sectoral perspectives on gender and social inclusion: forestry (monograph 3)
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 1/112
Sectoral Perspectives onGender and Social Inclusion
FORESTRY
GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENT 2011
SECTORAL SERIES: MONOGRAPH 3
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 2/112
Sectoral Perspectives
Gender and Social Inclus
FORESTR
GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENSECTORAL SERIES: MONOG
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 3/112
A co-publication o the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Developm
UK, and Te World Bank
© 2012, the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Development, UK,and Te World Bank
ISBN 978 9937 8592 3 3
Te ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily ref
the views o the Asian Development Bank or its Board o Governors or the governments th
represent; the Department or International Development, UK; or Te World Bank, its Boa
o Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
Te Asian Development Bank, the Department or International Development, UK, and T
World Bank do not guarantee the accuracy o the data included in this publication and accep
responsibility or any consequence o their use.
Rights and Permissions
Te material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the Asian Development Bank, th
Department or International Development, UK, and Te World Bank encourage
dissemination o their knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, or
non-commercial purposes as long as ull attribution to this work is given.
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to Stea
Abakerli, Te World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Te Asian Development Bank
Srikunj Kamaladi, Ward No. 31
GPO Box 5017, Kathmandu, Nepal
Te UK Government Department or International Development
GPO Box 106
Ek t k L lit N l
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 4/112
Preface
Executive Summary Abbreviations/Acronyms
1. Introduction and Overview
2. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: Making It Happen in Irrigation
3. Checklist for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Annexes
Bibliography
List of Tables1.1 Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget
of the Government of Nepal, 2009-2010
1.2 Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of
Seven Sectors (otal of Program Budget), Including Direct and Indirect Contributio
1.3 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs,
Kavre and Morang (%)
2.1 Resource Use and Multiple Values 2.2 Differential Effects of Forest Quality Change on Excluded People
2.3 Differential Effects of Forest Management Regime Change on Excluded People
2.4 Policies and Progress Related to Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
2.5 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Budget of
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, 2009–2010
2.6 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of District Forestry Offices,
Kavre and Morang, 2008–2009
3.1 Analysis of Barriers
3.2 Responses to Exclusion
3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation
3.4 Roles and iming in Monitoring
Contents
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 5/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
2.1 Dimensions of Exclusion and Outcomes in Forest Sector
2.2 Workforce Diversity of Civil Personnel in the Forest Sector 2.3 Diversity of Civil Personnel in Forest Sector at Different Levels
List of Boxes
1.1 What is a REFLEC circle?
List of Annexes
1.1 Definitions of Socially Excluded Groups 1.2 Step 1 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Framework: Analysis of
Policy, Institutional, Program, and Monitoring and Evaluation Barriers
1.3 List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender Equality and Social Inclu
Budgeting Covering 22 Programs and Annual Plans of wo Ministries
2.1 Area under Different Forest Management Regimes
2.2 Other Major Policies in the Sector and heir Gender Equality and Social Inclu
2.3 Forestry Projects/Programs Currently Working in Nepal
2.4 Logical Framework of Selected Programs/Projects on Forestry
2.5 Monitoring Indicators Related to Gender, Poverty, and Social Equity
3.1 Policy Analysis Format
3.2 Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile
3.3 Program and Budget Analysis Format
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 6/112
Background and Objectives of GSEA 2011/Sectoral Series: Monograph 3
Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)
have been recognized by the Government of
Nepal and its development partners as critical
to equitable development. Particularly following
the Second People’s Movement (or Jana Andolan
II) of April 2006, the efforts of the government,
with the support of development partners, have
been aimed at transforming the country into an
inclusive and just state, with an eye to restruc-
turing existing power relations to ensure the
rights of all citizens, regardless of caste, ethnic-
ity, religion, gender, region, age, or class. he
Interim Constitution (2007) guarantees social
justice and affirmative action for women, Dalits,Adivasi Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis, and other
excluded or disadvantaged groups. It also pro-
poses the future restructuring of the state to
institutionalize an inclusive, democratic and pro-
gressive governance system, maximizing people’s
participation based on devolution of power, and
the equitable distribution of resources.he Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment
(GSEA), which was jointly produced by the
World Bank (WB) and the UK Department
of International Development (DFID), was
delivered to the National Planning Commission
Preface
graphs with practical guidance on how stream gender equality and social incl
seven key service-delivery sectors: agr
education, forestry, health, irrigatio
infrastructure (with an emphasis on roa
rural and urban water supply and sanitat
which additional sectors may be adde
future.
he current process of political transit
vides a very significant opportunity fo
inclusion and equitable developmen
Interim Constitution (2007) and the
Year Interim Plan (2008-2010) reflect
ments made for the social, political and e
transformation of Nepal. For the c
development partners, including DFIand ADB, mainstreaming gender equa
social inclusion in their overall work
dated by global and national agency di
For instance, in its country partnersh
egy (2010-2014), ADB recognizes the
“address gender, ethnic, and caste discrim
through policy reform, targeted inveand the mainstreaming of equal opp
measures in key sector investments”, a
to guide and ensure that in all ADB op
and sectoral assistance, gender and soci
sion concerns are adequately addresse
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 7/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Nepal (World Bank, 2009) and the new strategy
being developed.In Nepal over the last few years there has been
a growing practice of developing gender- and
inclusion-sensitive interventions, especially in the
government’s sector-wide programs supported
by multiple donors (e.g., Local Governance and
Community Development Program [LGCDP],
health, education and rural transport SWAps[sector-wide approach]). Various sectors have
also developed their own GESI strategies (e.g.,
forestry, agriculture, health and local develop-
ment). his Series attempts to provide coherence
to GESI mainstreaming done by the government,
donor agencies and other development actors,
and to introduce a tool that can be commonly
applied across sectors for mainstreaming in poli-
cies, programming, budgeting, monitoring, and
reporting. he aim of the Series is to help make
the Government of Nepal’s goal of universal
access to key public services and resources a real-
ity for all Nepali citizens. A major focus has thus
been on identifying the specific barriers faced by
different groups and the resultant impact of thosebarriers; assessing policies, program modalities,
and project mechanisms that have worked best
to overcome these barriers; and identifying the
measures that work best to mainstream GESI in
sectoral programming.
Process of Developing GSEA 2011/SectoralSeries Monographs
Each of the sectoral assessments consisted of
document review, meetings with sector spe-
cialists and stakeholders, diversity and budget
analysis, some fieldwork, wider consultative
mately 30 participants in each w
with key stakeholders, namelyproject/program staff, donor age
resentative organizations. Literat
a major source of information fo
ment of these monographs; howe
work was also done by team mem
districts.
Draft versions prepared by side (health), Elvira Graner
Bijaya Bajracharya (agriculture/for
Jennifer Appave (water supply a
and Shuva Sharma (rural infrast
were used as background inform
upon where possible. As the GE
began to emerge as an importan
ADB, DFID and the World Ban
the sectoral assessments should
around this framework so that pra
the monographs would become
the approach. Due to its previou
the development and application
framework, the Human Resourc
Centre (HURDEC), a privateconsultancy firm of Nepal, was
by WB/DFID to lead the devel
sectoral series. Jennifer Appave was
by ADB to work with the HURD
January to June 2010 to prepare
Swiss Agency for Development an
(SDC) provided technical supporadvisers.
he team members who prepar
sectoral monographs in this series
1) agriculture—Jennifer Appave a
with inputs from Yadab Chapagai
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 8/112
Chapagain; 6) rural infrastructure—Chhaya Jha,
with inputs from Kumar Updhayay (HURDEC)and Shuva Sharma; and 7) water supply and sani-
tation—Jennifer Appave and Chhaya Jha. Deepa
Shakya and Sara Subba did the research for the
sectoral monographs while Dharmendra Shakya
and Ram Bhusal worked on the budget analysis
and staff diversity analysis. Sitaram Prasai and
Birbhadra Acharya (HURDEC) did the gender-responsive budget (GRB) assessment in Kavre
and Morang districts. Carey Biron edited all the
monographs except forestry, which was done by
Mary Hobley. Chhaya Jha guided the entire pro-
cess, and was responsible for the final writing of
all the monographs under the guidance of Lynn
Bennett, the lead researcher for GSEA.
he Sectoral Series Monograph would not
have made it to their current published form
without the diligence and creativity of the Himal
Books team responsible for the final edit
design support. Led by Deepak hapa, included Amrita Limbu (editorial assista
Chiran Ghimire (layout and design).
he monographs in this series should
sidered as learning documents that w
for sectoral data and analysis to be upd
improved based on sectoral experien
sharing of good practices. he monogthis series all have a common introduc
a common final chapter outlining the
steps in the GESI mainstreaming proce
is intended as a handy reference guide
titioners. he sectoral monographs ha
published in alphabetical order, cover
culture, education, forest, health, irrigati
infrastructure (roads), and rural and urb
supply and sanitation. Additional sector
included over time.
Notes1 For the World Bank, the gender-mainstreaming strategy (2001) and operational policy and Bank procedures
(2003) provide the policy framework for promoting gender issues as part of strategically focused analytical wdialogue and country assistance (World Bank 2006). he policy on gender and development (1998), Strategy
ADB results framework articulate ADB’s commitment to gender, and require that gender inequalities be addr
aspects of ADB work (ADB 2010). he principal elements of DFID’s gender policy and strategy are contained
(2000, 2002). A “twin-track” approach based on mainstreaming of gender issues in all areas and sectors, while ma
focus on the empowerment of women as a disadvantaged group, has been adopted (Jensen et al, 2006).
2 he UK government’s program of work to fight poverty in Nepal, 2009-2012.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 9/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 10/112
he purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, itassesses the current situation of gender equality
and social inclusion (GESI) in Nepal’s forestry
sector. It identifies the barriers faced by differ-
ent groups in accessing forest resources and
other benefits (both those under state-managed
regimes and those managed by communities). It
considers the policy, legislative and social barri-
ers, and how various policies, processes and pro-
grams have worked to address them. Second, it
provides practical guidance on how to improve
existing responses and take further action for
more equitable access to forest resources, services
and benefits.
Forests play an important role in the lives
of nearly 80% of rural Nepali households thatderive some or all of their livelihoods from for-
est resources. For some, their livelihoods are
totally dependent on access to forest products;
for others, forests provide important household
products, inputs to agriculture, income and envi-
ronmental services.
