1

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Vulnerability reduction, and safety and resilience building of communities towards natural and

climate change related hazards are central concepts in the recent policy debates (Miller et al.,

2010). Although there are fundamental linkages and complementarities between the two concepts,

the latter is emphasized more in recent policy and programming. Resilience, with its roots in the

Latin word resilio, means to adapt and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event. In the climate

vulnerability perspective, ‘community resilience’ is a relative term and refers to an ideal condition

of a community in terms of its capacity to anticipate, be prepared for, respond to, and recover

quickly from the impacts of a disaster. The resilient community is a positive concept, thus every

community is striving to achieve it.

With respect to ecosystem (ecology), resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a

perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly (Peterson et al., 1998).

Such perturbations and disturbances can include both natural and human-induced events such as

fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities like deforestation

and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Human activities that adversely affect

ecosystem resilience such as reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution,

land-use change, and anthropo-induced climate change are increasingly causing regime shifts in

ecosystems, often to less desirable and degraded conditions (Walker et al., 2004). Interdisciplinary

discourse on resilience now includes consideration of the interactions of human and ecosystems

via socio-ecological systems, and the need for shift from the maximum sustainable yield paradigm

to environmental resource management which aims to build ecological resilience through

resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance (Walker et al., 2004).

There is increasing awareness that emphasizes the need for a greater understanding of ecosystem

resilience to attain the goal of sustainable development (Brand, 2009).

It is established that women are highly knowledgeable in matters related to conservation and

disaster mitigation. Women are recognized for their knowledge and skills in natural resource

management and their involvement in farming. Therefore, their role in sustainable development

and disaster resilience is highly valued. Hyogo Framework for Action 2 (HFA2) (UNISDR, 2013)

2

and UN conference on sustainable development 2012 (UN, 2012) both strongly emphasize

women's role as experts and their rights in decision-making and receiving information in disaster

reduction and sustainable development. The Sendai Framework has recognized the role of women

for effective management of disaster risk and designing, resourcing and implementing gender-

sensitive disaster risk reduction policies, plans and programs (UNISDR, 2015). In order to

materialize this commitment, in which Nepal is also a partner (Taylor, 2013), to enhance the

existing situation of gender equality and to ensure participation of women and men from different

social backgrounds in overall disaster resilience processes is necessary.

However, in practice the measurement of community resilience is still in infancy. In order to

measure community resilience towards climate-induced disasters, a process cum outcome based

community resilience index (Kafle, 2012) has been suggested. Whereas, for measuring

socioecological resilience, a set of indicators have been proposed (UNU-IAS, Bioversity

International, IGES & UNDP, 2014; Oudenhoven et al., 2014). For measuring ecosystem

resilience, quantitative analysis of species composition, basal area, community dominance, and

species diversity, richness and evenness have been suggested.

Assessing climate-induced risks including natural hazards and community vulnerabilities is a pre-

requisite for designing climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions. Nepal is at a high

risk of climate-induced disasters (Gurung and Rai, 2009). However, there seems to be a lack of

both the initiatives for assessing climate-induced risks at the community level as well as the

adoption of appropriate methods for their measurement. In the present study, efforts have been

made to fulfill this gap by assessing the climate induced hazards, vulnerabilities, and community

and ecosystem resilience in the Seti River corridor of the CHAL (Chitwan Annapurna Landscape)

in the Gandaki river basin by engaging community members and key stakeholders.

1.2 Goal and Objectives

The overall objective of this study was to assess the community and ecosystem resilience towards

climate-induced disasters in the Seti River corridor of the CHAL. The specific objectives were to:

Assess climate-induced hazards and vulnerabilities,

Map/visualize the spatial distribution of areas of exposure, severity of damage, and

potential of occurrences for climate-induced hazards, vulnerabilities, and community and

ecosystem resilience.

3

Outline a method for measuring both communities and ecosystem resilience.

1.3. Assumption and Limitation

The study has been carried out with due considerations to the following assumptions and

limitations:

i. Selection of study area was pre-determined in the Gandaki River Basin mainly in the Seti

River Corridor of the CHAL, however, the down-stream boundary has been taken slightly south

from the confluence point with an intention to include the lower riparian area.

ii. Social and ecosystem indicators were taken into the measurement criteria; however,

community indicators were assessed by the administration of different survey instruments at the

community level of selected Village Development Committees (VDCs). Ecosystem indicators

were assessed based on data/information acquired from maps, satellite imageries, field

observation, a questionnaire survey and secondary sources. The quadrat method was used for

generating information about the dominant tree species in the area rather than detailed vegetation

analysis.

iii. The list of measurement indicators of both community and ecosystem were taken from

published sources other than the corridor geographical context of Nepal, with a main goal to

develop the measurement criteria in the corridor geography of Nepal by following the formula

developed by those studies with slight modifications.

iv. For the field survey, 13 VDCs/Municipalities (21%) out of 61 were purposively selected,

among them, five from up-stream, four from mid-stream and six from down-stream were selected

after intensive consultation with the Hariyo Ban expertise team. The Hariyo Ban program was

already functional in nine of the selected VDCs.

v. The number and boundary of VDCs/Municipalities were based on the 2011 census report of

the Government of Nepal.

CHAPTER TWO

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Climate Change: Global to the Local Context

The Rio Earth Summit-1992, first convened the climatic agenda through the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to tackle the growing problem of global

4

warming and related harmful impacts of climate change, such as more frequent droughts, storms

and hurricanes, melting of ice, rising sea levels, flooding, forest fires, etc. Following the resolution

of the Rio summit, on 21 March 1994, Cooperation of Parties (COP) discussed the emission of

greenhouse gases (GHGs) and its dangerous interferences with the climatic system.

After the ‘Fourth Assessment Report’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

in 2007, scientists published a report on global warming and associated climate change. IPCC

Working Group-II in 2007 summarizes the likely impacts of climate change already under way

and, the potential for adaptation to reduce vulnerability and the risks of climate change. Among

others, the Himalayan mountains are reported to be highly vulnerable to global climate change

(Beaumont et al., 2011; Li et.al., 2013; Shrestha et al., 2012; Thapa et al., 2015). Shrestha et al.

(2012) indicated that temperature and precipitation changes will be greater than the upper bounds

predicted by the IPCC. The second volume of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC,

addresses impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. It provides a powerful impetus for the

identification of clear social needs and associated research priorities (Brewer, 2008). The

correlation between climate change and anthropogenic activities has been firmly established. The

average global surface temperature has increased by about 0.8°C in the last century and 0.6°C

within the last three decades (IPCC, 2007). Recently, the COP-21 meeting held in Paris on

December 2015, which is also known as the ‘Climate Conference’ officially recognized the

increasing earth surface temperature and in over 20 years of UN negotiations aims to achieve a

legally binding and universal agreement on climate with the aim of keeping global warming below

2°C (www.COP21Paris.org). Over 195 parties of the world have recognized and accepted

increasing global warming, and have agreed to this resolution.

Nepal, being situated in the Himalayas, is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts due to its

fragile ecological systems and rugged geographical structure with great elevations and steep slopes

(Gurung and Rai, 2009). The rate of temperature increase per year was found to be 0.06°C to

0.12°C in the mid-hills and mountains, and 0.03°C in lowland Nepal (Shrestha et al., 1999).

Seasonal temperatures in Nepal are already increasing at a faster rate than the global average, and

this trend is likely to continue. The mean annual temperature is projected to increase by an average

of 1.2°C by 2030, 1.7°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2100 compared to 2000 pre-baseline figure. Climate

change is also likely to exacerbate the contrast between wet and dry seasons, a process that will

5

culminate in rainy season downpours that are more extreme in both intensity and duration. In

addition, higher temperatures, increased rates of evapo-transpiration and decreased winter

precipitation may increase instances of drought (Hariyo Ban Programme, n.d.).

2.2 Climate Change Induced Disaster, Risk and Vulnerability

Natural hazards like floods, drought, desertification and environmental degradation such as

deforestation, erosion and loss of biodiversity are aggravated by climate change and have

farreaching consequences in terms of food and water security. Both community and ecosystem

have their own resilience capability with respect to these disasters.

2.2.1 Community resilience

Resilience approaches are concerned with how the community system responds to change. The

resilient community tends to prefer a systematic approach, which aims to secure future

sustainability, which cannot be realized without understanding the socio-political processes and

environmental linkages that underpin the foundations of vulnerability (Miller et al., 2010).

Community vulnerability and resilience are not mutually exclusive; rather they are part of a one

system approach (Kafle, 2012). It is assumed here that for the reduction of underlying causes of

vulnerabilities and obtaining a resilient community state, the understanding of interactions between

vulnerability and resilience elements are prerequisite. In order to capture the dynamic processes of

vulnerability and resilience, a number of indicators from both the process and outcomes of a

community based disaster risk reduction program have been taken. However, it is regarded here

that community vulnerability is a subset of a broader concept of social and ecological resilience.

In practice, the community which has the following elements can be considered as resilient to

future disaster risks (Kafle, 2010).

1. Community based organizations with trained volunteers;

2. Hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment done and socialized in the community;

3. Community risk reduction plans formulated and implemented;

4. Involvement of women, children and vulnerable groups in decision-making processes;

5. Integration of community plans into local development planning;

6. Linkage development with local government agencies, private sectors and

nongovernment organizations;

6

7. Community awareness on key hazards, their vulnerabilities and capacities, and future

disaster risk;

8. Diversified local economy;

9. Safe ‘critical facilities’;

10. Contingency plans;

11. External support; and

12. Community early warning system linked to the government early warning system.

In practice, an integrated community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) intervention has been

initiated to build the resilience capabilities using the process cum outcome based standards (Kafle,

2010). In recent years, a number of tools have been developed to measure community resilience

capacities, among them two are widely used, i.e. capital-based approach and process and outcome

standards. This study adopts the latter one, and quantifies the community in terms of their resilience

status.

2.2.2 Ecosystem resilience

In the present context of global change, the resilience capacity of the ecosystem seems to be

affected by several human activities. For instance, the reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of

natural resources, pollution, land-use change, and climate change are among the major causes for

ecosystem degradation leading to reduced resilience (Walker et al., 2004). In order to build

ecological resilience through "resilience analysis, adaptive resource management and adaptive

governance" there needs to be a shift from the sustainable yield paradigm to environmental

resource management (Walker et al., 2004; Green et al., 2015). In order attain the goal of

sustainable development; there is need for greater understanding about ecosystem resilience with

a higher level of awareness (Brand, 2009).

In addition to community resilience towards clime-induced disasters based on process and outcome

indicators, the present study also measures resilience of socio-ecological systems using the socio-

ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) indicators (UNU-IAS, Bioversity

International, IGES and UNDP, 2014) which help to assess the outcomes of the pressures and

disturbances. The validated socio-ecological production landscape and seascape indicators are;

i. Landscape/seascape diversity

7

ii. Ecosystem protection

iii. Ecological interactions between different components of the landscape/seascape

iv. Recovery and regeneration of the landscape/seascape

v. Diversity of local food system

vi. Maintenance and use of local crop varieties and animal breeds

vii. Sustainable management of common resources

viii. Innovation in agriculture and conservation practices ix. Traditional knowledge related

to biodiversity

x. Documentation of biodiversity-associated knowledge

xi. Women’s knowledge

xii. Rights in relation to land/water and other natural resource management

xiii. Community-based landscape/seascape governance

xiv. Social capital in the form of cooperation across the landscape/seascape

xv. Social equity

xvi. Gender equity

xvii. Socio-economic infrastructure

xviii. Human health and environmental conditions

xix. Income diversity

xx. Biodiversity-based livelihoods

2.3 Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment

Hazard assessment helps to identify the key triggering events, and nature as well as the probability

of occurrence of the events. Climate related hazards assessed using the following parameters:

Hazard types

Causes of hazard

Warning sign Fore-warning

Speed of onset

Frequency

Hazard occurrence, and

Duration

8

Vulnerability assessment is a way of projecting likely impact on identifiable population due to

particular hazard. The pressure and release model is used for vulnerability assessment (Fig. 2.1).

