing more supportive working environm

women professionals.

Despite the large changes in evidencforestry sector, structural exclusion still

but we understand it far more clearly n

the community forestry experience. hi

standing and the translation of necessar

into wider sectoral policy and operationa

still remain to be achieved. Dealing w

exclusion of the extreme poor from deve

processes requires special and targeted su

ensure that they can access forest resou

other associated benefits. Action should

on analysis rooted in an understandin

unequal power relations created by cla




of women, the poor and the excluded and ensur-

ing that forests continue to respond to the needsof the least resilient and least adaptable people

in Nepal, who are going to be the most affected

by the ongoing climate change. Inclusion of peo-

ple in forest management is also about increas-

ing the value of the wider functions of forests to

Nepal. Inclusive forest management, such as we

are beginning to see with comm

has been shown to increase the flbut at the same time conserve an

amount of land area under produ

cover. Inclusion is not just impor

ing people’s livelihoods; it is essent

well-being through the protectio

ronmental services.



ADB Asian Development Bank

BiSEP-S Biodiversity Sector Support Programme for Siwalik and erai

BMRGMPE Biological Management of Rhinoceros Grassland Management a

Public Engagement

BZMP Buffer Zone Management Programme

CBOs Community-Based Organisations

CF Community Forestry

CFUGs Community Forest User GroupsCOPE/PLA Client Oriented Provider Effi cient/Participatory Learning and A

CSUWN Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal

DA Durban Accord

DDC District Development Committee

DFID Department for International Development

DFO District Forest Offi ce

DFRS Department of Forest Research and SurveyDHS Demographic and Health Survey

DIDCs District Information and Documentation Centres

DLS Department of Livestock

DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

DoF Department of Forests

DPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System

DPR Department of Plant Resources

DSCO District Soil Conservation Offi ce

DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management

EC Executive Committee

FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal

FFA Fund Flow Analysis

Abbreviations/Acronyms




GMCC Gender Mainstreaming Coordination Committee

GoN Government of NepalGPSE Gender, Poverty and Social Equity

GRB Gender-Responsive Budget

GSEA Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment

GSI Gender and Social Inclusion

GZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für echnische Zusammenarbeit

HR Human Resources

HURDEC Human Resource Development CentreIGA Income Generating Activities

ILO International Labour Organization

IPC Integrated Planning Committee

IUCN Te World Conservation Union

LF Leasehold Forests

LFLP Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme

LFP Livelihoods and Forestry Program

LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development ProgramLIP Livelihoods Improvement Programme

LSI Livelihoods and Social Inclusion

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDBR Market Development of Bamboo and Rattan

MFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

MIS Management Information System

MLD Ministry of Local DevelopmentMOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MOF Ministry of Finance

MOHP Ministry of Health and Population

MWCSW Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

NHSP-IP 2 Nepal Health Sector Program- Implementation Plan 2

NLFS National Labor Force Survey

NLSS National Living Standards Survey

NMCP Northern Mountain Conservation Program

NPC National Planning Commission

NRM Natural Resource Management

NSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project



PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

PWMLGP Participatory Watershed Management and Local Governance ProSDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SHLP Sacred Himalayan Landscape Program

SSRP School Sector Reform Program

SWAp Sector-Wide Approach

A echnical Assistance

oR erms of Reference

UN United NationsUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women

VDC Village Development Committee

WB World Bank

WDO Women’s Development Offi cer

WSS Water Supply and Sanitation

WLCP Western erai Landscape Complex Project



CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Overview



1.1 Introduction

his introduction and overview chapter definesthe dimensions of exclusion and presents the

framework for gender equality and social inclu-

sion (GESI) mainstreaming that has been used

for all the sectoral monographs. It presents an

outline of the current situation of gender equality

and social inclusion in Nepal, and summarizes

the findings of the seven sectoral monographs. It

presents the barriers that have been identified for

women, the poor and the excluded, and discusses

the national, international and sectoral policy

mandates for GESI, the institutional structures

and mechanisms established by the government

for women and excluded groups, the sectoral

findings regarding institutional arrangements

for GESI, the diversity of civil personnel in thevarious sectors, and the working environment. It

summarizes the findings regarding the existing

practice of gender-responsive budgeting (GRB),

the results of GESI budgeting that was applied in

the seven sectors, and the monitoring and evalu-

ation (M&E) system in use. he good practices,

lessons learned and way forward for the sectoralmonographs are also summarized.

1.2 Gender Equality and SocialInclusion Framework and Defining the Excluded

For the last 60 years, since the 1951 overthrow

of the Rana regime, Nepal has been struggling

to transform its feudal economic and politi-

cal system, and to leave behind the ingrained

hierarchies of gender and caste. But these

deep-seated systems for organizing the world

and structuring power relations do not change

and dependency of women are persist

patriarchal culture where, despite the their labor was critical to the subsisten

cultural economy, women were little val

not inherit family land, and could be ca

the husband favored a younger wife.

Persistent too is the chronic pov

groups such as the Dalits at the bottom

caste hierarchy, who, in addition to the

tion of being considered “impure” and t

“untouchable,” have faced structural ba

education and economic opportunities

erations. he Adivasi Janajatis, or ind

groups in Nepal, most of whom were

some 250 years ago during the Gork

quests, have also found themselves place

the Hindu caste hierarchy. Because of thbers (37% of the population) and their

prowess, Adivasi Janajatis were given a

the middle of the hierarchy rather tha

bottom, as they were in India. Ironica

though it was a system imposed on them

siders, to preserve their own status in t

archy many Janajati groups adopted tdiscriminatory behavior towards Dalits

practiced by the “high-caste” rulers. S

even the caste Hindus in the plains, or

of Nepal were looked down upon and

as foreigners when they visited Kathma

capital of their own country.

he list of grievances is long and gro

have been historically excluded are m

Nepal. As development practitioners

toral specialists, we need to know at lea

thing of this historical and cultural co

that we can design sectoral interventions




ways that bring equal benefit to men and women

from all these groups.his monograph is concerned with two major

dimensions of exclusion: economic and social. As

shown in Figure 1.1, when it comes to poverty, or

economic exclusion, we are concerned with the

poor of all castes, ethnicities, locations and sexes.

he socially excluded1 groups include women,

Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims,

people with disabilities and people from geo-

graphically remote areas. What we also need to

keep in mind is that the dimensions of exclusion

are cross-cutting and cumulative. Some of our cli-

ents suffer some dimensions of exclusion but notothers—for example, a poor Brahmin woman

from Gorkha Bazaar is privileged in terms of her

caste and her fairly well-connected location, but

excluded by her poverty and gender. Other cli-

ents suffer from exclusion in almost all dimen-

sions: for example, a poor Dalit woman in Jumla

must contend with four dimensions—poverty,

caste, gender and remoteness—of exclusion. he

fact that these dimensions all interact with each

other in different ways to frame the life chances

of the different individuals we are trying to reach

is why we need to look at exclusion in a holistic

As will be elaborated in greater

out this series, it is essential for eachwho the excluded in that sector ar

of their exclusion. he GESI fram

used for the sectoral monographs

both formal institutions (the legal

policies of the sectoral ministry or e

procedures and components laid o

project document) and informal in

traditional norms of behavior fo

Dalits or the networks of political

present barriers to inclusion. he

an eye out for both of these dimen

out the GESI process.

he framework follows five key

to mainstream GESI in sectoral

(visualized in Figure 1.2):

i. identifying the excluded and

their exclusion from access

opportunities in the sector;

ii. designing policy and/or

responses that attempt to a

riers in the program cycle;iii. implementation;

iv. monitoring and evaluati

whether planned resource

have reached women, the

excluded; and (if M&E find

need)

v. adjustment/redesign and co

First step: Identification. his

ping the existing status of women

the socially excluded in the sector

aggregated qualitative and quanti

Economically excluded

Poor of all• Castes• Ethnicities

• Locations• Genders

• Dalits• Madhesis• Third gender

• Women• Adivasi Janajatis• Muslims• People with disabilities• People of geographically

remote areas

Figure 1.1: Excluded Groups

Socially excluded(context-specificissues of exclusionto be identified)



works) is necessary to understand

exactly how social inequities basedon gender, caste, religion, ethnic-

ity and location have been cre-

ated and/or maintained. he key

actors in these existing structures

also need to be critically assessed

in terms of their ability (and incen-

tives) to change their behavior and

values, and to transform processes

and mechanisms.

In addition to assessing the

barriers constraining each group

from enjoying their rights, we

need to map existing policy and

program responses (if any), and

assess whether these are address-ing, reducing or reinforcing these

barriers (see Annex 1.2 for details).

As we begin the design process,

the situation prevailing in the sec-

tor—the set of policies and formal and informal

institutions in place—will almost certainly be

benefiting some individuals and groups morethan others. hus, we need to understand the

political economy of the sector or subsector

both nationally and locally in the sites3 where

our projects or programs will be implemented.

he stated intention of policies and procedures

will always be positive and aimed at deliver-

ing services and benefits to all, but how do the

policies work out on the ground for different

groups? Do they deliver as intended; if not, what

is intervening to prevent or change the intended

outcomes? Usually, it is merely gaps in the deliv-

ery or communications systems that have been

Second and third steps: Design an

mentation. Once the sociocultural barr

weaknesses in the policy framework orsystem are understood, the job is to find

address these through interventions.

require changes in policies, program a

resource allocations, institutional arran

and staff incentives as well as in the mo

and reporting systems. Some things are

change than others and a single operatio

not be able to make all the changes n

respond to the diagnosis provided by Ste

even the larger, more intractable issue

be fed into the policy dialogue with gov

and other donors and be part of the lon

4. Mon5. Adju

• Inputs:resourreache

and ex• Results• Outco

domai

1. Identify

Barriers of the excluded:• who are excluded, causes

of their exclusion• their existing situation,

barriers in accessingservices and opportuni-ties offered by the policy/project/program beingdesigned

Interventions to address barriers,based on review/assessment of GESIresponsiveness of • Sector policy mandates• Institutional arrangements &

accountabilities

• Program interventions, budgetallocations

• Selection criteria, control of deci-sions & funds

• Monitoring and reporting

2. Design &3. Implement

Figure 1.2: Steps for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and




structures and mechanisms for routine work on

gender and inclusion by technically competent

individuals; promote diversity in staff composi-

tion; and adopt sensitive human resources poli-cies for recruitment, promotion, transfer and

performance evaluation.

o design a project or program so that it will

be able to deliver real change and lasting progress

for women, the poor and the excluded, it is use-

ful to consider the content presented in Figure

1.3, which lays out three domains where change

can happen. hese are also domains that define

exclusion and inclusion, and most projects and

programs include activities in one or all of these

areas. One important domain is access to assets

and services (i.e., health, education, and employ-

influence. In Nepal

projects and what thecalls community-dri

ment approaches place

emphasis on organizin

to manage resources,

and construct infrast

selves. he way group

the depth of the soci

process and the level of

in people from exclud

give them genuine voic

over the group proce

another area where go

careful implementation

ing can make a major

final domain where outions can make a differ

changing policies, institu

and norms (i.e., the “rule

when intentionally or unintention

against the interests of exclude

noted above, not every operation

the national policy level; but if orevealed that certain policies are p

exclusion of certain groups from t

sector operation intends to delive

to be on the lookout for opportun

policy changes on the agenda, an

their adoption. Often, even small

policies and procedures that are

ence can bring about important ch

Nepal’s weak implementation

that even positive policy provis

not implemented effectively. Me

mal norms, social practices, value

Improving access toLIVELIHOOD ASSESTS AND SERVICE for ALL,including the poor and

the excluded

Supporting moreINCLUSIVE POLICIES ANDMINDSETS; changing the

“Rules of the Game”

Increasing the VOICE AND

INFLUENCE of ALL,including of the poor

and excluded

Figure 1.3: Domains of Change

Source: World Bank/DFID, 2006.



who hold power to reflect on and internalize the

need for such shifts. his long-term design-and-implementation commitment to gender equality

and inclusion-related activities is an essential ele-

ment of mainstreaming GESI, and it requires a

clear commitment from the management level to

this way of doing business.

Final steps: Monitoring, evaluation, and report-

ing. M&E systems need to be designed to col-

lect disaggregated data on outputs, outcomes

and development results, and to be linked into

management decision-making in such a way that

data on inclusion failures automatically trig-

ger project actions to understand and remedy

the situation. At the output level, management

should be able to ensure that the planned proj-

ect resources and actions have reached women,the poor and the excluded. Yet, disaggregated

intermediate outcomes also need to be tracked,

such as the socioeconomic profile of user groups

and executive committees, labor groups, preg-

nant women receiving antenatal visits, school

attendance, new teachers hired, the placement

of water taps, etc. Finally, disaggregated dataon development results need to be collected and

analyzed. his may be done by the project, but in

some cases with the right coordination it can also

be done by periodic national-level sample surveys

such as the National Living Standards Survey

(NLSS), the Nepal Demographic and Health

Survey (NDHS), or the National Labor Force

Survey (NLFS), or through the decennial cen-

sus. Indicators of results at this level include, for

instance, the time required to reach an improved

water source or motorable road, primary-school

completion rates, child mortality, increase in

1.3 Current Situation of Gender

Equality and Social Inclusion Nepal

Gender issues have been addressed du

past few decades of Nepal’s planned

ment. Yet, it is only more recently th

inclusion has entered the development d

leading to recognition of other dimen

exclusion in addition to gender.

1.3.1 Sector-wide barriers for women

poor and the excluded

Each of the sectoral monographs in th

demonstrates that economic, political an

cultural institutional barriers exist for

the poor and excluded groups, restricti

access to assets, services and opportuexercise their voice and influence. W

access to assets and resources has im

considerably through many targeted p

while affirmative action strategies have

to increase their representation in use

and committees in all sectors. Forest an

supply and sanitation have been the momendable sectors in promoting women

bership and participation, yet the op

space for women to voice their issues a

cise their agency remains strongly restr

societal rules/norms/beliefs that con

define how women are valued and what

or cannot do (World Bank/DFID 200

sectoral monographs all show that wom

ity to make decisions and benefit from a

resources and services (e.g., to take care

decisions when ill, to allocate time for a

community meetings, and to engage in li




public sector through, for example, free education

and healthcare services have helped to increaseaccess for the poor. However, the need to meet

their daily subsistence needs, low literacy skills,

and poor access to information about services and

available resources limit the poor from benefiting

fully from these programs. Further, self-exclusion

of the very poor from group-based community

development activities is common due to lack of

time to contribute as well as lack of agency to influ-

ence decisions. Since so many services and oppor-

tunities flow through groups, this self-exclusion

further reduces the access to resources and live-

lihood opportunities of those most in need.

Similarly, the high opportunity costs incurred in

the initial stages of group formation, with benefits

uncertain and only coming later, also restrict themembership and participation of the very poor in

user groups and committees.

Geographic location is a key determinant of

exclusion across all sectors, influencing the level

of access to public services such as schools, health

posts, agricultural extension agents and finance

institutions. For example, 38% of Janajatis in thehill regions have no access to a health post within

an hour’s walk. he lowest life expectancy (44)

is found in the mountain district of Mugu, com-

pared to 74 in Kathmandu. Only 32% of house-

holds in Nepal can reach the nearest agriculture

center within a 30-minute walk, and only 28%

can reach the nearest bank in that time. A signifi-

cant part of the problem is that the government

lacks the human resources necessary to deliver

services or offer effective outreach to the remot-

est communities—and the available government

staff are often reluctant to serve in remote areas,

services, resources and assets, and

to have voice and influence in dprocesses. his is particularly s

drinking-water facilities due to

Hindu belief that Dalits are “im

pollute a water source. Similarly,

opment outcomes in education (e.

rate for Madhesi Dalit women is

health (e.g., Madhesi Dalit wome

lowest health indicators) are a re

bination of factors, including p

awareness and the discriminatory

behavior of non-Dalits towards D

Dahal and Govindasamy 2008).

For Adivasi Janajatis, langua

around their cultural rights are th

cant barriers to accessing resourcing from services. hese are comp

low access of the most disadvan

groups to information on availab

resources and procedures. Musl

Madhesi groups, especially wome

groups, face linguistic and socio

ers that affect their level of mobito access services and participate

sphere. Although there is greate

the needs of people with disabili

continues to face social discrimin

tually no disability-friendly servic

available, especially in rural areas.

1.3.2 Policy and legal framewo

his section4 discusses the GES

work and mandates at the internat

and sectoral levels.



Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples, estab-

lish the fundamental rights of women, protectthe cultural rights of Adivasi Janajatis, declare

untouchability a legal offence, protect the rights

of children and establish the rights of the poor,

people with disabilities, Muslims and Madhesis.

he Local Self-Governance Act, 1999,

empowers local bodies and has made them

more accountable, particularly for local devel-

opment activities. It directs local bodies to for-

mulate their plans with the active involvement

and participation of local people, focusing on

the special needs of the poor, and mandates

20% representation of women on village and

ward-level development committees. But these

provisions do not address issues of inequity and

vulnerability caused by gender, caste or ethnic-ity. he Local Self-Governance Regulations

have provided for the inclusion and prioritiza-

tion of the poor and the excluded in develop-

ment activities. At the district development

committee (DDC) level, however, the regula-

tions make no distinct provision for the social

and economic promotion of the poor and theexcluded in the duties, roles and responsibili-

ties of the DDC. However, the DDC can form

subcommittees to address the needs of women

and the disadvantaged by including members

from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),

community-based organizations and civil soci-

ety, and other experts.

he Gender Equality and Social InclusionOperational Strategy (2009) of the Local

Governance and Community Development

Program (LGCDP) of the Ministry of Local

Development (MLD)5 has provisioned for

tation committees in DDCs, and ident

roles and responsibilities of the GESI seMLD. he DDC expanded block-gran

lines to make a direct 15% budget alloca

women and 15% for people from exclude

at the district level. he Village Deve

Committee Grant Operation Manual di

for poor women, 5% for poor children

for other excluded groups in village deve

committees (VDCs) and municipaliti

manual has also provided for integrat

ning committees at the VDC level, with

representation from Dalit, Janajati an

en’s organizations, from NGOs workin

VDCs, school management committee

organizations, political parties, and line

It directs that 33% of members must be(his is only a sample of provisions that

tive from a gender and inclusion perspe

several others exist as well.6)

International commitments

Nepal has ratified as many as 16 inter

human rights instruments, including tional conventions and covenants on

(United Nations [UN] Convention

Elimination of Discrimination against W

Beijing Platform of Action), child righ

Convention on the Rights of the Child

enous people’s rights (ILO Conventio

and racial discrimination (UN Conven

the Elimination of Racial Discriminahas committed to international agreem

targets (Millennium Development Go

for women’s empowerment, education,

water and sanitation, health, hunger and

S t l P ti G d d S i l I l i




Sectoral policies: Gender equality and social

inclusion policy provisions in the seven sectorsFrom our review, we find that commitments to

GESI and progressive policy mandates have been

made across the seven sectors, albeit to varying

degrees. Revisions in policies have allowed pro-

grams addressing access to services for specific

groups to be developed and implemented—for

instance, free primary education, scholarships for

girls and Dalits, multilingual education, incentive

schemes for out-of-school children, universal

and targeted free healthcare, safe delivery incen-

tive schemes, quotas for women in community

groups established by all the sectors, agriculture-

related subsidies for the excluded, subsidies for

poor households to build latrines, and so on.

SWAp (sector-wide approach) is increas-ingly being followed in Nepal, allowing for donor

harmonization and more concerted efforts to

address gender and inclusion issues. SWAps

in health, education, and transportation—the

Nepal Health Sector Program-Implementation

Plan 2 [NHSP-IP 2] (2010-2015), School

Sector Reform Program (SSRP) (2009-2015),and rural transportation infrastructure SWAp,

respectively—have directives to address bar-

riers experienced by women, the poor and the

excluded. he NHSP-IP 2 includes a specific

objective to address sociocultural barriers, a

reflection of the government’s shift to recogniz-

ing the need to address deeply embedded social

norms and practices that affect health outcomes.GESI strategies have been included in the

NHSP-IP 2, and strategies have been prepared

for the agriculture and forest sectors though

these have not yet been implemented.

these could contribute more eff

resentatives from excluded grouselected by their own communit

nisms were available for more incl

tation to influence decisions, and

better monitoring by the releva

Policy provisions for representat

and the excluded in user group

tees, with specific guidance for re

post-holding positions, have also

established practice. he rural wa

sanitation (WSS) national polic

has a mandate of 30% of women

and committees, while for Dalit

too, there are provisions for

(e.g., in health facility operation

ment committees, farmer groupsgroups, water supply users’ co

water users’ associations). he

infrastructure sectors, such as W

and irrigation, have recognized t

have in the operation and manag

sectors and have developed policie

their participation, especially intion and management phases. Bu

opment is weaker in ensuring th

poor and the excluded have voice

local-level decision-making proc

not effectively addressed the rol

and elite capture often has in inf

to and utilization of resources a

these sectors.Policies for public and social au

many sectors (health, WSS, rural

appreciated as these increase down

ability of service providers. Im



from the audits, and monitoring to ensure that

full and correct processes are being implemented.Many policy revisions have focused on improv-

ing access to resources and services, but without

addressing the structural issues that cause the

exclusion of these groups. hus, for example,

the Agriculture Perspective Plan, the overarch-

ing policy framework guiding the agriculture sec-

tor, ignores key land-specific issues, and instead

deals primarily with how to increase immediate

production outputs rather than with strategic

and structural issues related to resource manage-

ment, governance and structural agrarian reform.

In the forest sector, positive provisions are being

increasingly implemented in community for-

estry, which has become more GESI responsive.

But there is no recognition by decision makersthat 75% of the national forests are barred to

civilians—any use is illegal and punitive action is

normal, impacting primarily on women, the poor

and the excluded.

Almost all sectors provide specific support to

women but efforts to address the structural causes

of gender-based discrimination are almost non-existent. Only very recently has the government

developed a national plan of action on gender-

based violence, with the health sector recogniz-

ing violence against women and girls as a public

health issue. But these aspects are not integrated

in the policies developed in other sectors—for

instance, the seed policy in the agriculture sector

is considered liberal, but does not recognize thatseed transactions are male dominated, and by

men of higher-income groups. Similarly, in the

forest and WSS sectors, affirmative action poli-

cies are in place to ensure the representation of

bodies and increasing access to sectoral re

with far less recognition of the structurof division of labor, including the imp

of gender-specific responsibilities of c

breast-feeding and taking care of the il

are almost no policies that provide wom

sufficient support to manage such resp

ties alongside professional growth.