Nepal is rightly famous for the major progressit has made since the 1980s in increasing access
of many hill forest users through community
forestry. In these areas forest management has
moved from a command and control system,
where access to forests was severely restricted,
Executive Summary
organizations have resulted in increasinand rights of the rural population to fore
ucts and services. Partnerships with lo
munities for resource management have
the loss of forests and biodiversity and g
income locally for wider community and
development. Despite these successes,
remaining 75% of state-managed fores
the highest degree of exclusion operate
use is illegal, and where punitive action is
Major advances in building more ju
agement and allocation systems for for
forest products are tempered by strong
of multiple forms of exclusion. Apart fr
nomic factors, social factors such as gend
ethnicity, location, and age greatly influeaccesses forest resources and decision
processes, and who receives benefits.
tance of forests (particularly in the a
forms of property regimes (common p
private, open access), and the enforce
rules all dictate the extent to which hou
gain, or are prevented from, access toHow far individuals are affected by thes
sions depends to a large extent on their
dependence, and, by implication, the diff
accessing and using resources.
In community forestry (which has be
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 11/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
ria for membership particularly exclude distant
users; the costs of entry, especially the time thatneeds to be invested in group formation, exclude
the time-poor who tend to be the extreme poor;
socio-cultural barriers render Dalits particularly
wary of exposing themselves to ridicule and rejec-
tion; and occupational (and caste-based) exclu-
sion, particularly to blacksmiths who are reliant
on reliable access to firewood for charcoal, andgender-based exclusion because membership
was only registered in the name of the household
head (in most cases, male). Decision-making
exclusion and the consequent effects on access to
resources and other benefits result from unequal
power relations, which all affect the degree to
which excluded groups feel they are able to par-
ticipate. here are multiple reasons why people
are excluded or exclude themselves from group-
based activities: their own self-perception of hav-
ing nothing to say that others are prepared to
listen to; experience of more powerful people dis-
regarding them and not seeking their opinions;
their relations with more powerful people—not
being prepared to speak out in front of them incase they say something that causes offence to
their “patron”; their lack of education, which
means they cannot easily participate in events
that require literacy or numeracy; their lack of
time to go to meetings and build the confidence
to speak; and simply not having access to infor-
mation about what is happening, so having no
opportunity to be part of an event—rendering
them voiceless. hese are all experienced to dif-
ferent degrees by Dalits, and also by women.
Recent policies and revisions to community
forestry guidelines do recognize some of these
managed systems and is not incor
the whole sector.Change needs to occur within i
through the processes used to b
It is not just government organ
systemic change is required: it al
many of the civil society organi
sector. Behavior change is require
deep-seated resistance to changitory practices, both in the wor
community groups. Social mobiliz
itation processes need to focus on
and not welfare-based approach
understanding of the rights and
of individuals as citizens to have
decisions, and share in benefits. So
audits have become accepted toolsbut need to be implemented m
with meaningful participation o
poor and the excluded, with fol
that demonstrate there is value in
Behavior change without syste
change in forest sector institution
to reproduce the gap between finpoor implementation.
Internalization and instituti
these approaches through policy, s
ing, systems and structures have
Key constraints include the low l
caste and ethnic diversity within th
vey of 6,836 civil personnel in the
reveals that there is overrepresen
Brahmin/Chhetris (57%), and N
Women comprise only 3.25%, D
Muslims 1.6% of the total staff
departments within the Ministry
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 12/112
to fulfill their mandate due to a lack of clarity
about their roles and responsibilities, inadequateresources, their low positions in the hierarchy
and limited authority, and an institutional fail-
ure to link their work to the routine work of the
ministry. GESI in programming, budgeting, and
monitoring and evaluation has not been effective,
even after concerted effort by different agencies.
In spite of the challenges still faced by theforest sector, there has been a range of good
practices generated. hese occur in three key
areas of change: building the voice and influ-
ence of excluded groups, improving their access
to assets and services, and finally changing the
rules of the game to remove some of the barri-
ers to their inclusion. Among them are build-
ing a strong civil society and the developmentof new partnerships between government and
NGOs. his has begun to clarify and demarcate
the roles of government staff as regulators, ser-
vice providers and enablers, and NGOs/com-
munity-based organizations as facilitators of
poor and excluded people’s voice, accountability
mechanisms and governance structures. herehas been an undeniable improvement in access
to assets and services, with further work devel-
oped to try to overcome some of the locational
exclusion factors in the arai. here have been
changes in the rules of the game—most notably
the success in enshrining community forestry in
law and operational practice. his has continued
to be refined and developed as lessons have been
learned.
here are some practical operational steps that
need to be put in place to overcome the barriers
identified, capitalize on the good practices, and
monitoring and evaluation to include str
systems that are disaggregated by sex, canicity/regional identity, and location. Mo
and reporting should capture informa
track changes in access to assets and
improvements in voice and influence, an
in policy and legal frameworks and com
based governance structures. In additi
necessary to put in place the mechanismand organizational and human capacity
for effective GESI mainstreaming. Unle
are clear linkages between personal rewa
tures and performance against GESI cr
is going to be difficult to institutionali
practices within the sector. Changing
behaviors and structures requires that
the longer-term exclusion issues are adsuch as promoting the conditions fo
to employment in the forestry sector
investment in scholarships, changes to
tent of training courses of forest staff, an
ing more supportive working environm
women professionals.
Despite the large changes in evidencforestry sector, structural exclusion still
but we understand it far more clearly n
the community forestry experience. hi
standing and the translation of necessar
into wider sectoral policy and operationa
still remain to be achieved. Dealing w
exclusion of the extreme poor from deve
processes requires special and targeted su
ensure that they can access forest resou
other associated benefits. Action should
on analysis rooted in an understandin
unequal power relations created by cla
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 13/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
of women, the poor and the excluded and ensur-
ing that forests continue to respond to the needsof the least resilient and least adaptable people
in Nepal, who are going to be the most affected
by the ongoing climate change. Inclusion of peo-
ple in forest management is also about increas-
ing the value of the wider functions of forests to
Nepal. Inclusive forest management, such as we
are beginning to see with comm
has been shown to increase the flbut at the same time conserve an
amount of land area under produ
cover. Inclusion is not just impor
ing people’s livelihoods; it is essent
well-being through the protectio
ronmental services.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 14/112
ADB Asian Development Bank
BiSEP-S Biodiversity Sector Support Programme for Siwalik and erai
BMRGMPE Biological Management of Rhinoceros Grassland Management a
Public Engagement
BZMP Buffer Zone Management Programme
CBOs Community-Based Organisations
CF Community Forestry
CFUGs Community Forest User GroupsCOPE/PLA Client Oriented Provider Effi cient/Participatory Learning and A
CSUWN Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal
DA Durban Accord
DDC District Development Committee
DFID Department for International Development
DFO District Forest Offi ce
DFRS Department of Forest Research and SurveyDHS Demographic and Health Survey
DIDCs District Information and Documentation Centres
DLS Department of Livestock
DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
DoF Department of Forests
DPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System
DPR Department of Plant Resources
DSCO District Soil Conservation Offi ce
DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
EC Executive Committee
FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal
FFA Fund Flow Analysis
Abbreviations/Acronyms
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 15/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
GMCC Gender Mainstreaming Coordination Committee
GoN Government of NepalGPSE Gender, Poverty and Social Equity
GRB Gender-Responsive Budget
GSEA Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment
GSI Gender and Social Inclusion
GZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für echnische Zusammenarbeit
HR Human Resources
HURDEC Human Resource Development CentreIGA Income Generating Activities
ILO International Labour Organization
IPC Integrated Planning Committee
IUCN Te World Conservation Union
LF Leasehold Forests
LFLP Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme
LFP Livelihoods and Forestry Program
LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development ProgramLIP Livelihoods Improvement Programme
LSI Livelihoods and Social Inclusion
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDBR Market Development of Bamboo and Rattan
MFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
MIS Management Information System
MLD Ministry of Local DevelopmentMOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MOF Ministry of Finance
MOHP Ministry of Health and Population
MWCSW Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations
NHSP-IP 2 Nepal Health Sector Program- Implementation Plan 2
NLFS National Labor Force Survey
NLSS National Living Standards Survey
NMCP Northern Mountain Conservation Program
NPC National Planning Commission
NRM Natural Resource Management
NSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 16/112
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PWMLGP Participatory Watershed Management and Local Governance ProSDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SHLP Sacred Himalayan Landscape Program
SSRP School Sector Reform Program
SWAp Sector-Wide Approach
A echnical Assistance
oR erms of Reference
UN United NationsUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women
VDC Village Development Committee
WB World Bank
WDO Women’s Development Offi cer
WSS Water Supply and Sanitation
WLCP Western erai Landscape Complex Project
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 17/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 18/112
CHAPTER 1
Introduction and Overview
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 19/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 20/112
1.1 Introduction
his introduction and overview chapter definesthe dimensions of exclusion and presents the
framework for gender equality and social inclu-
sion (GESI) mainstreaming that has been used
for all the sectoral monographs. It presents an
outline of the current situation of gender equality
and social inclusion in Nepal, and summarizes
the findings of the seven sectoral monographs. It
presents the barriers that have been identified for
women, the poor and the excluded, and discusses
the national, international and sectoral policy
mandates for GESI, the institutional structures
and mechanisms established by the government
for women and excluded groups, the sectoral
findings regarding institutional arrangements
for GESI, the diversity of civil personnel in thevarious sectors, and the working environment. It
summarizes the findings regarding the existing
practice of gender-responsive budgeting (GRB),
the results of GESI budgeting that was applied in
the seven sectors, and the monitoring and evalu-
ation (M&E) system in use. he good practices,
lessons learned and way forward for the sectoralmonographs are also summarized.
1.2 Gender Equality and SocialInclusion Framework and Defining the Excluded
For the last 60 years, since the 1951 overthrow
of the Rana regime, Nepal has been struggling
to transform its feudal economic and politi-
cal system, and to leave behind the ingrained
hierarchies of gender and caste. But these
deep-seated systems for organizing the world
and structuring power relations do not change
and dependency of women are persist
patriarchal culture where, despite the their labor was critical to the subsisten
cultural economy, women were little val
not inherit family land, and could be ca
the husband favored a younger wife.