Vulnerability is usually measured using a person’s exposure to risk by assigning certain scores on

the following five components.

1. Livelihoods strength and resilience

2. Initial well-being

3. Self-protection

4. Social protection

5. Governance, civil society and institutional framework

Figure 2.1. Risk assessment using pressure and release model (Wisner et al. 2003)

2.4 Socio-Ecological Mobility

Assessment of vulnerability starts with documenting the exposure of the community to the climate

extreme, where exposure is referred to both the physical conditions of the climate related risks, i.e.

its extent and magnitude.

2.5 Resilience Measurement

UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) has developed a Toolkit for the

indicators of resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). It

recognizes that humans have influenced most of the Earth’s ecosystems through production

activities such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, herding and livestock ranching. While human

impacts are often thought of as harmful to the environment, many such human-nature interactions

are indeed favorable to or synergistic with biodiversity conservation. The Toolkit further discusses

Vulnerability Progression

Underlying Causes

Conflict

Inequality

Poor education

Tragedy of Commons

Dynamic Pressures

Poverty

Unsafe conditions

Physical conditions

Closeness

Fragile conditions etc.

Habitat Destruction

Climate induced hazards

Trigger event

D= H*V

9

the community and ecosystem of both landscape and seascapes commonly characterized as

dynamic bio-cultural mosaics, where the interaction between people and the landscape maintains

or enhances biodiversity while providing humans’ goods and services needed for their wellbeing.

2.6 National Policy Initiatives

The Government of Nepal first initiated disaster management activities formulating legal

instrument by enacting the Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982 (BS 2039) with its two subsequent

amendments in 1989 and 1992 (MoHA, 2014). The Act has mandated the MoHA (Ministry of

Home Affairs) as the lead agency for immediate rescue and relief work, preparedness and other

related activities. Since the establishment of this Act, numbers of other documents such as

strategies, measures, guidelines and directives have also been formulated. The Natural Calamity

Relief Act arranged for formation of the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee chaired by the

Minister of Home Affairs. The document empowered the government to constitute disaster relief

committees at the regional, district, and local levels which include the Central Natural Disaster

Relief Committee (CNDRC), Regional Disaster Relief Committee (RDRC), District Disaster

Relief Committee (DDRC), and Local Disaster Relief Committee (LDRC). These committees are

authorized to establish natural disaster relief funds to utilize in relief operations.

The Local Self Governance Act, 1999 has provisioned local level authority for environmental

friendly sustainable development. The local authority can prepare guidelines considering

interlinkage between local level development, environment, and disaster.

The National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (NSDRM) was approved by the

Government of Nepal in 2009 (B.S. 2066). The NSDRM has been developed based on Hyogo

Framework of Action, 2005 (HFA, 2005). The strategy incorporates prevention, mitigation,

preparedness, response and recovery, while designing responsibilities for the Ministries during the

different phases of the disaster management cycle. It describes the government's vision to

transform Nepal into a disaster resilient nation. The strategy provides the road map for all sectors

to prepare sector specific programs for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and formulate necessary

policy decisions for facilitating mainstreaming DRM into the development process. The strategy

has identified 29 priority strategic actions and several sectoral activities for DRM. The cross-

sectoral strategies are based on gaps and issues identified and are focused on addressing the

identified gaps in particular sectors. The strategy further describes the challenges of the various

10

hazards, ministry and department roles, sector strategies, the legal framework and formation of

organizations at the national, regional, district and local levels.

In order to address the issues of climate change, Nepal has formulated a climate change policy,

2011 (B.S 2067) and is implementing relevant programmes to minimize the existing effects and

likely impacts in different ecological regions-from the southern plains to the middle-hills and to

the high Himalayan mountains in the north, and their peoples, livelihoods, and ecosystems.

In order to assess climatic vulnerability, and systematically respond to climate change adaption

issues by developing appropriate adaptation measures, the Ministry of Environment, Government

of Nepal has prepared the National Adaptation Program of Action, NAPA, (2010) in accordance

with the decision of COP7. Following the NAPA, to address location-specific climate change

issues and integrate adaptation into mainstreamed sector-specific planning, the National

Framework for Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA), 2011 has been prepared which adapts

a decentralized bottom-up planning approach expecting effective delivery of adaptation services

to the most climate vulnerable areas and people.

As provisioned in the National Strategy (2009) and as per the mandate of Local Self Governance

Act, 1999, with the aim of disaster risk reduction and better preparedness, the Ministry Local

Development (MoLD) has prepared the Local Disaster Risk Management Planning (LDRMP)

Guideline, 2012 (BS 2068). The guideline anticipates participatory, transparent, accountable,

inclusive and responsive disaster management for building community resiliency at the local level.

As provisioned in the National Strategy (2009) and as per the mandate of the Local Self

Governance Act, 1999, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) prepared

the District Disaster Management Planning Guideline, 2013 (BS 2069) with the aim of

incorporating climate related provision in their periodic development and annual plans.

The Government of Nepal developed the National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF) 2013 to

provide a clear, concise, and comprehensive framework for the country to deliver a more effective

and coordinated national response during large scale disasters. National disaster response is

defined as the “actions taken immediately before, during, and after a disaster or directly to save

lives and property; maintain law and order; care for sick, injured, and vulnerable people; provide

essential services (lifeline utilities, food, shelter, public information, and media); and protect public

11

property”. The framework limits the scope to preparedness and emergency response at the national,

regional, district and VDC/local level. The NDRF briefly explains the disaster response at the

national system, the international assistance process, the coordination structure for national and

international assistance, special operation arrangements and the national framework (MoHA,

2013). The framework has 49 key actions with the roles and responsibilities of all ministries,

departments, local authorities, and other development and humanitarian partners.

The MoHA spearheaded the planning for disaster preparedness and response guidelines. The

CNDRC approved the guidelines in 2011 and the document is considered a milestone for

'organizing effective disaster preparedness and response planning at the District, Regional, and

National levels’. One of the recommendations was to create District Lead Support Agencies

(DLSA) in 75 districts among the national and international agencies to support DDRC in the

development of the District Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan (DPRP). This has resulted

in very positive feedback from all the DRR actors. As a result, to date, almost all districts have the

DPRP.

CHAPTER THREE

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area selection

During the conceptualization phase, selection of study area was pre-determined in the Gandaki

River Basin mainly focusing on the Seti River Corridor of CHAL. The reasons behind the selection

were:

i. The vertical corridor along the perennial river is the most favourable linkage of two famous

natural habitats managed and protected by two different management systems i.e. the

strictly protected Chitwan National Park (CNP) and the Annapurna Conservation Area

(ACA) managed by local people.

ii. The Chitwan region has sub-tropical climate and the Annapurna region has cool temperate

and alpine climate. Both these landscapes connect by the water flow system of the Seti

River which provides an exemplary landscape for the climate change-induced disaster

resilience experience.

12

iii. Due to altitudinal variation and different management regimes, the corridor also has high

diversity of human community and natural ecosystem.

iv. The resilience towards climate-induced and natural disaster depends on the characteristics

of the corridor. Therefore, the unique landscape along the corridor will provide one of the

best experiences in the measurement of climate-induced and natural disaster resilience for

DRR and sustainable development.

3.2 Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL)

Geographically, the CHAL is located in central Nepal. In the global positioning system, the

CHAL is confined between 82°55’ to 85°45’ East Longitude and 27°20’ to 29°17’ North Latitude

covering an area of 32,057 km2, with elevations ranging from 200 m in the southern Tarai at

Chitwan to 8,091 m at Annapurna-I in the north (Fig. 3.1). The landscape includes all or part of 19

districts and is drained by seven major perennial rivers and their tributaries of the broader Sapta

Gandaki (Trishuli, Budi Gandaki, Daraudi, Marsyangdi, Madi, Seti, Kali or including two small

but perennial rivers Modi and Badi Gad) called the Narayani River Basin. The CHAL experiences

a range of climates from sub-tropical in the lowlands to alpine in the high mountains to cold and

dry in the Trans-Himalayan region. The CHAL is divided into Tarai and inner Tarai (Bhitri

Madhesh), Shiwalik, Mid-hills, High Mountains and High Himal physiographic zones (Fig. 3.1).

Geology and climate vary considerably with formation, altitude and aspect. The CHAL and the

Seti River Corridor (Fig. 3.2) provide critical north-south linkages including the important areas

of the Mid-hills of Nepal. This linkage is highly important for climate adaptation as well as for

freshwater conservation (KAFCOL, 2013).

Seti corridor is located at the central part of the country in the CHAL confined between 83°52’

East to 84°29’ East Longitude and 27°29’ North to 28°17’ North Latitude with an approximate

length of 135 km and width of 20 km covering an area of 2355 km2 (Table 3.1, Annex III-I). The

corridor has elevations ranging from 200 m in the southern Tarai in Chitwan, to 8,091 m in

Annapurna-I in the north. This corridor connects the Chitwan National Park and the Annapurna

Conservation Area (Fig. 3.2).

13

Figure 3.1: Location of the CHAL and the Seti River Corridor

14

Figure 3.2: The Seti River Corridor (Chitwan-Barandabhar-Panchase-Annapurna)

Table 3.1: Characteristic of the corridor

Characteristics

Corridor

Down-stream Mid-stream Upper Total

Number of VDCs/Municipalities 6 VDCs, 1 Municipality

23 VDCs, 1 Municipality

28 VDCs, 1 Sub Metropolitan 1 Municipality

Total area (square kilometer) 431.2 836.3 1087.6 2355.1

Total household (CBS, 2011) 53844.0 48232 114276 216,352

Total population (CBS, 2011) 216502.0 197500 437659 851,661

Total male population (CBS, 2011) 105933.0 87598 208532 402,063

Total female population (CBS, 2011) 110569.0 109902 229127 449,598

Population density (person per hectare) 502.1 236.2 402.4 361.6

Male population per 1000 female 958.1 797.1 910.1 894.3

15

3.3 Field Survey

Field data were collected at two levels, i.e. local level and district level. The local level data was

collected based on the administration of household questionnaire, participatory rural appraisal

(PRA), Key Informants Interview (KII), ecosystem plot survey, expert observation and local level

consultation meetings with local stakeholders held at 13 different VDCs of the corridor in different

sections and districts. District level information was collected from the consultation meetings with

district level representations of different sectors, line agencies, organizations and stakeholders

related with District Disaster Reduction and Management (DDRM) activities. District consultation

meetings were held at district headquarters of Chitwan, Tanahun and Kaski districts.

Thirteen VDCs were selected for the field data collection. The selection was based on the section

of the corridor (up-stream, mid-stream and down-stream) as well as the VDCs where either the

Hariyo Ban Program was functional or not. Five VDCs from the up-stream and four VDCs from

each mid-stream and down-stream were purposively selected with due considerations on

representation of heterogeneity, irregularity on distribution and tributary and trunk river network

(Table 3.2).

The survey sites were distributed randomly in the corridor (Fig. 3.3). District level stakeholders

were entertained in the consultation meetings held at the district headquarters. Participants for the

consultation were invited based on representation of women and different social groups,

government organizations and representatives of DDRC, Federation of Community Forest Users

Nepal (FECOFUN), and district level NGOs working in the disaster sector, and district level

experts working in disaster management. VDC level stakeholders were involved in the local level

consultation.

3.4 Work-Flow

The study has been conceptualized by the desk-top review. Literature and documents of the works

previously carried out by Hariyo Ban WWF-Nepal was prioritized and this has a continuous

process throughout the study period. In addition to the reports and publications of WWF-Nepal,

other relevant documents more specifically related with climate-induced vulnerability and

resilience available in open source were reviewed (listed in the references).

Step-wise activities of the study were framed and carried out based on the understanding of the

proposed task (Fig. 3.4).

16

After the prior desk-top survey and review of available literature, specific indicators for each

objective were developed (Annex III-II). During the development of the specific indicators, an

expert team frequently visited the field for rapid assessment through rapport building with the local

stakeholders and consultation meeting at local and district level.