In no sector have government agencie

defined who constitute the “excluded,”

interchangeable use of terminology deno

“excluded,” the “disadvantaged” and the

alized” creates confusion. here are pr

for women, Dalits and Janajatis (e.g., for

ships, representation and access to fund

have thus been recognized as excluded

but there is hardly any mention of other groups (e.g., Muslims, other backward c

OBCs, and Madhesis) or effort to add

causes of their exclusion. here are on

sectoral policies mandating sex- and ca

nicity/location-disaggregated data and a

evidence for monitoring. For example,

cation and health sectors’ management ition systems (MIS) have limited disagg

though a pilot for reporting caste/ethni

aggregated data is ongoing in health.

est sector’s recently revised MIS inco

GESI-sensitive indicators, but these s

to be implemented. However, positive e

and initiatives do exist in several program

in the forest sector, the Livelihoods and Program (LFP) has established liveliho

social inclusion monitoring, which n

demands disaggregated data but also an

outcome levels for different social group





knowledge, but by other means that build under-

standing and increase the internalization of equal-ity, inclusion and social justice principles. A major

part of this will need to be based on an improved

understanding among policy-makers, administra-

tors and sector employees of the specific barriers

preventing different social groups from accessing

and using services and resources as well as a com-

mitment within the respective sectors to develop,

budget, implement and monitor mechanisms and

processes to overcome these barriers.

1.3.3 National and institutional mechanisms

for gender equality and social inclusion

he government has created various institu-

tional mechanisms and structures over the years

to address gender and inclusion issues, from thecentral to the district and VDC levels.

Central level

he National Planning Commission (NPC)

has a Social Development Division responsible

for addressing women’s empowerment issues.

NPC’s Agriculture and Rural InfrastructureDevelopment Division has the responsibil-

ity to work on social inclusion. he Ministry of

Women, Children and Social Welfare (MWCSW)

has been implementing women-focused programs

targeted at reaching disadvantaged and marginalized

groups such as children, senior citizens and peo-

ple with disabilities. hrough its Department of

Women’s Development, the Ministry has wom-en’s development offices in 75 districts managed

by Women’s Development Officers (WDOs).

MLD, responsible for social inclusion, has a

Dalit and Adivasi Janajati coordination commit-

through improved protection o

Finally, while gender focal pointin NPC and all ministries and de

mandated to work on gender iss

been unable to deliver effectively d

reasons, including their lack of

absence of any institutionalized li

their gender mandate and the ma

ministries as well as having no spe

or resources for gender-related wo

District level

WDOs are present in each

the Department of Women’s

MWCSW, where they head

Development Office and are man

stream gender and child rights iDDCs have a social committee

Development Officer, who is a

as the gender focal point for t

whole. Various watchdog commi

formed, such as the Indigenous

Coordination Committee and

Upliftment District Coordinatiowith representation from po

he Gender Mainstreaming

Committee (GMCC), under the W

representation from line agencies

monitoring and coordinating distr

work. he GESI Implementatio

formed by the GESI strategy of L

(with the Local Development Othe WDO as vice-chair, the socia

officer as member-secretary, an

tion of GMCC, Dalit and Janaja

committees, and district-level N



established at higher levels but most have

experienced inadequate resources and weak institutional mechanisms, and thus have not

been effective in protecting and furthering the

GESI cause. In addition, there are overlaps

between MWCSW and the National Women’s

Commission and only minimal efforts have been

made to coordinate between the different com-

missions and the representative institutions of

women, Dalits and Janajatis for collaborative

efforts on gender and social inclusion.

VDC/municipality level

While there is no institutional mechanism with

specific responsibility for GESI in VDCs or

municipalities, the representative Integrated

Planning Committees in each VDC are sup-posed to have members representing the inter-

ests of women, Janajatis, Dalits and NGOs, as

mandated in the VDC Grant Operation Manual,

and also have the general responsibility of ensur-

ing that these issues are addressed. A potentially

very effective new structure, established by the

VDC Grant Operation Manual and GESI strat-egy of LGCDP/MLD 2009, are the village and

ward citizens’ forums. hese create spaces for

all citizens, including women, the poor and the

excluded, to discuss, negotiate, prioritize and

coordinate development efforts, and especially

the allocation of block grants in their area, ensur-

ing that they are both inclusive and equitable.

A supervisory/monitoring committee has beenmandated by the LGCDP/MLD GESI strategy.

his mechanism has the responsibility to moni-

tor GESI-related aspects of projects/programs.

Finally, there are a number of community groups,

Sectoral issues

Responsibility for GESI in the sectorsrently with the gender focal points,

discussed above, have not been able to wo

tively. Some sectors (agriculture, educa

forest) have institutional structures to

GESI issues specifically—for instan

Gender Equity and Environment Divisio

the Ministry of Agriculture and Coo

(MOAC) and the Gender Equity Deve

Section and Inclusive Education Sectio

the Department of Education. he

Equity and Environment Division ha

narrow focus on gender and, in gener

when their mandate is broader and cove

excluded groups these GESI institution

tures do not have much influence on cies and programs of their respective m

For one, the high turnover in governm

in ministries/departments results in ch

the political will and commitment towar

issues. For example, there have been

changes of staff charged with the role o

nating the Gender Equity Working Grouis meant to facilitate the implementatio

GESI strategy in the forest sector. his

turnover in the leadership has decreased t

tiveness of this group. he Ministry o

and Population (MOHP) has planned

lish a GESI unit, but this is still in proce

Clearly defined responsibilities for an

unit, and routine working procedures lthe main activities in the sector, are esse

these structures to be useful. Additiona

ignated gender focal points, or even th

unit in general, need to have the technic




p

limited. Additionally, systems have not been

revised to enable them to do their work (e.g.,

planning and monitoring processes/formats do

not demand GESI mainstreaming). Although

all sectors include GESI issues in their policies,

strategies, and procedures, there are no sanc-tions for not achieving or improving GESI out-

comes in the sector. he broader institutional

culture might also not encourage (or, indeed,

might actively discourage) GESI issues being

raised or taken seriously. In the forest sector, for

example, some government staff reported that

other staff would simply laugh if they brought

up social issues in a meeting. As such, transform-ing institutional culture clearly requires adopting

innovative ways (e.g., appreciative inquiry, peer

monitoring) to internalize and institutionalize

GESI-sensitive thinking and behavior.

been historic

(Social IncluGroup 20098

needed to m

files more i

regard to wom

from exclude

to develop hu

policies that a

inclusion sensof personnel

ment in the se

finds the follow

Diversity sta

there are 41,1

bers (of who

women, i.e., the sectors

Compared to

population,10 there is overrep

Brahmins/Chhetris and Newars

marily in key decision-making po

an equal proportion of OBCs (m

gazetted technical positions), whi

groups are underrepresented (Fig

here are 4,594 staff at the ga

whom 7.27% are women. Amon

Brahmins/Chhetris comprise th

69.22%, and Dalits the fewest at

he highest presence of women12

class non-gazetted positions (

which are in the health sector as midwives and mother-and-child h

Figure 1.5).

Across sectors, the highest p

women is in health, at 28.54%, an

Figure 1.4: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Per sonnel in Seven Sectors

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; assessment by study team.

Muslim (1%)

OBC (15%)

B/C Madhesi (3%)

Name not mentioned (2%)

Dalit Hill (1%)

Dalit Madhesi (1%)

Janajati Hill (9%)

B/C Hill (56%)

Janajati Tarai (4%)

Newar (8%)



degree to which government funding f

issues is channeled through targeted pro

integrated into mainstream programs.

NPC issues guidelines directing minis

line agencies in the formulation of their

budgets. In close coordination with the

of Finance (MOF), NPC identifies the m

specific and sector-specific budget. ernment’s annual budget speech presen

types of analysis of the budget from a

and inclusion perspective: expenditures

port of “inclusive development and targe

tation in education. Similarly, Hill Dalits have

better representation in rural infrastructure and

Madhesi Dalits in agriculture as compared to

other sectors.

1.3.4 Gender-responsive budgeting and

gender equality and social inclusion

budgeting his section analyzes allocations/expenditures of

the government and programs’ budget to exam-

ine the extent to which resources are being spent

on sector activities that are expected in some

Figure 1.5: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Personnel by Level, Sex, Caste and Ethnicity

Note: DHF/M—Dalit Hill female/male; DMF/M—Dalit Madhesi female/male; JOHF/M—Janajati others Hill female/maothers Tarai female/male; JNF/M—Janajati Newar female/male; BCHF/M—Brahmin/Chhetri Hill female/male; BCMF/Madhesi female/male; OMF/M—OBC Madhesi groups female/male; MF/M—Muslim female/male.

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; grouped for the study based on GSEA caste/ethnic groupings.

DHF JOHF JNF BCMFDMF JOTF BCHF OMFDHM JOHM JNM BCMMDMM JOTM BCHM

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless




Indicators are not specified for inclusive devel-

opment/targeted programs, but there are indi-

cators for GRB13

and pro-poor budgeting.14

Our discussions with Ministry and line agency

staff, however, indicate that the guidelines are

not clear, and that, as noted earlier, it is typi-

cally left to the budget officer to categorize and

score the various budget lines to the best of his

(it is primarily men) understanding. Some of

the ministries were not even aware of the inclu-

sive development and targeted program analysis

while at the district level none of the line agen-

cies had applied these budgeting processes. he

budget speech of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010

categorized high percentages of expenditures in

all sectors as pro-poor and gender responsive, but

with low expenditures for inclusive development

and targeted programming (able 1.1).Since the scoring and indicators were not

clear for the other two kinds of budgeting, we

have focused on reviewing the government’s

GRB indicators, identifying what sub-indicators

grams and projects, while a GRB

been formed within the budget div

with representation from MWNPC and UN Women.

According to the GRB guidel

posed program in the sector ha

as per the indicators developed b

responsive Budgeting Committee

aspects of gender sensitivity (partic

ity building, benefit sharing, incr

employment and income-earning

and reduction in women’s worklo

allocated 20 potential marks each. F

item/activity, the officer doing the

assess what percentage of the expe

benefits women. Programs scorin

more are classified as directly respon

those scoring 20 to 50 as indirectlythose scoring less than 20 as neutr

Sector staff categorize all exp

in the sectoral budget into these t

based on the five indicators of g

Table 1.1: Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget of the Governm2009-2010

Sector

FY 2009-2010 budget

(in ‘000Nepalirupees)

Inclusivedevelopment andtargeted programs

Gender-responsive budget

Allocation %Directly

supportive%

Indirectly supportive

% Total % A

Agriculture 7,876,587 333,900 4.24 2,015,617 25.59 5,587,704 70.94 7,603,321 96.53

Education 46,616,672 18,368,433 39.40 1,300,659 2.79 22,187,486 47.60 23,488,145 50.39 4

Forest 3,449,974 60,453 1.75 71,880 2.08 1,826,637 52.95 1,898,517 55.03

Health 17,840,466 - - 7,156,379 40.11 10,243,816 57.42 17,400,195 97.53 1

Irrigation 7,761,390 - - 7,500 0.10 7,103,102 91.52 7,110,602 91.62Ruralinfrastructure

35,693,647 4,280,025 11.99 12,996,863 36.41 12,588,029 35.27 25,584,892 71.68 3

Water andsanitation

29,500,624 - - 6,806,427 23.07 18,740,825 63.53 25,547,252 86.60 1

Source: Annexes 8a, 8b, and 8c, Annual Budget, Government of Nepal, FY 2009-2010.



tend to be better at capturing expenditures for

targeted women’s programs than at picking upexpenditures for efforts made in universal pro-

grams to mainstream GESI. Finally, of course,

the GRB exercise focuses only on gender and

does not capture expenditures aimed at increas-

ing outreach to excluded groups.

Gender equality and social inclusion budget

analysisWhile we have assessed the existing GRB prac-

tice and indicators used, and identified possible

sub-indicators for GRB analysis in the differ-

ent sectors, we have also developed and applied

our own tentative GESI budgeting methodol-

ogy.17 his is intended to capture expenditures

that reach and support excluded groups andthose that support women. Although there is

no single rule about how to determine whether

public expenditure is discriminatory or equality

enhancing, there are some general principles dis-

cussed in gender-budgeting literature, which we

have adapted.18 Our efforts here are intended as a

first step to identifying the approximant resource

flows to these different purposes; but much

more work and wider consultation are needed.

We hope that this initial attempt can become

the basis for further collective work with MOF,

the Gender-responsive Budgeting Com

sectoral ministries, donor agencies suchWomen, and NGOs which are inter

tracking budget expenditures.

Again, the GESI budget analysis

what activities have been planned/impl

that provide direct, indirect and neutral

to women, the poor and excluded socia

to address the barriers they experience in

ing resources and benefits from the sechave followed the GRB practice of usi

categories but have not followed the GR

cators as they have not been very eff

application across the sectors. he GES

analysis was carried out at two levels. F

assessed national-level expenditures in th

using the above criteria. We reviewed a22 programs and two annual plans (se

1.1 for the list of budgets reviewed). Our

resulted in the breakdown shown in ab

he next step was to move to the distr

to ground both the national-level GR

get exercise and our own GESI analysi

districts,19 Kavre and Morang. We first

with the line agency staff to assess the

approach to GRB they were using in e

tor. In consultations at the district level

shared which indicators were relevant

Table 1.2: Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Seven Sectors (Total oIncluding Direct and Indirect Contributions

S.N. Sector Total Nepali rupees

(000) (programs) Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location

1 Agriculture 1,622,500.0 1.64 45.00

2 Education 14,936,192.0 6.91 14.46 5.61 3.52 11.55

3 Forest 3,449,974.0 0.49 4.83 0.63

4 Healtha 13,254,910.0 18.41 15.74 2.72

5 Irrigation 2,411,912.9 4.23 80.04 3.93 3.93 1.72 1.65

6 R l i f t t b 14 279 739 0 9 99 38 27 1 45




the gender responsiveness of items in the sec-

toral budgets. hey said that they were aware

of a number of positive policy provisions in

each sector mandating that benefits reach girls/

women, the poor and the excluded, but they felt

that these automatically ensured that the entire

budget would be responsive to women or specific

excluded groups. In reality, this has proven to be

a problematic assumption.

Next, we worked with the line agency staff to

do a GESI analysis of the district-level health

budgets, using directly supportive, indirectly

supportive and neutral categories.20 he results

are shown in able 1.3.

Effort has been made by the different minis-tries/programs to address the barriers for women

and poor groups but for other groups the assump-

tion seems to be that benefits will automatically

reach them through implemented activities. he

structural issues that constrain th

indicates that a more conscious

the need to address such sociocu

erment and governance issues, a

technical sector services, is require

he key issues are the criteria,

process of budget review. Gover

classifies a majority of activities

indirectly contributing to women

ernment directives regarding ser

A deeper analysis, however, ind

activities are budgeted to addre

gender-based barriers women exp

are necessary even within a univer

order that structural barriers are amore even playing field created—

GESI be considered to have been

his also highlights the need for a

analysis so that the budget speech

Table 1.3: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs, Kavre and Mora

S.N. Sector

Total Nepali

rupees(Morang, Kavre)

Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location Disabi

1 Agriculture 63,355,341 12.46 1.35 0.29 0.15

2 Education 1,336,366,884 14.20 5.08 0.08 0.09 0

3 Forest 2,874,100 39.65 22.50

4 Healtha 78,720,450 53.05

5 Irrigation 72,695,000 1.32

6Rural

infrastructureb 142,369,146 - - - - - - -

7Water andsanitationc 132,054,576 0.59 1.59

Total 1,828,435,497 13.25 0.08 3.73 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.

Notes:a Excluding contribution of 0.34-0.42% to Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis.b All items were found neutral, with the district staff arguing that the infrastructure is for everyone and hence cannot be targetedtrue that we cannot build roads for Dalits, for women, etc.c Excluding contribution of 0.10-0.16% to Dalits, Janajatis, adolescents, elderly, disabled.Source: Kavre and Morang annual programs, FY 2008-2009.



address the fact that it is mostly the extreme poor

and often socially excluded groups such as Dalits

who are either excluded or exclude themselves

from joining groups. While groups are indeed a

powerful mechanism to improve access to services

and inputs, relying solely on this model without

assessing its suitability for all presents a significant

risk that those most in need will not gain access.

Overall, our work on gender and inclusion budg-

eting indicates that for effective and systematicbudgeting, more rigorous work has to be done, in

particular with the Gender-responsive Budgeting

Committee. here has to be a consensus to take

gender and inclusion budgeting together; exist-

ing indicators and sub-indicators for GRB need

to be revised and sharpened; unique issues of

social groups need to be addressed; and the pro-cess must be improved, so that it is not left to the

understanding of just one desk officer.

1.3.5 Program responses: Gender equality

and social inclusion approaches

his section highlights the program responses

and efforts across the sectors to promote and

mainstream a more inclusive service-delivery

approach. We also discuss measures and prac-

tices that have been found to be effective and suc-

cessful in improving access to sector services and

livelihood opportunities for women, the poor

and excluded groups—increasing their voice and

influence and supporting changes in the “rules of

the game.”

Increasing access to assets and services

Significant progress has been made in the

service-delivery sectors in increasing outreach

and equity, enhance quality and impr

ciency through scholarships and incen

girls, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis. Still,

ing challenges include effective implem

of the multilingual education policy, m

ing of scholarship distribution, and e

funding to meet the opportunity costs

poorest and most disadvantaged comm

here is also a need to look more caref

the selection procedures and internanance of the school management comm

ensure that they fulfil their potential fo

parents from all groups a say in the ru

their local school.

Likewise, in the health sector, gov

initiatives of pro-poor targeted free he

policies and the Aama (Mother) Progmaternity services have had considerabl

in reducing the economic constraints of

and the social constraints of women, an

ally improving health indicators. he

developed NHSP-IP 2 has various act

address the barriers of women, the poor

excluded, and has made very impressi

with disaggregated objectives and indica

In the infrastructure-related sectors,

water supply has improved substantially

past few decades. However, the low prio

resources accorded to sanitation have re

uneven coverage, especially for the very p

in the arai, where lack of land poses

tional challenge. he construction of ruhas improved access to markets, school

posts, government offices, and so forth, a

provided work opportunities for women

poor in road-building groups. In the irriga




efits from community forestry management and

agricultural extension services and support.

Building voice and influence of excluded groups

Across the sectors, social mobilization as a pro-

cess has been one of the main tools for organizing

people for easier and more efficient transfer of

assets and services, and also for improving reach

and access. Groups (forest users, farmers, moth-

ers, water and sanitation users, etc) are mobilizedfor their labor and financial contributions to sup-

port the implementation, delivery and manage-

ment of services. Policy directives setting quotas

for women and excluded groups have improved

their representation in user groups and executive

committees, which has been important in creat-

ing operational space for the voice and interestsof these groups to be addressed.

However, evidence from the sectoral assess-

ments indicates that these groups are, in many

cases, still highly exclusionary of the extreme

poor and socially disadvantaged groups, often

reflecting and even reinforcing existing power

structures. In addition, although representa-

tion of women is generally high in user groups

and executive committees, their active involve-

ment in decision-making processes is not com-

mensurate with their formal prese

group-based approach to develop

increased access to assets and se

insufficient understanding of and

barriers faced by excluded group

build their capacity to influence

ing processes. In many of these

the approach is more transaction

formational,21 and only in those

REFLEC-type processes (see been adopted has there been effect

ing of voice (e.g., Participatory L

by GZ/GIZ, COPE/PLA [C

Provider Efficient/Participatory

Action] process by Support for Sa

Program/UN Population Fund a

by CARE/Nepal Family Health PSome notable networks and fe

been able to advocate successfull

their members. he Federation

Forest Users has become an im

cal player throughout the coun

Federation of Water and San

Nepal and Nepal Federation of

Association are additional examp

ety groups organizing and mobil

to voice their interests, influence p

sion makers as well as demand

and transparency from service p

United Nations Children’s Fun

supported women’s federations

committees are a force to be recmany districts. Still, even in these

ond-tier organizations, importan

regarding inclusion and diversity

bership, decision-making positio

Box 1.1: What is a REFLECT circle?

REFLECT circle is a forum where the disadvantaged are

brought together to identify, analyse and take actions on issues

that directly affect them. The main purpose of the circle is the

empowerment of the poor and the excluded. The facilitator of the circle helps educate members on their rights and support

them to take actions to ensure access to services. It helps build

the capacity of members to advocate and lobby for their rights.

The circle not only takes up issues of the disadvantaged, it also

encourages members to fight for the rights of the community



face in accessing assets and services. he forest sec-

tor, for instance, has made notable progress in this

area by addressing GESI issues in sector program-

ming and operational practice. LFP’s pro-poor

and social inclusion strategy has been effective

in developing a common understanding of social

exclusion issues as well as strategic approaches to

deal with them. Similarly, the health and educa-

tion sectors have been progressive through the

previously mentioned NHSP-IP 2, Educationfor All and SSRP policies. However, the infor-

mal “rules of the game”—the sociocultural values,

beliefs and attitudes that underlie and shape dis-

criminatory behavior and norms—continue to

play a strong and influential role in creating barri-

ers for women, the poor and excluded groups. It is

in this area that substantive efforts are needed toovercome deep-seated resistance to changing dis-

criminatory practices, both in the workplace and

in community groups. Behavior change without

systemic structural change in sector institutions,

communities and families will continue to repro-

duce the current gap between good policies and

poor implementation. Unfortunately, however,

sufficient and sustained work along these lines was

not evident in any sector.