Persistent too is the chronic pov
groups such as the Dalits at the bottom
caste hierarchy, who, in addition to the
tion of being considered “impure” and t
“untouchable,” have faced structural ba
education and economic opportunities
erations. he Adivasi Janajatis, or ind
groups in Nepal, most of whom were
some 250 years ago during the Gork
quests, have also found themselves place
the Hindu caste hierarchy. Because of thbers (37% of the population) and their
prowess, Adivasi Janajatis were given a
the middle of the hierarchy rather tha
bottom, as they were in India. Ironica
though it was a system imposed on them
siders, to preserve their own status in t
archy many Janajati groups adopted tdiscriminatory behavior towards Dalits
practiced by the “high-caste” rulers. S
even the caste Hindus in the plains, or
of Nepal were looked down upon and
as foreigners when they visited Kathma
capital of their own country.
he list of grievances is long and gro
have been historically excluded are m
Nepal. As development practitioners
toral specialists, we need to know at lea
thing of this historical and cultural co
that we can design sectoral interventions
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 21/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
ways that bring equal benefit to men and women
from all these groups.his monograph is concerned with two major
dimensions of exclusion: economic and social. As
shown in Figure 1.1, when it comes to poverty, or
economic exclusion, we are concerned with the
poor of all castes, ethnicities, locations and sexes.
he socially excluded1 groups include women,
Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims,
people with disabilities and people from geo-
graphically remote areas. What we also need to
keep in mind is that the dimensions of exclusion
are cross-cutting and cumulative. Some of our cli-
ents suffer some dimensions of exclusion but notothers—for example, a poor Brahmin woman
from Gorkha Bazaar is privileged in terms of her
caste and her fairly well-connected location, but
excluded by her poverty and gender. Other cli-
ents suffer from exclusion in almost all dimen-
sions: for example, a poor Dalit woman in Jumla
must contend with four dimensions—poverty,
caste, gender and remoteness—of exclusion. he
fact that these dimensions all interact with each
other in different ways to frame the life chances
of the different individuals we are trying to reach
is why we need to look at exclusion in a holistic
As will be elaborated in greater
out this series, it is essential for eachwho the excluded in that sector ar
of their exclusion. he GESI fram
used for the sectoral monographs
both formal institutions (the legal
policies of the sectoral ministry or e
procedures and components laid o
project document) and informal in
traditional norms of behavior fo
Dalits or the networks of political
present barriers to inclusion. he
an eye out for both of these dimen
out the GESI process.
he framework follows five key
to mainstream GESI in sectoral
(visualized in Figure 1.2):
i. identifying the excluded and
their exclusion from access
opportunities in the sector;
ii. designing policy and/or
responses that attempt to a
riers in the program cycle;iii. implementation;
iv. monitoring and evaluati
whether planned resource
have reached women, the
excluded; and (if M&E find
need)
v. adjustment/redesign and co
First step: Identification. his
ping the existing status of women
the socially excluded in the sector
aggregated qualitative and quanti
Economically excluded
Poor of all• Castes• Ethnicities
• Locations• Genders
• Dalits• Madhesis• Third gender
• Women• Adivasi Janajatis• Muslims• People with disabilities• People of geographically
remote areas
Figure 1.1: Excluded Groups
Socially excluded(context-specificissues of exclusionto be identified)
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 22/112
works) is necessary to understand
exactly how social inequities basedon gender, caste, religion, ethnic-
ity and location have been cre-
ated and/or maintained. he key
actors in these existing structures
also need to be critically assessed
in terms of their ability (and incen-
tives) to change their behavior and
values, and to transform processes
and mechanisms.
In addition to assessing the
barriers constraining each group
from enjoying their rights, we
need to map existing policy and
program responses (if any), and
assess whether these are address-ing, reducing or reinforcing these
barriers (see Annex 1.2 for details).
As we begin the design process,
the situation prevailing in the sec-
tor—the set of policies and formal and informal
institutions in place—will almost certainly be
benefiting some individuals and groups morethan others. hus, we need to understand the
political economy of the sector or subsector
both nationally and locally in the sites3 where
our projects or programs will be implemented.
he stated intention of policies and procedures
will always be positive and aimed at deliver-
ing services and benefits to all, but how do the
policies work out on the ground for different
groups? Do they deliver as intended; if not, what
is intervening to prevent or change the intended
outcomes? Usually, it is merely gaps in the deliv-
ery or communications systems that have been
Second and third steps: Design an
mentation. Once the sociocultural barr
weaknesses in the policy framework orsystem are understood, the job is to find
address these through interventions.
require changes in policies, program a
resource allocations, institutional arran
and staff incentives as well as in the mo
and reporting systems. Some things are
change than others and a single operatio
not be able to make all the changes n
respond to the diagnosis provided by Ste
even the larger, more intractable issue
be fed into the policy dialogue with gov
and other donors and be part of the lon
4. Mon5. Adju
• Inputs:resourreache
and ex• Results• Outco
domai
1. Identify
Barriers of the excluded:• who are excluded, causes
of their exclusion• their existing situation,
barriers in accessingservices and opportuni-ties offered by the policy/project/program beingdesigned
Interventions to address barriers,based on review/assessment of GESIresponsiveness of • Sector policy mandates• Institutional arrangements &
accountabilities
• Program interventions, budgetallocations
• Selection criteria, control of deci-sions & funds
• Monitoring and reporting
2. Design &3. Implement
Figure 1.2: Steps for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 23/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
structures and mechanisms for routine work on
gender and inclusion by technically competent
individuals; promote diversity in staff composi-
tion; and adopt sensitive human resources poli-cies for recruitment, promotion, transfer and
performance evaluation.
o design a project or program so that it will
be able to deliver real change and lasting progress
for women, the poor and the excluded, it is use-
ful to consider the content presented in Figure
1.3, which lays out three domains where change
can happen. hese are also domains that define
exclusion and inclusion, and most projects and
programs include activities in one or all of these
areas. One important domain is access to assets
and services (i.e., health, education, and employ-
influence. In Nepal
projects and what thecalls community-dri
ment approaches place
emphasis on organizin
to manage resources,
and construct infrast
selves. he way group
the depth of the soci
process and the level of
in people from exclud
give them genuine voic
over the group proce
another area where go
careful implementation
ing can make a major
final domain where outions can make a differ
changing policies, institu
and norms (i.e., the “rule
when intentionally or unintention
against the interests of exclude
noted above, not every operation
the national policy level; but if orevealed that certain policies are p
exclusion of certain groups from t
sector operation intends to delive
to be on the lookout for opportun
policy changes on the agenda, an
their adoption. Often, even small
policies and procedures that are
ence can bring about important ch
Nepal’s weak implementation
that even positive policy provis
not implemented effectively. Me
mal norms, social practices, value
Improving access toLIVELIHOOD ASSESTS AND SERVICE for ALL,including the poor and
the excluded
Supporting moreINCLUSIVE POLICIES ANDMINDSETS; changing the
“Rules of the Game”
Increasing the VOICE AND
INFLUENCE of ALL,including of the poor
and excluded
Figure 1.3: Domains of Change
Source: World Bank/DFID, 2006.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 24/112
who hold power to reflect on and internalize the
need for such shifts. his long-term design-and-implementation commitment to gender equality
and inclusion-related activities is an essential ele-
ment of mainstreaming GESI, and it requires a
clear commitment from the management level to
this way of doing business.
Final steps: Monitoring, evaluation, and report-
ing. M&E systems need to be designed to col-
lect disaggregated data on outputs, outcomes
and development results, and to be linked into
management decision-making in such a way that
data on inclusion failures automatically trig-
ger project actions to understand and remedy
the situation. At the output level, management
should be able to ensure that the planned proj-
ect resources and actions have reached women,the poor and the excluded. Yet, disaggregated
intermediate outcomes also need to be tracked,
such as the socioeconomic profile of user groups
and executive committees, labor groups, preg-
nant women receiving antenatal visits, school
attendance, new teachers hired, the placement
of water taps, etc. Finally, disaggregated dataon development results need to be collected and
analyzed. his may be done by the project, but in
some cases with the right coordination it can also
be done by periodic national-level sample surveys
such as the National Living Standards Survey
(NLSS), the Nepal Demographic and Health
Survey (NDHS), or the National Labor Force
Survey (NLFS), or through the decennial cen-
sus. Indicators of results at this level include, for
instance, the time required to reach an improved
water source or motorable road, primary-school
completion rates, child mortality, increase in
1.3 Current Situation of Gender
Equality and Social Inclusion Nepal
Gender issues have been addressed du
past few decades of Nepal’s planned
ment. Yet, it is only more recently th
inclusion has entered the development d
leading to recognition of other dimen
exclusion in addition to gender.
1.3.1 Sector-wide barriers for women
poor and the excluded
Each of the sectoral monographs in th
demonstrates that economic, political an
cultural institutional barriers exist for
the poor and excluded groups, restricti
access to assets, services and opportuexercise their voice and influence. W
access to assets and resources has im
considerably through many targeted p
while affirmative action strategies have
to increase their representation in use
and committees in all sectors. Forest an
supply and sanitation have been the momendable sectors in promoting women
bership and participation, yet the op
space for women to voice their issues a
cise their agency remains strongly restr
societal rules/norms/beliefs that con
define how women are valued and what
or cannot do (World Bank/DFID 200
sectoral monographs all show that wom
ity to make decisions and benefit from a
resources and services (e.g., to take care
decisions when ill, to allocate time for a
community meetings, and to engage in li
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 25/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
public sector through, for example, free education
and healthcare services have helped to increaseaccess for the poor. However, the need to meet
their daily subsistence needs, low literacy skills,
and poor access to information about services and
available resources limit the poor from benefiting
fully from these programs. Further, self-exclusion
of the very poor from group-based community
development activities is common due to lack of
time to contribute as well as lack of agency to influ-
ence decisions. Since so many services and oppor-
tunities flow through groups, this self-exclusion
further reduces the access to resources and live-
lihood opportunities of those most in need.
Similarly, the high opportunity costs incurred in
the initial stages of group formation, with benefits
uncertain and only coming later, also restrict themembership and participation of the very poor in
user groups and committees.
Geographic location is a key determinant of
exclusion across all sectors, influencing the level
of access to public services such as schools, health
posts, agricultural extension agents and finance
institutions. For example, 38% of Janajatis in thehill regions have no access to a health post within
an hour’s walk. he lowest life expectancy (44)
is found in the mountain district of Mugu, com-
pared to 74 in Kathmandu. Only 32% of house-
holds in Nepal can reach the nearest agriculture
center within a 30-minute walk, and only 28%
can reach the nearest bank in that time. A signifi-
cant part of the problem is that the government
lacks the human resources necessary to deliver
services or offer effective outreach to the remot-
est communities—and the available government
staff are often reluctant to serve in remote areas,
services, resources and assets, and
to have voice and influence in dprocesses. his is particularly s
drinking-water facilities due to
Hindu belief that Dalits are “im
pollute a water source. Similarly,
opment outcomes in education (e.
rate for Madhesi Dalit women is
health (e.g., Madhesi Dalit wome
lowest health indicators) are a re
bination of factors, including p
awareness and the discriminatory
behavior of non-Dalits towards D
Dahal and Govindasamy 2008).