Table 3.2: VDCs/Communities selected for field data collection and consultation

Corridor District VDCs/Communities District level

Section Consultation With Hariyo Ban Without Hariyo Ban

Up-stream Kaski Machhapuchhre, Bhadaure

Tamagi, Sardikhola

Armala Pokhara

Syangja Taksar

Mid-Stream Tanahun Bandipur, Bhimad Dharampani,

Khairenitar,

Damauli

Down-

stream

Tanahun, Devghat, Bharatpur

Nawalparasi Gaindakot

Chitwan, Mangalpur, Kabilash,

17

Figure 3.3: Distribution of field survey VDCs/Municipalities and consultation sites

18

Figure 3.4: Activities flow chart

Photo: Expert Team Field visit at Machhapuchree

19

Photo: District consultation meetings at Chitwan, Tanahun and Kaski

3.5 Data types

3.5.1 Household survey

Survey questionnaire was prepared (Annex III-III) by incorporating both community and

ecosystem resilience parameters required for the analysis.

Sampling of Household

Number of household to be surveyed was determined using procedure Arkins and Colton (1963).

n =N/1+ N(e)2

Where:

n = required sample size

N= size of study population

e = maximum tolerable error

Chitwan Chitwan

Tanahun Kaski

20

Given the size of households of corridor 215,413 and the desired level of confidence of 95%

(maximum tolerable error of 5 percent), the required sample size comes out as follows:

n = = 399

The calculation gives the required sample size of

399 households. To be on the safe side and to have a

reasonable number of households in each of 13

VDCs of all the three sections of the basins, 35

households from a VDC was determined. Therefore,

a total of 456 households from the corridor were

randomly selected in which

proportional representation of different section

of the corridor, ethnic and caste groups from each

VDC were taken

into consideration. Photo: Orientation meeting at CDMS, Kathmandu

3.5.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) survey

In total, 16 PRAs were entertained. The community selection for the PRAs was based on the local

information about the severity of the disaster. At least 10 to15 persons, including females’ and

other socially deprived groups’ participation were ensured. A structured PRA discussion guideline

was prepared prior to the field visit (Annex III-IV).

3.5.3 Key Informants Interview (KII)

A total 54 respondents including senior citizens, educated and subject experts, disaster victims,

representatives of the local level Users Groups, Mother’s groups and Community Organizations

were entertained for the KII. Structured discussion guideline was prepared prior to the field visit

(Annex III-IV).

21

3.5.4 Informal Group Discussion

For the triangulation of collected data/information 38 informal group discussions, accidental

survey and indirect discussion were made throughout the data collection process.

Photo: Field consultation meetings at various locations

3.5.5 Facilitated Group Discussion (FGD)

During the field survey, 10 FGDs were held in different levels (Annex III-IV). In such events both

information collection and triangulation was done.

3.5.6 Workshop-based Local Level Consultation

In each VDC/Municipality, and also in Kaski, Tanahu and Chitwan districts, an organized

consultation meeting was held ensuring participation of different level stakeholders (Annex IIIIV).

Floor discussion and formal expression of the views and ideas were collected and analyzed

accordingly.

Dharampani, Taanahun Bandipur, Tanahaun

Bandipur, Tanahaun Taksar, Syanja

22

3.5.7 Selection of Survey Plot

For the ecosystem survey plot, both community forest and government forest of the survey VDCs

were identified with the help of local stakeholders. In total, 26 quadrat plots of 20 m x 20 m,

ensuring at least two plots from each surveyed VDCs, were taken. Information about the presence

of dominant tree species was collected from the quadrat study.

3.6 Hazard and Vulnerability Mapping with Multi-criteria

The assessment of hazard and vulnerability at the corridor level was carried out by using spatial

data acquired from different maps and satellite imageries using multi-criteria analysis. The

acquired data were compiled and multi-criteria analysis was carried out in the Geographic

Information System (GIS) software, ArcGis (version 10.1). The relative impact factors were given

in each parameter across the VDCs/Municipalities accordingly.

i. Aspect: In Nepal, East, South-east, South and South-west facing hill-slopes are exposed to

high intensity of sunshine and precipitation in comparison to the North-west, North, North-east

and Flat directions. Those faces also have dense human settlement and land is intensively used for

agriculture. Thus, these aspects are relatively more exposed to climate-induced hazard and

vulnerability. The distribution of area of a VDC/Municipality by aspect was determined by using

ASTER DEM (Satellite imageries) and giving higher score to the area with more exposure.

ii. Slope: Slope is one of the major physiographic parameters, where steeper the slope, the more

exposed to climate-induced vulnerability. The distribution of area of a VDC/Municipality by slope,

particularly beyond steep to very steep slope categories (>25 degree slope inclination) was

determined using slope map. The VDC/Municipalities with larger area beyond this critical slope

was given high value.

iii. Cultivated land across exposed aspect and critical hill-slope: Cultivated land is the most

notable human activities in the rural areas. Therefore, the percentage distribution of such land in a

VDC/Municipality under the exposed aspect and critical hill-slope was determined by aspect and

slope map. The VDC/Municipality with higher percentage of area under this class was given higher

score.

iv. Per-capita forest coverage: The per-capita forest in a VDC/Municipality gives the relative

degree of the measurement of environmental condition. Therefore, it is taken as the measurement

23

criterion, where lower the value, the higher the pressure on the forest resources, and more prone to

disaster and vulnerability. Thus, area with low per-capita forest was given a higher score.

v. Crude density of population: This is a common measurement for people to land ratio,

where higher number of people per unit area exerts larger pressure on the land, which provides

greater chance to hazard and vulnerability, and thus was given high score.

vi. Physiologic density: The ratio of total population to the cultivated land gives the information

about population pressure on cultivated land. A higher ratio exerts more pressure on agriculture

land leading to a relatively high chance of hazard and vulnerability. The VDC/Municipality with

higher value of physiologic density was given higher score.

vii. Settlement location over the critical slope: Spatial distribution of settlement was

determined by counting the settlement units in topo-sheet map (scale 1:25,000) of the Department

of Survey, Government of Nepal. Based on the counting, share of settlement of a

VDC/Municipality over the critical hill-slope was determined. The VDC/Municipality with higher

settlement number in the critical hill-slope was considered to be more vulnerable.

viii. Male to female (gender/sex) ratio: The ratio of male to female gives a measurement of

pressure over females. Here, it is measured by the number of males to 1000 females. Where number

of males is less compared females, the pressure is higher on female.

The hazard and vulnerability scores of multi-criteria (above parameters) were normalized by using:

The normalized scores were naturally classified into five categories, i.e. very high, high, medium,

low and very low relative scale of hazard and vulnerability across the VDCs/Municipalities within

the Gandaki (Seti) River Corridor.

3.7 Community Resilience

In order to measure the community resilience, the index suggested by Kafle (2012) was used as

represented the following equation.

i=10, j=5 i=25, j=5

24

Resilience score (RS) = [∑ P (Wi*Rj) + ∑ O (Wi*Rj)]/2

i=1, j= 0 i=1, j= 0

Where,

RS= Overall resilience score expressed in percentage

P = Process indicators ranging from 1 to 10 (see the list in Annex I)

O = Outcome indicators ranging from 1 to 25 (see the list in Annex II)

Wi = Weight of process and outcome indicators i

Rj = Rank or value of process and outcome indicators j

3.8 Socio-Ecological Resilience

In order to measure the socio-ecological resilience, a set of indicators proposed by UNU-IAS,

Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) and Oudenhoven et al. (2014) were used. The

indicator is mainly based on the following criteria;

i. Landscape diversity and ecosystem protection

ii. Biodiversity including agriculture diversity

iii. Knowledge and innovation iv. Governance

and social equity v. Livelihoods and well-being

3.9 Analysis and interpretation:

Data acquired from above methods were tabulated and computed in the form of tables, figures

and maps. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS (version 20). Geospatial data were analyzed

using ArcGis (version 10.1).

CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Characteristics of the Community Respondents

In order to acquire the community response about resilience, 455 households from 13

representative VDCs of the Seti Corridor, five from upstream, four from mid-stream and four from

the down-stream were included in this study. Thirty to 40 households were interviewed in each

VDC.

25

4.1.1 Household characteristics

Among the respondents from the household, 42% were female and 58% were male. The age of the

respondents varied from 17 to 90, where 7.7% belonged <25 year age group, 48.3% were from 25-

49 years age group and 44.0% were from 50 and above age group. On an average the respondents

were 47.1 years of age (Annex IV-I). Ethnically, respondents included 13 castes/ethnicities group,

where Gurung were in highest (35.4%) proportion, followed by Brahmin (23.1%), Magar (9.9%),

Chhetri (8.8%), Bishwokarma (7.0%) Pariyar (6.2%), Newar (3.3%), Tamang (2.9%), Kumal

(1.5%), and others such as Rai, Thakali, Bhujel and Miya were in less than one percent (Annex

IV-I). Among the respondents, 81.5% of the respondents were literate and 18.5% were illiterate

(Annex IV-I). From an education perspective, 19.1% respondents had obtained the school leaving

certificate or above. Among the total respondents, 3.7% had obtained a Bachelor's or above degree.

It seems that the respondents were well educated and well informed about the local environment,

disaster and resilience of the society. In terms of occupation, large shares (90.5%) were found to

involve in agriculture and related occupation and 6.8% respondents were from other occupations

such as businesses, microenterprises, government jobs, wage laborers and pensioners (Annex IV-

I) showing overlapping (>100%) of the occupations.

4.1.2 Response of the people about disaster

The household survey reported different major disasters in the corridor. The result revealed that

nearly half of the total respondents (46.4%) reported landslide as a major disaster, followed by

flood (36.0%), earthquake (25.3%), drought (16.9%) and fire (4.2%) (Annex IV-II). Landslide is

a common hazard up-stream of the corridor including the ridgeline of the watershed. Similarly,

down-stream area is prone to flood disaster during the heavy rainfall period. Increasing uncertainty

on the volume and intensity of rainfall due to climate change increase the frequency of the events

of landslide and flood along the corridor. The flash flood event of 5 May 2012 in the Seti Corridor

was a devastating disaster in the recent past. This event was the largest one which was not caused

by the monsoon rain (Sharma, 2015). Due to this flash flood, up-stream communities were found

to be more conscious about floods. During the discussion with the senior members of the

community, it was found that disaster events are increasing even within their lifetime. Down-

stream parts of the corridor, specifically Mangalpur and Gaindakot VDCs, reported to be badly

affected by flood during monsoon (Dangol and Poudel, 2004). Due to 25 April 2015 major

earthquake and several consequent aftershocks, people in the corridor were severely threatened.

26

Many lost their houses even though the Seti Corridor was relatively less affected. Therefore, local

respondents ranked this as the third category (Annex IV-II). Drought is now becoming one of the

major uncertain events and nearly one-sixth proportion of the respondents mentioned drought as

the major disaster. Among the respondents, 35.2% reported drought to be the cause of loss of their

properties and production. Despite the above disasters, local people also reported other disasters

such as storm, hailstone, thunderstorm and lightening, soil erosion and gully formation, sinkhole

formation, and human wildlife conflict. Sinkhole in Armala VDC was a typical localized disaster

event. It has caused substantial loss of property of local community (MoHA, 2013). According to

the local inhabitants, the increasing monkey population is becoming a great threat to rural crop

farming in all villages. Increasing populations of porcupine, dear and leopard are also becoming a

problem for crop and livestock in the rural areas.

With respect to disaster risk, majority (59.3%) of the respondents expressed having no disaster

risk, 34.5% expressed the possibility and a small proportion (5.9%) expressed ignorance.

Respondents from Khairenitar (77.1%), Bhadure-Tamagi (57.6%), Kabilas (45.7%), Taksar

(54.3%) and Armala and Machhapuchhre each (40.0%) expressed the risk. The least risk was

expressed by the respondents of Bandipur (5.7%) and Mangalpur (6.7%). In general, respondents

from up-stream communities expressed more disaster risk (IV-II).