1.3.6 Monitoring and reporting

Ministries, including MLD, report on M&E

formats issued by NPC (specifically the Poverty

Monitoring Division, which has the key respon-

sibility to work in this area). For effective GESImainstreaming, integrating gender and social

inclusion into M&E systems is crucial. NPC

has established a system of gender coding for the

10th Plan/PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy

in 22 districts and could potentially be

for poverty monitoring in the new fede

once these are determined. But, at pres

ther system is actively used.

o a certain extent, the education an

sectoral information management syst

provide disaggregated information. h

tion sector has the most well-establishe

of monitoring and reporting, providin

prehensive, high-quality and disaggregaby sex and caste/ethnic group on, amo

things, student enrolment and numbers,

and non-teaching staff, student attenda

scholarship allocation. However, it only

gates social groups by Dalit and Janajati

differentiating the subgroups within whi

are more disadvantaged than others. Morcategories do not capture groups like the

other backward classes/OBCs or Muslim

of which have low education outcomes a

to be tracked. Similarly, the current mo

mechanisms of the health sector collect

age-disaggregated data, but information

vice utilization by the poor and the exc

not integrated. he sector is piloting ca

nicity-disaggregated data but managing su

amounts of data has been challenging.

he WSS, forest and agriculture

maintain disaggregated data on member

participation of women in the user grou

mittees and key decision-making positio

also disaggregating user-group data by cnicity. he MFSC also incorporates mo

indicators sensitive to gender, poverty a

equity in its MIS, but this needs to b

mented more systematically. In the fore




lack of disaggregated indicators or inclusive objec-

tive statements. Only in the recent NHSP-IP 2

(health) is there consistent demand for disag-

gregated data at the results level, or for measur-

ing any shift in sociocultural behavior. In SSRP

(education) there is a gap, with very little demand

for disaggregated measurements of progress as

the indicators are mostly quantitative and neutral

from a GESI perspective. Still, many programs do

have indicators for representation by women andexcluded communities in various groups and com-

mittees. Nepal Water and Health, for instance,

has very well-disaggregated indicators, e.g., “At

least 90% of completed projects [in which 90% of

the beneficiaries are the poor and the excluded]

remain fully functional 3 years after the project’s

completion.”he sectoral M&E review indicates that there

are efforts at collecting disaggregated data and

that sex-disaggregated data are most commonly

requested. But consistent disaggregation against

all social groups with regional identities (women

and men of Hill and Madhesi Dalits, Adivasi

Janajatis [except Newars], Newars, Muslims,

OBCs, Hill and Madhesi Brahmins/Chhetris)

is not followed. here are very few sectors with

examples of an information management system

that can handle such data (probably only LFP

and NSCFP in forestry, and rural WSS). With

NPC formats still not demanding such disaggre-

gation nor asking for progress against outcomes

in disaggregated forms, monitoring and report-ing are a key area for more intense mainstream-

ing of gender and inclusion.

1.3.7 Good practices and lessons learned

Good practices

Improved targeting and inclusion

well-being ranking and proxy mean

cator targeting) provide a powerf

identifying the poor and the exc

gram interventions. Community

ally carry out such rankings the

economic and social indicators

households. In education, this is

by proxy means testing to target tertiary scholarship and work-s

Evidence that this combination h

is still to come in, but there is con

practitioners that it can bring tog

and subjective rankings. his is

target resources and services, an

equitable distribution. he forestesting a combined community-b

means testing approach to identify

households, with independent ve

to standardize approaches and r

confusion at the local level.

Empowerment and community e

mobilization based on individual

empowerment through efforts to u

transform the unjust structures t

everyday lives and livelihoods ha

tive in building the voice of the ex

poor as well as their capacity to

sions. Where communities have

to reflect on the social norms t

untouchability, gender-based disviolence against women, there has b

in access to services and greater

community-level planning for the

REFLEC-type approaches hav



lack of access to information about entitlements,

services and procedures to obtain available

resources is a major component of the exclusion

faced by women, the poor and excluded groups.

Knowledge is power and more educated elite

groups who have time to network in the district

centers and create contacts with local politicians

are more likely to know the details of incoming

development programs or new government poli-

cies—and to use this information to their advan-tage. Setting quorums for key meetings has been

effective in ensuring that all households are ade-

quately represented and informed. If a quorum

is not met, project staff members are required

to cancel meetings until the required number of

households is present.

Building a strong civil society able to representand advocate for changes in the “rules of the

game,” has been a major advance in some of the

sectors (e.g., Federation of Community Forest

Users, Nepal in the forest sector). However,

these organizations and federations also need to

address issues of diversity and inclusion within

their own structures, where representation of

excluded caste and ethnic groups is typically low.

Another danger with such NGOs or second-tier

groups is that they can be captured by political

parties.

Policy directives for representation/participation.

Setting quotas for women and excluded groups

in user groups/committees, along with creating

training opportunities, has ensured their rep-resentation and participation in development

activities as well as strengthened their access to

resources and benefits. Still, further efforts are

needed to reach socially excluded groups and

entry. hese policies (such as those ado

NSCFP) have improved inclusiveness in

ual organizations and among partners, id

groups to be prioritized, established ben

for diverse representation in staff catego

followed up with affirmative action to

people from discriminated groups un

representation in various staff categori

mittees and working teams is ensured, r

their representation of Nepal’s populatioChanging internal budgeting and mo

systems to track resource allocation ef

women, the poor and the excluded h

successfully employed by a number

grams. his has positively evolved the

which these institutions allocate and

services and enabled programs to idencauses of changes in livelihood and soci

sion outcomes. LFP (through its liv

and social inclusion monitoring) uses t

domains (see Figure 1.3) of change

change in voice, influence and agency, a

assets and services, and also whether t

and excluded have been able to change

and institutions in their favor.

Social accountability mechanisms. Soci

and similar tools have provided in

opportunities for civil society, includi

munity groups, to press for greater acco

ity and responsiveness from service p

hese have become accepted tools a

cesses, but still need to be implementeffectively, with meaningful participatio

women, the poor and the excluded, a

follow-up actions that demonstrate the

participation.




require coherence of interventions at many lev-

els and across many sectors. For example, simply

providing low-quality leasehold land is insuf-

ficient to bring people out of poverty when the

initial investments to improve productivity are

large and require time to deliver benefits. For the

extreme poor, this could lead to an increase in

livelihood insecurity and vulnerability.

Behavior change is required to overcome deep-

seated resistance to changing discriminatorypractices in both the workplace and community

groups among those who have benefited from

these practices. But changes in the behavior of

a small number of well-meaning individuals

will still leave gaps between well-intentioned

policies and actual implementation. Changes

in incentives for staff working in the sectorsare also needed. Overcoming deep-set informal

resistance to social inclusion and changing dis-

criminatory and indifferent attitudes of service

providers remain two of the greatest challenges

facing all sectors.

Social mobilization and facilitation processes

need to focus on empowerment not only on

increasing access to assets and services. here is

a need to build understanding of the rights and

responsibilities of individuals as citizens to have

a voice in decisions and a share in benefits. When

this approach is used, groups are more sustain-

able and generally continue functioning after the

project or program intervention is over to take up

new activities of concern to members.Sociocultural constraints on women are strong

and thus it is necessary to work on shifting gen-

der-based power relations both in the workplace

and in communities at large. Compared to men,

resources and associated benefits.

be based on analysis rooted in an

of the unequal power relations cr

caste, ethnicity and gender, whi

addressed by any support provide

Policy mandates and affirmativ

sions are necessary for resources to

the poor and the excluded along

cal commitment required for im

During the implementation proneed to be understood and addr

reasons causing the failure need to

and acted upon.

Increased formal representation

matically lead to increased voice. A

has been significant representatio

user groups/committees, they stsufficient voice in these groups. h

is limited at meetings, they rarel

and when they do, they are ofte

to. he same is often true of D

excluded groups whose presence

donor or government funding req

real change, capacity building an

shifts in discriminatory practices

and need to be directed not only

but all members of the group/u

Also necessary for any effective

formal structures such as user gro

and power-focused analysis to un

these structures interact with info

and systems.Targeted interventions are impo

needs to be integrated into mainst

and services. hough equity-relate

extent, inclusion issues are cap



tion,” the focus remains solely on disability and is

separated from the gender equality section. his

reveals a limited understanding of what it means

to mainstream GESI in a sectoral program.

Institutionalizing gender and inclusion in bud-

geting requires further clarity and capacity. he

methodology and process for the government’s

gender-responsive budgeting are not clear

enough. he current indicators are not adequate

for analysis across sectors and it is not clear thatthe current post-allocation analysis adds value

at either the sectoral or MOF level. here also

seems to be an implicit bias in the point alloca-

tion system towards smaller, targeted, women-

only projects and programs rather than genuine

integration of women’s needs and constraints

into mainstream sector programs. In addition,the approach lacks a wider inclusion dimension

that, with very little additional effort, could allow

it to track expenditures benefiting other excluded

groups using the same basic process. Clear, con-

sistent guidelines on process and analytical cat-

egories are urgently needed.

Institutional structures for GESI need to be made

functional and integrated into the core products and

services provided by the sector. Institutionally,

just creating structures is insufficient, as dem-

onstrated by the position of the gender focal

points within the sectoral ministries. Rather,

for any such position to be influential, it must

be integrated into the sector’s core systems and

organizational structure. he GESI functionshould be assigned to the planning and monitor-

ing division of each ministry and ultimately be

the responsibility of its chief. he responsibility

should be backed with resources to bring in or

services, other actions are required in

such as education (e.g., building awarene

infrastructure (e.g., road and trail ne

modes of transport services (e.g., availa

stretchers, public transport), water and

tion, and access to finances (e.g., com

level emergency funds).

1.4 Mainstreaming Gender Equal

Social Inclusion: The Way FoIn Section 1.2 we discussed the steps

mainstreaming and the three domains o

and explained any questions or queries

section, common measures on main

ing GESI in the sectors are grouped un

framework of three stages: identifying; de

implementation; and monitoring and r(and response to the findings through ch

project implementation). As has been illu

gender-, caste-, ethnicity-, and locatio

exclusion are complex interlinked iss

cannot be addressed in isolation. o res

this complexity, multipronged measures

essary for mainstreaming, as reflected in

gestions made here.

Step 1: Identifying the barriers

Analyze existing power relations and the fo

informal institutions that enforce and p

social and economic inequalities. Gender

ity and social exclusion in the sectors ar

to the wider sociocultural and politico-econtext. First, identify the key socioe

constraints and harmful social and

practices that limit access to sector r

and assets for women, the poor and the




work with these systems and try to improve them

so they can deliver services more effectively. Yet,

it is generally recognized that changing any of

these “rules” upsets some stakeholders, and this

is why there always needs to be awareness of the

“political economy” of the individual projects/

programs. Likewise, the more “informal” insti-

tutions, which are deeply embedded in values,

beliefs and norms, can also block change, and

thus need to be considered. Some—like thegender system or caste hierarchy—are so deeply

ingrained that people often follow them without

even being aware that they are doing so. On the

other hand, not all these traditional values are

negative or exclusionary, and many can indeed be

a strong source of renewal and positive change.

he GESI framework is a tool to increase thechances that the changes we want to bring can

actually happen on the ground. GESI requires us

to look at both formal and informal systems. o

identify barriers, we need to look in two areas:

first, how the formal project systems are likely

to work for different groups of people. his will

bring us to the second layer, to see how informal

systems might be distorting the way the formal

systems work for some individuals and groups.

So, when we try to “identify barriers,” we are

actually uncovering whole systems that keep

some individuals and groups from gaining equal

access to universal services and benefits that the

project/program we are supporting is intended

to deliver.Assessing GESI in existing policy, programs,

budgeting and M&E. It is important to assess

the existing policy mandates that provide the

space to work on GESI issues in the sectors, and

are being addressed—and the

weaknesses of the current appro

political economy and governan

to be understood: their implicatio

tor in general and for women, th

excluded in particular. Further, th

to be reviewed through a GESI l

how positive policy and progra

sions are being resourced, and to

for improvement. Finally, an assesbe carried out to determine whe

system is capturing changes in a

manner, and on issues that are of

tance to increasing access to servi

the poor and the excluded. As gen

sion issues are linked to wider g

management systems, a GESI assbring up issues that could be cons

as beyond its scope. But these asp

to be understood for their impact

poor and the excluded.

Steps 2 and 3: Design and imple

GESI mainstreaming requires

program plans must consciously

address, at each stage, the cons

enced by women, the poor and th

must build on their existing streng

Address policy and organizationa

he aim here is to focus more on

organizational level and how GESbetter addressed in program/proj

Support and strengthen GESI

Programs/projects are applying

policies, but overarching policy gui



Promote diversity in service providers. he num-

ber of women and people from excluded groups

working in the sectors varies but is generally

low, highlighting a need for affirmative action.

his will require long-term investments through

scholarships as well as individual coaching to

prepare technically qualified women and people

from excluded social groups. Measures to create

a supportive working environment, like childcare

or flexible timings and safety from sexual har-assment, can be very effective in attracting and

retaining women professionals. But little thought

seems to have been given to how to open the way

for other groups like Dalits or Muslims so that

they feel comfortable and perform well in the

workplace.

Develop skilled service providers to deliver GESI-sensitive services. Support for main-

streaming of GESI issues in tertiary and techni-

cal institutions will build the technical capacity

of professionals. GESI-sensitive messages also

need to be integrated into related training

affecting the sector.

GESI in job descriptions and strengthening GESI

arrangements. Work needs to be done with the

Ministry of General Administration (now called

the Ministry of Human Resource Development)

for revision of job descriptions of all positions to

integrate GESI-related tasks. GESI units and

desks are required in the ministries, their depart-

ments and district-level divisions/departments

to provide technical support for mainstreaming gender and inclusion in the sectors. his is also

necessary in programs that have not provided

dedicated responsibilities to identified structures.

Mechanisms for coordination between these dif-

work. Gender and social development sp

need to have the relevant technical exp

respond to and guide technical staff on

mainstream GESI while technical staff m

need to be able to respond to social issu

to their technical work.

GRB and GESI budgeting. GESI bu

as a tool, can identify the kinds of activit

geted/spent for but the government’s

budgeting criteria and process require rebe more effective. GESI budget analysi

not be done only after the program h

designed and funds allocated; rather, it

done simultaneously with program devel

to ensure that activities/subprojects to

the barriers constraining access to ser

women, the poor and the excluded are idand an adequate sum allocated in the bu

work plans. Likewise, activity planning a

geting must be linked to disaggregated

the information generated from the use

such as poverty mapping, social mapp

gender analysis.

Designing program/project responses

Balance targeted and universal action.

activities are necessary to address spec

straints or issues of women, the poor

excluded, e.g., special initiatives to build

of women farmers to become traders/e

neurs in agribusiness, or specific finan

vices to increase access to credit of the advocacy with men regarding empower

women. But these need to contribute t

versal program, addressing structural co

blocking groups from accessing resou




at each step of the project cycle, and monitor

investments in the sector.

Mechanisms to encourage greater downward

accountability need to be strengthened. Across

sectors, state and non-state actors are more

accountable upwards than downwards towards

the community, and these include NGOs and

community-based organizations (i.e., support

organizations) that are partnering with govern-

ment and donors to implement tasks such associal mobilization, needs identification, etc.

heir agreements demand reporting to project

supervisors and donors with hardly any mecha-

nism to ensure accountability towards the people

they are supposed to serve. GESI performance

incentives need to be developed and included in

the evaluations of support organizations.Longer-term investment in the capacity build-

ing of women, the poor and excluded members to

enable them to participate more effectively in

executive committees and groups is necessary.

his requires building the leadership abilities of

members of these groups.

Harmonize working approaches across programs

at the local level to minimize beneficiary transaction

costs. he formation of multiple groups by differ-

ent projects/programs and varied requirements

and working approaches adopted by different

actors increase the time burden of women, the

poor and the excluded, who have to attend mul-

tiple group meetings. his could be addressed

if VDCs play their coordinating role better andensure that the neediest receive services, but

this would demand a disaggregated database

and information about the current situation of

women, the poor and the excluded, and their

natory beliefs and norms. Likew

project information and docume

translated into local languages to

groups understand the processes,

lations to access services, assets,

other benefits.

Steps 4 and 5: Monitor and Adj

Implementation

Monitoring and reporting

Many sectors are disaggregating d

caste/ethnicity. But the focus is on

number of women trained) and o

capacity to track GESI outcomes

Some potential improvements are

Disaggregated monitoring and repwhat each project/program is c

assist women, the poor and the ex

be established across the sectors.

lenging at the national level as NP

and reporting formats, which all

to follow, do not demand disaggre

tion. Additionally the “three dom

framework is very useful for trackoutcome levels, and could usefully

as a routine practice by NPC.

Objectives and indicators need

gated by sex and caste/ethnicity.

programming must be based on

information and evidence. With N

PRA (Participatory Rural Apprawell-being ranking, labor/access/

resource mapping, etc) must be u

at the community level to identif

map existing social and power rel



acute exclusion. PMAS needs to be revised and

its implementation strengthened. Monitoring

and reporting formats must be standardized

with disaggregation. Sectors and programs will

need to monitor their investments, and hence

have more detailed indicators and monitoring

systems. But they must all contribute to the indi-

cators incorporated in PMAS.

Community monitoring and social accountabil-

ity mechanisms should be institutionalized withinthe M&E system. Social and public audits have

become accepted tools and processes, and need to

be improved in implementation. o ensure this,

social mobilization may be necessary until the

process of giving this kind of feedback becomes

a familiar activity for the excluded. his requires

a carefully facilitated process to ensure that allsocial groups participate, that proper service

evaluation occurs, and that useful understanding

is developed and acted upon.

Good practices and lessons learned need to be

documented and shared by sector actors through

donor coordination groups, and perhaps through

the Social Inclusion Action Group, a group of

practitioner agencies. Enhanced capacity to pre-pare case studies that document and analyze pos-

itive pro-inclusion processes will accelerate the

pace of change.

Monitoring and evaluation teams must be inclu-

sive and must have people with technical com-

petence about gender and social inclusion in the

sector. he terms of reference of the M&E teamsmust specifically demand deliverables that have

addressed GESI issues.

Adjust implementation

the project to achieve its objectives. If th

sion indicators show that some of the i

outcomes are not emerging as expected

groups are not getting their share of

project management needs to diagnose

is so and work with staff and project par

to develop mechanisms to change the situ

soon as possible.

he seven sectors covered in this ser

made significant progress in increasing thipation of women, the poor and exclude

in development efforts, but rather une

gress in addressing structural causes of

caste/ethnicity-based discrimination and

social exclusion. However, the current d

on inclusive development provides an op

time to learn from sectoral experience atowards more inclusive practices, as thes

can be adopted and mainstreamed across

tors and institutionalized within governm

non-government structures alike.

As has been noted, to institutionaliz

each sector will need to address th

issues uniquely facing women, the p

the excluded: the underlying structuraof their limited participation, voice a

low influence over decision-making p

the reasons behind ongoing inequitab

to resources and assets; and the need

responsive processes that address the

needs of specific social groups. At an

tional level, a variety of common issuesbe addressed, including lack of staff d

ineffective gender focal points; and limi

gration of GESI principles in core secto

ning, budgeting and monitoring processe




Notes1 According to the Interim Constitution and hree-Year Interim Plan, excluded groups refer to thos

enced exclusion historically and have not been mainstreamed in the nation’s development: women, DalitMadhesis, Muslims, people living with disabilities, and people from geographically remote areas.

2 his framework has been adapted from Naila Kabeer’s social relations analysis framework (Kabeer

informed and refined by the GSEA framework. Field-level experience of professionals has contributed to

in Nepal for program design, evaluation studies, and gender equality and social inclusion mainstreaming

LGCDP/MLD, and in various other program/NGO strategies.

3 In a national program, mapping the local political economy of the sector in a sample of the different type

program would be implemented would provide us with enough to go on.

4 his section draws from the LGCDP/MLD gender equality and social inclusion operational strategy (200

2 of that document for a more detailed analysis of policy and institutional frameworks.5 his has recently been approved as the GESI policy of MLD.

6 Such as categorization of Janajati groups into endangered, highly marginalized and marginalized, and prior

accordingly; disaggregated information about users; information to users regarding resources before approval

33% women and representation of Dalit, Janajati and deprived groups in user committees; allocation of up to 3%

estimates for capacity building and overhead costs of user committees; participatory monitoring by users;

complaints at VDCs about the implementation of the project.

7 As has been directed by MLD for the VDC-level integrated planning committees.

8 his publication reviews the workforce diversity profile of 30 international agencies working in Nepal.

9 Records of civil servants maintained by the Department of Civil Personnel Records (Nijamati KitabkhanaGeneral Administration were reviewed and disaggregated according to surname and place of permanent resid

were those developed by the WB Social Inclusion Index development team, and caste/ethnicity groupings w

Census. his process can be erroneous to a certain extent, as some surnames are common to different social

ciate that a participatory process facilitated by the Nijamati Kitabkhana for the self-identification of employee

10 he national population as of Census 2001 was Brahmin and Chhetri 32.5%; Janajati (excluding Newar)

Dalit 13%; Muslim 4.3%, OBCs 14%; and others 1.4%.

11 Gazetted is the highest category of officers, appointed through national open competition. Non-ga

appointed by the head of department to support gazetted officers. Within the gazetted and non-gazetted,

of special, first-, second-, and third-class officers. he classless officers are support staff.

12 Of the total 72,939 civil personnel in the government as of February 2010, only 12% were women. Of

gazetted officers, 57.4% were non-gazetted, and 30.4% were without grade (Nijamati Kitabkhana records

13 he three prescribed categories are direct contribution, indirect contribution and neutral. Each sub-activi

of 1, 2 or 3, considering the percentage of contribution to women. he formula for coding has five indica

20%: capacity building of women, women’s participation in planning process and implementation, wome

sharing, support for women’s employment and income generation, and qualitative progress in the use of

reducing women’s workload (eAWPB 1.0 Operating Manual, 2009). In order to measure these catego

five qualitative indicators were assigned quantitative values of equal denomination, totaling 100. Direct g

indicates more than 50% of the allocation directly benefiting women, indirect gender contribution indic

allocation benefiting women, and the neutral category indicates less than 20% of the allocation benefiti

gradually being used by ministries such as the Health Ministry but due to difficulties in the application of

not seem relevant to all the sectors, this has not been fully used by all.

14 Indicators for the pro-poor budget are investment in rural sector; income-generation program in ru

enhancement program in rural areas; budget allocated for social mobilization; expenditure focusing on

t f l l b di i l it d i t t i i l t ( i ll f d ti



18 We are adapting from gender budgeting initiatives that have aimed to assess the impact of government expend

revenues, using three-way categorization of gender-specific expenditure, equal opportunity expenditure and gener

ture (the rest), considered in terms of its gendered impact (Budlender and Sharp 1998).19 Implemented budgets of districts were reviewed to assess actual expenditure and its effect on addressing the

women, the poor and the excluded. Program budgets of the current year were reviewed to assess allocations.