For Adivasi Janajatis, langua
around their cultural rights are th
cant barriers to accessing resourcing from services. hese are comp
low access of the most disadvan
groups to information on availab
resources and procedures. Musl
Madhesi groups, especially wome
groups, face linguistic and socio
ers that affect their level of mobito access services and participate
sphere. Although there is greate
the needs of people with disabili
continues to face social discrimin
tually no disability-friendly servic
available, especially in rural areas.
1.3.2 Policy and legal framewo
his section4 discusses the GES
work and mandates at the internat
and sectoral levels.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 26/112
Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples, estab-
lish the fundamental rights of women, protectthe cultural rights of Adivasi Janajatis, declare
untouchability a legal offence, protect the rights
of children and establish the rights of the poor,
people with disabilities, Muslims and Madhesis.
he Local Self-Governance Act, 1999,
empowers local bodies and has made them
more accountable, particularly for local devel-
opment activities. It directs local bodies to for-
mulate their plans with the active involvement
and participation of local people, focusing on
the special needs of the poor, and mandates
20% representation of women on village and
ward-level development committees. But these
provisions do not address issues of inequity and
vulnerability caused by gender, caste or ethnic-ity. he Local Self-Governance Regulations
have provided for the inclusion and prioritiza-
tion of the poor and the excluded in develop-
ment activities. At the district development
committee (DDC) level, however, the regula-
tions make no distinct provision for the social
and economic promotion of the poor and theexcluded in the duties, roles and responsibili-
ties of the DDC. However, the DDC can form
subcommittees to address the needs of women
and the disadvantaged by including members
from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
community-based organizations and civil soci-
ety, and other experts.
he Gender Equality and Social InclusionOperational Strategy (2009) of the Local
Governance and Community Development
Program (LGCDP) of the Ministry of Local
Development (MLD)5 has provisioned for
tation committees in DDCs, and ident
roles and responsibilities of the GESI seMLD. he DDC expanded block-gran
lines to make a direct 15% budget alloca
women and 15% for people from exclude
at the district level. he Village Deve
Committee Grant Operation Manual di
for poor women, 5% for poor children
for other excluded groups in village deve
committees (VDCs) and municipaliti
manual has also provided for integrat
ning committees at the VDC level, with
representation from Dalit, Janajati an
en’s organizations, from NGOs workin
VDCs, school management committee
organizations, political parties, and line
It directs that 33% of members must be(his is only a sample of provisions that
tive from a gender and inclusion perspe
several others exist as well.6)
International commitments
Nepal has ratified as many as 16 inter
human rights instruments, including tional conventions and covenants on
(United Nations [UN] Convention
Elimination of Discrimination against W
Beijing Platform of Action), child righ
Convention on the Rights of the Child
enous people’s rights (ILO Conventio
and racial discrimination (UN Conven
the Elimination of Racial Discriminahas committed to international agreem
targets (Millennium Development Go
for women’s empowerment, education,
water and sanitation, health, hunger and
S t l P ti G d d S i l I l i
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 27/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Sectoral policies: Gender equality and social
inclusion policy provisions in the seven sectorsFrom our review, we find that commitments to
GESI and progressive policy mandates have been
made across the seven sectors, albeit to varying
degrees. Revisions in policies have allowed pro-
grams addressing access to services for specific
groups to be developed and implemented—for
instance, free primary education, scholarships for
girls and Dalits, multilingual education, incentive
schemes for out-of-school children, universal
and targeted free healthcare, safe delivery incen-
tive schemes, quotas for women in community
groups established by all the sectors, agriculture-
related subsidies for the excluded, subsidies for
poor households to build latrines, and so on.
SWAp (sector-wide approach) is increas-ingly being followed in Nepal, allowing for donor
harmonization and more concerted efforts to
address gender and inclusion issues. SWAps
in health, education, and transportation—the
Nepal Health Sector Program-Implementation
Plan 2 [NHSP-IP 2] (2010-2015), School
Sector Reform Program (SSRP) (2009-2015),and rural transportation infrastructure SWAp,
respectively—have directives to address bar-
riers experienced by women, the poor and the
excluded. he NHSP-IP 2 includes a specific
objective to address sociocultural barriers, a
reflection of the government’s shift to recogniz-
ing the need to address deeply embedded social
norms and practices that affect health outcomes.GESI strategies have been included in the
NHSP-IP 2, and strategies have been prepared
for the agriculture and forest sectors though
these have not yet been implemented.
these could contribute more eff
resentatives from excluded grouselected by their own communit
nisms were available for more incl
tation to influence decisions, and
better monitoring by the releva
Policy provisions for representat
and the excluded in user group
tees, with specific guidance for re
post-holding positions, have also
established practice. he rural wa
sanitation (WSS) national polic
has a mandate of 30% of women
and committees, while for Dalit
too, there are provisions for
(e.g., in health facility operation
ment committees, farmer groupsgroups, water supply users’ co
water users’ associations). he
infrastructure sectors, such as W
and irrigation, have recognized t
have in the operation and manag
sectors and have developed policie
their participation, especially intion and management phases. Bu
opment is weaker in ensuring th
poor and the excluded have voice
local-level decision-making proc
not effectively addressed the rol
and elite capture often has in inf
to and utilization of resources a
these sectors.Policies for public and social au
many sectors (health, WSS, rural
appreciated as these increase down
ability of service providers. Im
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 28/112
from the audits, and monitoring to ensure that
full and correct processes are being implemented.Many policy revisions have focused on improv-
ing access to resources and services, but without
addressing the structural issues that cause the
exclusion of these groups. hus, for example,
the Agriculture Perspective Plan, the overarch-
ing policy framework guiding the agriculture sec-
tor, ignores key land-specific issues, and instead
deals primarily with how to increase immediate
production outputs rather than with strategic
and structural issues related to resource manage-
ment, governance and structural agrarian reform.
In the forest sector, positive provisions are being
increasingly implemented in community for-
estry, which has become more GESI responsive.
But there is no recognition by decision makersthat 75% of the national forests are barred to
civilians—any use is illegal and punitive action is
normal, impacting primarily on women, the poor
and the excluded.
Almost all sectors provide specific support to
women but efforts to address the structural causes
of gender-based discrimination are almost non-existent. Only very recently has the government
developed a national plan of action on gender-
based violence, with the health sector recogniz-
ing violence against women and girls as a public
health issue. But these aspects are not integrated
in the policies developed in other sectors—for
instance, the seed policy in the agriculture sector
is considered liberal, but does not recognize thatseed transactions are male dominated, and by
men of higher-income groups. Similarly, in the
forest and WSS sectors, affirmative action poli-
cies are in place to ensure the representation of
bodies and increasing access to sectoral re
with far less recognition of the structurof division of labor, including the imp
of gender-specific responsibilities of c
breast-feeding and taking care of the il
are almost no policies that provide wom
sufficient support to manage such resp
ties alongside professional growth.
In no sector have government agencie
defined who constitute the “excluded,”
interchangeable use of terminology deno
“excluded,” the “disadvantaged” and the
alized” creates confusion. here are pr
for women, Dalits and Janajatis (e.g., for
ships, representation and access to fund
have thus been recognized as excluded
but there is hardly any mention of other groups (e.g., Muslims, other backward c
OBCs, and Madhesis) or effort to add
causes of their exclusion. here are on
sectoral policies mandating sex- and ca
nicity/location-disaggregated data and a
evidence for monitoring. For example,
cation and health sectors’ management ition systems (MIS) have limited disagg
though a pilot for reporting caste/ethni
aggregated data is ongoing in health.
est sector’s recently revised MIS inco
GESI-sensitive indicators, but these s
to be implemented. However, positive e
and initiatives do exist in several program
in the forest sector, the Livelihoods and Program (LFP) has established liveliho
social inclusion monitoring, which n
demands disaggregated data but also an
outcome levels for different social group
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 29/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
knowledge, but by other means that build under-
standing and increase the internalization of equal-ity, inclusion and social justice principles. A major
part of this will need to be based on an improved
understanding among policy-makers, administra-
tors and sector employees of the specific barriers
preventing different social groups from accessing
and using services and resources as well as a com-
mitment within the respective sectors to develop,
budget, implement and monitor mechanisms and
processes to overcome these barriers.
1.3.3 National and institutional mechanisms
for gender equality and social inclusion
he government has created various institu-
tional mechanisms and structures over the years
to address gender and inclusion issues, from thecentral to the district and VDC levels.
Central level
he National Planning Commission (NPC)
has a Social Development Division responsible
for addressing women’s empowerment issues.
NPC’s Agriculture and Rural InfrastructureDevelopment Division has the responsibil-
ity to work on social inclusion. he Ministry of
Women, Children and Social Welfare (MWCSW)
has been implementing women-focused programs
targeted at reaching disadvantaged and marginalized
groups such as children, senior citizens and peo-
ple with disabilities. hrough its Department of
Women’s Development, the Ministry has wom-en’s development offices in 75 districts managed
by Women’s Development Officers (WDOs).
MLD, responsible for social inclusion, has a
Dalit and Adivasi Janajati coordination commit-
through improved protection o
Finally, while gender focal pointin NPC and all ministries and de
mandated to work on gender iss
been unable to deliver effectively d
reasons, including their lack of
absence of any institutionalized li
their gender mandate and the ma
ministries as well as having no spe
or resources for gender-related wo
District level
WDOs are present in each
the Department of Women’s
MWCSW, where they head
Development Office and are man
stream gender and child rights iDDCs have a social committee
Development Officer, who is a
as the gender focal point for t
whole. Various watchdog commi
formed, such as the Indigenous
Coordination Committee and
Upliftment District Coordinatiowith representation from po
he Gender Mainstreaming
Committee (GMCC), under the W
representation from line agencies
monitoring and coordinating distr
work. he GESI Implementatio
formed by the GESI strategy of L
(with the Local Development Othe WDO as vice-chair, the socia
officer as member-secretary, an
tion of GMCC, Dalit and Janaja
committees, and district-level N
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 30/112
established at higher levels but most have
experienced inadequate resources and weak institutional mechanisms, and thus have not
been effective in protecting and furthering the
GESI cause. In addition, there are overlaps
between MWCSW and the National Women’s
Commission and only minimal efforts have been
made to coordinate between the different com-
missions and the representative institutions of
women, Dalits and Janajatis for collaborative
efforts on gender and social inclusion.