4.1.3 Livelihood of the local people

In terms of food sufficiency, a large (58.2%) proportion of respondents reported food insufficiency

from their own production. Among the respondents, only 41.8% reported enough food for 12

months, 4.0% reported food sufficiency for 10 to 11 months, 14.6% reported food sufficiency for

7 to 9 months and 31.2% reported food just enough for four to six months, while 8.4% reported

food sufficiency only for 3 or less months (IV-III). This shows that livelihood is in a vulnerable

situation. Among the VDCs, Mangalpur showed highest (53.3%) and Dharampani showed lowest

(14.3%) proportion of respondents having food sufficiency from the own produce.

Despite the poor level of food sufficiency, respondents reported satisfactory savings. Among the

total, 65.7% respondents reported that they saved in a bank account. Among them, 63.1%

households were found to save less than 1,000 rupees (approx.US$ 10) per month and 1.7%

households save 20,000 to 50,000 rupees (US$ 200 to 500) per month. This might be due to foreign

remittance as indicated by the gender ratio, 894.3, (male to 1000 females) of the corridor (CBS,

27

2012). Among the 61 VDCs, 25 have less than 800 males for 1000 females. This ratio decreases

to 709:1000 in Kotdarbar. Male member outmigration for work seems to be common in the

corridor.

4.1.4 Organizations working in the corridor

Different social organizations including Mothers' Group (MG), Fathers Group (FG), Youth Club,

Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and international and/or national non-governmental

organizations were found to be working jointly and/or independently towards the response of

climate-induced hazards and vulnerability in the corridor. Those organizations are carrying out

different activities which enhance the resilience capacity of both community and ecosystems. From

the field survey, it was revealed that mothers are forming groups, i.e. the MGs and they are in

higher number (135 in 13 VDCs). There are 36 MGs in the up-stream area, 23 in the midstream

region and 76 in the down-stream region. Among the VDCs, Kabilas alone has 48 MGs. This

shows that Mothers' groups are one of the strong and reliable social channels delivering

development aids to the grass root community. After MGs, the second strong social channel is the

Youth Club (YC) organized to fulfill their needs. However, Youth Clubs were found mostly

involved in youth related activities. Similarly, children are also organized into groups through the

Children’s Club (CC). They also focus mainly on children’s welfare. But Mothers' and Fathers'

groups were directly related to development activities, social awareness and infrastructure building

in their communities. Volunteer fund raising; construction of community buildings, drinking water

supply system; construction and maintenance of community schools, foot-trail and motor road;

running informal education classes for elders, women and poor; introducing income generating

activities; running cooperatives, and kind and cash support to the needy disaster victims are some

of noticeable activities in the community. Several MGs were also running volunteer small (micro)

saving and credit activities within their group to solve cash needs. Tole Improvement Committees

(Tole Sudhar Samiti) were also formed in some clustered settlements. Their activities were also

focused on their local area development. In addition to these volunteer social community-based

organizations (CBOs), most of the VDCs also have some sector-based organizations like

Community Forest User’s Group (CFUGs), Leasehold

Forest Users Groups (LFUGs), and Drinking Water User’s Groups (DWUGs), Farmers Group,

Road Construction and Maintenance Groups and so on. Similarly, several communities have

micro-finance cooperatives with the provision of saving and credit activities (Annex IV-IV). All

28

these CBOs are directly related to maintain the health of the ecosystem and social wellbeing in the

area.

Thirty three I/NGOs are working in the VDCs across the corridor (Annex IV-IV). Most of these

organizations are mainly concentrated on DRM. A large number of such organizations are

concentrated in Bhadaure-Tamagi VDC in the up-stream area, Khairenitar and Bandipur in the

mid-stream region, and Kabilas and Mangalpur VDCs in the down-stream region. The Taksar and

Devghat VDCs each have one such organization. However, there seems no such organizations in

Gaindakot. The distribution of I/NGOs in the VDCs have their impacts on creation of local CBOs.

The Bhaduare-Tamagi, Khairenitar and Kabilas VDCs representing three stretches of the corridor

provides a similar picture showing higher numbers of such organizations. In the same way,

Gaindakot, Devghat and Taksar have the least number of CBOs.

The 27 cooperatives in Gaindakot may be due to urban characteristics of the area (Annex IV-IV).

4.1.5 Local knowledge for the risk reduction

Community members expressed existence of local knowledge to cope with disasters. Among the

respondents, 38.2% expressed having some knowledge, 37.0% expressed having no such

knowledge and 24.8% did not have any such knowledge (Annex IV-V). In general, communities

seem more focused on mitigation measures for those disasters which they feel to be prone. This

can be noted from the Armala, where sinkholes caused large damage of property. A similar case

can be noted in the Bhadaure-Tamagi flood of July, 2015 and Machhapuchhre VDCs flash flood

of May, 2012. Therefore, response regarding the use of local knowledge to mitigate the overall

disaster might be lesser than other locations.

Local people usually construct embankments along the river/stream banks by using local materials

like stone, tree sapling and bamboo. Gabion-wall and terracing are common measures for

controlling gullies, small landslide scars and soil erosion. Tree plantation at the cultivated terraces

seems common in the area.

4.1.6 Public perception on climate change

With respect to local perception on climate change, respondents expressed different observations

in their localities, where different environmental parameters are changing in their own life time.

Respondents from the up-stream (Machhapuchhre and Sardikhoal) and mid-stream (Bandipur)

regions reported the appearance of mosquitoes. The respondents expressed that weather is getting

29

hotter in summer and colder in winter with shift in season. In addition, they also reported the

introduction of new weeds and pests in the area. The pest infestation in millet, which is thought to

be disease resistant crop, has been taken as an unexpected event by the Shardikhola community.

In addition, dying out of water springs was also reported. The respondents also reported the likely

disappearance of most of the local varieties of crops. For example; at Jhapre Khola of Bandipur

VDC, the local variety of paddy is has disappeared and new varieties have been introduced.

Photo: Farmers grown local variety paddy (jira masina) along with HYV (Radha-7at Jhapre Khola

Bandipur 03 November 2015.

4.2 Assessment of Hazard and Vulnerability

Hazard and vulnerability of any area is determined by location, physiography, land use/cover and

social parameters. Therefore, integration of all these parameters gives a relative scale of severity

of major hazard and vulnerability. These parameters are discussed here in different headings and

subheadings; 4.2.1 Location

The Seti Corridor is located in the central part of the Gandaki Basin and has a very active

geohydrological regime with most of the area facing towards the south with several wetlands with

higher precipitation, and includes the immediately raised concave-shaped Annapurna Mountain

Range (Gurung, 1965). The corridor is extends from the warmer Tarai up to the alpine region with

diverse physiography, climate, natural environment, ecosystem, and biodiversity giving the

corridor a unique social and ecological characteristics.

30

4.2.2 Physiography

The corridor has high variation in elevation, aspect, slope, and climatic conditions which results in

major impacts on ecosystem. These parameters exert specific situations and provide very complex

results. Geologically, the upper part of the corridor has the Main Central Thrust (MCT), which is

the major zone of displacement of the Indian continental block in the south and the Tibetan

continental block in the north. Because of the colloidal zone of these two huge and thick continental

masses, this zone is very sensitive to endogenetic activities (Bhandary, 1987). The altitudinal

gradient has resulted in extreme variation in several ecosystem parameters from the lower bottom

and the summit of the hills and mountain (Table 4.1, Annex IV-VI).

Table 4.1 Corridor area (km2) across elevation zone

Elevation Zone Total Area %

Below 500 m. 519.0 22.0

500 - 1000 m. 971.8 41.2

1000 - 1500 m. 336.7 14.3

1500 - 2500 m. 189.5 8.0

2500 - 3500 m. 108.3 4.6

3500 - 4500 m. 110.8 4.7

4500 - 6000 m. 110.7 4.7

Above 6000 m. 13.9 0.6

Total 2360.7 100.0

Source: Computed from the elevation zone map

Table 4.1 shows that 22.0 % of the corridor’s area is below 500 m elevation with the maximum

being within the 500 and 1000 m elevation zone (41.3 %). The corridor has a substantial area

(5.3%) above the permanent snowline (> 4500 m). Human settlements in the corridor are mostly

located up to 1500 m elevation, however, the seasonal grazing goes up to the snowline (4500 m).

The trunk river (Seti) channels from the north to the south direction, gradually bending towards

the south-east. The water divide of the corridor is elongated parallel to the trunk channel. A small

31

portion (0.5%) of the area is flat. Likewise, the north, the north-east and the north-west constitute

include 34.5% while the west facing aspect constitutes 14.3% of total area. The rest (50.6%)

includes the east, the south-east, the south and the south-west facing slopes which have longer

sunshine and high monsoon rainfall along with high human inhabitants and intensive human

activities with sparse vegetal cover (Table 4.2, Annex IV-VII).

Another basic physiographic character of the corridor is hill-slope. In this respect, nearly half of

the total area falls above 25 degree inclination (Table 4.3) which is categorized as critical slope for

the human activities (Gurung, 1965; Impat, 1980). Only 18.1% of the total area falls below 10

degree slope. Similarly, 32.6% area is in between 10 and 25 degrees, which is the major area for

cultivation in the hills. Overall, the corridor has domination of steep to very steep slope with high

possibility of land degradation due to steepness of the slope (Annex IV-VIII).

Table 4.2 Corridor area (km2) across aspects (hill-slope facing direction) (Land area by aspects)

Aspect direction Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total %

Flat 3.3 2.7 5.9 11.9 0.5

Northeast 49.0 108.3 103.6 261.0 11.1

East 49.6 103.3 113.3 266.2 11.3

Southeast 49.0 86.2 123.0 258.2 11.0

South 57.3 106.4 155.3 319.0 13.5

Southwest 63.1 120.5 165.1 348.6 14.8

West 56.4 114.4 165.6 336.4 14.3

Northwest 56.6 103.6 145.4 305.6 13.0

North 47.1 90.8 110.3 248.2 10.5

Total 431.2 836.3 1087.6 2355.1 100.0

% 18.3 35.5 46.2 100.0

Source: Computed from the aspect map

Table 4.3 Distribution of area (km2) in different slope class across corridor (Land area by slope)

Corridor (area in hectare)

32

Slope Class

(degree)

Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total %

< 10 185.41 92.9 148.6 426.9 18.1

10-15 87.59 140.9 137.6 366.1 15.5

15-25 43.31 176.8 182.1 402.2 17.1

25-35 73.63 309.4 356.2 739.2 31.4

35-45 26.37 76.1 120.1 222.8 9.5

> 45 14.92 40.2 143.0 198.1 8.4

Total 431.23 836.3 1087.6 2355.1 100.0

% 18.3 35.5 46.2 100.0

Source: Computed from the slope map

The River Seti is the trunk river originating at the southern flank of the Annapurna Himalayan

Range and flows towards the south and south-east direction until confluence with River Trishuli

at Gaighat. This is a perennial system and several tributaries confluence with the Trunk River

including the Madi System which is also a glacial fed system. This system is one of major

subsystems of River Narayani or Gandaki system. Due to its water volume and flow, and

geography, it has influences on diverse aquatic lives. The Seti River system has no large dams and

barriers constructed so far which is favourable for the free movement of aquatic life through the

channel. Due to deep and narrow gorges and valley formed by the river channel, several river

hazards and disasters are associated with it. Side wall collapse, river water blockade during

monsoon and landslides over narrow and steep valley and side hill-slope are frequent throughout

the channel. In recent years, excavation of river sand and stone for construction purposes, the river

has developed deep and intense down cutting causing slides.

4.2.3 Climatic condition

The corridor has great variation in its geographical setting; as a result it shows variability of

temperature, precipitation, sunshine, humidity and wind direction. Therefore, the region has micro

climatic variation. The permanent snowline is at the altitude of 4500 m asl. However, the snowline

varies with the degree of hill-slope inclination, aspect and prevailing wind direction. The climatic

33

data (temperature and rainfall) of various stations in the corridor was obtained from Department

of Hydrology and Meteorology, Government of Nepal.