20 Directly supportive (i.e., targeted to provide direct support to women, the poor and the excluded); indirectly

(contributing to creating an enabling environment, supporting in any manner the access of women and the e

services, or addressing the structural difficulties confronting them); and neutral.

21 Jha et al, 2009.




CHAPTER 2

Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Making it Happen in Forestry




2.1 IntroductionNearly 80% of Nepali rural households derive

some or all of their livelihood from the forestry

sector. For some, their livelihoods are totally

dependent on access to forest products; for

others, forests provide important household

products, inputs to agriculture, income and envi-

ronmental services. Forests account for approxi-

mately 40% of the total national land area in

Nepal (nearly 5.5 million hectares). It is one of the major productive resources: it contributes

around 10% to Nepal’s gross domestic product

(GDP),1 and generates a large amount of govern-

ment cash revenue every year.2

Nepal’s path-breaking achievements since

the 1980s in community forestry and partici-

patory protected area management are globallyrecognized as best-practice models. As the most

advanced form of community resource manage-

ment, community forestry occupies nearly 22%

of the total national forest, reaching over 1.6

million households (about 40% of the popula-

tion) through nearly 15,000 community forest

user groups (CFUGs) throughout the coun-

try. Supported by the government, donors andNGOs, policies on community forestry have

resulted in increasing access and rights of the

rural population to forest products and services.

Partnerships with local communities for resource

management have reversed the loss of forests and

biodiversity and generated income locally for the

wider community as well as national develop-ment (Kanel 2004). hese major advances are

tempered by strong evidence that exclusion on

the basis of income, location, class, caste, ethnic-

ity and gender persists for some at community

under state control. his largely unmana

ernment forestry estate has not been han

to local user groups and communities, aarena where multiple stakeholders com

resource capture through legal and illega

Marginal and poor households often

heavily on these mostly open-access r

(except in the case of some heavily p

arai national parks), but lack the right

use of the resources and are vulnerable ttion, displacement, and, in one recent s

case, murder. his large area of governm

est is thus the domain in which the mos

exclusion takes place, but is also an are

potentially some of the most important i

and livelihood gains could be made in

lessons from community forestry are ap

these management regimes.

2.2 Determinants of Outcomes inSector

here are multiple forms of exclusion i

tion in the forest sector. Apart from econo

tors, social ones such as gender, caste, e

location and age greatly influence who forest resources and decision-making p

and who receives benefits. he distance o

from the settlement (particularly in the

the forms of property regimes (state, c

property, private, open access), and the

ment of rules all dictate the degree t

households gain or are prevented from forests. Figure 2.1 describes these deter

and the exclusion outcomes in the fores

which are discussed in detail in the next




the “rules of the game”—under which forests

are managed. We now look at the intersectionof these three elements: forest resource use and

dependence, the forms of exclusion and property

regime, and the effects on livelihood security.

shaped by the historical, cultural

tings forest users inhabit. he govpolicies, designed either for purp

vation and environmental protect

duction, tend to impose additiona

while providing proportionately m

• Low status in relation to men and lowlevels of voice in groups

• Low levels of influence over decisionsaffecting resource access

• High dependence on forest resourcesand vulneralble to changes in forestaccess and to changes in managementregime

• Key decision-making positions mainlyheld by men

• Poorer households, higher work burdenand time poverty prevents them fromparticipating in group-based activities

• High costs of entry to some groupactivities (savings and credit)

• High dependence on safety netfunctions of forests, vulnerable tochanges in management regime andenforcement of rules

• High correlation between caste, ethnicand gender exclusion and high povertylevels

• High correlation between forestdependency and poverty

• Distant users– occasionaluse of forests –important incomesupplements

• No voice indecisions affectingseasonal resourceuse

• Change inmanagementregimes andenforcementof rules lead toexclusion

• Community forests – access predicamembership of a group

• Strict rules prevent non-members us• State forests – high levels of formal

all groups, use on ‘illegal’ basis• Protected areas – high levels of exc

zones and controlled access in buffe• Forest staff usually male and high c

diversity in community forestry execu• 33% reservations for women in exec

committees• Voice of excluded groups not ensur

included in policy processes and de• FECOFUN: as a body for organised

CFUGs

• Indigenous forest dwellers,hunters and gathererslivelihoods dependent onforests

• Low or no voice in decisionsaffecting access to and useof forests

• Threatened cultural existence

• Low status in relation to• Higher poverty levels a

on forest resources, pagroups – blacksmiths

• Lower education levelstaking up executive posso limited influence ove

• Low levels of voice in g• Discrimination because

untouchability

Economic Location Institutional policy (rules of the ga

LOW ACCESS TO FORESTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED BENEFITSINCREASED LEVELS OF LIVELIHOOD INSECURITY

Figure 2.1: Dimensions of Exclusion and Outcomes in Forest Sector

Ethnicity – Adivasi Janajati Caste – DaGender



options to substitute food and income require-

ments from private sources, and women who

require regular and unmediated access to forests

to perform their gender roles are the most depen-

dent on forests. he loss of access through eitherdegradation or changed management regimes

often has the greatest impact on them (able

2.1). Dependence is greatest among those whose

livelihoods are totally reliant on forest resources

and are shaped socially, culturally and economi-

cally by them. hese include some of the indig-

enous ethnic groups3

such as Raute, Chepang,Kusunda and Bote Majhi. hose with no direct

geographical dependence but for whom forests

supply important but distant environmental ser-

vices are, for example, residents of towns and cit-

exclusionary model of forest managemen

where community users manage and d

access to and use of forest products. H

even these approaches do not guarant

access for all, and access still remains inby social identity, economic status a

graphical location. here have been rec

tive policy shifts, but still many policies

reproduce and reinforce these patterns

tural constraint.

2.4.1 Policy and legislative barriers: Teffects of different management

regimes on exclusion

From an ownership perspective, forests

are broadly divided into two property

Table 2.1: Resource Use and Multiple Values

Resource use category Resource users Values Origin

Subsistence*

•Mostly women, small peasants, subsistencefarmers, forest dwellers, indigenous ethnicgroups, traditional healers and herders

Products for consumption and sale•compost•fodder and grazing•wild foods, medicines and fibers

for clothes•fuelwood and charcoal•construction timber •wood for carving

Privateplantecommor govFinancial •Community user groups

•State (as revenue)•Small- and large-scale entrepreneurs and

employees• Artisans (e.g., Dalit blacksmiths), hunters,

firewood sellers•Timber companies•Women sellers of wild fruit and vegetables

Environmental •Local rural people who live close to forestsrely more on forests for environmentalbenefits compared to urban dwellers anddistant communities

•Control of soil erosion, watershedprotection and contribution tomitigation of climate changethrough carbon sequestration

•Biodiversity repositories**

All fordiffere

Cultural •Indigenous ethnic groups such as Raute,Chepang, Kusunda and Bote Majhi stilllive in forests or survive entirely on naturalresources; their cultural identity andexistence depend on access to forests

•Other ethnic and caste groups also maintainareas of high spiritual significance in forests

•Religious and cultural values• Aesthetic value

All forparticuspiritusignific

* The term “subsistence” is used here to mean the direct use of products for consumption at household level.** The country occupies only 0.1% of global space, but in terms of biodiversity it provides home for 2% of the world’s bios

and 4% of wild animals (Bista 1999).




exclusion is the norm, irrespective of social

identity, economic status or geographical loca-

tion; and a second approach that encouragescommunity-based management and ownership

of forests, where exclusion is more limited but

continues to operate around issues of gender,

social identity, economic status and geographi-

cal location (able 2.2).

he legal framework for the forestry sector,

in particular the Forest Act (1993) and ForestRegulations (1995), imposes an array of barri-

ers to access5 for excluded groups, in particular

failing to recognize many livelihood activities and

making it an offense to practice them in national

forests. hese problems are particularly acute in

protected areas, which include national parks,

conservation areas and hunting reserves (Kothari

et al 200). In these cases, exclusion is not just

confined to those who are poor, but includes all

households. However, the effects are more deeply

felt by more resource-dependent households.

2.4.1.1 Exclusion in government-managed

forests

Formal laws, informal restrictions and the threatof violence present multiple barriers to access-

ing government-managed forests. he evidence

suggests that indigenous populations who his-

torically lived in and around the protected areas,

the poor who have to depend on common forests

for livelihoods, and women who require regular

access to forest products to perform gender roleshave limited options for accessing substitutes

for their requirements, and thus suffer the most

from the loss associated with control over gov-

ernment-managed forests and protected areas.

Management Program.6 Althou

agement regimes are based on

inclusive access to forest resourdisplay different forms and leve

(able 2.2 summarizes this for

regimes). Exclusion happens at di

the community forestry process,

membership selection to particip

sion-making and access to benefit

2.4.2 Gender-based exclusion

Gendered norms and roles of wom

community forestry in particula

ensure there is representation of

decision-making positions in co

estry groups, the prevailing cultu

make it difficult for women to ac

ence decision-making processes.

other management regimes, the m

participation of women in comm

are commendable: by law, at lea

membership in executive commit

teed. his also encourages wom

ship and participation in user g

this, male membership dominategroups (FUGs), with a share of 8

because the head of the household

istered as the CFUG member.

consequences: it affects women’s p

decision making because this is o

to individuals whose names are

members. Even in the general avoting is required, only the “off

whose names are on the list can p

Paudyal 2008). Some of these co

to the exclusion of women are no



Table 2.2: Differential Effects of Forest Quality Change on Excluded People

Process Product Decision-making

Effects on women and men

Indigenous groups Extreme poor Dalits Coping poor

Changes in forest quality

For all these changes in forest quality the effects on women are their male counterparts. Women of all classes and social identityto influence or determine outcomes or exert control over procesSimilarly, women of all classes and social identity suffer more froproducts compared to their male counterparts because of gende

Deforestation

(situation insome parts of

the Tarai)

Conversionof forests toagriculture or

for settlement

Driven by externalfactors

• Lose culturalidentity and socialand economic

livelihood base;dislocation of communities; noother sourcesof land for treeproducts

• Lose access toforest resources;cannot obtain

land for agriculture asgenerally do nothave power toacquire land; maybecome laborersfor others butgenerally toomarginalized

• Highly significantfor women

as moreforest productdependent

• Lose accessto safety-netfunctions of

forest resourcemay becomelaborers for others onconverted foreland

• Women have tfind alternativesources of fueland fodder

Degradation Foods

Variety to diets,palatability,meet seasonaldietaryshortfalls,

snack foods,emergencyfoods

Open-accessresources withlimited control over access

Gradual degradationof cultural valuesand indigenousknowledge; increasedlivelihood insecurity

Diminishing accessto foods, fuels andmedicines makelivelihoods evenmore insecure andmore vulnerable tohazards

Range of producthas two-foldimportance: assafety net, andas income earnercontributingto householdeconomies

Fuels

Firewood,charcoal for household andsmall enterpriseneeds

In areas of highforest cover thisgroup is particularlyhighly forestresource dependent

and most affected bychanges in access or reduction in qualityof forest

For women, theseare often the onlysource of incomethey are allowed access; although

small proportion overall householdincome, they areof high gender significance

Medicines This range of d d

Reduced accessild f d




tion and management of resources in many rural

villages, women’s influence in decision making

is still low compared to that of men. he gen-

dered division of labor results in women facing

severe time constraints in attending public meet-

ings and general assemblies (Buchy and Subba

2003; Buchy and Rai Paudyal 2007). In mostcases, tasks such as attending meetings and vil-

lage assemblies and involvement in political and

decision-making forums fall to men since that has

been a more acceptable male role socially. Even

are reflected in the levels of voice

women are able to exercise in com

Women are still underrepresent

committee positions, with a 26%

ally. Age and status within the h

affect influence in public decisio

cesses. Particularly for young dait is still difficult for them to spe

lenge male authority in public ar

although much of the labor contr

protection and management of f

Process Product Decision-making

Effects on women and men

Indigenous groupsExtreme poor Dalits

Coping poor I

Timber Reduced access totimber usually haslittle impact becausethis group has littlepower to controlaccess to high-valueresources

Benefits of timber are mostly capturedby elites

These groups as are uin any direct way frombenefits of timber harv

Because of their betteand levels of well-beinmore opportunity to btimber contractors (in majority of women, thare not available

Environmentalservices

Across all groups environmental functions of forests are important fowater supplies; inputs to agricultural productivity through improving providing the range of biodiversity necessary to maintain a robust loc

Degradation increases their vulnerability to natural disasters and shodegrade or disappear and reduces their capabilities to cope with incchange

Degradation of environmental services is most acutely felt bythose who have no other options; climate change effects aremore profoundly felt by those whose livelihoods are dependent onagriculture and forest products

Loss of environmental services as a consequence of cl imatic

factors will have increasing the effects on resilience andadaptation capabilities of women, the extreme poor and theexcluded: increased food insecurity is a consequence

Aphrm

mmiswioaoaue



Control over resource access and benefit flow.

he effects of women’s limited participation

mean that decisions over distribution of benefitsand access to other resources may not take into

account the needs of poor women in particular.

For example, if a user group decides on a ban on

entry to the forest or fuelwood collection over

a period of time, women with some economic

means can purchase fuelwood and fodder to

fulfill their requirements but poor women can-not. his results in them either putting in more

hours of walking to gather fuelwood from distant

places, or replacing fuelwood with agriculture by-

products which are often poor-quality fuel and

take more time to cook; this affects the nutrition

quality of food and increases their vulnerability to

punishment for collecting prohibited materials.

2.4.3 Caste/ethnic/regional-identity-based

exclusion

here are no disaggregated data available to ana-

lyze caste and ethnic distribution of membership

in CFUGs. However, some studies (HURDEC

2004) provide evidence of exclusion of Dalits

from membership in some communities basedon their caste identity.

Power relations and the local political econ-

omy all affect the degree to which excluded

groups feel they are able to participate. here are

multiple reasons derived from experiences gov-

erning why people are excluded or exclude them-

selves from group-based activities: their ownself-perceptions of having nothing to say that

others are prepared to listen to; experience of

more powerful people disregarding them and not

seeking their opinions; their relations with more

the confidence to speak; simply not havin

to information about what is happenin

having the opportunity to be part of anrendering them voiceless; and meeting

which do not address their needs or are

their experience. hese are all experience

ferent degrees by Dalits and women.

Criteria for selection to executive co

positions exclude the poor, Dalits and

nous people from an important decisionforum. In most groups, nomination or

for the executive committee is decided

sensus and proposed by politically ac

lage leaders. Some informal basic criter

the selection of members: availability of

attend meetings; sufficient education to

and interpret forest policy, rules and reg

a personality that is listened to and resp

the majority; and the confidence to ma

sions. hese informal criteria tend to f

landed class and high-caste men, thus e

committees are usually dominated by th

elites. he poor, Dalits and indigenous

even when they are members, often lack

teria required to be in leadership positioare less educated, less heard in the com

and more importantly do not have stron

or other social networks. In communiti

are relatively more heterogeneous, execut

mittee members are elected. here, too, e

teria, power relations and personal linka

important roles which often render posbeyond the reach of the poor and disadv

groups (Rai Paudyal 2008; Khadka 200

2.4.4 Income and location-based excl




do not necessarily live within the particular geo-

graphical boundary set by the group but use the

forest on a seasonal or occasional basis (Banjadeand Paudel 2008). his is a highly contentious

issue in the arai, where distant users in the

southern belt have been restricted from access

to northern forests, leading to loss of seasonally

important sources of products and income.

Membership of a user group provides legiti-

macy to participate and provides a range of incentives, including access to forest products,

funds for infrastructure development, income-

generating activities, and collective forums for

decision-making, and, more importantly, a

sense of collectivism that is important for self-

confidence and social empowerment. As almost

all assistance provided by district forest offices

(DFOs) or any other organization is channeled

through user groups, non-members are not just

excluded from access to forest products but are

also automatically excluded from access to any

other benefits. he criteria and unit of member-

ship determine who is in and who is out. hus,

CFUG membership is inclusive at household

levels and free (or involves minimum entry fee) atthe time the user group is formed. But it is diffi-

cult for newcomers to the area to join an existing

group as FUGs devise a number of criteria aimed

at discouraging new entrants. hese include evi-

dence of permanent residence in the village and

an entry fee assigned by the user group, which is

usually high for the poor.Extreme poor barriers to membership. he land-

less and those who live in ailani land often find

it difficult to provide evidence of permanent

residence in the village. Membership fees often

For the extreme poor, incomple

ing and inadequate access to info

the process and importance of Fship during group formation can

exclusion. First, the poor remain

process and are excluded through

mation. Second, they often cho

exclusion because of the high op

incurred in the initial stages of gr

while benefits only come later. taking ability does not allow the

labor without an immediate retur

they see the benefits of member

costs are too high.

2.4.5 Structural barriers to acc

resource benefits

Legitimate access to forest produc

important incentive for people

in community forestry and inves

and management. hough disa

related to access to forest product

able nationally, independent stud

locations have shown that comm

has resulted in increased availabproducts through better protect

tive management.10 However, the

products is not fully equitable or

class, caste and gender relations p

for the poor and excluded group

members, their share of product

2008; Hobley 2007).The equality not equity rule.

uct distribution rules and crit

user groups are based on “equali

avoid conflict, user groups, unl



poor members often find it difficult to buy some

products, especially fuelwood and timber, at the

price set by user groups. Equitable provisionswould provide price subsidies, which some user

groups practice. Similarly, timber for charcoal

is an important product for blacksmiths but

most user groups ban charcoal production from

forests, making the occupation of blacksmiths

difficult to sustain. he choice of product and

timing for harvest also differ according to socio-economic conditions and gender identity. hese

differentiated needs require an equitable dis-

tributive mechanism in user groups to respond

to the specific needs and priorities of the most

excluded group members.

Income investment in assets and services that pro-

vide more benefits to the non-poor and non-excluded.

Community forest groups generate income from

the forests, and access to this income is an impor-

tant incentive for people to participate in com-

munity forestry. he major sources of income for

FUGs include membership fees, sale of products,

and fines for violation of group rules. Because of

the poor resource base and lack of opportuni-

ties to exploit forest products in the market, usergroups in the hills have limited funds of their

own; in contrast, arai forests are endowed with

high-value timber, thus some arai FUGs have

substantial financial resources. he general ten-

dency is to increase funds by setting higher prices

for forest products (mainly firewood and tim-

ber). his tendency negatively affects the abilityof the poor to buy the products. However, some

recent initiatives have shown that some commu-

nities and CFUGs are able to develop valuable

enterprises and have activities that benefit the

times scholarships), sponsoring oversea

tion, saving and credit, and revolving l

income-generation activities and capaciing of user groups. he majority of thes

ments tend to provide proportionate

benefits to non-poor high-caste men. Fo

ple, many user groups spend significan

on hiring teachers for community schoo

many invest in infrastructure of cultu

religious significance, such as temple amunity buildings.

Cultural barriers to treating women,

and the excluded as citizens with equ

More importantly, incorporation of p

and inclusive policy provisions at use

level depends on the willingness of loca

who influence decisions. At present, th

ity of user groups do not allocate resou

specific target groups unless it is mandat

there are no benefits to the decision-mak

themselves are socialized into accepting

kinds of inequities. Where allocations a

implementation remains uncertain be

lack of leadership commitment. For

many user groups devise differentialsystems for forest products during the

assemblies but often find these difficult t

ment and are reluctant to do so.

2.5 Policy and Legal Framework aProgrammatic Response: How

the Barriers Being AddressedA major determinant of the levels of e

experienced is the policy and institutio

text of the forest sector (see Figure 2.1

his section addresses the first of these


ll l d l l f k d d b h



2.5.1 Overall policy and legal framework

he Forest Master Plan, Forest Act 1993,

Forest Regulation 1995, Forest Policy (2000)and Conservation Strategy (2002) are the major

policy documents that provide the overall frame-

work for forestry sector governance in Nepal.

he MFSC has taken some initiatives to institu-

tionalize gender and social equity concerns in its

policies, plans and programs, but this is mainly

in community-managed regimes13

(see Annex2.2 for the GESI elements of these policies).

his follows commitments made in the Poverty

Reduction Strategy Paper and the hree-Year

Interim Plan and national/international com-

mitments on gender equality and social inclu-

sion, including signing international conventions

such as the Durban Accord for protecting the

rights of the poor dependent on forests and ILO

Convention 169 to protect the rights of indig-

enous communities over natural resources. Key

examples of these initiatives are the gender and

social inclusion (GESI) vision (2004) and GESI

strategy14 (2006) for the sector, and implemen-

tation of revised community forestry guidelines

(2009) and a GESI-sensitive monitoring frame-work (2007).

As summarized in able 2.3, government-

managed forests and protection areas, which

constitute nearly three quarters of the total for-

ests in Nepal, are areas where exclusion is acute.

Current policies and legislative framework for

these areas are not people centered. As legally,no access of communities is allowed, exclusion is

widespread, not only for the poor and women,

but for all.

Although there is a GESI vision in place for

issues, demonstrated by the revis

forestry guidelines and the forest a

for the hree-Year Interim Planthe government has shown a majo

to address some of the exclusion

above, but most changes are limi

nity-managed resources and do n

areas under state management.