VDC/municipality level
While there is no institutional mechanism with
specific responsibility for GESI in VDCs or
municipalities, the representative Integrated
Planning Committees in each VDC are sup-posed to have members representing the inter-
ests of women, Janajatis, Dalits and NGOs, as
mandated in the VDC Grant Operation Manual,
and also have the general responsibility of ensur-
ing that these issues are addressed. A potentially
very effective new structure, established by the
VDC Grant Operation Manual and GESI strat-egy of LGCDP/MLD 2009, are the village and
ward citizens’ forums. hese create spaces for
all citizens, including women, the poor and the
excluded, to discuss, negotiate, prioritize and
coordinate development efforts, and especially
the allocation of block grants in their area, ensur-
ing that they are both inclusive and equitable.
A supervisory/monitoring committee has beenmandated by the LGCDP/MLD GESI strategy.
his mechanism has the responsibility to moni-
tor GESI-related aspects of projects/programs.
Finally, there are a number of community groups,
Sectoral issues
Responsibility for GESI in the sectorsrently with the gender focal points,
discussed above, have not been able to wo
tively. Some sectors (agriculture, educa
forest) have institutional structures to
GESI issues specifically—for instan
Gender Equity and Environment Divisio
the Ministry of Agriculture and Coo
(MOAC) and the Gender Equity Deve
Section and Inclusive Education Sectio
the Department of Education. he
Equity and Environment Division ha
narrow focus on gender and, in gener
when their mandate is broader and cove
excluded groups these GESI institution
tures do not have much influence on cies and programs of their respective m
For one, the high turnover in governm
in ministries/departments results in ch
the political will and commitment towar
issues. For example, there have been
changes of staff charged with the role o
nating the Gender Equity Working Grouis meant to facilitate the implementatio
GESI strategy in the forest sector. his
turnover in the leadership has decreased t
tiveness of this group. he Ministry o
and Population (MOHP) has planned
lish a GESI unit, but this is still in proce
Clearly defined responsibilities for an
unit, and routine working procedures lthe main activities in the sector, are esse
these structures to be useful. Additiona
ignated gender focal points, or even th
unit in general, need to have the technic
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 31/112
p
limited. Additionally, systems have not been
revised to enable them to do their work (e.g.,
planning and monitoring processes/formats do
not demand GESI mainstreaming). Although
all sectors include GESI issues in their policies,
strategies, and procedures, there are no sanc-tions for not achieving or improving GESI out-
comes in the sector. he broader institutional
culture might also not encourage (or, indeed,
might actively discourage) GESI issues being
raised or taken seriously. In the forest sector, for
example, some government staff reported that
other staff would simply laugh if they brought
up social issues in a meeting. As such, transform-ing institutional culture clearly requires adopting
innovative ways (e.g., appreciative inquiry, peer
monitoring) to internalize and institutionalize
GESI-sensitive thinking and behavior.
been historic
(Social IncluGroup 20098
needed to m
files more i
regard to wom
from exclude
to develop hu
policies that a
inclusion sensof personnel
ment in the se
finds the follow
Diversity sta
there are 41,1
bers (of who
women, i.e., the sectors
Compared to
population,10 there is overrep
Brahmins/Chhetris and Newars
marily in key decision-making po
an equal proportion of OBCs (m
gazetted technical positions), whi
groups are underrepresented (Fig
here are 4,594 staff at the ga
whom 7.27% are women. Amon
Brahmins/Chhetris comprise th
69.22%, and Dalits the fewest at
he highest presence of women12
class non-gazetted positions (
which are in the health sector as midwives and mother-and-child h
Figure 1.5).
Across sectors, the highest p
women is in health, at 28.54%, an
Figure 1.4: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Per sonnel in Seven Sectors
Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; assessment by study team.
Muslim (1%)
OBC (15%)
B/C Madhesi (3%)
Name not mentioned (2%)
Dalit Hill (1%)
Dalit Madhesi (1%)
Janajati Hill (9%)
B/C Hill (56%)
Janajati Tarai (4%)
Newar (8%)
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 32/112
degree to which government funding f
issues is channeled through targeted pro
integrated into mainstream programs.
NPC issues guidelines directing minis
line agencies in the formulation of their
budgets. In close coordination with the
of Finance (MOF), NPC identifies the m
specific and sector-specific budget. ernment’s annual budget speech presen
types of analysis of the budget from a
and inclusion perspective: expenditures
port of “inclusive development and targe
tation in education. Similarly, Hill Dalits have
better representation in rural infrastructure and
Madhesi Dalits in agriculture as compared to
other sectors.
1.3.4 Gender-responsive budgeting and
gender equality and social inclusion
budgeting his section analyzes allocations/expenditures of
the government and programs’ budget to exam-
ine the extent to which resources are being spent
on sector activities that are expected in some
Figure 1.5: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Personnel by Level, Sex, Caste and Ethnicity
Note: DHF/M—Dalit Hill female/male; DMF/M—Dalit Madhesi female/male; JOHF/M—Janajati others Hill female/maothers Tarai female/male; JNF/M—Janajati Newar female/male; BCHF/M—Brahmin/Chhetri Hill female/male; BCMF/Madhesi female/male; OMF/M—OBC Madhesi groups female/male; MF/M—Muslim female/male.
Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; grouped for the study based on GSEA caste/ethnic groupings.
DHF JOHF JNF BCMFDMF JOTF BCHF OMFDHM JOHM JNM BCMMDMM JOTM BCHM
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 33/112
Indicators are not specified for inclusive devel-
opment/targeted programs, but there are indi-
cators for GRB13
and pro-poor budgeting.14
Our discussions with Ministry and line agency
staff, however, indicate that the guidelines are
not clear, and that, as noted earlier, it is typi-
cally left to the budget officer to categorize and
score the various budget lines to the best of his
(it is primarily men) understanding. Some of
the ministries were not even aware of the inclu-
sive development and targeted program analysis
while at the district level none of the line agen-
cies had applied these budgeting processes. he
budget speech of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010
categorized high percentages of expenditures in
all sectors as pro-poor and gender responsive, but
with low expenditures for inclusive development
and targeted programming (able 1.1).Since the scoring and indicators were not
clear for the other two kinds of budgeting, we
have focused on reviewing the government’s
GRB indicators, identifying what sub-indicators
grams and projects, while a GRB
been formed within the budget div
with representation from MWNPC and UN Women.
According to the GRB guidel
posed program in the sector ha
as per the indicators developed b
responsive Budgeting Committee
aspects of gender sensitivity (partic
ity building, benefit sharing, incr
employment and income-earning
and reduction in women’s worklo
allocated 20 potential marks each. F
item/activity, the officer doing the
assess what percentage of the expe
benefits women. Programs scorin
more are classified as directly respon
those scoring 20 to 50 as indirectlythose scoring less than 20 as neutr
Sector staff categorize all exp
in the sectoral budget into these t
based on the five indicators of g
Table 1.1: Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget of the Governm2009-2010
Sector
FY 2009-2010 budget
(in ‘000Nepalirupees)
Inclusivedevelopment andtargeted programs
Gender-responsive budget
Allocation %Directly
supportive%
Indirectly supportive
% Total % A
Agriculture 7,876,587 333,900 4.24 2,015,617 25.59 5,587,704 70.94 7,603,321 96.53
Education 46,616,672 18,368,433 39.40 1,300,659 2.79 22,187,486 47.60 23,488,145 50.39 4
Forest 3,449,974 60,453 1.75 71,880 2.08 1,826,637 52.95 1,898,517 55.03
Health 17,840,466 - - 7,156,379 40.11 10,243,816 57.42 17,400,195 97.53 1
Irrigation 7,761,390 - - 7,500 0.10 7,103,102 91.52 7,110,602 91.62Ruralinfrastructure
35,693,647 4,280,025 11.99 12,996,863 36.41 12,588,029 35.27 25,584,892 71.68 3
Water andsanitation
29,500,624 - - 6,806,427 23.07 18,740,825 63.53 25,547,252 86.60 1
Source: Annexes 8a, 8b, and 8c, Annual Budget, Government of Nepal, FY 2009-2010.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 34/112
tend to be better at capturing expenditures for
targeted women’s programs than at picking upexpenditures for efforts made in universal pro-
grams to mainstream GESI. Finally, of course,
the GRB exercise focuses only on gender and
does not capture expenditures aimed at increas-
ing outreach to excluded groups.
Gender equality and social inclusion budget
analysisWhile we have assessed the existing GRB prac-
tice and indicators used, and identified possible
sub-indicators for GRB analysis in the differ-
ent sectors, we have also developed and applied
our own tentative GESI budgeting methodol-
ogy.17 his is intended to capture expenditures
that reach and support excluded groups andthose that support women. Although there is
no single rule about how to determine whether
public expenditure is discriminatory or equality
enhancing, there are some general principles dis-
cussed in gender-budgeting literature, which we
have adapted.18 Our efforts here are intended as a
first step to identifying the approximant resource
flows to these different purposes; but much
more work and wider consultation are needed.
We hope that this initial attempt can become
the basis for further collective work with MOF,
the Gender-responsive Budgeting Com
sectoral ministries, donor agencies suchWomen, and NGOs which are inter
tracking budget expenditures.
Again, the GESI budget analysis
what activities have been planned/impl
that provide direct, indirect and neutral
to women, the poor and excluded socia
to address the barriers they experience in
ing resources and benefits from the sechave followed the GRB practice of usi
categories but have not followed the GR
cators as they have not been very eff
application across the sectors. he GES
analysis was carried out at two levels. F
assessed national-level expenditures in th
using the above criteria. We reviewed a22 programs and two annual plans (se
1.1 for the list of budgets reviewed). Our
resulted in the breakdown shown in ab
he next step was to move to the distr
to ground both the national-level GR
get exercise and our own GESI analysi
districts,19 Kavre and Morang. We first
with the line agency staff to assess the
approach to GRB they were using in e
tor. In consultations at the district level
shared which indicators were relevant
Table 1.2: Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Seven Sectors (Total oIncluding Direct and Indirect Contributions
S.N. Sector Total Nepali rupees
(000) (programs) Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location
1 Agriculture 1,622,500.0 1.64 45.00
2 Education 14,936,192.0 6.91 14.46 5.61 3.52 11.55
3 Forest 3,449,974.0 0.49 4.83 0.63
4 Healtha 13,254,910.0 18.41 15.74 2.72
5 Irrigation 2,411,912.9 4.23 80.04 3.93 3.93 1.72 1.65
6 R l i f t t b 14 279 739 0 9 99 38 27 1 45
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 35/112
the gender responsiveness of items in the sec-
toral budgets. hey said that they were aware
of a number of positive policy provisions in
each sector mandating that benefits reach girls/
women, the poor and the excluded, but they felt
that these automatically ensured that the entire
budget would be responsive to women or specific
excluded groups. In reality, this has proven to be
a problematic assumption.