In January (2007 to 2013), the mean minimum and mean maximum temperature at Bharatpur (205

m asl) was found to be 8.8°C and 22.1°C, respectively. In June, the mean minimum and maximum

value was found to be 25.8°C and 35.1°C, respectively. In Damauli (358 m asl), mean minimum

and maximum in January, for the same period, was recorded respectively to be 8.7°C and 21.3°C

and the values in June was found to be 22.5°C and 35.1°C. Likewise, in Khairenitar (500 m asl),

the mean minimum and maximum temperature was found respectively to be 9.0°C and 22°C in

January, and 22.9°C and 338 in June. In Lumle (1740 m asl), the mean minimum and maximum

value in January was found respectively to be 4.9°C and 14.9°C and in June it was found to be

16.8°C and 24.8°C. This shows that the temperature in the corridor gradually declines with

elevation.

With respect to rainfall, the total annual average rainfall of Bharatpur (2001 to 2013) was found to

be 2400.0 mm with the maximum value in August, 2009, 704 mm in July, 2010, and 734.8 mm in

July, 2013. The average annual rainfall in Damuli (1974 to 2013) was recorded to be <2000 mm

with peak value of 756.6 mm in July, 1989 (highest record, with total annual value 1783.1 mm)

followed by June, 1974 (total annual 2774 mm). In 2013, the total annual value is 1940.0 mm and

in June, it was 585.8 mm. Similarly, in Khairenitar (1972-2013), the annual average was found to

be about 2400 mm with a peak value of 1022.5 mm in July, 1972 (annual 2516.5 mm) followed

by 948.8 mm in July, 2002 (total annual 3057.5 mm). In 2013, the total annual rainfall was 2344.5

mm. Likewise, in Lumle annual average (1970 to 2013) was recorded to be around 5500 mm. The

highest annual record was 6561.4 mm in 1995. There seems no uniform distribution of rainfall in

the corridor. However, there seems to be peak rainfall in upstream region with lower rainfall in the

down-stream region. The study from the Panchase area has shown an uncertain trend rainfall

(Dixit, Karki and Shukla, 2015). Sometimes, the cloud burst is confined in the small coverage in

the corridor causing heavy damage (Poudel, 2003).

4.2.4 Land Use/Cover

Land use/cover data shows that 33.1% of the corridor’s area is under cultivation and about half of

the area is forest, including shrub/bush. The rest of the area includes snow/glacier (6.7%), barren

34

land (3.3%), built-up area (2.2%), grass land (2.1%), and water bodies, lakes and rivers (1.0%)

(Table 4.4, Annex IV-IX).

Table 4.4 Land use/cove (km2) distribution in the corridor

Land Use/Cover Total %

Cultivated land 793.9 33.1

Broad-leaved closed forest 671.1 28.0

Broad-leaved open forest 273.5 11.4

Needle-leaved closed forest 97.4 4.1

Needle-leaved open forest 151.5 6.3

Shrub land 42.0 1.7

Grass land 51.6 2.1

Built-up area 53.6 2.2

Barren land 78.9 3.3

Lakes 8.3 0.3

River 17.6 0.7

Snow/Glacier 161.8 6.7

Total 2401.1 100.0

Source: ICIMOD (2010)

The data shows that forest, shrub/bush, grass land and cultivated area cover almost over 4/5th parts

of the total coverage of the corridor. For last few decades, Nepal is experiencing substantial

changes in land use/cover pattern. Specifically, change in cultivated land, forest, shrub and bush

plays an important role in the local environment. Land use/cover change in the Seti Corridor in 16

years, i.e. between 1994 and 2010 shows quite a significant change, where cultivated land declined

by 9.03%. For the same period, forest increased by 3.23% and grass land decreased by

44.47%. Grass land declined (69.6%) mainly in the down-stream region of the corridor (Table 4.5,

Annex IV-X). The maximum area of cultivated land declined by 15.1% in the mid-stream of the

corridor coinciding with the low sex ratio (797.1 males per 1000 females) (Table 3.1). In the time

period, forest area increased the most as supported by per capita forest coverage (Table 4.5). The

data shows nearly 57.6% of the total forest coverage under the critical slope which is a good

35

indicator for reduced vulnerability (Table 4.7, Annex IV-XI). The average per capita forest area

including dense forest and shrub is less than the national average (0.25 ha) (FRA Nepal, 2016). It

was observed that the lower part of the corridor has increasing built-up area with dense human

settlement, and encroachment of open fallow, grass land and bush/shrub areas in accessible low

land along the motorable road sides. Many such settlements seem to have high risk of flood,

sedimentation of mass-waste, specifically in the break-of-bulk of sloping landscape, and improper

sanitation due to congestion.

Cultivated land is another major use/cover type in the corridor shared consisting of 77575.9 ha

(33.1 %) of the total area. Of this, 20948.4 ha (27.0%) cultivated land is confined within the critical

hill-slope (>25 degree). In the mid-stream region, 35.5% of cultivated land falls in the critical slope

indicating the vulnerable status (Table 4.8, Annex IV-XII).

Table 4.5 Land use/cover (km2) change in the corridor between 1994 and 2010

Land Use/Cover Down-

stream

Midstream Up-stream Total

Cultivated land 2010

127.3 335.9 312.6 775.8

Cultivated land 1994 136.3 455.6 337.9 929.8

Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -9.0 -119.7 -25.3 -154.1

Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -3.4 -15.1 -3.9 -9.0

Forest land 2010 260.5 466.7 479.3 1206.5

Forest land 1994 261.2 416.8 452.9 1130.9

Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -0.8 49.9 26.4 75.5

Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -0.1 5.6 2.8 3.2

Grass land_2010 1.6 4.2 45.8 51.6

Grass land 1994 8.8 10.8 114.5 134.1

Total area change between 1994 and 2010 -7.2 -6.6 -68.7 -82.6

Percent change between 1994 and 2010 -69.6 -43.9 -42.9 -44.5

Source: Land use/cover (1994) is taken from the topographic digital data of Department of Survey

and 2010 is taken from the ICIMOD

36

Table 4.6 Per capita agricultural land forest land across corridor

Characteristics

Corridor

Down-

stream

Mid-stream Upper Total

Cultivated land (ha) 12725.9 34358.5 30491.6 77575.9

Per capita agricultural land (ha) 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.091

Total forest land including

bush/shrub (ha) (ICIMOD, 2010)

26047.6 46666.0 47931.5 120645.1

Per capita forest land (ha) 0.12 0.24 0.11 0.14

Source: Computed from the maps

Table 4.7 Distribution of forest coverage (km2) in the critical slope (>25 degree)

Land use Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total

Total forest 26047.6 46666 47931.5

120645.

1

Forest in critical slope (> 25

Degree)

7474.9 31476.71 30580.6 69532.2

% 28.7 67.5 63.8 57.6

Source: Computed from overlaid land use and slope map

Table 4.8 Distribution of cultivated land (km2) in the critical slope (> 25 degree)

Land use Down-stream Mid-stream Up-stream Total

Total cultivated land 12725.9 34358.5 30491.6 77575.9

Cultivation over in critical

slope (> 25 Degree) 1597.5 12213.5 7137.4 20948.4

% 12.6 35.5 23.4 27.0

Source: Computed from overlaid land use and slope map

4.2.5 Population distribution

For a long time, mid-land river valleys of Nepal were not preferred for human inhabitation.

Recorded history mentions that the valleys became attractive only after the eradication of Malaria

37

in the early 1950s along with the construction of roads and other infrastructural facilities such as

health, education, market, and irrigation canal facilities. At present, the corridor has one sub-

metropolitan city (Pokhara) and three municipalities (Lekhnath, Byas and Bharatpur). Pokhara and

Lekhnath are in the up-stream region, Byas in the mid-stream region and Bharatpur in the down-

stream region of the corridor. The concentration of population is high within these urban centers

and also along the river terraces. The corridor has total 8,51,661 population in 216,352 households

(3.94 persons per household) (CBS, 2012). These four urban centers cover only 15.1% land area

of the corridor, but include 60.7% of the households with 58.7% of the population, and 1413

persons per square kilometer. In the down-stream region, Mangalpur has the highest and Kabilas

has the least population density, 900 and 93 persons per square kilometer, respectively. In the mid-

stream region, the highest population density is in the Byas Municipality and the least is in the

Deurali VDC, 815 and 72 persons per square kilometer, respectively. Similarly, in the up-stream

region, the highest population density is in Pokhara SubMetropolitan City and the least is in the

Machhapuchhre VDC, 4636 and 6 persons per square kilometers, respectively. The low population

density in Machhapuchhre is due to the presence of high mountain range without settlements. With

respect to per-capita cultivated land, on an average the cultivated land covers 0.091 ha with

variation in the different stretches: 0.06 ha in the down-stream region, 0.17 ha in mid-stream region

and 0.07 ha in up-stream region (Table

4.6, Annex III-I).

It was found that the corridor has a low sex ratio (894.3 males per 1000 females), with the

downstream value being 958.1, the mid-stream value being 797.1 and the up-stream value being

910.1, depicting large number of male absentees in the mid-stream region. As a result, females in

the corridor are under high pressure to maintain their livelihood and local environment.

With respect to settlement, large numbers of human settlements are confined within the critical

hill-slope. The result shows that 42.2% of human settlements in the up-stream region, 39.8% in

mid-stream region, and 18.0% in the down-stream region are located within critical hill-slope

(Annex IV-XIII).

4.2.6 Multi-criteria-based assessment of climate induced hazards and vulnerabilities The

multi-criteria based assessment result shows that the up-stream region of the corridor has

comparatively more VDCs (8) in very high vulnerable categories. Among them, Puranchaur,

38

Armala, Valam and Arva Vijaya in the eastern part, Dhikurpokhari, Pumdi-Bhumdi and Kristi in

the western part and Rupakot in the eastern part are in high hazard and vulnerability category

(Annex IV-XIV, Fig. 4.1). The Pokhara sub-metropolitan and Lekhnath Municipality have very

low hazard and vulnerability. The VDCs lying in the upper part of the mid-stream region- Chhang,

Arunodaya and Bhanumati are in very high hazard and vulnerability category, while the mid and

lower parts fall under low to high hazard and vulnerability categories In the downstream region,

because of low altitude and homogeneous physical parameters, the VDCs (except Devghat) fall

under low to very low hazard and vulnerability categories. In addition to these categories, other

local factors may be operating with little significance. The formation of sinkholes in the lower part

of Armala VDCs, landslide and flood in Lumle and Bhadaure-Tamagi in 2015 due to cloud burst,

the Seti River Flash Flood of May 2012, the Seti River blockade during the monsoon in Pokhara

Sub-Metropolitan City, landslides and floods in Kabilas and many VDCs of Tanahun in August

2003 due to cloud burst, and flood and side-cutting at Mangalpur and Devghat are some instances

of local events. Therefore, from the climate induced disaster resilience perspective, such local

events also need to be considered at micro level planning.

39

Photo: Landslides in Bhadaure-Tamagi VDC, Novemebr 2015

40

Figure 4.1: Relative hazard and vulnerability level in the corridor

41

4.3 Ecosystem Services

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (2005) recognizes the interdependencies of

ecosystem health and social wellbeing. Based on this approach four distinct ecosystem services,

provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services and cultural services have been

categorized (Raid et al., 2005). Using the same approach the social and ecosystem resiliency of the

hazard and vulnerability in the Seti Corridor have been assessed.

4.3.1 Provisioning services

Provisioning services include agriculture production such as the production of cereal crops,

legumes, fruits and vegetables. These provisioning services are necessary day-to-day food items

for the people. The wellbeing of the system is determined by the amount of the production.