2.5.2 Program responses: Gendand social inclusion appro

Other sector actors, including do

programs (see Annex 2.3 for a

programs in the sector), have r

need to address issues of gende

social inclusion. hese include

and Social Inclusion Strategy15

Livelihoods and Forestry Progra

strategy defined the poor and exc

and has been effective in develop

understanding of social exclusion

as strategic approaches to deal w

has been rolled out across staff

he Nepal Swiss Community F

(NSCFP) Livelihoods Improvemis focused on the development in

understanding of the rights of th

disadvantaged;18 its strategy is bas

ization that targeting disadvant

not sufficient to change the struc

that maintain their marginalizat

sion. Instead, approaches based oindividuals and groups to underst

lying causes of poverty and exclu

ing their capacity to transform the

being developed, for example by

T bl 2 3 Diff ti l Eff t f F t M t R i Ch E l d d P l



Table 2.3: Differential Effects of Forest Management Regime Change on Excluded People

Process and productDecision-

making

Impacts on people

Indigenous groups Extreme poor Dalits Poor people

Exclusionfrom forestsunder differentmanagementregimes

Community managed

Community-managedforests,communityforestry

Forest user group,generallyexecutivemembers

In some parts of theTarai, conflict with thosewho have establishedcommunity forests, lossof customary rightsof access and use of forests, reassertion of indigenous rights (under

ILO 169)

Loss of access toforest resourcesfor livelihoods;particularlyaffectsblacksmiths,medicinal herbcollectors and

seasonal usersreliant on incomefrom forestproducts

Community forestrygenerally benefitsmore capable poor households, groupmembership brings arange of additionalbenefits not just forest-related, ensuring

regular access tofuelwood, timber for house construction,grazing, etc

Buffer zonemanagementwithinprotectionareas

State-controlledcommunityparticipationfor protectionunder parkwarden

Affects indigenouspeoples due to loss of cultural and spiritualconnection – dislocationfrom forests

Partial exclusion of all households to fullaccess to forest products; highly controlledaccess under rules determined by state;sharing of park income (20-30% of parkfees)

Leaseholdforests

Group-based, butland alreadyallocated

No specific target, landallocated according topoverty, not to casteand ethnicity

Includes poorest households but oftenunable to access opportunities; requireshigher levels of investment because of low quality of land; excludes non-poor

households but often include themselvesto take control of land

State managed

State-managedprotectionareas (corezones)

State-controlledmanagementdecisions, noinvolvement of people

Dislocation of communities such asthe Raute (in hills) andBote Majhi/Tharu in theTarai

• Guarded by Nepal Army with coreareas as “shoot at sight” zones

• Loss of access to forest resources for consumption and sale; increased risksof personal injury; more acute for thosedependent on forests

State-managedforests,national

State-controlledmanagement;local-level

In some parts of theTarai loss of culturalidentity and social andeconomic livelihood

• No legal rights for forest productcollection

• In practice, access to grasses,deadwood and fruits


d d i id p g f pp t f CFUG 2 5 3 Improving inclusive acces



Table 2.4: Policies and Progress Related to Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Policy Progress

GESI vision of forestry sector (MFSC 2006):“Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservationis a gender and social equity sensitive andsocially inclusive organisation practicinggood forest governance to ensure equitableaccess to, benefits from and decisionmaking power over forest resources of allstakeholders.”

The vision is in place but not providing overall guidance to sector and not mainmainly on community-managed forestsRecommended four gender and social equity change areas:• Gender and equity sensitive policy and strategy: Change area 1. Refers to inc

gender and social equity concerns into forestry sector policy and strategy at aspirit of national strategy and plans

• Equitable governance: Change area 2. Refers to fair and balanced participatmaking at all levels in forestry sector by all individuals and groups irrespectivecaste and ethnicity

• Gender and equity sensitive organizational development and programming: 3. Involves addressing gender and inclusion gap in organization (i.e., creatinenvironment for gender- and inclusion-sensitive working conditions and crite

programming (i.e., addressing gender and inclusion concerns in program deimplementation, monitoring and evaluation)

• Equitable access to resources and benefits: Change area 4. Involves addressand barriers for access of women, poor, Dalits and other excluded groups, ameasures to increase access to forest products and other benefits from the se

GESI strategy Not yet implemented except in a few program guidelines

Community Forest Guidelines (2009) Recognizes barriers faced by poor, women and other socially excluded groups; mandatory affirmative action provisions aimed at inclusive membership and decequitable access to benefits

Forestry Approach and Three-year InterimPlan (2011-2013)

• Developed by MFSC with National Planning Commission, emphasizing impoand participatory forest management

• Key strategies for economic contribution and social inclusion include increasiof income generation for the poor and excluded through community-based fomodalities and democratization of governance systems (of government, nongcommunity, network and private organizations) in forestry sector to make themtransparent, and accountable to people; proposed policies for inclusive goveGESI strategy include increasing community forest executive positions for womfor inclusion remains only community based forest management and not ove

ded in a wider program of support from CFUGs

through the livelihoods package FREELIFE-

H2O.19 Skilled facilitation through NGOs forboth processes is a prerequisite to address the

structural causes of exclusion.20 Such approaches

have led to targeted use of community forestry

funds that have responded more directly to the

livelihood needs of poor people rather than just

to those expressed by more articulate, better-off

people. his has signaled a shift away from justsupporting roads and schools to more public

investment in areas such as public lands that can

be directly used by the very poor.

2.5.3 Improving inclusive acces

products

Compared to the private and govaged regime, where legitimate a

products is restricted for all pe

the poor and excluded social gr

nity forestry has increased peop

access to forest products. Comm

has pioneered measures to imp

Reservation of 33% of seats in mittees for women to ensure the

in decision-making, requirements

ranking among users to identify th




ACOS 200



(6.26%). Women comprise only 3.25%, Dalits

2.0%, and Muslims 1.6% of the total staff (see

Figure 2.2).

Of the 448 staff at the gazetted level, 6.0%

are women, 68.7%22 are Brahmins/Chhetris,

and 15.8% are Newars. here are 2,679 staff in non-gazetted positions, of whom 3.6% are

women. In addition, 3,709 staff have no grade,

of whom 2.7% are women. he highest presence

of women is in third-class non-gazetted positions

(7.0%). Dalits, other backward classes (OBCs)

and Janajatis (except Newars) have a higher pres-

ence in non-gazetted levels (see Figure 2.3).

Staff diversity in selected programs in the sector

Some forestry programs outside government bod-

ies have made considerable progress during the

ACOS 200

action is appli

recruitment: 3are women,

from a caste/

spective is mu

the majority

drawn from

Chhetri/New

disadvantagedare primarily

(Luintel 2006

adopted the

Agency for

and Cooperat

diversity policy

number of aff

sions to enabof women, D

disadvantaged groups.23 As a resu

the government, the NSCFP staff

inclusive, with 35% women, includ

manager; more interestingly, thr

project-supported districts have

at the district level. he team isin terms of caste and ethnicity: o

34 staff, 44% are from Brahmin-C

social groups and 41% from disadv

groups.24 A third example from t

Sector Support Program for Siw

working in the arai using affir

resource provisions, shows it respconditions, with more than 50% o

Madhesis.

2.6.2 Working environment

Figure 2.2: Workforce Diversity of Civil Personnel in the Forestry Sector

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; analysis by study team.

Muslim (2%)

OBC (15%)

B/C Madhesi (3%)

Name not mentioned (0%)

Dalit Hill (1%)

Dalit Madhesi (1%)

Janajati Hill (12%)

B/C Hill (54%)

Janajati Tarai (6%)

Newar (6%)



a profession is low, restricted by the difficulties

of attending training institutes that all necessi-

tate women leaving home to study. For the few

women who have academic qualifications, secur-

ing jobs in the ministry/department requires

them to compete with men who are often better

equipped with additional training, work experi-

ence, and exposure, and have limited gender-spe-

responsibilities, especially associated w

of children, force women forest officer

fer postings in relatively more accessibl

reducing their career promotion opport

For poor and excluded groups, gaining s

educational qualifications to get admi

training institutes is a major hurdle, ref

their very low representation in the fore

Figure 2.3: Diversity of Civil Personnel in Forestry Sector at Different Levels (%)70

60

50

40

10

20

30

0DHF DHM DMF DMM JHMJHF JTF JTM NF NM BCHF BCHM BCMF BCMM MF

Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless

Note: DHF/M—Dalit Hill female/male; DMF/M—Dalit Madhesi female/male; JHF/M—Janajati Hill female/male; JTF

female/male; NF/M—Newar female/male; BCHF/M—Brahmin/Chhetri Hill female/male; BCMF/M—Brahmin/Chhemale; MF/M—Muslim female/male; OBCF/M—OBC female/male.

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; grouped for the study based on GSEA caste/ethnic groupings.


arships to ensure that these groups acquire the roles, and this affects the time and



p g p q

necessary technical qualifications to gain employ-

ment in the sector.Some programs have tried to address ele-

ments of the culture of the working environment,

including making special provisions for working

mothers. he LFP, for example, provides mater-

nity leave for three months, breastfeeding hours

for working mothers, travel and daily subsistence

allowance for babies and caretakers, and flexibleworking hours for working mothers. Recognition

of women’s reproductive role in the workplace

has not only attracted women staff but also

helped in their retention. Similar arrangements

supporting the reproductive role of women are in

the NSCFP human resource policy.

2.6.3 Location of GESI responsibilityAll the departments within the MFSC have

appointed gender focal points to oversee main-

streaming of gender into sectoral program design

and strategies. Despite policy mandates provided

in the GESI strategy and vision, the gender focal

points have not been successful due to a lack of

clarity about their roles and responsibilities,inadequate resources, their low positions in the

hierarchy and limited authority, and an institu-

tional failure to link their work to the routine

work of the ministry. his is reflected in the rest

of the structure, including a gender equity work-

ing group (GEWG)27 set up in 2003 to develop

and implement strategies for mainstreaming

gender equity and social inclusion in the forestry

sector’s policies and programs. here are also

regional-level GEWGs under the leadership of

regional forestry directorates (in three out of five

cated for effective coordination an

review of the terms of reference/jof senior officials and other d

indicates that except for the mi

coordinator, no one has been giv

sibility on mainstreaming gender a

he gender focal points in severa

ments are supposed to take this r

an additional task on top of their LFP and NSCFP. Both have de

provide technical support on gend

social inclusion. In LFP there is

opment advisor in the central of

overall guidance on GESI, and in

there are social development prog

operationalize GESI policies. h

has two staff specifically recruitemainstreaming GESI and pro-po

he program director and othe

GESI responsibilities integrated in

reference.

2.6.4 Skills, competency and m

MFSC. Implementation of GESIunderstanding among all staff

GEWG coordinator and focal pe

cific analytical skills and capacity

ize the analysis. here has been

in this type of capacity developm

building programs, including th

riculum on participatory forestry,

social concepts (gender, equity, s

power relationships). In recent y

been an increasing trend of pro

sensitization training but buildin

tional systems and structures. he deeply held spent on forest sector activities that are



ideology/beliefs on forestry and foresters’ roles,

the power relations between staff, and personalattitudes and behaviors have been barriers for

effective GESI mainstreaming. Paradoxically,

while Nepal’s innovative participatory forestry

programs are internationally known and have

demonstrated considerable success, and sig-

nificant development has been made in terms

of developing GESI policies and strategies inthe sector, the forest government organiza-

tions have changed little and capitalized little on

the learning in the sector, especially on demo-

cratic procedures, transparency, and downward

accountability within institutions.

Training provision by programs. he LFP pro-

vides orientation training on GESI to almost all

its staff at different levels, and has invested inbuilding skills for the implementation of its strat-

egy. It has also developed and adopted a strong

“zero tolerance” management policy for sexual

harassment, violence against women, and caste-

based discrimination. he NSCFP also has

gender-specific policy provisions and a strong

management policy against sexual harassmentwhich is strictly enforced and can even result

in dismissal. raining and capacity building on

GESI concepts and skills are an ongoing process

for all staff. GESI-related performance indica-

tors are incorporated in the overall staff appraisal

system, increasing the accountability of each staff

member towards the issue. hese include staff

assessment on promoting a multicultural work-

ing environment and workforce diversity within

the portfolio, behavior towards staff from dis-

criminated groups, and annual monitoring.

in some way to help women, the poor

excluded. he objective is to “follow theto assess what efforts have been made to

the issues that constrain these groups’

sector benefits; analyze how much of th

has been allocated and spent on such iss

assess the degree to which government

for these issues is channeled through targ

grams or integrated into mainstream proghe government’s annual budget spee

ents three different types of analysis of th

from a gender and inclusion perspective

ditures in support of “inclusive developm

targeted programs” are identified; the

responsive budget (GRB) exercise is pr

and pro-poor expenditures are identified

8a, 8b, and 8c of the annual budget speec2010, respectively). he budget speech a

Rs 3,424,763,000 for forestry, of which 1

60,453,000) was categorized as “inclusi

opment/targeted programs”, Rs 1,898,

(2% direct, 53% indirect) as gender res

and 52% (Rs 1,780,218,000) as pro-poo

We tried to identify how the classiwere made and the process followed. In

are not specified for inclusive develo

targeted programs but there are indica

GRB30 and pro-poor budgeting.31 Our

sions with ministry and line agency staff

however, that guidelines are not clear, an

end it is left to the budget officer to ca

and score the various budget lines to th

his (it is primarily men) understandin

the scoring and indicators were not clea

other two kinds of budgeting, we have


get as directly supportive to women and another Committee, sectoral ministries, d



53% as indirectly supportive; the remainder was

neutral. MFSC and Ministry of Finance (MOF)staff categorize all expenditure items in the for-

estry budget into three categories (directly sup-

portive, indirectly supportive and neutral) based

on five indicators of gender responsiveness: par-

ticipation, capacity building, benefit sharing,

increased access to employment and income-

earning opportunities, and reduction in women’sworkload. However, these indicators, which

were developed in the context of agriculture, are

not necessarily applicable in other sectors. here

are no sub-indicators to guide the scoring of

budget lines or assess how the activities budgeted

contribute to the indicators. Also, the GRB

indicators tend to be better at capturing expen-

ditures for targeted women’s programs than atpicking up expenditures for efforts made in uni-

versal programs to mainstream GESI. Finally, of

course, the GRB exercise focuses only on gen-

der, and does not capture expenditures aimed at

increasing outreach to excluded groups.

herefore, while we have assessed the existing

GRB practice and indicators used, and identi-fied possible sub-indicators for GRB analysis

in forestry, we have also developed and applied

our own tentative GESI budgeting methodol-

ogy.32 his is intended to capture expenditures

that reach and support excluded groups and

those that support women. Although there is

no single rule about how to determine whether

public expenditure is discriminatory or equal-

ity enhancing, there are some general principles

that are discussed in gender budgeting literature,

which we have adapted.33 Our efforts here are

such as UNIFEM, and NGOs

tracking budget expenditures.he GESI budget analysis

activities have been planned/imp

provide direct support to women

excluded social groups to addre

they experience in accessing reso

efits from forestry (e.g., forest r

sidies, land on lease, etc); what made to provide indirect support

disaggregated evidence of dispari

training for foresters, etc); and w

neutral, as it assumes that everyo

equally. We have followed the G

three categories but have not foll

indicators as they have not been v

application across the sectors.he GESI budget analysis wa

two levels. First, we assessed natio

ditures in the forestry sector using

teria. he annual MFSC budget

covering 18 programs, came to

13,254,910,000.34 Our analysis

breakdown shown in able 2.5portive or targeted programs for

4.4%, and minimal for other grou

he next step was to move to t

to ground truth both the natio

budget exercise and our own GE

two districts, Kavre and Mora

worked with the DFO staff to ass

approach to gender-responsive b

were using. In consultations at th

officers stated that for forest and

tion programs all indicators wer

Table 2.5: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Budget of Ministry of FoSoil Conservation 2009 2010



poor and the excluded, and felt these automati-

cally ensured that the entire budget would be

responsive to women or specific excluded groups.

In reality, this has proven to be a problematic

assumption.

Next, we worked with the DFO staff to do aGESI analysis of the district-level forestry bud-

gets using directly supportive, indirectly sup-

portive and neutral categories.37 he results are

shown in able 2.6. In a budget of Rs 1,807,100

for Morang, a minimal amount was identified as

directly supportive for the poor (2%) and indi-

rectly supportive for women and the poor (25%for women; 5% for the poor). In Kavre, it was

much higher for women (51% specific) and the

poor (50%), primarily because of leasehold for-

estry. Other activities included nursery, seed-

lings, beehives, interaction program of m

for women, development of forest area

land by involving poor and vulnerable

holds, etc.

Efforts have been made by the D

MFSC to address the barriers of womenpoor, but for other groups the assumptio

to be that benefits will automatically rea

through implemented activities. But al

activities or funds have been planned to

the barriers of women, the poor and the

discussed in Section 2.2, or the structur

that constrain their access. his indicaa more conscious recognition of the

address such socio-cultural, empowerm

governance issues along with core techn

estry services is required. he key issue

Soil Conservation, 2009–2010

Targetedgroups

Directly supportive Indirectly suppo

% of budget

Examples of activities% of

budgetExamples o

Annual plan, MFSC, Rs. 3,449,974,000

Women 0.48 Training on gender inclusion in forest; establish herbalgarden

0.01 Awareness-raising progand gender equity in sc

Poor 4.42 Development of public land, income-generatingprogram, development of micro-enterprises of forestproducts, work plan on allocated land for marginalizedpeople

0.41 Well-being ranking andtraining

Remotelocations

– – 0.63 NTFP training, demonstSalyan

Source: Annual budget of MFSC, FY 2009-2010; analysis by study team, 2010.

Table 2.6: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of District Forestry Of fices, Kavre aMorang, 2008-2009

Targetedgroups

Directly supportive Indirectly suppo

% of budget

Example of activities% of

budgetExample o

Kavre (total budget Rs. 730,000; leasehold forestry budget Rs 297,000)

Women 51 Nursery, seedlings, beehives, interaction program of b s

15 Group formation, wort


criteria, indicators and process of budget review.

G l i l ifi i i i di l

supportive activities. Recent LF

h d i 2009 f R 204



Government analysis classifies activities as directly

or indirectly contributing to women, based ongovernment directives regarding services to them.

A deeper analysis, however, indicates that no

activities are budgeted to address the specific gen-

der-based barriers that women experience. hese

are necessary even within a universal program so

that structural barriers are addressed and a more

even playing field created—only then can GESI

be considered to have been mainstreamed.

he aim of this analysis is to assess whether

the activities to address the barriers identi-

fied in Section 2.1 have been programmed and

budgeted, otherwise they will not be addressed.

Positive policy provisions, too, require activities

and funds to be translated into action. Policy

mandates directing that some services have tobenefit women and the poor provide the basis

for interventions which have enabled Kavre to

allocate a substantive amount for these groups.

Similarly, it is important to recognize the barri-

ers of the other groups and plan activities with

budgets to mainstream gender and inclusion

within universal programs of the forestry sector.

2.7.1 Gender equality and social inclusion

sensitive budgeting in other programs

Forestry programs like the LFP and NSCFP

have made special efforts in the past few years

to make budget and other resource allocations

specific to the needs and priorities of women, the

poor and excluded groups. hough programs use

different tools and methods, the objectives have

been to increase resource allocation to benefit the

excluded.

that during 2009, out of Rs 204

by the program through field ofeither specific or supportive of th

excluded while the remaining 43%

Fund flow analysis at the NSCFP

uses fund flow analysis (FFA)

resource allocations specific to

priorities of disadvantaged group

increase allocations. FFA is a syst

in all SDC-funded projects that lo

the program budget but total budg

spent by the projects. It analyzes t

of budget for various categories s

side (disaggregated by househ

NGOs, government, consultants

organizations), beneficiary side

by poverty, caste, ethnicity, gengraphical distribution (rural, urb

2.4 for FFA format and disaggreg

FFA reports show that 78.9% of t

is targeted for the livelihood and

gram in rural areas, with only 4.6%

for the program at the center. Sim

of four years’ budget expenditurshows that 61% of the program b

specifically for the direct benefit

holds and almost 68% on socially

groups, i.e., women, Dalits and

Janajatis. However, only 30% of th

by the project is received directly

holds and 51% by discriminated g

2.8 Program and MonitorinMechanisms

groups mentioned in planning documents are

t lt d d f ll d d i l i I

essary understanding and skills related

ll ti l i d i f ti



not consulted and followed during planning. In

principle, departmental GEWG coordinatorsand gender focal persons must audit the planning

process and content; in practice, annual plans are

compiled and finalized by planning departments

with no inputs from the gender focal point or

GEWG. hus, often the contents in the plans

are not consistent with the broader sectoral com-

mitment towards addressing GESI.

he monitoring and evaluation (M&E) sys-

tem lacks a social perspective. As a result, indi-

cators are mostly focused on biophysical aspects

of change, and GESI is completely missing.

Reporting remains against technical param-

eters of forest conditions (Rai Paudyal 2008),

and there is no tracking of contribution of the

sector to the national goal on poverty reduc-tion (Khadka 2009). his makes it difficult to

understand the effects of different management

regimes on the livelihoods of poor and excluded

groups and on national poverty reduction out-

comes. In 2009, the MFSC M&E Division pre-

pared a draft management information system

(MIS) framework which incorporates disaggre-gated database requirements on gender, poverty

and location, but this is yet to be operationalized.

here have been some recent positive changes,

however, especially in the DOF Community

Forestry Division. Since 2009, a gender- and

poverty-sensitive checklist has been incorporated

in the annual DOF planning process. A national

community forest database was established in

the 1990s. he department maintains disag-

gregated data on membership and participation

of women in key decision-making positions; to

collection, analysis and information man

on GESI aspects have not been develope

2.8.2 Monitoring mechanisms in othe

programs

GPSE monitoring initiative. Along with

cess of GESI strategy development, th

forestry sector actors42 initiated GPSE m

ing. he GPSE initiative resulted in th

opment of a set of generic (quantita

qualitative) indicators to monitor the

contribution to poverty reduction an

inclusion, based on the four key chang

A total of eight indicators (two for each

area) have been developed, piloted and

rated into the monitoring framework of

involved in the group (see Annex 2.5 forGPSE indicators). o maintain uniform

use of indicators and help consolidate

obtained, the GPSE group also develop

base formats and software. he indicat

now been integrated into the DOF FUG

system and major forestry program d

However, the focus is still on the ComForestry Division database and not

tor as a whole. In addition, the LFP ha

established mechanism of livelihoods an

inclusion (LSI) monitoring, developed b

Nepal based on the GSEA study framew

its findings. A key element of the LS

work is monitoring outcomes against t

domains of change.43 he program als

tains GESI-disaggregated data and does

on a six-monthly basis. Institutionaliz

GESI-disaggregated monitoring and r


against GPSE indicators is well established in

the NSCFP and LFP systems

excluded forest users, helping to i

groups and building their capaci



the NSCFP and LFP systems.

2.9 Good Practices and Lessons Learnedhere are several areas of good practice derived

from experience in community forestry that can

be applied across the sector. In this section we

outline some of the tools and methods that have

been found effective to address some of the struc-

tural barriers to inclusion identified in the ear-

lier discussions. hese are organized around the

three domains of change: building voice, chang-

ing the rules of the game, and improving access

to assets and services.

2.9.1 Good practices

Building voice and influenceBuilding a strong civil society able to represent and

advocate for changes in the rules of the game has

been a major advance in the sector. In particular,

the strong membership networks of FECOFUN

and Himavanti (a women’s network) have dem-

onstrated the importance of this voice in challeng-

ing policy decisions that lead to greater exclusionand livelihood insecurity. he strong role played

by women in some of these organizations is itself

an important reflection of the deeper structural

changes occurring through the community for-

estry movement. However, these organizations

need to address issues of diversity and inclusion

within their structures, where representation of

excluded castes and ethnic groups is low.