Next, we worked with the line agency staff to
do a GESI analysis of the district-level health
budgets, using directly supportive, indirectly
supportive and neutral categories.20 he results
are shown in able 1.3.
Effort has been made by the different minis-tries/programs to address the barriers for women
and poor groups but for other groups the assump-
tion seems to be that benefits will automatically
reach them through implemented activities. he
structural issues that constrain th
indicates that a more conscious
the need to address such sociocu
erment and governance issues, a
technical sector services, is require
he key issues are the criteria,
process of budget review. Gover
classifies a majority of activities
indirectly contributing to women
ernment directives regarding ser
A deeper analysis, however, ind
activities are budgeted to addre
gender-based barriers women exp
are necessary even within a univer
order that structural barriers are amore even playing field created—
GESI be considered to have been
his also highlights the need for a
analysis so that the budget speech
Table 1.3: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs, Kavre and Mora
S.N. Sector
Total Nepali
rupees(Morang, Kavre)
Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location Disabi
1 Agriculture 63,355,341 12.46 1.35 0.29 0.15
2 Education 1,336,366,884 14.20 5.08 0.08 0.09 0
3 Forest 2,874,100 39.65 22.50
4 Healtha 78,720,450 53.05
5 Irrigation 72,695,000 1.32
6Rural
infrastructureb 142,369,146 - - - - - - -
7Water andsanitationc 132,054,576 0.59 1.59
Total 1,828,435,497 13.25 0.08 3.73 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.
Notes:a Excluding contribution of 0.34-0.42% to Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis.b All items were found neutral, with the district staff arguing that the infrastructure is for everyone and hence cannot be targetedtrue that we cannot build roads for Dalits, for women, etc.c Excluding contribution of 0.10-0.16% to Dalits, Janajatis, adolescents, elderly, disabled.Source: Kavre and Morang annual programs, FY 2008-2009.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 36/112
address the fact that it is mostly the extreme poor
and often socially excluded groups such as Dalits
who are either excluded or exclude themselves
from joining groups. While groups are indeed a
powerful mechanism to improve access to services
and inputs, relying solely on this model without
assessing its suitability for all presents a significant
risk that those most in need will not gain access.
Overall, our work on gender and inclusion budg-
eting indicates that for effective and systematicbudgeting, more rigorous work has to be done, in
particular with the Gender-responsive Budgeting
Committee. here has to be a consensus to take
gender and inclusion budgeting together; exist-
ing indicators and sub-indicators for GRB need
to be revised and sharpened; unique issues of
social groups need to be addressed; and the pro-cess must be improved, so that it is not left to the
understanding of just one desk officer.
1.3.5 Program responses: Gender equality
and social inclusion approaches
his section highlights the program responses
and efforts across the sectors to promote and
mainstream a more inclusive service-delivery
approach. We also discuss measures and prac-
tices that have been found to be effective and suc-
cessful in improving access to sector services and
livelihood opportunities for women, the poor
and excluded groups—increasing their voice and
influence and supporting changes in the “rules of
the game.”
Increasing access to assets and services
Significant progress has been made in the
service-delivery sectors in increasing outreach
and equity, enhance quality and impr
ciency through scholarships and incen
girls, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis. Still,
ing challenges include effective implem
of the multilingual education policy, m
ing of scholarship distribution, and e
funding to meet the opportunity costs
poorest and most disadvantaged comm
here is also a need to look more caref
the selection procedures and internanance of the school management comm
ensure that they fulfil their potential fo
parents from all groups a say in the ru
their local school.
Likewise, in the health sector, gov
initiatives of pro-poor targeted free he
policies and the Aama (Mother) Progmaternity services have had considerabl
in reducing the economic constraints of
and the social constraints of women, an
ally improving health indicators. he
developed NHSP-IP 2 has various act
address the barriers of women, the poor
excluded, and has made very impressi
with disaggregated objectives and indica
In the infrastructure-related sectors,
water supply has improved substantially
past few decades. However, the low prio
resources accorded to sanitation have re
uneven coverage, especially for the very p
in the arai, where lack of land poses
tional challenge. he construction of ruhas improved access to markets, school
posts, government offices, and so forth, a
provided work opportunities for women
poor in road-building groups. In the irriga
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 37/112
efits from community forestry management and
agricultural extension services and support.
Building voice and influence of excluded groups
Across the sectors, social mobilization as a pro-
cess has been one of the main tools for organizing
people for easier and more efficient transfer of
assets and services, and also for improving reach
and access. Groups (forest users, farmers, moth-
ers, water and sanitation users, etc) are mobilizedfor their labor and financial contributions to sup-
port the implementation, delivery and manage-
ment of services. Policy directives setting quotas
for women and excluded groups have improved
their representation in user groups and executive
committees, which has been important in creat-
ing operational space for the voice and interestsof these groups to be addressed.
However, evidence from the sectoral assess-
ments indicates that these groups are, in many
cases, still highly exclusionary of the extreme
poor and socially disadvantaged groups, often
reflecting and even reinforcing existing power
structures. In addition, although representa-
tion of women is generally high in user groups
and executive committees, their active involve-
ment in decision-making processes is not com-
mensurate with their formal prese
group-based approach to develop
increased access to assets and se
insufficient understanding of and
barriers faced by excluded group
build their capacity to influence
ing processes. In many of these
the approach is more transaction
formational,21 and only in those
REFLEC-type processes (see been adopted has there been effect
ing of voice (e.g., Participatory L
by GZ/GIZ, COPE/PLA [C
Provider Efficient/Participatory
Action] process by Support for Sa
Program/UN Population Fund a
by CARE/Nepal Family Health PSome notable networks and fe
been able to advocate successfull
their members. he Federation
Forest Users has become an im
cal player throughout the coun
Federation of Water and San
Nepal and Nepal Federation of
Association are additional examp
ety groups organizing and mobil
to voice their interests, influence p
sion makers as well as demand
and transparency from service p
United Nations Children’s Fun
supported women’s federations
committees are a force to be recmany districts. Still, even in these
ond-tier organizations, importan
regarding inclusion and diversity
bership, decision-making positio
Box 1.1: What is a REFLECT circle?
REFLECT circle is a forum where the disadvantaged are
brought together to identify, analyse and take actions on issues
that directly affect them. The main purpose of the circle is the
empowerment of the poor and the excluded. The facilitator of the circle helps educate members on their rights and support
them to take actions to ensure access to services. It helps build
the capacity of members to advocate and lobby for their rights.
The circle not only takes up issues of the disadvantaged, it also
encourages members to fight for the rights of the community
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 38/112
face in accessing assets and services. he forest sec-
tor, for instance, has made notable progress in this
area by addressing GESI issues in sector program-
ming and operational practice. LFP’s pro-poor
and social inclusion strategy has been effective
in developing a common understanding of social
exclusion issues as well as strategic approaches to
deal with them. Similarly, the health and educa-
tion sectors have been progressive through the
previously mentioned NHSP-IP 2, Educationfor All and SSRP policies. However, the infor-
mal “rules of the game”—the sociocultural values,
beliefs and attitudes that underlie and shape dis-
criminatory behavior and norms—continue to
play a strong and influential role in creating barri-
ers for women, the poor and excluded groups. It is
in this area that substantive efforts are needed toovercome deep-seated resistance to changing dis-
criminatory practices, both in the workplace and
in community groups. Behavior change without
systemic structural change in sector institutions,
communities and families will continue to repro-
duce the current gap between good policies and
poor implementation. Unfortunately, however,
sufficient and sustained work along these lines was
not evident in any sector.
1.3.6 Monitoring and reporting
Ministries, including MLD, report on M&E
formats issued by NPC (specifically the Poverty
Monitoring Division, which has the key respon-
sibility to work in this area). For effective GESImainstreaming, integrating gender and social
inclusion into M&E systems is crucial. NPC
has established a system of gender coding for the
10th Plan/PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy
in 22 districts and could potentially be
for poverty monitoring in the new fede
once these are determined. But, at pres
ther system is actively used.
o a certain extent, the education an
sectoral information management syst
provide disaggregated information. h
tion sector has the most well-establishe
of monitoring and reporting, providin
prehensive, high-quality and disaggregaby sex and caste/ethnic group on, amo
things, student enrolment and numbers,
and non-teaching staff, student attenda
scholarship allocation. However, it only
gates social groups by Dalit and Janajati
differentiating the subgroups within whi
are more disadvantaged than others. Morcategories do not capture groups like the
other backward classes/OBCs or Muslim
of which have low education outcomes a
to be tracked. Similarly, the current mo
mechanisms of the health sector collect
age-disaggregated data, but information
vice utilization by the poor and the exc
not integrated. he sector is piloting ca
nicity-disaggregated data but managing su
amounts of data has been challenging.
he WSS, forest and agriculture
maintain disaggregated data on member
participation of women in the user grou
mittees and key decision-making positio
also disaggregating user-group data by cnicity. he MFSC also incorporates mo
indicators sensitive to gender, poverty a
equity in its MIS, but this needs to b
mented more systematically. In the fore
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 39/112
lack of disaggregated indicators or inclusive objec-
tive statements. Only in the recent NHSP-IP 2
(health) is there consistent demand for disag-
gregated data at the results level, or for measur-
ing any shift in sociocultural behavior. In SSRP
(education) there is a gap, with very little demand
for disaggregated measurements of progress as
the indicators are mostly quantitative and neutral
from a GESI perspective. Still, many programs do
have indicators for representation by women andexcluded communities in various groups and com-
mittees. Nepal Water and Health, for instance,
has very well-disaggregated indicators, e.g., “At
least 90% of completed projects [in which 90% of
the beneficiaries are the poor and the excluded]
remain fully functional 3 years after the project’s
completion.”he sectoral M&E review indicates that there
are efforts at collecting disaggregated data and
that sex-disaggregated data are most commonly
requested. But consistent disaggregation against
all social groups with regional identities (women
and men of Hill and Madhesi Dalits, Adivasi
Janajatis [except Newars], Newars, Muslims,
OBCs, Hill and Madhesi Brahmins/Chhetris)
is not followed. here are very few sectors with
examples of an information management system
that can handle such data (probably only LFP
and NSCFP in forestry, and rural WSS). With
NPC formats still not demanding such disaggre-
gation nor asking for progress against outcomes
in disaggregated forms, monitoring and report-ing are a key area for more intense mainstream-
ing of gender and inclusion.