However, the resilience is determined with the diversity of services. In the corridor, cereals are

recognized as the major staple food. Among them, paddy (rice), maize and millet are commonly

used with wheat, barley and buckwheat as other subsidiary crops. In the down-stream region,

paddy as well as wheat is common. In both the mid-stream and up-stream regions, maize and millet

are grown in the dry area (bari) and paddy is grown in the wetland (khet). In the midstream region,

the upland rice (ghaiya) is common in sloping areas and dry river terraces (tar). In up-stream

region, upland rice used to be grown by in the slash-down and burn (khoriya) method in past, but

this practice has almost stopped due to increased awareness about forest conservation. The cereal

production is basically determined by the irrigation. However, due to steep and elevated terrain

irrigation facility is limited resulting limited crop diversification. Since, cereals production is

monsoon dependent, only a few cereals can be grown within short summer monsoon period.

Limited lowland with irrigation facility produce winter crops, wheat, barley and early monsoon

paddy (chaite dhan) (Annex IV-XV).

Several high yielding varieties (HYV) of cereal crops (paddy, maize) (Annex IV-XV) have been

introduced by the government as well as by the local people themselves with an objective of

increasing production. Consequently, several indigenous varieties have reportedly disappeared.

Though, HYV is good for yield, several problems are found to be associated with this. Local people

reported that the HYV cereals have low resistance to pests, are less tasty, the seeds cannot be used

for further production and there are problems storing them for a longer period of time. In terms of

vegetables production, the corridor has limited diversification mainly due to inadequate water

supply. During the rainy season, there is good diversity of green vegetables including various types

42

of guards, brinjal, ladies finger, spinach, pumpkins, lettuce, cucumber, garlic and ginger. The most

of these vegetables are common in the corridor. During dry winter, tomato, cauliflower, cabbage,

radish, carrot, black-eye beans, etc. are produced. The up-stream region has less vegetable diversity

(spinach, radish, tomato, potato and beans) during winter. In the mid-stream region as well

vegetable production is determined by water availability, where the main produce are spinach,

radish, tomato, beans, cauliflower and cabbage. In the downstream region, the major vegetables

are spinach, radish, tomato, brinjal, ladies-finger, pumpkins, lettuce, peas and beans, carrot, potato,

onion, etc.(Annex IV-XV)

The production of oils and legumes are also considered to be provisioning services providing

protein rich nutrition. They are grown either as mono-crop, multi-crop or intercrop. In the upstream

region, soybean and black-eye pulse is grown with paddy as intercrop. They are particularly grown

in terrace bund. Specifically, Masyang is grown as intercrop with maize and millet. In the mid-

stream region, black-eye pulse (kalo mas), gahat and masyang are common. This stretch is

considered to be famous for the black-eye pulse, mainly grown after ghaya in tar and bari.

In the down-stream region, various types of legumes including back-eye pulse (kalo mas), gahat,

masyang, soybean, lentil (til), yello pulse (adahar), red pulse (musuro), mustard (tori) and sarsyoo

are grown (Annex IV-XV)

Among the fruits, orange, pear, and plum are common in elevated areas of the up-stream region,

while guava, papaya and banana are grown at lower elevations. In the mid-stream region, guava,

banana, litchi, mango, papaya are common at lower elevations and orange is produced at higher

elevations. In the downstream region, mango, papaya, guava, litchi and banana are common

(Annex IV-XV).

4.3.2 Regulating services

Regulating services comprise regulation of natural processes and events like flood, drought, land

degradation and diseases. Such services have direct linkages with ecosystem health and human

wellbeing. Events like drought, landslide and floods can be recorded physically and people from

outside the area can observe and monitor these events. However, gradual effect of change caused

by the climate can be well perceived by the people living in the area for long time and their

observation and feelings signify this substantially. In the Seti Corridor, local community expressed

different experiences about the regulating services. For instance, mosquito appearance in higher

43

altitude, new invasive species of plants, change in rainfall pattern, dying of water springs, cloud

burst, shifting in season, increasing warmness in summer months, flash flood, introduction of new

pests in crop and plant are some of their critical observations (Annex IVXV). These events have

important linkages with the climate change.

4.3.3 Supporting services

In connection to the supporting services, plants, wild animals and birds are the major categories.

These services show wide diversity from the down-stream to the up-stream region of the corridor.

Dominant plant species like reeds (Arundinaria falcata), bamboo (Dendracalamus strichts),

rhododendron (Rhododendron arboretum), birch (Bitula utilis), utis (Alnus nepalansis), various

herbs and flowering plants are common in the elevated area of the up-stream region and extend up

to the High Himalayas. At lower elevations, sal (Shorea rubusta), katus (Castanopsis indica),

chilaune (Schima wallicht), maleto (Macaranga indica), rakta chandan (Daphnephylum sp.),

chutro (Berberis aristata), guenlo (Elaeagruts parvifloria), aiselu (Rubus elliptica), khirro, chanp

(Michelia champaca), mauwa (Engelhardtia spicata) are common. In the mid-stream region, sal

(Shorea rubusta), khayar (Acasia catechu), simal (Bombm ceiba), sisso (Dalbharzia sisso),

bhalayao are common at lower elevations and katus ((Castanopsis indica), chilaune (Schima

wallicht), phaledo, aiselu (Rubus elliptica), archal, kagiyo, thakal, rhododendron (Rhododendron

arboretum), orchids, sindure, amala, jamun, kyamun are common in elevated areas. Likewise, in

the down-stream region, sal (Shorea robusta) is the dominant species along with khayar (Acasia

catechu), sisso (Dalbharzia sisso), saj, jamun, etc (Annex IV-XV) Some plant species like

mainkanda, bhalayo, tuni, dalchini (sinkauli) (Cinnamomum zeylanicum), sipligan, rukh bayar are

less frequently observed in the corridor. With respect to wild animals, there are wide ranges of

wildlife from the down-stream to the up-stream region (Annex IV-XV) Similarly, different bird

species are reported from the area (Annex IV-XV) Local people also reported existence of some

supporting services (plant, animal and birds) in the past, which are rare and have now disappeared

(Annex IV-XV)

4.3.4 Cultural services

The Seti Corridor is important for local cultural and aesthetic resources. Many of them are closely

related with religious belief and worships of the people. These include cultural monuments, and

archeological sites: Devghat, Byas, and Panchase. Similarly, aesthetical sites include

lakes/wetlands- Phewa, Begnas, Rupa and the Annapurna Himalayan Range. Pokhara Valley,

44

Bandipur, Panchase, Sarangkot, Byas-cave, and deep Seti River Gorge are among highly important

aesthetic destinations (Annex IV-XV). In addition, the various ethnic groups residing the area have

their unique socio-cultural practices.

4.4 Tree Species in the Corridor

The dominant tree species in the different stretches of the corridor show that up-stream stretch is

dominated by uttis (Alnus nepalensis) and chilaune-katus (Schima- Castanopsis). Likewise,

midstream stretch is dominated by hill sal (Shorea robusta) and the down-stream stretch is

dominated by sal (Shorea robusta) and sisso (Dalberzia sisso) (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Common tree species and type of forest in the corridor

SN Name of VDC Name of Tree species Dominant

species

Remark

s

Upstream

1 Machhapuchhre

Chanp, Maleto, Rakchan, Uttis

Uttis-Maleto

2 Sardikhola Katus, Mahuwa, Chilaune, Maleto, Chilaune-Katus

3 Armala Katus, Chilaune, Uttis, Khirro, Maleto Chilaune-Katus

Bhadaure4

Tamagi Chilaune, Gurans, Rakchan, Katus,

Kafal Chilaune-Katus

5 Taksar Sal, Chilaune, Katus Sal

Mid-stream

6 Bhimad

Chilaune, Katus, Sal, Mahuwa

Sal

7 Khairenitar Sal, Chilaune Sal

8 Bandipur Sal, Chilaune, Botdhayenro, Khirro Sal

9 Dharampani Sal, Chilaune, Barro, Kyamun Sal

Downstream 10

Devghat

Khirro, Botdhayenro, Sal, Chilaune

Sal

11 Kabilas Sal, Saj, Tantari Sal

12 Gaidakot Sal, Rajbrikshya, Botdhayenro, Sindure,

Chhatiwan, Karma Sal

13 Mangalpur Sisso, Karma, Bakaino, Padke, Bhellar,

Bilaune Sisso

Source: Field survey 2015

4.5 Community and Ecosystem Resilience

The results obtained from community and ecosystem resilience measurements using process and

outcome indicators, and ecosystem indicators respectively in the Seti Corridor are discussed. The

45

level of resilience was comparatively analyzed with respect to different stretches, i.e. up-stream,

mid-stream and down-stream stretches, and communities either under the Hariyo Ban Program or

not (Table 4.10).

Table 4.10 Community and Ecosystem Resilience of the VDCs in the Corridor

SN Name of VDC PI (score) OI (score) CR (score) ER (score) Remarks

Upstream

1 Machhapuchhre* 26.91 28.25 27.58 56 LAPA at VDC

level by HB

2 Sardikhola* 25.82 29.96 27.89 64 LAPA at VDC

level by HB

3 Armala 25.45 25.20 25.33 59 VA at Jayamani,

sinkhole area

4 Bhadaure-Tamagi* 22.18 21.20 21.69 58 CAPA at ward

level (5.7,8)

5 Taksar 10.18 14.98 12.58 54 No any disaster

related program

Average

23.10±6.34 58.2±3.76

Mid-stream

6 Bhimad* 12.00 17.49 14.75 55

HB program at

ward no 3,

Bhagar

7 Khairenitar 12.00 17.22 14.61 57

No any program,

relatively good

economic status

8 Bandipur* 15.27 19.21 17.24 58 HB program at ward no 7, Bahunbhanjyang

9 Dharampani* 12.73 16.23 14.48 58

HB program at

ward no 8,

Kamalbari

Average

15.27±1.32 57±1.41

Downstream

10 Devghat* 28.36 31.21 29.79 57 LAPA at VDC

level by HB

11 Kabilas* 32.73 29.60 31.17 52 LAPA at VDC

level by HB

12 Gaidakot 20.00 19.55 19.78 54 Relatively high

economic status

46

13 Mangalpur* 60.73 59.55 60.14 55

CBDRR of ward no (4/5), 5. By

Redcross, Mangalpur and

CORD

Average 35.22±17.37 54.5±2.08

PI = Process indicator OI = Outcome indicator CR = Community Resiliency

ER = Ecosystem Resiliency * VDCs with Hariyoban Program (Dharampani VDC has not been placed in the list of VDC having

Hariyoban Program as provided by WWF)

4.5.1 Up-stream corridor

With respect to community resilience amongst the VDCs, Sardhikhola was found to have relatively

high (27.89) score, followed by Machhapuchhre (27.58), Armala (25.33), BhadaureTamagi (21.69)

and Taksar (12.58) (Table 4.10). The average community resilience score of the up-stream region

is 23.1. The higher score of Sardikhola and Machapuchhre is attributed to the climate induced

hazard assessment through LAPA. Similarly, the lowest score of Taksar is due to less

organizational activities and inadequate disaster risk management intervention.

With respect to ecosystem resilience, Sardhikhola was found to have a relatively high score (64),

followed by Armala (59), Bhadaure-Tamagi (58), Machhapuchhre (56), and Taksar (54) (Table 0).

The average ecosystem resilience score of the up-stream region is 58.2. The higher value of

Sardikhola can be attributed to the prevalence of conservation organizations and activities such as

the formulation of Conservation Area Management Committee in each ward of the VDC.

However, in Taksar such activities and program are relatively low.

It was found that community resilience in VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is functional, have

relatively high score with exception of Armala. The VDCs under this program such as Sardhikhola

(27.58), Machhapuchhre (27.89), Bhadaure-Tamagi (21.69) showed higher score when compared

to the VDCs not under this program, such as Taksar (12.58) (Table 4.10). The higher value in

VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is active can be attributed to increased awareness, and

support provided for livelihood improvement through micro-enterprises such as vegetable farming,

poultry, livestock, etc. as well as community empowerment through group formation, micro-

financial initiatives and related trainings. These activities are less common in VDCs where the

Hariyo Ban Program is not active. However, Armala. being a VDC not under the Hariyo Ban

Program showed a higher score than the Bhadaure-Tamagi, which is under the program . This can

47

be attributed to the formation of sink-hole and subduction events of April, 2014, after which the

VDC received special attention and vulnerability assessment was carried out. With respect to

ecosystem resilience, VDCs under this program revealed a relatively high score with the exception

of Armala. The VDCs under this program such as Sardhikhola (64), Bhadaure-Tamagi (58),

Machapuchhre (56) were found to have higher scores when compared to a VDC not under the

program, i.e. Taksar (54) (Table 4.10). The higher ecosystem resilience score in areas where the

Hariyo Ban Program is active can be attributed to conservation support provided to the community

forest user groups and pertinent conservation trainings. The higher score of Armala (59) compared

to Machhapuchhre and Bhadaure-Tamagi is due to high score in socio-economic indicator.