Developing new approaches to social mobiliza-

tion based on empowerment and transformation

of structures to build voice and capability of the

groups, and building their capaci

their needs and priorities, participmaking, and access resources an

major departure from earlier mob

tices is the separation of forest tec

(through resource persons train

and social mobilization tasks (th

ers trained on more empowering a

as the underlying causes of pover

Reflect).44 Four key areas where t

lizers focus are targeting and organ

users; capacity building of poor an

group members; strengthening

governance of user groups and inf

and establishing linkage between u

a range of service providers.

ole-level meetings for inclusive in rural communities are increasin

by the government and programs

to address the non-participation o

the excluded in CFUG meetings a

ity to influence decisions. Wit

households working together in

and interests are common, timemobility restrictions are address

lar concern to Muslim women)

women, the poor and the exclu

informed and are able to raise th

a more enabling environment, ge

their peer group. Social mobiliz

the successful application of tole-

As the mobilizers start to work a

they visit each household to bui

ness and convince them to join wi

meet and form a group through w

tion by animators for several months. Given that

each animator usually works with 5-10 CFUGs

line for identifying the poor and the excl

affirmative action CFUGs carry out the



each animator usually works with 5-10 CFUGs,

the formation of tole groups greatly increase theirworkload initially, but the outcomes have been

very promising. he needs and aspirations of the

poor and the excluded are represented when making

decisions on income-generating activities, land

allocation, committee formation, subsidies, equi-

table distribution of forest products, and mem-

bership conditions and fees. hey have taken

responsibility for conservation and management

of forest products in their area and have also been

part of monitoring committees. hrough aware-

ness raising and skill development, the poor and

the excluded have become more empowered,

with increased voice and influence in the func-

tioning of their CFUG. Communication between

excluded members and the executive committeehas become easier.

Work with elites and male members of the com-

munity to instill a sense of responsibility and

accountability in them to work for the empow-

erment of women, the poor and the excluded,

and establish a system of recognition and reward

or vice versa to ensure more equitable socialpractices.

Partnership with NGOs/community-based orga-

nizations (CBOs) is an increasing trend for pro-

grams and government. hese partnerships have

successfully started to clarify and demarcate the

roles of government staff as regulators, service

providers and enablers, and NGO/CBO staff

as the facilitators of voice, accountability mecha-

nisms, and strengthening governance structures.

his has helped to ensure that the poor and

the excluded get access to internal CFUG ser-

affirmative action. CFUGs carry out the

(using economic and social indicators) torize households, and use this to target r

and services and ensure a more equitab

bution of resources and opportunities.

tor will be testing a combined communi

and proxy means test approach to identi

vantaged households, with independent

tion to try to standardize approaches and

the confusion at the local level (LGCDP

Addressing locational exclusion: Use o

lands in the arai for community man

has been an important mechanism to

some of the exclusion faced by distan

Across the arai districts, about 20-23%

suitable for agricultural cultivation is c

as public, and is underutilized and unm(Deuja 2007). An agreement between

development committees and FUGs al

groups to start economic-related works

ponds, vegetable cultivation, NFP cul

etc. Mobilization and support for inv

in the necessary technology are provide

government—mainly the DOF and Depof Social Conservation (DSCO)—an

programs. While protection, plantation

toration-related activities on public land

the whole community and benefit all, li

interventions involve only the landless

poor and benefit them directly.

Changing the rules of the game

Favorable government policies in commu

estry, including the new guidelines, give

mandated provisions for inclusive practi


ernment organizations, donor-funded programs)

in policy development has opened up the policy

outcomes. he LFP (through its

ing) uses the three domains of



in policy development has opened up the policy

space to more inclusive outcomes. his approachwas successfully used in the revision of the com-

munity forestry guidelines through a process that

has built widespread ownership and resulted in

inclusive and GESI-sensitive guidance.

Examples of using a workforce diversity policy

illustrate mechanisms to change the structure

of organizations and the rules of the game that

determine entry. hese policies (such as those

adopted by the NSCFP45) have improved inclu-

siveness in organizations and among partners.

hey identify groups to be prioritized, establish

benchmarks for diverse representation in staff

categories, and follow up with affirmative action

to recruit people from discriminated groups until

their representation in various staff categories,committees and working teams is ensured to

reflect their representation in Nepal’s population.

Knowledge, skills, and empathy required to

work with women, the poor and other socially

excluded groups need to be built into the terms

of reference of all professional and administrative

staff, and performance appraisal systems need tovalue achievements in this area.

Revision of constitutions and operational plans

of CFUGs with GESI provisions has been under-

taken by many CFUGs. his has led to signifi-

cant changes within CFUGs to ensure that they

both recognize and address the expressed needs

of women, the poor and the excluded. However,

such efforts are still confined only to those areas

where external support for social mobilization is

provided.

Changing internal budgeting and monitoring

ing) uses the three domains of

influence and agency) to track whand the excluded have been able t

and institutions in their favor.

2.9.2 Lessons learned

Structural exclusion persists, but

more clearly now through the c

estry experience. his understa

translation of necessary action i

toral policy and operational chan

to be achieved.

Effects of management regime

Under a state-controlled forestr

is, in effect, complete formal exclu

from resource use irrespective of

ethnic group or economic statusmanaged forest systems are mor

provide greater access to people

and benefit from the resource.

ment under community forestry h

regulation, management, produ

conservation of resources in cont

tems in state-managed forests, whto deliver effective resource m

conservation.

Dealing with self-exclusion of th

from development processes requir

targeted support to ensure that t

forest resources and other assoc

Action should be based on analys

understanding of the unequal p

created by class, caste/ethnicity an

support provided has to address

dimensions of exclusion.

sector has not yet been implemented despite its

having been prepared through a broad-based

as citizens to have a voice, access decis

share in benefits.



g p p g

participatory process and providing clear opera-tional directions. he reasons causing this failure

to implement need to be understood and acted

upon.

Women, the poor and the excluded face multi-

ple exclusions, many of which cannot be tackled

solely through forest-based interventions as the

causes of exclusion are rooted in deep societal

structures that require a coherence of interven-

tions and approaches across the range of service

provision. he choice of intervention also deter-

mines the levels of exclusion and outcomes. For

example, simply providing low-quality leasehold

land is not sufficient to help people move out of

poverty when the initial investments to improve

productivity are large and require time to deliverany benefits. For the extreme poor this could

lead to an increase in livelihood insecurity and

vulnerability.

Behavior change is required to overcome deep-

seated resistance to changing discriminatory

practices in both the workplace and community

groups. Behavior change without systemic struc-tural change in forest sector institutions will con-

tinue to reproduce the gap between fine policies

and poor implementation.

Increased formal representation of the excluded

in groups and committees does not equal

increased voice and influence over decision-

making. here is still limited attendance of the

excluded at meetings, they rarely speak, and, if

they do, are not listened to. Understanding the

informal rules and structure through a more

thorough political power analysis is necessary to

Socio-cultural constraints on women arIt is necessary to work on shifting gend

power relations in both the workplace a

munities. Women tend to have higher o

nity costs involving higher levels of th

for lower levels of benefit than men; and

gender roles, women are more vulnera

loss of access to forest products. Gove

managed approaches need to consid

specific role of women and ensure access

ments are in place.

2.10 Mainstreaming Gender EqualSocial Inclusion: The Way Fo

hese measures to operationalize GES

streaming in the sector are discussed under our framework of three stages:

ing, design and implementation, and mo

and reporting. Exclusion based on gend

ethnicity or location is a complex int

issue which cannot be addressed in i

Multipronged measures are necessary fo

streaming, which is reflected in the sugmade here.46

2.10.1 Step 1: Identifying the barriers

Analyze existing power relations, and th

and informal institutions that enforce

petuate social and economic inequalities

inequality and social exclusion in forests a

to the wider socio-cultural and politico-e

context. Often the “barriers” we need to re

work around in order to provide more equ

to forests are part of interconnected for


Madhesi, etc). Some of these institutions are for-

mal—like the MFSC’s bureaucracy from the cen-

these systems/practices are negat

care/respecting elders), some of



y

ter down to the range post and the CFUG. hesesystems have rules and procedures which specify

how things should be done and who is responsible

for what. Our projects/programs work with these

systems and try to improve them so that they can

deliver forestry services more effectively. Revised

policies like 33% participation of women, certain

percentage of funds to be spent on pro-poor pro-

grams, and revised operational plans and constitu-

tions of CFUGs are examples of “rules” that the

MFSC is trying to change to improve the forestry

sector in Nepal.

We are aware that changing these “rules” about

how things are done upsets some stakeholders

(like the political parties which have been able

to reward loyal cadres with jobs, transfers andpromotions, advantaged caste groups, and men

who perceive an erosion in their authority) who

have benefited from them in the past. his is

why we always need to be aware of the “political

economy” of our projects and programs so that

we can include ways to keep these stakeholders

from blocking the changes that are needed. Here,we also have to think about the more “informal”

institutions, the ones that are deeply embed-

ded in people’s values, beliefs and ways of doing

things. hese too can block needed change and

keep the projects/programs we support from

achieving their development objectives. Some of

these—like the gender system or the caste hier-

archy—are so deeply ingrained that people often

follow the informal “rules” that structure these

systems without being aware that they are doing

so. It seems “natural” for a woman to be quiet and

p g

“rules” keep some groups from geto the benefits of the changes w

bring in the forestry sector throu

to the project/program.

We are used to designing proj

to bring changes in the formal sys

aware that we need to look carefu

changes can be blocked. So, we w

improved procurement, hum

accounting and auditing, comm

other systems of checks and bal

mize the opportunities for such

GESI framework is a system/m

improve our chances of success in

increased access to forest resourc

the poor and the excluded actuathe ground. GESI work requires

only at the formal systems (the M

cracy, local governments, NGOs

other donors) that we usually dea

at the informal systems (the hiera

and gender, political patronage n

ness interests, etc) which are parpolitical and cultural milieu in wh

projects must work and which

interacting with the formal system

in ways that distort the developm

we are seeking.

So, when we try to “identify b

actually uncovering whole syst

institutions, or “rules of the gam

some individuals and groups from

access to the universal services an

project/program is intended to de

2.10.1.1 Start with the formal systems 2. How does money flow, and who m

decisions along the way?



Assess GESI in existing policy, program, bud-geting, and M&E

Review the sector policies

It is important to assess the existing policy man-

dates that provide the space to work on GESI

issues in the forestry sector. We begin by iden-

tifying the policies that enable, those that con-

strain, and the policy gaps.

A review of existing programs of the MFSC

and other actors is necessary to assess the extent

to which there is an awareness of GESI and

how it is currently being addressed, and the

strengths and areas for improvement. he pro-

grams can be assessed against the three domains

of change.47 How are the issues of the excluded

being addressed (membership exclusion, accessto forest products, land, income, services, funds,

etc), what services are they receiving (e.g., access

to land, literacy, skills building), and how are

their capacities being strengthened? What

capacity building is there to increase the voice of

women, the poor and the excluded to recognize

their rights and pressure for shifts in policies andchange in discriminatory practices? And, for the

last domain of change, what are the interventions

to work on for the necessary policy reform and

changes in social values and attitudes?

Identify through the exploration of existing

programs potential champions within the gov-

ernment system who are willing to lead on GESI.

his may, of course, also identify potential block-

ers who may need to be worked around.

Understand the existing political economy and

governance issues in the sector—and, in particular,

3. If funds are allocated and spent attrict and community levels, how

is the governance of the governme

and community organization maki

decisions?

4. How transparent are their acc

systems?

5. Does the M&E system capture inp

puts and outcomes in a disaggregat

ner? Does it allow multiple stakeho

participate, so that the M&E out

owned by all stakeholders?

6. Who collects the data and who

them?

7. At what level are the M&E results s

8. Check whether the M&E system iing changes in a disaggregated man

on issues that are crucial for women,

and the excluded to increase their ac

9. Does the system provide a baselin

which to track change in the situ

women, the poor and the excluded

ing identification of gender/caste/etreligion/location-differentiated lab

terns for forest management and c

tion, equitability of distribution, a

resources, and decision-making pow

is using which forest resources for w

how equitable is the distribution? W

members and who are not?

10. Does the M&E system allow questi

answered about representation and

pation? Review profiles of CFUG m

and assess the diversity—whether i


11. Does the M&E system provide informa-

tion on socio-cultural and economic barri-

tives for required public aud

hearings, with clear provisions o



ers: mobility constraints of women, existing gender and social power relations, and dis-

criminatory practices which constrain the

participation of women, the poor and the

excluded?

12. Does the M&E system provide information on

forest product availability and other resources

brought in by programs to CFUGs: what is

coming in and who is getting access to it?

2.10.2 Step 2: Design and implementation

Addressing institutional and organizational

change issues

• Support the implementation of the GESI

strategy to include understanding why it hasnot been implemented as yet, what are the rea-

sons for the lack of political will to do so, iden-

tification of barriers to implementation, and

design of mechanisms to ensure implementa-

tion (e.g., linking to performance assessment

systems).

• Review gaps in existing policies and reviseas necessary through a broad-based multi-

stakeholder process. he revised community

forestry guidelines incorporate responsive

provisions which address some previous gaps.

A quick review of what is still missing needs to

be done, and then revisions made. he GESI

strategy identifies those policies/Acts/regula-

tions that require revision.

• Develop job descriptions and strengthen inter-

nal systems for GESI—work needs to be done

with the MFSC and the Department of Human

of women, the poor and the exder and social audit must be do

in two years, covering staff div

environment, and program and

and monitoring.

• Develop an institutionalized sy

audit and public hearing to cov

made by executive committee

mentation, and use of income

ture while also ensuring the p

women, the poor and the exclu

• Address longer-term exclusion

longer-term investment in capa

develop a diverse group of profe

fill the government’s civil servi

for women and excluded grouare necessary for technical insti

places for women and the poor

• Human resource policy mu

gender- and inclusion-respon

for recruitment, promotions

Recruitment processes must

value of local languages and of local dynamics. Human re

should support the developmen

ive working environment, espec

ing mothers, to encourage wom

district positions and retain t

the culture of lack of respect

sional capabilities of women

groups is an essential part of irepresentation and retaining th

Addressing the empowerment

• Institutionalizing tole groups and promot-

ing leadership of women, the poor and the

as appropriate following a carefully fa

process to ensure that proper service ev



excluded in these groups will enable theexcluded to participate in meetings and influ-

ence decisions, and also allow them to build

their leadership abilities.

2.10.3 Step 3: Monitoring and reporting

• Disaggregated programming, monitoring and

reporting using the three domains of change

need to be established across the sector. At the

national level, this will require the implemen-

tation of the GPSE monitoring system already

initiated.

• Objectives and indicators need to be disaggre-

gated by gender and caste/ethnicity. Planning

and programming must be based on disag-

gregated information and evidence. WithNGO partners, Participatory Rural Appraisal

(PRA) tools (e.g., well-being ranking, labor/

access/control profile, resource mapping, etc)

must be used as required at the community

level to identify the poor and map existing

social and power relations. his information

must be used for identifying priorities forprogramming and guiding implementation

practice.

• Uniform MIS and disaggregated data for all

sectors around some basic indicators would

help reduce duplication and identify gaps and

areas of acute exclusion. he GPSE indicators

must be used by all sector actors and institu-

tionalized as a routine activity.• Monitoring and reporting formats must be

standardized, with disaggregation to be fol-

lowed by actors in all sectors. Any specific

occurs and useful understanding is de• Joint monitoring practices like tho

through district forest coordination

tees must be reviewed and based on

institutionalized at the district and

levels. Representatives of organization

excluded and women’s groups must b

the monitoring teams.

• he M&E section in the departm

ministry must be given the responsib

integrating gender and social inclusio

monitoring system and practices of th

• he DFO planning sections need to

the planning, monitoring and GESI

and be made responsible for ensurin

is integrated in planning, monitorreporting.

• Baseline information is required at th

level regarding what services are be

vided and who is accessing them, alo

disaggregated data and evidence r

access to resources of women, the poo

excluded to forest products and other • Good practices and lessons learned ne

documented and shared. Capacity to

good analytical case studies and doc

tion of learning needs to be develop

should include documenting changes

relations as well as the dynamics of gen

social inequality and forest resource u

2.11 Conclusionhe forestry sector has made uneven pr

addressing issues of exclusion. It does, h


Community forestry has made significant prog-

ress, but in those forests managed directly by

Mainstreaming GESI is about

found difference to the livelihood



the state as national forests or protection areasthere are significant and high levels of exclusion.

Community forestry provides important lessons

on how to move towards more inclusive prac-

tices. hese lessons can be mainstreamed across

all forest management regimes and institution-

alized within government and non-government

structures.

In order to institutionalize GESI, the sector

needs to address the main issues facing women,

the poor and the excluded: the underlying

structural causes of their limited participation

and voice and very low influence over decisions

affecting community forests; the reasons for the

inequitable access to forest products and lack

of understanding of the need to distribute for-est products according to priority; the need to

build responsive processes that address the dif-

ferent needs of social groups; and ensuring rec-

ognition of and response to the cultural rights

of indigenous peoples. At an institutional level,

a variety of issues need to be addressed, includ-

ing the lack of staff diversity, ineffective genderfocal points with no resources or authority, no

structure with responsibility for technical sup-

port on GESI, and the limited integration in

planning, budgeting and monitoring that leads to

a major gap between enabling policies and weak

implementation.

of women, the poor and the excluing that forests continue to respon

of the least resilient and least ad

in Nepal, who are going to be the

by the ongoing climate change. In

ple in forest management is also

ing the value of the wider functio

Nepal. Inclusive forest managem

are beginning to see with comm

has been shown to increase the flo

but at the same time conserve an

amount of land area under produ

cover. Inclusion is not just importa

people’s livelihoods, but is essent

well-being through the protectio

ronmental services.Past efforts in mainstreaming

erty and inclusion issues have fo

a community-based management

not on the overall sector. As les

ter of the forests are managed und

property arrangements, focusing

regime is insufficient to widen eto forest sector benefits. wo ty

are deemed necessary: widening t

the community-based managem

and widening the GESI focus t

sector, including in government

ests and institutions.

Notes1 he GDP estimates vary greatly and no actual assessment has yet been made. A recent MFSC study indicates ove

economic potential is far more than these actual GDP estimates.



2 In the fiscal year 2008-2009 alone, the sector generated Rs 590,537,050 (equivalent to nearly USD 8.5 million)from taxes and sales of forest products (MFSC 2010).

3 here are 59 indigenous ethnic groups (Adivasi Janajati) recognized in Nepal, forming about 37% of the total populatio

2009). However, only a few indigenous ethnic groups, such as Raute, Chepang, Kusunda, and Bote Majhi, are entirely de

forests for shelter and survival.

4 Private forests are also managed in different ways, including forest plots, agroforests and guthi.

5 “Access” is about all possible means by which a person or group is able to benefit from things. Right of access

acknowledged claim that society supports, whether through law, custom or social rules and norms based on i

(Ribot and Peluso 2003). A range of economic and social powers affects people’s ability to benefit from resource

determines access.6 Other community management modalities include religious and collaborative forest management, but these are st

cant in terms of coverage.

7 MFSC database, 2010.

8 he requirement to register only the name of the household head as member has recently been changed with th

tion of the revised community forestry guideline. his guideline has recognized the importance of registering nam

men and women and requires their names be written together. he implementation of this provision and its impac

come.

9 However, this variation in time horizons may be related to the initial distribution of wealth. Level of wealth of

may be so low that their participation in collective action violates their survival constraints. he constraints artifto reduce their time horizons since they are forced to attach considerable importance to their present incomes (Cle

Jeffery and Vira 2001).

10 Conditions of forests under community management have improved both in the hills and in the arai (Kanel 2004

Stadtmuller, and Pfund 2005; Gautam et al 2003).

11 As per the Forest Act.

12 One study shows that in eastern Nepal, over the past 10 years CFUGs have reinvested an amount equivalent to U

generated by sustainable use of forests in school grants and literacy program grants for needy students (hies and

2007).

13 he large portion of forests (around 75%) which is managed and controlled by the state sees little reform from a social inclusion perspective, as these regimes are not people-centered.

14 he terminology prevalent at that time was gender and social inclusion, which has now evolved into gender equality

inclusion.

15 his strategy is informed by two LFP studies: a social and geographic audit (HURDEC 2004), and an organizati

ment of mainstreaming gender, poverty and social exclusion issues (Luintel 2006) to identify the situation of w

poor and the excluded and assess internal arrangements. hese self-reflecting initiatives emphasized the need to

organizational strategy to equip staff and partners with a uniform understanding of exclusion and the skills and

necessary to target and extend benefits to the poor and the excluded.

16 he UK Department for International Development (DFID) defines P&E as people who are economically poor adiscriminated against, and includes women, Dalits, disadvantaged Janajatis and religious groups.

17 he LFP’s approach to mainstreaming pro-poor policies at various levels also reflects recommended strategies

DFID’s policy paper on reducing poverty by tackling social exclusion. See DFID (2005) and LFP (2006b) for mo

18 he Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation defines disadvantaged groups as groups of economically p

h l ff f i l di i i ti b d d t / th i it i l id tit h


his gap was exacerbated during the 10-year conflict. In response, the government’s 2009 interim plan em

tegic role of civil society and proposed working closely with NGOs in meeting the needs of rural people. In

the LFP currently has partnerships with more than 50 NGOs throughout its project districts to transla



social inclusion strategy into action (LFP 2009). here is a similar shift in the NSCFP, which also works NGOs and user federations to deliver its livelihoods strategy and strengthen governance of user groups.

21 Records of civil servants maintained by Nijamati Kitabkhana (Department of Civil Personnel Records, M

Administration) were reviewed and disaggregated according to the surnames of government staff and their

residence. See Chapter 1 for details of the process.

22 Of whom 64.51% are Hill Brahmin-Chhetri.

23 Candidates from socially discriminated groups (women, Dalits and disadvantaged ethnic groups) ge

screening for selection. If the basic criteria are met, such candidates get preference for interview and selec

positive marking system that gives more marks for candidates from discriminated groups.

24 However, 75% of staff in management and officer-level posts are Brahmin-Chhetri-Newar. Women, ethniare mostly in assistant and support-level positions which have no influence on project decisions. But, as a

has a good record of employing locals from the project area—65% are locals. During the period 2005-2

achieved the target of staff composition proportionate to the district population breakdown.