1.3.7 Good practices and lessons learned
Good practices
Improved targeting and inclusion
well-being ranking and proxy mean
cator targeting) provide a powerf
identifying the poor and the exc
gram interventions. Community
ally carry out such rankings the
economic and social indicators
households. In education, this is
by proxy means testing to target tertiary scholarship and work-s
Evidence that this combination h
is still to come in, but there is con
practitioners that it can bring tog
and subjective rankings. his is
target resources and services, an
equitable distribution. he forestesting a combined community-b
means testing approach to identify
households, with independent ve
to standardize approaches and r
confusion at the local level.
Empowerment and community e
mobilization based on individual
empowerment through efforts to u
transform the unjust structures t
everyday lives and livelihoods ha
tive in building the voice of the ex
poor as well as their capacity to
sions. Where communities have
to reflect on the social norms t
untouchability, gender-based disviolence against women, there has b
in access to services and greater
community-level planning for the
REFLEC-type approaches hav
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 40/112
lack of access to information about entitlements,
services and procedures to obtain available
resources is a major component of the exclusion
faced by women, the poor and excluded groups.
Knowledge is power and more educated elite
groups who have time to network in the district
centers and create contacts with local politicians
are more likely to know the details of incoming
development programs or new government poli-
cies—and to use this information to their advan-tage. Setting quorums for key meetings has been
effective in ensuring that all households are ade-
quately represented and informed. If a quorum
is not met, project staff members are required
to cancel meetings until the required number of
households is present.
Building a strong civil society able to representand advocate for changes in the “rules of the
game,” has been a major advance in some of the
sectors (e.g., Federation of Community Forest
Users, Nepal in the forest sector). However,
these organizations and federations also need to
address issues of diversity and inclusion within
their own structures, where representation of
excluded caste and ethnic groups is typically low.
Another danger with such NGOs or second-tier
groups is that they can be captured by political
parties.
Policy directives for representation/participation.
Setting quotas for women and excluded groups
in user groups/committees, along with creating
training opportunities, has ensured their rep-resentation and participation in development
activities as well as strengthened their access to
resources and benefits. Still, further efforts are
needed to reach socially excluded groups and
entry. hese policies (such as those ado
NSCFP) have improved inclusiveness in
ual organizations and among partners, id
groups to be prioritized, established ben
for diverse representation in staff catego
followed up with affirmative action to
people from discriminated groups un
representation in various staff categori
mittees and working teams is ensured, r
their representation of Nepal’s populatioChanging internal budgeting and mo
systems to track resource allocation ef
women, the poor and the excluded h
successfully employed by a number
grams. his has positively evolved the
which these institutions allocate and
services and enabled programs to idencauses of changes in livelihood and soci
sion outcomes. LFP (through its liv
and social inclusion monitoring) uses t
domains (see Figure 1.3) of change
change in voice, influence and agency, a
assets and services, and also whether t
and excluded have been able to change
and institutions in their favor.
Social accountability mechanisms. Soci
and similar tools have provided in
opportunities for civil society, includi
munity groups, to press for greater acco
ity and responsiveness from service p
hese have become accepted tools a
cesses, but still need to be implementeffectively, with meaningful participatio
women, the poor and the excluded, a
follow-up actions that demonstrate the
participation.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 41/112
require coherence of interventions at many lev-
els and across many sectors. For example, simply
providing low-quality leasehold land is insuf-
ficient to bring people out of poverty when the
initial investments to improve productivity are
large and require time to deliver benefits. For the
extreme poor, this could lead to an increase in
livelihood insecurity and vulnerability.
Behavior change is required to overcome deep-
seated resistance to changing discriminatorypractices in both the workplace and community
groups among those who have benefited from
these practices. But changes in the behavior of
a small number of well-meaning individuals
will still leave gaps between well-intentioned
policies and actual implementation. Changes
in incentives for staff working in the sectorsare also needed. Overcoming deep-set informal
resistance to social inclusion and changing dis-
criminatory and indifferent attitudes of service
providers remain two of the greatest challenges
facing all sectors.
Social mobilization and facilitation processes
need to focus on empowerment not only on
increasing access to assets and services. here is
a need to build understanding of the rights and
responsibilities of individuals as citizens to have
a voice in decisions and a share in benefits. When
this approach is used, groups are more sustain-
able and generally continue functioning after the
project or program intervention is over to take up
new activities of concern to members.Sociocultural constraints on women are strong
and thus it is necessary to work on shifting gen-
der-based power relations both in the workplace
and in communities at large. Compared to men,
resources and associated benefits.
be based on analysis rooted in an
of the unequal power relations cr
caste, ethnicity and gender, whi
addressed by any support provide
Policy mandates and affirmativ
sions are necessary for resources to
the poor and the excluded along
cal commitment required for im
During the implementation proneed to be understood and addr
reasons causing the failure need to
and acted upon.
Increased formal representation
matically lead to increased voice. A
has been significant representatio
user groups/committees, they stsufficient voice in these groups. h
is limited at meetings, they rarel
and when they do, they are ofte
to. he same is often true of D
excluded groups whose presence
donor or government funding req
real change, capacity building an
shifts in discriminatory practices
and need to be directed not only
but all members of the group/u
Also necessary for any effective
formal structures such as user gro
and power-focused analysis to un
these structures interact with info
and systems.Targeted interventions are impo
needs to be integrated into mainst
and services. hough equity-relate
extent, inclusion issues are cap
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 42/112
tion,” the focus remains solely on disability and is
separated from the gender equality section. his
reveals a limited understanding of what it means
to mainstream GESI in a sectoral program.
Institutionalizing gender and inclusion in bud-
geting requires further clarity and capacity. he
methodology and process for the government’s
gender-responsive budgeting are not clear
enough. he current indicators are not adequate
for analysis across sectors and it is not clear thatthe current post-allocation analysis adds value
at either the sectoral or MOF level. here also
seems to be an implicit bias in the point alloca-
tion system towards smaller, targeted, women-
only projects and programs rather than genuine
integration of women’s needs and constraints
into mainstream sector programs. In addition,the approach lacks a wider inclusion dimension
that, with very little additional effort, could allow
it to track expenditures benefiting other excluded
groups using the same basic process. Clear, con-
sistent guidelines on process and analytical cat-
egories are urgently needed.
Institutional structures for GESI need to be made
functional and integrated into the core products and
services provided by the sector. Institutionally,
just creating structures is insufficient, as dem-
onstrated by the position of the gender focal
points within the sectoral ministries. Rather,
for any such position to be influential, it must
be integrated into the sector’s core systems and
organizational structure. he GESI functionshould be assigned to the planning and monitor-
ing division of each ministry and ultimately be
the responsibility of its chief. he responsibility
should be backed with resources to bring in or
services, other actions are required in
such as education (e.g., building awarene
infrastructure (e.g., road and trail ne
modes of transport services (e.g., availa
stretchers, public transport), water and
tion, and access to finances (e.g., com
level emergency funds).
1.4 Mainstreaming Gender Equal
Social Inclusion: The Way FoIn Section 1.2 we discussed the steps
mainstreaming and the three domains o
and explained any questions or queries
section, common measures on main
ing GESI in the sectors are grouped un
framework of three stages: identifying; de
implementation; and monitoring and r(and response to the findings through ch
project implementation). As has been illu
gender-, caste-, ethnicity-, and locatio
exclusion are complex interlinked iss
cannot be addressed in isolation. o res
this complexity, multipronged measures
essary for mainstreaming, as reflected in
gestions made here.
Step 1: Identifying the barriers
Analyze existing power relations and the fo
informal institutions that enforce and p
social and economic inequalities. Gender
ity and social exclusion in the sectors ar
to the wider sociocultural and politico-econtext. First, identify the key socioe
constraints and harmful social and
practices that limit access to sector r
and assets for women, the poor and the
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 43/112
work with these systems and try to improve them
so they can deliver services more effectively. Yet,
it is generally recognized that changing any of
these “rules” upsets some stakeholders, and this
is why there always needs to be awareness of the
“political economy” of the individual projects/
programs. Likewise, the more “informal” insti-
tutions, which are deeply embedded in values,
beliefs and norms, can also block change, and
thus need to be considered. Some—like thegender system or caste hierarchy—are so deeply
ingrained that people often follow them without
even being aware that they are doing so. On the
other hand, not all these traditional values are
negative or exclusionary, and many can indeed be
a strong source of renewal and positive change.
he GESI framework is a tool to increase thechances that the changes we want to bring can
actually happen on the ground. GESI requires us
to look at both formal and informal systems. o
identify barriers, we need to look in two areas:
first, how the formal project systems are likely
to work for different groups of people. his will
bring us to the second layer, to see how informal
systems might be distorting the way the formal
systems work for some individuals and groups.
So, when we try to “identify barriers,” we are
actually uncovering whole systems that keep
some individuals and groups from gaining equal
access to universal services and benefits that the
project/program we are supporting is intended
to deliver.Assessing GESI in existing policy, programs,
budgeting and M&E. It is important to assess
the existing policy mandates that provide the
space to work on GESI issues in the sectors, and
are being addressed—and the
weaknesses of the current appro
political economy and governan
to be understood: their implicatio
tor in general and for women, th
excluded in particular. Further, th
to be reviewed through a GESI l
how positive policy and progra
sions are being resourced, and to
for improvement. Finally, an assesbe carried out to determine whe
system is capturing changes in a
manner, and on issues that are of
tance to increasing access to servi
the poor and the excluded. As gen
sion issues are linked to wider g
management systems, a GESI assbring up issues that could be cons
as beyond its scope. But these asp
to be understood for their impact
poor and the excluded.
Steps 2 and 3: Design and imple
GESI mainstreaming requires
program plans must consciously
address, at each stage, the cons
enced by women, the poor and th
must build on their existing streng
Address policy and organizationa
he aim here is to focus more on
organizational level and how GESbetter addressed in program/proj
Support and strengthen GESI
Programs/projects are applying
policies, but overarching policy gui
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 44/112
Promote diversity in service providers. he num-
ber of women and people from excluded groups
working in the sectors varies but is generally
low, highlighting a need for affirmative action.
his will require long-term investments through
scholarships as well as individual coaching to
prepare technically qualified women and people
from excluded social groups. Measures to create
a supportive working environment, like childcare
or flexible timings and safety from sexual har-assment, can be very effective in attracting and
retaining women professionals. But little thought
seems to have been given to how to open the way
for other groups like Dalits or Muslims so that
they feel comfortable and perform well in the
workplace.