4.5.2 Mid-stream corridor

With respect to community resiliency, Bandipur was found to have the highest score (17.24),

followed by Bhimad (14.75), Khairenitar (14.61), and Dharampani (14.48) (Table 4.10). The

average score of the mid-stream region was found to be 23.1. The higher score of Bandipur is due

to tourism infrastructure, higher level of awareness and physical infrastructures. The least value in

Dharampani is attributed to the remoteness of the area and weak socio-economic infrastructures.

With respect to ecosystem resiliency, Bandipur and Dharampani have been found to have the

highest scores (58), followed by Khairenitar (57) and Bhimad (55) (Table 4.10). The average

ecosystem resiliency score of the mid-stream region was found to be 57.0. The higher score of

Bandipur and Dharampani can be attributed to the larger forest cover and community forest

practices in comparison to Bhimad.

Though restricted in limited area (only one ward in some VDCs), VDCs where the Hariyo Ban

Program is active was found to have higher community resilience scores. VDCs under this program

such as Bandipur, Bhimad and Dharampani were found to have scores 17.24, 14.75 and 14.48

respectively (Table 4.10). However, Khairenitar, being a VDC without the program, was found to

have higher (14.61) score when compared to the Dharampani. This is due to its urban

characteristics and better socio-economic settings. With respect to ecosystem resilience, VDCs

under this program showed relatively higher scores with the exception of Khairenitar (57). VDCs

under this program such as Dharampani and Bandipur were found to have higher scores (58)

followed by Bhimad (55) (Table 4.10). The higher score of Khairenitar compared to Bhimad can

be attributed to higher conservation initiatives. There seems to be limited conservation practices

48

(community forests) in Bhimad when compared to Kharienitar, which is also supported by larger

(32.4%) forest coverage when compared to Bhimad (27.1%) in (Annex IV-X).

4.5.3 Down-stream corridor

In the down-stream region, Mangalpur showed the highest (60.14) community resilience score,

followed by Kabilas (31.17), Devghat (29.79) and Gaindakot (19.78) (Table 4.10). The average

community resilience score in the down-stream region was found to be 35.22. The higher score in

Mangalpur can be attributed to better socio-economic status, physical infrastructure and

vulnerability assessment with Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) supported

by Red Cross, Chitwan and the Centre of Resilient Development (CORD). The low score observed

in Gaindakot may be due to less disaster risk management related interventions.

With respect to ecosystem resilience, Devghat was found to have the highest (57) score, followed

by Mangalpur (55), Gaindakot (54) and Kabilas (52) (Table 4.10). The average ecosystem

resilience score of down-stream region was calculated to be 54.5. The higher score observed for

Devghat can be attributed to the relatively pristine environment and diverse landscapes when

compared to Kabilas.

With respect to community resilience, VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is active were found

to have higher scores, Mangalpur (60.14), Kabilas (31.17), Devghat (29.97), when compared to

Gaindakot (19.78) which is not under this program. Mangalpur was found to have an exceptionally

high (60.14) score which can be attributed to the better socio-economic status and disaster

interventions. With respect to ecosystem resilience, Devghat, a VDC under the program showed a

relatively high (57) score when compared to Gaindakot (54), not under the Hariyo Ban Program.

Gaindakot, not under the program was found to a higher score when compared to Kabilas, under

the program. This can be attributed to the high score in socioeconomic indicators used in the

SEPLS method.

4.5.4 Resilience in corridor level

With respect to community resilience in the overall corridor, the average score of the downstream

area has been observed to be high (35.22), followed by the up-stream (23.1) and midstream (15.27)

areas (Table 4.10). The higher score in the down-stream region of the corridor can be attributed to

the relatively high disaster risk management interventions (formation of LDRMP, CBDRR,

49

LAPA), better socio-economic infrastructures and activities, and better social wellbeing. The lower

score of the mid-stream region is mainly due to less disaster risk management interventions.

Likewise, with reference to ecosystem resilience, up-stream communities have been observed to

have a higher (58.2) score when compared to mid-stream (57) and down-stream (54.5)

communities. This can be attributed to the presence of protected areas, better forest cover, and

conservation committees and activities.

50

CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion, Recommendations and Lessen Learned

5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 Corridor characteristics

The Seti Corridor ranges from lower elevation (200 m) in Tarai to High-Himalayan Mountain

(above 8000 m) with socio-cultural, ethnic, physiographic, climatic, and biological diversity. With

respect to climate-induced disasters, landslides have been reported to be major disasters (46.4%

respondents) while flooding has been reported to be the second major disasters (36% respondent).

According to the senior citizens of the community, disaster events have increased in recent years.

In terms of livelihood, the majority (58.2%) of respondents reported food insufficiency from their

own production. About 40% respondents expressed food sufficiency for less than 6 months

indicating situation of livelihood vulnerability. Among the VDCs, Dharampani is highly

vulnerable and Mangalpur is least vulnerable. With respect to income and saving, it has been

reported that the community has initiated saving habits. Among the respondents, 65.7% reported

having bank savings. Among them, 63.1% save less than1000 NRs per month (US$ 10) and less

than1.7% save 20,000-50,000 NRs per month (US$ 200-500). Foreign employment would be the

source of income for most of the households. The sex or gender ratio ranged from 709 (at

minimum) to 894 (on average) males per 1000 females showing male absentees, thus indicating

higher pressure on female members to maintain livelihood and local environment.

With respect to local social organizations, diverse forms of social organizations such as Mothers'

Group (MG), Fathers Group (FG), Youth's Club (YC), Community Based Organizations (CBOs),

and I/NGOs are working on building community and ecosystem resiliency. Among the community

groups, MGs are in the lead (135 groups in 13 VDCs) including 36 in the up-stream region, 23 in

the mid-stream region and 76 in the down-stream region. Kabilas VDC alone has 48 MGs. The

MG is one of the stronger and more reliable social channels for delivering development aids to the

grass root community. After MG, the second strong social channel is YC organized to fulfill their

needs. In addition, Tole Improvement Committees (Tole Sudhar Samiti), and community

organization like Community Forest User’s Group (CFUGs), Leasehold Forest Users Groups

(LFUGs), and Drinking Water User’s Groups (DWUGs), Farmers Group, Road Construction and

Maintenance Group, etc. are active in the communities. Similarly, several communities have

51

micro-finance cooperatives. All these CBOs are directly related to maintain the health of ecosystem

and social wellbeing in the area. In the VDCs sampled for this study 33 I/NGOs were involved in

developmental activities. Most of these organizations are mainly concentrated in Bhadaure-Tamagi

VDC in the up-stream region, Khairenitar and Bandipur in the mid-stream region, and Kabilas and

Mangalpur VDCs in the down-stream region. The distribution of I/NGOs in the VDCs have their

impacts on creation of local CBOs. The Bhaduare-Tamagi, Khairenitar and Kabilas VDCs

representing three stretches of the corridor provides a similar picture showing a higher number of

such organizations. However, Gaindakot, Devghat and Taksar have least number of CBOs. The

numbers (27) of cooperative in Gaindakot may be due to urban characteristics of the area.

With respect to disaster risk reduction, the communities seem more focused on mitigation measures

for the disasters which they feel to be more prone. For instance, sinkholes in Armala, flood of

Bhadaure-Tamagi and flashflood of Machhapuchhre and Shardikhola VDCs have had a greater

impact on these communities. Therefore, the use of local knowledge to mitigate the overall disaster

might be lesser than in other locations.

5.1.2 Hazard and vulnerability

In terms of the aspect-wise area in the corridor, 50.6% area belongs to east, south-east, south and

south-west facing slope with longer sunshine and high monsoon rainfall along with high human

settlement and intensive human activities with sparse vegetal cover. Nearly 50% land of the

corridor falls in critical hill-slope indicating physiographic vulnerability. The average forest area

(51.5%) is higher than the national average (44.7%), however, per capita forest (0.14 ha) is lesser

than the national per capita (0.25 ha). In the down-stream region built-up area with dense human

settlement with high risk of flood is increasing.

With respect to human settlement in the hill-slope, 42.2% settlement in the up-stream region,

39.8% in the mid-stream region, and 18.0% in the down-stream region are located within critical

hill-slope reflecting their vulnerable situation. The multi-criteria based assessment shows the

upstream VDCs of the corridor to be in very high vulnerable categories.

5.1.3 Ecosystem services

With respect to the ecosystem services, the corridor has provisioning services, regulating services,

supporting services and cultural services. The major provisioning services include agriculture

52

production like cereal crops, legumes, fruits and vegetables. However, these services have limited

diversification. The indigenous varieties of staple food like paddy and maize are almost replaced

by new HYV (High Yielding Variety), which are insects prone during storage, and seeds are not

viable for next generation, despite good yield. The regulating natural processes and events like

flood, drought, land degradation and diseases are closely linked with the climate change. People

in the corridor reported several such services are changing abruptly within their life time. For

instance, drinking water springs are dying out, river and stream courses are deepening, cloud burst

is frequent, and the frequency of hailstone and lighting are increasing. The supporting services

include plants, wild animals and birds as major categories. Wildlife people conflict is reported in

several communities. For instance, monkey population is increasing in throughout the corridor

leading to increase wildlife-people conflict. Similarly, porcupine, rabbit and leopard population is

increasing causing loss of crop and domestic animals. More common in the past, the appearance

of some plant species, wild animals and birds has become rare in the corridor recently. For

example; among the plants, main-kanda and rukh bayar and among the animal Jackal, water Otter

(pani oot) (animals) and vulture and kalij (birds) have become species of low appearance. A

number of wild fruits are disappearing from the community forest due to regular lopping and

weeding with a view of transforming community forest from natural growth to profit making

commercial forest. Only selected species domination is found. Due to this practice most of the

community forest canopy seems well intact with less ground diversity. The corridor is rich in

cultural services, most of which are closely related with religious belief and worships of the people.

These include cultural monuments and archeological sites. Among them, lakes, wetlands, caves,

cultural villages and deep river gorges are important cultural services. In addition, the various

ethnic groups residing the area have their unique sociocultural practices.

5.1.4 Resilient level

In terms of resilience in the corridor, the down-stream communities are more resilient followed by

the up-stream and mid-stream communities. With respect to community resilience, the upstream

stretch of the corridor is more resilient in comparison to the mid-stream, and down-stream

stretches. In the up-stream stretch, Sardhikhola and Machhapuchhre VDCs have been found to

have relatively high scores which can be attributed to the climate induced hazard assessment

through LAPA. The lowest score of Taksar is due to less organizational activities and inadequate

disaster risk management intervention. In the mid-stream stretch, Bandipur has been found to have

53

the highest score, followed by Bhimad. The higher score of Bandipur is due to tourism

infrastructure, increased level of awareness and physical infrastructures. The least score in

Dharampani can be attributed to the remoteness and weak socio-economic infrastructures. In the

down-stream stretch, Mangalpur has the highest community resilience score, followed by Kabilas.

The higher score in Mangalpur can be attributed to better socio-economic status, physical

infrastructure and vulnerability assessment with Community based Disaster Risk Management

(CBDRM). The low score observed in Gaindakot may be due to less disaster risk management

related interventions. VDCs where the Hariyo Ban Program is functional have relatively higher

resiliency scores due to increased awareness, and support provided for livelihood improvement

through micro-enterprises and community empowerment through group formation, micro-

financial initiative and related trainings.