25 Focus group discussion with women officers, MFSC, March 2010.

26 Personal communication, 2010.

27 Originally the GEWG consisted of gender focal persons from all MFSC departments, major forestry do

(SNV-BISEP-S, SDC-NSCFP, DFID-LFP, AusAid-NACRLMP, and Danida-NARMSAP), the

Commission (NPC), and Himawanti. Current membership also includes the International Union for Con

(IUCN) as GPSE (gender, poverty and social exclusion) group representative. wo major donor programNARMSAP) have left the group as AusAid and Danida phased out support in the forestry sector.

28 Personal observation of key informants and review of job descriptions.

29 For the detailed framework and methodology of how the budget analysis was carried out, refer to Chapte

30 he three prescribed categories are direct contribution, indirect contribution and neutral. Each subactivit

of 1, 2 or 3, considering the percentage of contribution to women. he formula for coding has five indica

20%: capacity building of women, women’s participation in planning process and implementation, wome

sharing, support for women’s employment and income generation, and qualitative progress in the use of

reducing their workload (eAWPB 2.0 Operating Manual 2010). In order to measure these categories quan

itative indicators were assigned quantitative values of equal denominations totaling 100. Direct gender conmore than 50% of the allocation directly benefiting women, indirect gender contribution indicates 20–50

benefiting women, and the neutral category indicates less than 20% of the allocation benefiting women. h

used by ministries like that of health, but due to difficulties in the application of the criteria, which do not

the sectors, it has not been fully used by all ministries.

31 Indicators for the pro-poor budget are investment in rural sector, income-generation program in rural area

ment program in rural areas, budget allocated for social mobilization, expenditure focusing on poverty r

local bodies, social security programs, investment in social sector, especially for education, health, etc

speech 2009–2010). But it is not clear how these are scored and what sub-indicators are used.

32 For a detailed framework and methodology of how the budget analysis was carried out, refer to Chapter 1

33 We are adapting from gender budget initiatives that have aimed to assess the impact of government expend

using three-way categorization of gender-specific expenditure, equal opportunity expenditure and gener

rest) considered in terms of its gendered impact (Budlender and Sharp, 1998).

34 MFSC annual budget in NPC format, 2009–2010.

35 Implemented budget of districts was reviewed to assess actual expenditureand its effect on addressingthe

income-generating activities for the poor identified through well-being ranking, and support for social empower

literacy classes, group organization, capacity building for increased voice and influence). his corresponds to our

“directly contributing.”



40 Supportive activities include gender and equity sensitization, advocacy campaigns, research focused on P&E related capacity building. his corresponds to our category of “indirectly contributing.”

41 P&E-neutral activities include FUG formation, capacity development of user groups for institutional developmen

ancy, furniture support, inventory, etc), plantation, protection, nursery establishment, and forest management tra

also includes support to service providers on technical forestry-related matters.

42 he group has wide membership, including the MFSC, DOF and NPC from the government, forestry progra

by donors (mainly Switzerland, the UK, and the Netherlands), NGOs, and user federations, including FECO

Himawanti.

43 Access to livelihoods, assets, and services; the ability of the poor and the excluded to exercise voice, influence and a

changes in the “rules of the game” in favor of the poor and the excluded.44 For detail of these approaches, see LGCDP (2009).

45 Workforce diversity means an inclusive workforce composed of people with different human qualities and r

different social groups from the perspective of gender, caste/ethnicity, age, culture, religion, and race. It identifi

differences as essential and natural. o capitalize on the strengths of diversity, organizations need to make consc

towards inclusion of people from diverse social backgrounds in their staff composition (SDC 2005).

46 We would like to clarify that these are not recommendations for the forest sector, which is beyond the scope of t

and also not the aim.

47 Refer to Chapter 1 for a discussion on this concept.




CHAPTER 3

Checklist for Mainstreaming Gender Equalitand Social Inclusion




inclusion. A core group of selected staff m

analytical skills on gender and inclusio

i d id h i l

3.1 Introductionhe first chapter of this monograph presented

h d li d i l i l i (GESI)



in order to provide technical support totime has to be created at all management

identify issues, design processes and im

activities; and resources need to be ident

consistently made available. A gender/em

ment/inclusion perspective needs to be in

into all policies, activities and routine fun

the sector, with appropriate manageme

tures in place, followed by M&E methodsresponsive to empowerment efforts/p

Finally, strong outside technical suppo

local and external providers is also necess

3.3 Core Information RequiremenGender Equality and Social In

(GESI) Mainstreaming • Key data should be disaggregated by s

ethnicity, class, location, age and any o

evant variable (e.g., disability or HIV

status, where required).

• Issues of division of labor, access to r

and decision-making power (who

what, who has access to what, who m

ultimate decisions) have to be asse

their differential impact on women an

different social identity groups.

• Key policies, programming and bu

institutional arrangements; human r

issues; and M&E systems must be

from a GESI perspective by those d

the project/program or policy and thsented and discussed with stakehold

the government, project staff, partner

zations and community groups.

the gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)mainstreaming framework, summarizing the key

findings from the GESI review of the seven sec-

tors with the steps required to move forward.

Chapter 2 focused on how to make projects, pro-

grams and policies in the forestry sector more

accessible and useful for the poor and the socially

excluded. his final chapter is presented mainly

as a handy reference guide. It sets out the genericsteps necessary for mainstreaming GESI in any

sector with a few blank formats that practitioners

may find useful in the course of their work. Of

course, these need to be contextualized, made

sector specific and refined to address the issues of

different social groups. We follow the five steps

of mainstreaming: 1) identification; 2) design; 3)implementation; 4) monitoring and evaluation;

and, when necessary, 5) responding to the moni-

toring and evaluation (M&E) findings by revi-

sions in project design or policy framework. Some

tools that can be used for the required analysis are

also presented and discussed.

3.2 Organizational Prerequisites forEffective Gender Equality and SocialInclusion (GESI) Mainstreaming

Even though sector policies have often integrated

gender and inclusion concerns, persistent gaps in

implementation continue to hinder the achieve-

ment of equitable outcomes in different sectors.

As discussed in Chapter 1, these gaps occur formultiple reasons, ranging from technical capac-

ity to attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders.

Mainstreaming GESI effectively requires some


here the generic steps and some suggestions on

how to implement them.3.4.3 Step 4: Monitoring, eval

reporting

Objective o design/strengthen



3.4.1 Step 1: Identification phase—Situation

analysis

Objective. o identify the specific barriers of

women, the poor and specific excluded groups

in accessing services and opportunities, and the

causes of their exclusion; and to understand

the political economy of the sector or subsec-

tor, both nationally and locally, in the particu-lar sites1 where the project or program will be

implemented. Identifying the excluded groups in

a particular sector and understanding their situa-

tion involve using available qualitative and quan-

titative data to answer the question: “Who had

access in the past to resources and decision-mak-

ing, and how are different social groups doing atpresent?”

o understand the barriers these groups face in

gaining access, it is necessary to look at and think

through several levels. able 3.1 shows the levels,

what to do and some suggestions on how to do it.

We can thus assess barriers constraining each

group from enjoying their rights and areas where

additional measures are needed to address the

barriers comprehensively or where existing sec-

toral efforts need improvement.

3.4.2 Steps 2 and 3: Design and implement

responses that address exclusion

Objective. o address the sociocultural barriers

and weaknesses in the policy framework or deliv-ery system by revising/strengthening policies,

program activities, resource allocations, institu-

tional arrangements and staff incentives as well

Objective. o design/strengthen to collect and analyze disaggregat

puts, outcomes and development

3.3), and ensure that the system

management decision-making an

loop to changes in implementatio

Note that none of the existin

M&E systems in the sectors rev

series has been able to monitor Geffectively. Although some sector

have made a good beginning, com

consistent systems are not in place

lyze and report with disaggregati

steps and process outlined below

cacy as well as technical support. P

ects have initiated some good praneed to be institutionalized. Majo

achieved if the National Plannin

(NPC) and the Ministry of Fina

vigorate the collection and co

sectoral output and outcome d

in the poverty monitoring and a

(PMAS). A common system for

analysis of disaggregated data a

tors would allow NPC to generat

accurate picture of progress and

on the path towards gender equ

inclusion.

he roles of the different acto

ing of monitoring are summarized

3.4.4 Step 5: Changing policy a

design to respond to M&E

inclusion.

perfect, it is important to build in formal pol-

icy reviews and project mid-term and periodic

evaluations that ask for data-based analysis of

hi h b fi i f h li

that certain groups are being left out,

suggestions for responding outlined i

3 2 can be used to guide a critical re-f h d



Table 3.1: Analysis of Barriers

S.N. Level Analysis of barriers How to do

1 Household &community

•What practices, beliefs, values and traditions at family andcommunity levels constrain women, the poor and the excludedfrom accessing sectoral resources, opportunities and services?

•What are the different rules, practices, divisions of labor, socialexpectations and differences in vulnerability and mobility for women and men and for different caste/ethnic groups? Howhave these impacted on women, the poor and the excluded?

•Stakeholder consultation;appraisal (PRA) tools like access and control profile

• Anthropological and sociNepal

2 Status of women, thepoor and theexcluded

•Collect disaggregated data and substantive evidence to findout existing status of women, the poor and the excluded, andassess areas and level of disparities—with particular attentionto data on their participation and status in sector for which theprogram or policy is being designed.

•Review Census, Nepal LivDepartment of Health Semanagement informationDemographic and Healthmanagement information

Development Report, MilGoals progress reports, erelated information

3 Policy2 •What policies exist, and how have these affected women andmen of different social groups?

•What new policy initiatives are being taken to address sectoralissues, and what are the likely gender/caste/ethnic/regionalidentity differentials in access to benefits from such initiatives?

•What policies have the potential to transform existing relationsof inequality, i.e., bring changes in socially prescribed divisionof labor and access to resources and decision-making power

between women and men, and between people of excludedand non-excluded groups?

•Review government policrelevant to the sector (seeanalysis matrix); project/poperational guidelines/otother guidelines, partnersguidelines, etc

4 Formalinstitutionalstructures andprocesses

•What kind of institutional structures/mechanisms/processesare there in the sector, and how responsive are they to theneeds and issues of the excluded (e.g., how representative arecommittees, project offices, other such bodies formed at local,district and national levels)?

•Is work on GESI specifically mentioned as a responsibility of any of these different institutions or their constituent units?

•What kinds of structures/mechanisms exist to enable womenand the excluded to be part of planning and monitoring

processes in the sector?•Human resource policies for recruitment, transfer, promotion,

staff performance evaluation: how diverse is the staff profile interms of gender, region, caste/ethnicity and other variables?What provisions recognize specific issues/constraints of women,e.g., maternity leave, breastfeeding, flexible hours, security?

•Develop disaggregated soffice, partner organizatiopartner, user groups form

Annex 3.2 for format)•Review job descriptions o

divisions and staff such aplanning officer, field facother relevant staff) and teconsultants and other tea

•Facilitate interactions/discsituation regarding workin

which groups are benefiting from the policy or

program and require specific follow-on actions

to respond to the findings. If this analysis reveals

3.2 can be used to guide a critical re-of the various processes, criteria and un

assumptions upon which the policy or

has been designed.


S.N. Level Analysis of barriers How to do

5 Programmingand budgeting

•What have been the main interventions in the sector? Howhave these interventions affected women and people from

other excluded groups (e.g., how did gender/caste/ethnicdifferentials support/constrain access to opportunities from

•Review annual budget (see Anformat) of government agency

projects/partner organization;adequately activities addressin



S.N. Level Responses Process1 Policy •Ensure policies (e.g., government directives at

the national level, project criteria/guidelines atcommunity levels, program goals and objectives)explicitly address constraints of women and theexcluded, and mandate action to address them

•Results planned in project plans/log frames must aimto improve assets, capabilities and voice of women,the poor and the excluded; they must addressformal and informal practices that are inequitableand discriminatory, and aim to transform existingstructural frameworks that disadvantage women and/or the excluded

•Policies can support a targeted approach or addressGESI issues in a non-targeted manner, integratingwhatever special measures may be necessary(and economically feasible and sustainable) intomainstream programs to overcome barriers faced bywomen and excluded groups in accessing services,opportunities and benefits provided by the sector

•Organize participatory workshops/consustakeholders—women and men of differtime, venue, methodology, language ansuitable for women and the poor in part

•Phrase objectives, outputs, activities andstatements to reflect both technical and

•Review who will benefit—which women,(with caste, class, location, ethnicity, agewho is likely to have access to benefits frWho is likely to control them? Who is likfrom this intervention? Are targeted grouclear terms or are general terms such asor “vulnerable” used without a clear defthey are? What assumptions are being mroles, responsibilities, time and access toover resources? On the capacity of peogroups?

•With the above in mind, what procedureof working can shift these patterns to be What incentives for sector staff and recipcan be built into the interventions and o(government and non-government) instit

sector?2 Formal

institutionalstructures andprocesses

•There must be desks/units/sections/departments withspecific GESI responsibility located within sectoralinstitutions/organizations from national to communitylevels, adequately resourced and mandated toprovide technical support to address GESI issues

•Identify GESI work responsibilities at diffexisting mechanisms to assess how they identified responsibilities—what has worhas not, why not; identify through a partwhat existing structures and organization

Table 3.2: Responses to Exclusion

g p ( g , g / /differentials support/constrain access to opportunities frominterventions)? Did interventions have explicit inclusion goalsand outcome indicators? Did they have an M&E system thatwas sufficiently disaggregated to track differential outcomes for different groups?

•What is the budget allocation and expenditure on activities toaddress issues of women, the poor and the excluded?

p j /p g ;adequately activities addressinhave been budgeted for; whaof the entire project cost has grelated activities; how transforbudgeted activities?

•Review M&E system and a samand special reports and studieinterventions in the sector

6 Informalinstitutions

(kinship,gender andcaste systemsand businessand partynetworks)

•What are the income levels, social and human developmentcharacteristics of groups identified as excluded in the sector

that might present barriers to their access?•What are the existing employment options in the sector andwhat barriers exist for women and other excluded groups interms of skill levels, mobility, social norms, etc?

•Who has access to control over what resources in the sector?•How are political parties active in this sector at different levels?

At the national level what are their linkages with the sectoralministry and other key organizations in the sector?

•Consultation/interaction•Political science, economic, s

anthropological literature on

S.N. Level Responses Process

sensitive, and personnel policies must supportgender-specific responsibilities

•Performance evaluation systems must captureresponsibilities for GESI dimensions and efforts

issues constraining applications fromgroups; adopt alternative strategies

through networks, in local languageinclude language skills understandi



y presponsibilities for GESI dimensions and effortsmade by staff to address gender and inclusion issues

g g ginclude language skills, understandicultures, etc

3 Informalinstitutions

• Activities (e.g., sustained dialogue and advocacy)must be developed and implemented to addressinformal institutions that violate human rights of women, the poor and the excluded; strategies to workwith rich, powerful, advantaged men and boys tochange values and attitudes, getting buy-in from eventhe privileged members of the community to changethe status quo. are necessary and have often beenvery successful

•Through consultations and review oidentify what has blocked implemenissues, values, social norms have be

•Identify measures necessary to worpoor and the excluded and with facommunity leaders, local political e.g., poverty analysis with leaders,sustained dialogue with men on mcampaigns against social ills like cboksi

4 Programmingandbudgeting

•There must be programmatic activities andbudget allocations that specifically address issuesexperienced by women and people from excludedgroups; budget must also be allocated for activitiesthat can create a supportive environment to addressgender/caste/ethnicity and other dimensions of exclusion

• Activities must ensure that livelihoods and voice of women, the poor and the excluded are enhanced,along with changing inequitable social norms andformal policies; sufficient budget allocations must bemade for these activities

•Estimate required resources and include humanand financial resources for activities on gender and inclusion awareness for women and menand capacity building of women at program andorganization level

•Include resources required to support childcareresponsibilities, field escort for security reasons andother specific constraints/responsibilities faced bywomen and people of excluded groups

• Allocate suff icient resources for gender-balancedstaff, training and institutional capacity building;include sufficient budget and time to build linkagesand networking to strengthen different interestgroups and to make sure that communicationmaterials can be produced in several languages if need be

•Those responsible for implementation must be heldaccountable for ensuring that planned activities areexecuted and the budget allocated is spent

•Review program activities and budglikely impact of each activity on womexcluded

• Ask whether activities are addressingwill poor and excluded women and resources and benefits coming frombe their benefits? Will they get theseactivities help to address structural isprogress of women, the poor and thviolence against women or untouchprovide immediate benefits by improor welfare? Identify percentage of bdifferent activities addressing barrierthese will enable groups to benefit e


Table 3.3: Monitoring and Evaluation


1 NPC •Revise planning, budgeting, M&E and reporting formats

and processes to capture GESI dimensions accordingh d f h h /

•Review existing formats; identify strengt

improvement; advocate for revision; creh



to three domains of change: changes in assets/services;changes in voice and ability to influence; changes ininformal and formal policies and behavior

•Issue directives to all ministries to report disaggregationat output and outcome levels; provide common formatfor gender and social disaggregation to be used by allsectoral ministries

•Review and strengthen PMAS and the District PovertyMonitoring and Analysis System (DPMAS)—or whatever province-level system may be established after the new

federal structure is determined

change

2 Ministry •In every program/project at least some objectives,outputs, and indicators must be phrased in a way thatcaptures gender and inclusion issues; these indicatorsdemand collection of disaggregated data

•M&E section to be strengthened to monitor accordingto three domains of change ((services, voice, rules) withdisaggregation, and guide departments and other keystakeholders to monitor and report with disaggregationand analytical evidence

• As revision of NPC formats may take time, the M&E

section of the sectoral ministry involved in the project/program must develop operational guidelines thatidentify what disaggregated information is possibleat national and district levels, and document caseexamples of success and lessons learned on how toensure services and opportunities to excluded groups

•Log frame/results framework to be deveparticipatory manner with representativorganizations; log frame development texpert on GESI

•Develop M&E and reporting formats redisaggregated information to be develo

•Information management system to be strengthened

•M&E officers to be trained on GESI-sen

3 Department •Revise necessary formats, indicators and monitoringguide to collect disaggregated information andevidence

•Monitor programs implemented by government andnongovernment actors in the sector

• Assess information provided by districts and reportaccordingly

•In joint consultation with ministry and oidentify steps required to make existing GESI responsive and revise accordingly

•Remember qualitative data and participinvolving the beneficiaries can be an iminsight about the GESI impact of interve

4 District •District line agencies to monitor whether programsare implemented as planned and expected outputs/outcomes achieved, and report with disaggregation

•District Information and Documentation Centers(DIDCs) to be strengthened to maintain disaggregateddatabase showing status of women and people of other excluded groups in district

•GESI implementation committee to be formed indistrict development committees (DDCs) accordingto approved MLD GESI strategy; collaboration and

linkages between these must be established, with clarityin roles

•Budget expenditure and planned progress (monthly andquarterly) must be disaggregated, as must reporting

•In annual reports, analysis must not be activity basedbut should be based on data that capture outcomes for

•To achieve all this, the Ministry of Loca(MLD) has to give a directive to the loca

•Local bodies will need technical suppoGESI-sensitive M&E and to establish dathat can be maintained to provide disainformation about progress and achiev


•Work jointly with the Integrated Planning Committee(IPC) in VDCs and Ward Citizens’ Forums (which are

to be established in each ward according to MLD VDCBlock Grant Operational Manual 2009 of MLD) for



p )monitoring

•Develop mechanisms and work according to an M&Eplan.

•Establish/strengthen systems for use of socialaccountability tools like public audit, citizens’ scorecard,public hearing, etc, and ensure that these areimplemented by disinterested third parties who can beobjective about the results

6 Project/program

• All of the above•Incorporate GESI dimension in all processes,

mechanisms and progress of project/program activities

•Work with government bodies as restrengthen government systems

•Efforts must be made not to establbut rather to identify joint monitorinproduce disaggregated data and afor different social groups by gend

•Reflect in log frame/results framewand indicators in a consultative pro


Table 3.4: Roles and Timing in Monitoring

Time Ward Citizens’

Forum/ward level

Village Citizens’Forum, Integrated

PlanningCommittee/VDC

GESIimplementation

committee/socialcommittee, DDC

GESI section/division/unit

of ministry/department

Projects/prog



, p

Facilitate settinof GESI-sensitivmonitoring andreporting system

Monthly • Monitor progress ingroup participation,access to

services, cases of discrimination

• Maintaindisaggregated dataabout programimplementation asper plan

• Self-monitoring

Regular meetings,monitoring of social mobilization

and programimplementation

• Regular supervision• Assessment of

progress as per

plans• Basis of monitoring

to be three domainsof change (services,voice, rules)

• Regular supervision

• Assessment of

progress as per plans

• Basis of monitoring to bethree domains of change

Quarterlyreview

Review progress withfocus on the threedomains of change

• Monitoring visits• Review with

disaggregation

as per the threedomains of change

• Analyze reports of VDCs

• Integrate progressand learning toinform decisionmakers for strategic change

• Report as per three domains of change

Six-monthly Public hearing,covering programimplementation andsocial mobilizers’ work

• Public hearing• Public audit

• Participation inpublic hearing andaudit

• Quarterly report tocover GESI

Supervision anreview

Annual Gender and socialaudit

Gender and socialaudit

• Participation inpublic hearing andaudit

• Annual report to

cover GESI

Report

Source: Adapted from GESI strategy of LGCDP, MLD, 2009.

Notes1 In a national program, a mapping of the local political economy of the sector in a sample of the different

the program would be implemented would provide enough to go on.

2 Policy is understood here as a statement of intent, so it can be at the macro, meso or micro level, and it can

ment Act or program-level guidelines/criteria) or informal, such as social practices/norms.3 See SIAG (2009) for suggestions to increase GESI sensitivity in recruitment policies.



Annexes




Annex 1.1: Definitions of Socially Excluded Groups

Brief definitions1 of the socially excluded groups (women, Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, M

people with disabilities and people of geographically remote areas) are provided below.