With respect to ecosystem resilience, in the up-stream, Sardhikhola has been found to have the

highest score followed by Armala. The higher value of Sardikhola can be attributed to the

prevalence of conservation organizations and activities such as formulation of Conservation Area

Management Committee in each ward of the VDC. However, in Taksar such activities and program

are relatively low. In the mid-stream region, Bandipur and Dharampani have been found to have

higher scores. The higher scores of Bandipur and Dharampani can be attributed to the larger forest

cover and community forest practices. In the down-stream region, Devghat has been observed to

have the highest score, followed by Mangalpur. The higher score observed for Devghat can be

attributed to the relatively pristine environment and diverse landscapes compared to Kabilas. The

higher ecosystem resilience score in the up-stream VDCs where the Hariyo Ban program is

functional can be attributed to the conservation support provided to the community forest user

groups and pertinent conservation trainings. The mid-stream VDCs where this program is

functional have higher scores due to better forest cover and community-based organizations. The

downstream VDCs where the Hariyo Ban program is in function also show higher resilience with

the exception of Gaindakot. The high score of Gaindakot even without the Hariyo Ban Program

can be attributed to the high score in socio-ecological indicators.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of the present study, the following recommendations have been made for the

community and ecosystem resilience towards the climate-induced hazard and vulnerability;

54

In up-stream, in order to attain the physical stability of the landscape, eight VDCs in the

upstream stretch i.e. Puranchaur, Armala, Valam, Arva Vijaya, Dhikurpokhari, Pumdi Bhumdi,

Kristi Nachnechaur and Rupakot need to be given high priority. These VDCs fall in relatively

very high hazard and vulnerability category followed by Dhampus, BhadaureTamagi and

Kaskikot.

In the mid-stream, Chang, Arunodaya and Bhanumati VDCs fall in relatively very high hazard

and vulnerability category followed by Khairenitar, Manpang, Majkot, Ranipokhari (Rising),

Ghasikuwa, Pokharibhanjyng and Keshavtar. Thus, the priority of action for hazard and

vulnerability reduction needs to focus on these VDCs.

In the down-stream, the corridor being dominated by plain topography. Among the Devghat,

Kabilas, Mangalpur and Gaindakot, Devghat falls in relatively high hazard and vulnerability

category demanding further activities to increase the community resilience, Gaindakot requires

to improve the community resilience, and Kabilas requires to increase both community and

ecosystem resilience.

Among the 61, 14 VDCs/Municipalities in the corridors have forest coverage less than national

average (44.7 %). Among them, 10 are confined in the up-stream (i.e. ArbaVijaya, Hemaja,

Kahun, Kaskikot, Lahachok, Lamachaur, Lekhnath Municipality, Pokhara SubMetropolitan

City, Sarangkot and Nirmal Pokhari. Rest three (Byas Municipality, Dhorphirdi and

Dulegaunda) are in mid-stream and Mangalpur in the down-stream stretch of the corridor. All

these VDCs/municipalities require plantation and forest preservation. Even in the city area

green city concept needs to bring in the action. Similarly, VDCs with above 33% of the total

cultivated land in critical slope (>25°) are Deurali, Reevan, Kahun, Machhapuchchhre, Armala,

Lwangghale, Rupakot and Dhampus in the up-stream, and Chhimkeshwori, Baidi,

Dharampani, KahuShivapur and Kotdarbar in the mid-stream requires to change cereal

cultivation (plantation) on such hill-slope inclination.

From the study it is also recommended that the river banks of the down-stream requires special

attention on flood hazard mitigation activities, especially in Mangalpur and Gaindakot VDCs.

5.3 Lessen Learned

i. The present study has covered the Seti River Corridor with an aim of measuring community

and ecosystem resilience towards climate-induced disasters. The study has found relative level of

55

resilience at VDC level, however in order to execute the action at micro (community) level, the

study needs to pinpoint the micro level with the background information of corridor level.

ii. Slight modifications on questionnaire have been experienced in the measurement criteria

adopted from the empirical study other than Nepal case.

iii. Community and ecosystem resilience contains multidimensional issues which require large

numbers of parameters to consider however there seems trade-off on data integration.

iv. Linking community and ecosystem resilience and ecosystem services covers wide range of

variables which requires long time and multidisciplinary team to carry out the study.

v. In order to measure the community and ecosystem resilience of a corridor, physical hazard

and vulnerability needs high resolution spatial data which requires access on satellite imageries

and technical expertise.

References

Beaumont L., Pitman J., Perkins, A. S., Zimmermann N.E., Yoccoz N. G. and Thuiller W.

(2011). Impacts of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 108:2306-2311.

Bhandari N. P, Dahal R. K, and Okamura M. (2012). Preliminary understanding of the Seti River

debris/flood in Pokhara, Nepal on May 5, 2012: A report based on a quick field visit

program. ISSMGE Bulletin, vol.6(4): 8-18.

Bhandary R. K. (1987). Slope instability in the fragile Himalaya and strategy for development.

Indian Geophysical Journal, Vol. 77: 1 – 88.

Brand F. (2009). Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable

development. Ecological Economics 68 (3): 605–612.

Brewer J. F. (2008). New Directions in Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation

Assessment: Summary of a Workshop. Washington D.C: National Academies Press,

National Academic Council

Dangol V. and Poudel K. (2004). Channel shifting of Narayani River and its ramification in west

Chitwan, Central Nepal. Journal of Nepal Geological Society, Vol. 30:153-156.

Dixit A., Karki M. and Shukla A. (2015). Vulnerability and Impacts Assessment for Adaptation

Planning in Panchase Mountain Ecological Region, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Government of Nepal, UNEP, UNDP, IUCN, German Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Nature Conservation Building and Nuclear Safety and Institute for Social

and Environmental Transition Nepal.

56

Green O. O., Garmestani A. S., Allen C. R., Gunderson L. H., Ruhl J. B, Arnold C. A., Graham

N. A. J., Cosens B., Angeler D. G, Chaffin B. C. and Holling C.S. (2015). Barriers and

bridges to the integration of social–ecological resilience and law. The Ecological Society

of America, www.frontiersinecology.org (accessed from ResearchGate 17 January 2016)

Pp. 332-337.

Gurung G. S. and Rai S. C. (2009).The Account of Climate Change Program of WWF Nepal

(WWF Nepal internal report) IMBC-Technical Working Group I: Climate Change Impacts

on Biodiversity and Mountain Protected Areas. Kathmandu: WWF, Nepal.

Gurung H. (1965). Pokhara Valley: A Geographical Survey. Department of Geography, School

of Oriental and African Studies University of London. (Reprint and Published by) Nepal

Geographical Society (2002). Kathmandu

Hariyo Ban Programme (n.d.). Hariyo Ban Program Promoting Climate Change Adaptation in

Nepal. Kathmandu: Hariyo Ban Program, WWF-Nepal.

Hariyo Ban, WWF Nepal (n.d.) Terai Arc Landscape and the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape.

Kathmandu: Hariyo Ban, WWF Nepal.

Holling C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological

System, Vol.4: 1–23.

IPCC, (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In, Martin Parry,

Osvaldo Canziani, Jean Palutik, Paul van der Linden and Clair Hanson (Eds.) Contribution

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2010)

KAFCOL, (2013). Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape Biodiversity Important Areas and Linkages.

Kathmandu: Kathmandu Forestry College (KAFCOL), Hariyo Ban Program, WWF-

Nepal.

Kafle S. K. (2005). Community based disaster risk reduction framework for southeast asia.

World Youth Foundation, Melaka,

http://www.wyf.org.my/2005/Shesh%2520Kanta%2520Kafle%2520.doc.pp. 1–14

(accessed 5th August, 2011).

Kafle S. K. (2006). Community based disaster risk management for local authorities. ADPC.

Thailand.

Kafle s. K. (2010). How resilient are our communities? Continuity 28-29

Kafle S. K. (2012). Measuring disaster resilient communities: A case study of coastal communities

in Indonesia. Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning. Vol. 5 (3). 315-

325.

Li J. X., Lin A.C., Peterson T., Ma K., Bertzky M., Ciais P., Kapos V., Peng C., Poulter B.

57

(2013). Global priority conservation areas in the face of 21st Century climate change. PLoS

ONE 8 DOI: 00.1371/journal.pone.0054839

Miller F. H., Osbahr F., Boyd E., Thormalia F. Bharwani S., Ziervogel G., Walker B. , Birkmann

J., Van der Leeuw S., Rockstrom J., Hinkel J., Downing T., Folke C. and Nelson D. (2010).

Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and

Society, Vol.15 (3):1-25.

MoHA, (2013). A report on sinkhole formation at agriculture field of Jaimure village of Armala

VDC, Kaski District. Technical Study Team, Ministry of Home Affair (MOHA),

Kathmandu.

Oudenhoven V. M., and Eyzaguirre P (2011). Social-ecological indicators of resilience in agrarian

and natural landscapes. Management of Environmental Quality, Vol.22(2):154173.

Peterson G., Allen C. R. and Holling C. S. (1998). Ecological resilience, biodiversity and scale.

Ecosystems 1 (1): 6–18.

Peterson K. Ma M., Bertzky P., Ciais V., Kapos C. P. and Poulter B. (2013). Global priority

conservation areas in the face of 21st Century climate change. PLoS ONE 8 DOI:

00.1371/journal. pone.0054839;

Poudel K. P. (2003). Watershed Management in the Himalayas: a resource analysis approach.

New Delhi: Adroit Publishers.

Poudel K. P. (2010). Building vertical linkages of bio-reserves to combat the risk of climate

change: a proposition in the case of Central Nepal. In, Pradhan P. K, Subedi B. P. and

Khanal N. R. (Eds.) Environment Livelihood and Micro Enterprises. Kathmandu: Central

Department of Geography, Tribhuvan University. Pp. 13-22.

Reid W.V., Mooney H. A., Cropper A., Capistrano D., Carpenter S. R., Chopra K., Dasgupta P.,

Dietz T., Duraiappah A. K., Hassan R., Kasperson R., Leemans R., May R. M., McMichael

T.A.J., Pingali P., Samper C., Scholes R., Watson R. T., Zakri A.H., Shidong

Z., Ash N. J., Bennett E., Kumar P., Lee M. J., Raudsepp-Hearne C., Simons H., Thonell

J., and Zure M. B. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and

Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC., World Resources Institute

Sharma S. (2015). Flood muddies Fewa Lake. Kathmandu Post. Kantipur Publication (04August

2015).

Shrestha A. B., Wake C. P., Mayewski P. A. and Dibb J. E. (1999). Maximum temperature trends

in the Himalayas and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for

the period 1971-1994. Journal of Climate, Vol.12: 2776-2786.

Shrestha U. B., Gautam S. and Bawa.K.S. (2012). Widespread climate change in the Himalayas

and associated changes in local ecosystems. PloS one 7, DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0036741

58

Taylor G., Vatsa K., Gurung M. and Coutre E. (2013). Review of the Nepal risk reduction

consortium (NRRC). Kathmandu: http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/2013-09-

20NRRC-review_0.pdf

Thapa, G.J., E. Wikramanayake, and J. Forrest. (2015). Climate-change Impacts on the

Biodiversity of the Terai Arc Landscape and the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape. Hariyo

Ban, WWF Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

UNISDR (2013)..Post-2015 Framework for disaster risk reduction (HFA2). Report from 2013

Global Platform Consultations. Geneva http://www.preventionweb.net/files/35070

hfa2consultationsgp2013report.pdf)

UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). In: UN world

conference on disaster risk reduction, 2015 March 14–18, Sendai, Japan. Geneva: United

Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction..

http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_201520

30.pdf (Accessed on 16 May 2016).

United Nations, 2012. Report of the United Nations conference on sustainable development. New

York https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20

UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014). Toolkit for the Indicators of

Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). Bioversity

International/Dunja Mijatovic

Walker B., Holling C. S., Carpenter S. R. and Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and

transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society Vol.9 (2): 5.

Wisner B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis I. (2003). At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s

vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.