Women. Due to existing gender relations in Nepal and a patriarchal society, women experien

qual power relations, resulting in their social exclusion. Although the depth of gender discrim

varies between social groups in Nepal, all women are excluded. However, women from exclud

munities face caste, ethnicity and location-based constraints in addition to the constraints imp

their gender. Women constitute 51% of Nepal’s population.2

Dalits.3 People who have been suffering from caste and untouchability-based practices and r

social, political and cultural discrimination form 13% of Nepal’s population. Within the Da

munity, there are five sub-caste groups from the hills (Hill Dalits) and 22 sub-caste groups

arai (Madhesi Dalits).

Adivasi Janajatis.4 Peoples or communities with their own mother tongue and traditional soc

tures and practices, separate cultural identity, and written or unwritten history form 37% ofpopulation, with 5.5% Newars and 31.8% Hill and arai Janajatis. here are 18, 24, 7, and

groups respectively among the Mountain, Hill, Inner arai and arai Janajati groups.

Madhesis. People of plains origin who live mainly in the arai and have languages such as M

Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Urdu and Hindi as their mother tongue are considered Madhesis. hey

Madhesi Brahmin/Kshatriyas (2% of the population), Madhesi “other” caste groups (13

Madhesi Dalits.

Muslims. Muslims are a religious group found predominantly in the arai and form 4.3% of

population.

People with disabilities.5 “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical,

intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder t

and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”.6 Persons with full disabili

not manage daily life without assistance. hey include people with total mental, intellectual orimpairment such as complete blindness. People with partial disability are persons who have lo

physical and/or mobility impairments, and require regular assistance to manage daily life.


he specific issues of exclusion differ between these groups. For Dalits it is caste-b

for Adivasi Janajatis it is cultural rights/language-based exclusion; for Madhesis it is

exclusion; for the poor exclusion is economic-based; while for remote regions it is distan

women, it is gender-based, a characteristic that cross-cuts each of the other dimension



Notes1 Gender equality and social inclusion strategy, LGCDP/MLD, 2009.

2 Population figures are from Census 2001, CBS/NPC, Government of Nepal.

3 Based on the National Dalit Commission reports.

4 Based on NFDIN descriptions.

5 Based on Social Security Guidelines, MLD/Government of Nepal, 2065 (p. 1).

6 ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-conven

Annex 1.2: Step 1 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Framework: Anof Policy, Institutional, Program, and Monitoring and EvalBarriers

As part of designing responses that are based on the assessment done in Step 1 the analysis of



As part of designing responses that are based on the assessment done in Step 1, the analysis of

riers and responses must be viewed at several levels.

Policy. Analysis at this level assists us to identify which policies are addressing or reinforci

inequalities, and reducing, maintaining or increasing disparities. his analysis will, in turn, gu

the design of appropriate strategies for reprioritization or redefining policies. Policies exist at

Some are more formal and official, others more informal and traditional.

Organizational structures. he rules and practices within organizations need to be reviewed to

ways in which social inequity is created and maintained. he extent to which GESI policy comm

are formulated and effectively implemented depends on the understanding, skills and com

of the staff in policy-making, planning and implementation roles. Additionally, most organ

have official rules and procedures, but unofficial norms and practices operate informally an

ence results. ools for organizational assessment in projects/NGOs/partner organizations

disaggregated staff profiles showing who has access to what opportunities and types of resoulevels of decision-making power; reviewing the job descriptions and terms of reference for i

GESI in objectives, tasks/responsibilities, and key skills/competencies; and human resource

for recruitment, promotion, capacity building and support for gender-specific responsibilities

Program and budgeting . he program activities should be reviewed to assess the strengths and

areas of improvement for addressing the needs and interests of women, the poor and the exclud

program and budget should be assessed on whether they are specific, supportive or neutral

these groups. A financial commitment to gender- and inclusion-related activities is an essenment of mainstreaming GESI, reflecting the spending choices the concerned organization has

per its available resources. When auditing budget and program design to assess their effectiv

reaching different excluded groups and the poor, it is important to keep a separate eye on expe

for men and women in these various groups. Otherwise gender-based disparities may not b

up. Similarly, when conducting a gender audit, it is important to look separately at the expe

and outcomes for women from different social groups since women from certain social groups

have been reached.

Monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and reporting should follow the conceptual frame of t

areas/domains of change: 1) changes in assets/services; 2) changes in voice and ability to influe

3) changes in informal and formal policies and behavior. All monitoring and reporting form


Annex 1.3: List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender ESocial Inclusion Budgeting Covering 22 Programs and Aof Two Ministries

S tNumber of project/

Li t f b d t i d f FY 2009 2010 f GESI b d ti



Sector p j /

program budgetsList of budgets reviewed of FY 2009-2010 for GESI budgetin

Agriculture 3• Commercial Livestock Development Project, ADB• Project for Agriculture Commercialization and Trade, WB• Regular program of MOAC: extension services

Education 5

• School Sector Reform Program• School Sector Support Program• Capacity Development Program• Secondary Education Support Program, district level

• Education for All, district level

Health Annual plan (covering 41programs)

• Annual budget of FY 2009-2010 of MOHP

Forest Annual plan (covering 18programs) + 2

• Annual budget of FY 2009-2010 of MOFSC• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009

Water supplyand sanitation

6

• Community-based Water Supply and Sanitation Program• Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board• Small Town Water and Sanitation Project• Regular program of district water supply and sanitation

Irrigation 3

• Community-managed Irrigation and Agriculture Support Progr

• Integrated Water Resource Management Program• Department of Irrigation• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009

Ruralinfrastructure

4

• Rural Access Program• Rural Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project• Decentralized Rural Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement• District Road Support Program• Rural Access Integrated Development Program• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009

Annex 2.1: Area under Different Forest Management Regimes

Category of ownership regime Subcategory of management regime Number of

groups

Area

National forest (state property), all ownedby central state

Government-managed national forest NA 3,673

P t t d i l di b ff NA 887



by central state Protected areas, including buffer zones NA 887

Community forest 14,439 122

Leasehold forest 4,918 26

Collaborative forest 5 10

Religious forest NA

Private forest (private property) Private forest NA 2

Note: NA—Not applicable. Figures are rounded; official figures vary, as the database is not updated. Some forest areas acommunity forests which are not yet handed over to communities and are not included.Source: MFSC (2009).

Annex 2.2: Other Major Policies in the Sector and Their Gender EqualitInclusion Focus*

Policies Inclusion focus Gaps

1977–1978 amendments of Forest

Act 1976

People’s participation in forest management

recognized for first time

Totally silent on gender and

Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988–2010)

Livelihood of local people through forestryemphasized

Poor and women also recognized as primary usersof community forests

No caste and ethnic heteroguser groups and their livelihconceptualized

Forest Act 1993

Forest Regulation 1995

Legal rights to use and manage forests by user groups

Leasing degraded forests to groups of the poor

No social heterogeneities wtheir livelihood needs were c

Buffer Zone ManagementGuideline 1999

Allocation of 30% of budget for communitydevelopment through user group work plans

Totally insensitive to gender

Farming and indigenous occ

excluded are negatively aForest Policy 2000 Allocation of 35% of user group income for the

poor No specific affirmative rulespeople

Leasehold Forestry Policy Guideline2002

Streamline implementation process for handover of leasehold forests to the poor

Formation of user groups by giving priority towomen

Insufficient strategies to inclupeople and provide benefits

Tenth Plan (2002–2007) Involvement of the poor, women and backwardpeople (by forming their sub-groups) in user groups,their capacity building, and income generationactivities for them

Insufficient approaches and Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis andexcluded people in user groprovide benefits to them

Three-Year Interim Plan (2007–2011)

Specific income-generating activities for poor women, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis

Promotion of gender equality, social empowerment,and good governance in user groups

Insufficient approaches and Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis andexcluded people in user groprovide benefits to them

* A t f th di d l d i th t t


Annex 2.3: Forestry Projects/Programs Currently Working in Nepal

Project/program Donor countries/organizations

Commitment Implementing institutions Time period

BISEP-ST Netherlands €4.2 million MFSC, DOF, DSCWM,DNPWC, DPR

January 2007–July 2009



y

LFP United Kingdom £18 million MFSC, DOF, DSCWM July 2001–July2011

NSCFP Switzerland SF3.1 million DOF July 2008–July2011 (Phase VI)

WTLCP United NationsDevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)

US$13.1 million MFSC, DOF, DNPWC August 2006–July 2012

LFLP Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) US$12.8 million DOF, DLS 2005–2013(Phase II)

TA for LFLP Finland throughFood and AgricultureOrganization (FAO)

US$3.5 million DOF, DLS 2010–2014

TAL World Wide Fund (WWF) US$5.8 million DOF, DNPWC 2007–2011

SHLP World Wide Fund (WWF) US$3.5 million MFSC, DNPWC 2007–2011

NMCP World Wide Fund (WWF) US$0.7 million DNPWC 2007–2011

CSUWN UNDP GlobalEnvironmental Fund GEF

US$2.4 million MFSC, DNPWC 2007–2012

MDBR Common Fund for Commodities (CFC)–International Networkfor Bamboo and Rattan(INBAR)

Rs. 5.2 million DFRS February 2009–January 2010

BMRGMPE Nepal Trust For NatureConservation (NTNC)

Rs. 4.4 million DNPWC 2009–2010

FRA Nepal Finland €4.7 million DFRS 2010–2014

PWMLGP Japan InternationalCooperation (JICA)

N/A DSCWM July 09-July10

Full forms

Projects/programs

BISEP-ST: Biodiversity Sector Support Program for Siwalik and Tarai

LFP: Livelihoods and Forestry Program

NSCFP: Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project

WTLCP: Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project

LFLP: Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program

TA for LFLP: Technical Assistance to LFLP

TAL: Terai Arc Landscape Program

SHLP: Sacred Himalayan Landscape ProgramNMCP: Northern Mountain Conservation Program

CSUWN: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal

MDBR: Market Development of Bamboo and Rattan

BMRGMPE: Biological Management of Rhinoceros Grassland Management and

Implementing government institutions

MFSC: Ministry of Forests and Soil Con

DOF: Department of Forests

DPR: Department of Plant Resources

DNPWC: Department of National ParksConservation

DFRS: Department of Forest Research a

DSCWM: Department of Soil ConservaWatershed Management

DLS: Department of Livestock

Annex 2.4: Logical Framework of Selected Programs/Projects on Forestr

Project: insert project namePeriod of analysis: insert period of analysisB d t i t t

GESI sensitive budgeting: Format used for Fund Flow Analysis at NSCFP

Fund Receivers Beneficiaries



Budget: insert amountCurrency: currency

Budget Expense Headings Geographicaloutreach

BudgetExpense Amount

Insertamount

Districtrural

Cen-tral

Inter-na-

tional.

Discrimi-nated

Non-Dis-criminated

DAG Non-DAG

Gen-eral andcommon

cost

Ccdi

Discriminationperspective

(Caste, ethnicity/gender)

Disadvantaged groupperspective

(Economically poor andsocially discriminated)

Fund Receivers Beneficiaries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Total amount

Action lineBudget

0000

Gender Beneficiary Monitoring

Male Female

- - - - - - - -

Introductory Notes on FFA formatIn line with the Swiss Cooperation Strategy 2009-12 (outcome 2), DAG are able to benefit more from effectivdevelopment interventions Fund Flow Analysis aims to analyse and monitor the flow of funds towards targetedand beneficiaries and to provide information as to the percentage of project’s investment to various target groand beneficiaries to be used consciously for decision making at project and program level.

The new FFA form is a simplified version of FFA that was introduced in 2007. It has three main dimensionflow monitoring:

Fund Receivers: The fund receiver dimension is analysed in two perspective, namely Geographical and Discperspective. Receiver indicates the act of receiving payments (money) from project. The receiver is determ

receipts, vouchers, advance settlement accounts and reports.• Geographical perspective – receiver: the figures, numbers are distributed among the three columns

to the domicile of party receiving money e.g., District, Centre (Kathmandu) and International.• Discriminated receiver: Discriminated receivers are the attention groups who are defined as discrim

SDC’s policy; like: Women, Dalit and Janajati All other payments received by non-discriminated group

* Fund Flow Analysis (FFA) is adopted by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) across all Swiss funded p


Investment (cluster district): Swiss Strategy has defined 4 central districts and 4 western districtsalso called as cluster districts. SDC aims at increasing investment in these districts. FFA intends to mof investment made and investment trend in these districts.

Timing: FFA assessment and reporting follows the project cycle; e.g., at the time of phase budgeting, aplanning and while preparing annual reports Consolidation of data and results is done at SDC and s



planning and while preparing annual reports. Consolidation of data and results is done at SDC and sprojects annually.

Data entry: The entire (100%) amount of project budget or expenditure is to be covered for FFA moproject’s budget or expenditure should appear in each FFA analysis. Every of budget or expenditure in all four categories independently.

Attribution of percentage: Except for column 3 meant for value of Budget/expenditure the percent

be attributed to all the columns (column 4 to 14). The total of percentage value must be 100 for eaanalysis; e.g, Fund receivers (geographical out reach 100, DAG perspective 100), Beneficiary 100%,

The total of all 4 categories will sum up to 400%.

Annex 2.5: Monitoring Indicators Related to Gender, Poverty and Socia Change area 1: Gender- and equity-sensitive policy and strategy

Primary level % of amended or new NRM group policy documents (e.g., constitutions, operational plansinitiatives or benefit-sharing mechanisms showing affirmative action towards the P&E.

Advanced level % of NRM institutions that have



• P&E-sensitive policy and strategies

• P&E indicators in their M&E system

• provision for gender and social equity budgeting in budget process

• provision for involving P&E groups in policy and strategy formulation process

Change area 2: Equitable governance

Primary level Proportionate representation in NRM groups

• % of women members in NRM groups

• % of P&E in NRM group executive committee

• % of NRM groups with at least one P&E member in the three key decision-making positioand treasurer)

Advanced level % of P&E expressing that committee decisions address their needs very well, well, satisfacto

Change area 3: Gender- and equity-sensitive organizational development and programming

Primary level % of excluded staff in NRM institutions at field level, managerial level, and overall

Advanced level % of budget allocated and spent for P&E activities

Change area 4: Equitable access to resources and benefits

Primary level % of NRM groups with P&E receiving at least average share* of fuelwood, fodder, grass, tim

Advanced level % of P&E people who are not members of NRM groups

* Working definition of average share of natural resources: total of natural resource products distributed divided by numbe

NRM groups.Source: Adapted from IUCN (2009) and MFSC (2006).


Annex 3.1: Policy Analysis Format

Policy, provision, article No GESI analysis of policy statements, provisions, criteria, guidelines, etc

Addresses human condition withinexisting social hierarchy and division of responsibilities, does not make structural

changes

Establishesequal rights andpromotes structural

transformation



changes transformation

1……

2…..

Annex 3.2: Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile

S.N. Post

DalitJanajati

Brahmin/ChhetriOther

MadhesiCastes/

OBCgroups

MuslimOthers

NewarsHill Madhesi Hill Tarai Hill Madhesi

F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

1

2

3

4

5

6

Annex 3.3: Program and Budget Analysis Format

Description

Directly supportiveactivity (1)

Indirectly supportiveactivity (2)

Neutral activity (3)

Amount % Amount % Amount % Am

Women

Dalit

Janajati (exceptNewar)

Newar

Brahmin/Chhetri

Muslims

Other MadhesiCastes/Other Backward Classes(OBC)

Location (rural,remote, Karnali,

Bibliography



Acharya, K.P., J. Adhikari and D. Khanal. 2008. “Forest enure Regimes and their Impact on Liv

in Nepal.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 7:1.

ADB. 2009. “Nepal: Country Partnership Strategy 2010-2014: A Strategy for a Country in raSeptember. Manila: Asian Development Bank (ADB).

______. 2010. “Gender Mainstreaming in ADB Projects: Report of the echnical Working

February. Manila. Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Bampton, J.F.R. and B. Cammaert. 2006. “How Can imber Rents Better Contribute to

Alleviation through Community Forestry in the erai Region of Nepal?” Paper pres

International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportu

Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing, Ho Chi Minh City, 3-6 October.

Banjade, M.R. and N.S. Paudel. 2008. “Mobile Pastoralism in Crises: Challenges, Conflicts and

Pasture enure in Nepal Mountains.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 7:1.

Bennett, L., D.R. Dahal and P. Govindasamy. 2008. Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepa

Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton, MD: Macro Interna

Bista, R. 1999. “Conserving Bio-diversity: Experiences and Challenges in Nepal.” A report publ

Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal.

Buchy, M. and B. Rai Paudyal. 2008. “Do Women-Only Approaches to Natural Resource Man

Help Women? he Case of Community Forestry in Nepal.” In Gender and Natural Management in Asia: Livelihoods, Mobility and Interventions, edited by B. Resurreccion

Elmhirst. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Buchy, M. and S. Subba. 2003. “Why is Community Forestry a Social- and Gender-blind ec

he Case of Nepal.” Gender, Technology and Development. 7:3, pp. 313-332.

Budlender, D. and R. Sharp with K. Allen. 1998. How to do a Gender-Sensitive Budget Analysis: Cont

Research and Practice. London, Canberra: Australian Agency for International Developm

Commonwealth Secretariat.Central Bureau of Statistics. 2002. National Population Census, National Report 2001. Kat

National Planning Commission Secretariat.

Cleaver, F. 2001. “Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Devel


Gautam, A.P. et al. 2003. “Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Change Pattern in a Moun

in Nepal.” Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment. 99, pp. 83-96.

Government of Nepal. 2007. “he Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2007).” http://ww

sion.gov.np/en/documents/prevailing-laws/constitution/func-startdown/163/______. 2008. “he hree Year Interim Plan.” Kathmandu: National Planning Commiss

H bl M 2007 Wh i h W ld I Th P F P li d T R f



Hobley, M. 2007. Where in the World Is There Pro-poor Forest Policy and Tenure Reform

DC: Rights and Resource Initiatives.

Hobley, M., J. Baral, N. Rasaily and B. Shrestha. 2007. “Nepal Swiss Community Fo

External Review.” Report prepared for MFSC and SDC, Kathmandu.

HURDEC. 2004. Social and Geographical Audit of Six Hill Districts. Kathmandu: Livelihoo

Program.IUCN. 2009. Natural Resource Management, Poverty and Social Equity Monitoring Indicators

Kathmandu: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Nepal.

Jeffery, R. and B. Vira. 2001. Introduction in Conflict and Co-operation in Participatory N

Management. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jensen, R.I. et al. 2006. “Evaluation of DFID’s Policy and Practice in Support of Gend

Women’s Empowerment.” Volume 1. Synthesis Report. Evaluation Report EV

Department for International Development (DFID).

Jha, C., S. Prasai, M. Hobley and L. Bennett. 2009. “Citizen Mobilization/Social M

ransformation Review Report.” Kathmandu: MLD, DFID/WB/SDC.

Kabeer, N. 1994. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. London:

Kanel, K.R. 2004. “wenty-five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution to Millennium

Goals.” In Proceeding of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, edited

et al. Kathmandu: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forests.

Khadka, M. 2009. Why does Exclusion Continue? Aid, Knowledge and Power in Nepal’s Com

Policy Process? Maastricht: Shaker Publishing B.V.Kothari, U. 2001. “Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development.”

The New Tyranny?, edited by W. Cooke and U. Kothari. London: Zed Books. pp. 1

LFP. 2005a. “Pro-Poor and Social Inclusion Strategy.” Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Fores

(LFP).

______. 2006a. “Animation and Social Mobilisation: Empowering Local Communities to

and Resources.” Good Practice Paper Series 4. Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Forest

DFID Nepal.______. 2006b. Increasing the Voice and Influence of Poor and Excluded People in Communi

and Interest Groups in CFUGs. Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Forestry Program.

______. 2009. “Community Forestry for Poverty Alleviation: How UK Aid Has Increa

Concerns.” Kathmandu: Livelihood and Forestry Program.

Mayers, J. 2007. “rees, Poverty and argets: Forests and the Millennium Developmen

Environment for the MDGs.” London: Integrated Institute for Environment and Develop

MFSC. 1978. Amendments of Forest Act 1976. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Con(MFSC).

1988 Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988 2010) K th d Mi i t f F t



______. 1988. Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988-2010). Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest

Conservation.

______. 1993. Forest Act 1993. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.

______. 1995. Forest Regulation 1995. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.

______. 1999. Buffer Zone Management Guideline 1999. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest

Conservation.______. 2000. Forest Policy. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.

______. 2002. Leasehold Forestry Policy Guideline 2002. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest

Conservation.

______. 2006. Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy. Kathmandu: Gender and Equity Working

Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.

______. 2009. Nepal’s Readiness Preparation Proposal REDD (2010-2013). Kathmandu: Mi

Forest and Soil Conservation.

______. 2010. Approach Paper to Three-year Interim Plan (2011-2013). Kathmandu: Ministry

and Soil Conservation /National Planning Commission.

NFFIN. 2009. Socioeconomic Status of Indigenous People: Final Report. Nepal Federation of In

Nationalities (NEFIN), Kathmandu, Nepal.

NPC. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan for Government of Nepal (2002-2007). Kathmandu: National

Commission (NPC).

______. 2007. Three-Year Interim Plan (2007-2011). Kathmandu: National Planning Commiss

NSCFP. 2007a. “Looking at NSCFP from Gender and Equity Eyes.” Issue Paper No. 9. KatNepal Swiss Community Forestry Project (NSCFP).

______. 2007b. “he Contribution of NSCFP to Poverty Reduction at the Household Level.” Iss

No. 11. Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project.

Pokharel, B., . Stadtmuller, and J.L. Pfund. 2005. “From Degradation to Restoration: An Asses

the Enabling Conditions for Community Forestry in Nepal.” Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss Com

Forestry Project, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

Rai Paudyal, B. 2008. Agrarian Structure and Distributive Outcomes: A Study of Community FNepal. he Hague: Institute of Social Studies/Shaker Publishing.

Ribot, J.C. and N.L. Peluso. 2003. “A heory of Access.” Rural Sociology. 68 (2). pp. 153-181.

SDC. 2005. Policy on Workforce Diversity. Kathmandu: Swiss Agency for Development Cooperatio


______. 2006. Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal. Kathmand

DFID.

World Bank. 2006. “Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gend

(Fiscal Years 2007-10).” September. Washington, DC: World Bank.______. 2009. “Interim Strategy Note for Nepal 2009-2012.” Washington, DC: World B



A woman grazing her goats inKanepokhari forests, Morang district, eastern Nepal, 2012.

Photograph by Mani Lama; design by Chiran Ghimire.Book design by Norbo Lama.

sectoral perspectives on gender and social inclusion: forestry (monograph 3)

Documents