Develop skilled service providers to deliver GESI-sensitive services. Support for main-
streaming of GESI issues in tertiary and techni-
cal institutions will build the technical capacity
of professionals. GESI-sensitive messages also
need to be integrated into related training
affecting the sector.
GESI in job descriptions and strengthening GESI
arrangements. Work needs to be done with the
Ministry of General Administration (now called
the Ministry of Human Resource Development)
for revision of job descriptions of all positions to
integrate GESI-related tasks. GESI units and
desks are required in the ministries, their depart-
ments and district-level divisions/departments
to provide technical support for mainstreaming gender and inclusion in the sectors. his is also
necessary in programs that have not provided
dedicated responsibilities to identified structures.
Mechanisms for coordination between these dif-
work. Gender and social development sp
need to have the relevant technical exp
respond to and guide technical staff on
mainstream GESI while technical staff m
need to be able to respond to social issu
to their technical work.
GRB and GESI budgeting. GESI bu
as a tool, can identify the kinds of activit
geted/spent for but the government’s
budgeting criteria and process require rebe more effective. GESI budget analysi
not be done only after the program h
designed and funds allocated; rather, it
done simultaneously with program devel
to ensure that activities/subprojects to
the barriers constraining access to ser
women, the poor and the excluded are idand an adequate sum allocated in the bu
work plans. Likewise, activity planning a
geting must be linked to disaggregated
the information generated from the use
such as poverty mapping, social mapp
gender analysis.
Designing program/project responses
Balance targeted and universal action.
activities are necessary to address spec
straints or issues of women, the poor
excluded, e.g., special initiatives to build
of women farmers to become traders/e
neurs in agribusiness, or specific finan
vices to increase access to credit of the advocacy with men regarding empower
women. But these need to contribute t
versal program, addressing structural co
blocking groups from accessing resou
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 45/112
at each step of the project cycle, and monitor
investments in the sector.
Mechanisms to encourage greater downward
accountability need to be strengthened. Across
sectors, state and non-state actors are more
accountable upwards than downwards towards
the community, and these include NGOs and
community-based organizations (i.e., support
organizations) that are partnering with govern-
ment and donors to implement tasks such associal mobilization, needs identification, etc.
heir agreements demand reporting to project
supervisors and donors with hardly any mecha-
nism to ensure accountability towards the people
they are supposed to serve. GESI performance
incentives need to be developed and included in
the evaluations of support organizations.Longer-term investment in the capacity build-
ing of women, the poor and excluded members to
enable them to participate more effectively in
executive committees and groups is necessary.
his requires building the leadership abilities of
members of these groups.
Harmonize working approaches across programs
at the local level to minimize beneficiary transaction
costs. he formation of multiple groups by differ-
ent projects/programs and varied requirements
and working approaches adopted by different
actors increase the time burden of women, the
poor and the excluded, who have to attend mul-
tiple group meetings. his could be addressed
if VDCs play their coordinating role better andensure that the neediest receive services, but
this would demand a disaggregated database
and information about the current situation of
women, the poor and the excluded, and their
natory beliefs and norms. Likew
project information and docume
translated into local languages to
groups understand the processes,
lations to access services, assets,
other benefits.
Steps 4 and 5: Monitor and Adj
Implementation
Monitoring and reporting
Many sectors are disaggregating d
caste/ethnicity. But the focus is on
number of women trained) and o
capacity to track GESI outcomes
Some potential improvements are
Disaggregated monitoring and repwhat each project/program is c
assist women, the poor and the ex
be established across the sectors.
lenging at the national level as NP
and reporting formats, which all
to follow, do not demand disaggre
tion. Additionally the “three dom
framework is very useful for trackoutcome levels, and could usefully
as a routine practice by NPC.
Objectives and indicators need
gated by sex and caste/ethnicity.
programming must be based on
information and evidence. With N
PRA (Participatory Rural Apprawell-being ranking, labor/access/
resource mapping, etc) must be u
at the community level to identif
map existing social and power rel
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 46/112
acute exclusion. PMAS needs to be revised and
its implementation strengthened. Monitoring
and reporting formats must be standardized
with disaggregation. Sectors and programs will
need to monitor their investments, and hence
have more detailed indicators and monitoring
systems. But they must all contribute to the indi-
cators incorporated in PMAS.
Community monitoring and social accountabil-
ity mechanisms should be institutionalized withinthe M&E system. Social and public audits have
become accepted tools and processes, and need to
be improved in implementation. o ensure this,
social mobilization may be necessary until the
process of giving this kind of feedback becomes
a familiar activity for the excluded. his requires
a carefully facilitated process to ensure that allsocial groups participate, that proper service
evaluation occurs, and that useful understanding
is developed and acted upon.
Good practices and lessons learned need to be
documented and shared by sector actors through
donor coordination groups, and perhaps through
the Social Inclusion Action Group, a group of
practitioner agencies. Enhanced capacity to pre-pare case studies that document and analyze pos-
itive pro-inclusion processes will accelerate the
pace of change.
Monitoring and evaluation teams must be inclu-
sive and must have people with technical com-
petence about gender and social inclusion in the
sector. he terms of reference of the M&E teamsmust specifically demand deliverables that have
addressed GESI issues.
Adjust implementation
the project to achieve its objectives. If th
sion indicators show that some of the i
outcomes are not emerging as expected
groups are not getting their share of
project management needs to diagnose
is so and work with staff and project par
to develop mechanisms to change the situ
soon as possible.
he seven sectors covered in this ser
made significant progress in increasing thipation of women, the poor and exclude
in development efforts, but rather une
gress in addressing structural causes of
caste/ethnicity-based discrimination and
social exclusion. However, the current d
on inclusive development provides an op
time to learn from sectoral experience atowards more inclusive practices, as thes
can be adopted and mainstreamed across
tors and institutionalized within governm
non-government structures alike.
As has been noted, to institutionaliz
each sector will need to address th
issues uniquely facing women, the p
the excluded: the underlying structuraof their limited participation, voice a
low influence over decision-making p
the reasons behind ongoing inequitab
to resources and assets; and the need
responsive processes that address the
needs of specific social groups. At an
tional level, a variety of common issuesbe addressed, including lack of staff d
ineffective gender focal points; and limi
gration of GESI principles in core secto
ning, budgeting and monitoring processe
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 47/112
Notes1 According to the Interim Constitution and hree-Year Interim Plan, excluded groups refer to thos
enced exclusion historically and have not been mainstreamed in the nation’s development: women, DalitMadhesis, Muslims, people living with disabilities, and people from geographically remote areas.
2 his framework has been adapted from Naila Kabeer’s social relations analysis framework (Kabeer
informed and refined by the GSEA framework. Field-level experience of professionals has contributed to
in Nepal for program design, evaluation studies, and gender equality and social inclusion mainstreaming
LGCDP/MLD, and in various other program/NGO strategies.
3 In a national program, mapping the local political economy of the sector in a sample of the different type
program would be implemented would provide us with enough to go on.
4 his section draws from the LGCDP/MLD gender equality and social inclusion operational strategy (200
2 of that document for a more detailed analysis of policy and institutional frameworks.5 his has recently been approved as the GESI policy of MLD.
6 Such as categorization of Janajati groups into endangered, highly marginalized and marginalized, and prior
accordingly; disaggregated information about users; information to users regarding resources before approval
33% women and representation of Dalit, Janajati and deprived groups in user committees; allocation of up to 3%
estimates for capacity building and overhead costs of user committees; participatory monitoring by users;
complaints at VDCs about the implementation of the project.
7 As has been directed by MLD for the VDC-level integrated planning committees.
8 his publication reviews the workforce diversity profile of 30 international agencies working in Nepal.
9 Records of civil servants maintained by the Department of Civil Personnel Records (Nijamati KitabkhanaGeneral Administration were reviewed and disaggregated according to surname and place of permanent resid
were those developed by the WB Social Inclusion Index development team, and caste/ethnicity groupings w
Census. his process can be erroneous to a certain extent, as some surnames are common to different social
ciate that a participatory process facilitated by the Nijamati Kitabkhana for the self-identification of employee
10 he national population as of Census 2001 was Brahmin and Chhetri 32.5%; Janajati (excluding Newar)
Dalit 13%; Muslim 4.3%, OBCs 14%; and others 1.4%.
11 Gazetted is the highest category of officers, appointed through national open competition. Non-ga
appointed by the head of department to support gazetted officers. Within the gazetted and non-gazetted,
of special, first-, second-, and third-class officers. he classless officers are support staff.
12 Of the total 72,939 civil personnel in the government as of February 2010, only 12% were women. Of
gazetted officers, 57.4% were non-gazetted, and 30.4% were without grade (Nijamati Kitabkhana records
13 he three prescribed categories are direct contribution, indirect contribution and neutral. Each sub-activi
of 1, 2 or 3, considering the percentage of contribution to women. he formula for coding has five indica
20%: capacity building of women, women’s participation in planning process and implementation, wome
sharing, support for women’s employment and income generation, and qualitative progress in the use of
reducing women’s workload (eAWPB 1.0 Operating Manual, 2009). In order to measure these catego
five qualitative indicators were assigned quantitative values of equal denomination, totaling 100. Direct g
indicates more than 50% of the allocation directly benefiting women, indirect gender contribution indic
allocation benefiting women, and the neutral category indicates less than 20% of the allocation benefiti
gradually being used by ministries such as the Health Ministry but due to difficulties in the application of
not seem relevant to all the sectors, this has not been fully used by all.
14 Indicators for the pro-poor budget are investment in rural sector; income-generation program in ru
enhancement program in rural areas; budget allocated for social mobilization; expenditure focusing on
t f l l b di i l it d i t t i i l t ( i ll f d ti
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 48/112
18 We are adapting from gender budgeting initiatives that have aimed to assess the impact of government expend
revenues, using three-way categorization of gender-specific expenditure, equal opportunity expenditure and gener
ture (the rest), considered in terms of its gendered impact (Budlender and Sharp 1998).19 Implemented budgets of districts were reviewed to assess actual expenditure and its effect on addressing the
women, the poor and the excluded. Program budgets of the current year were reviewed to assess allocations.
20 Directly supportive (i.e., targeted to provide direct support to women, the poor and the excluded); indirectly
(contributing to creating an enabling environment, supporting in any manner the access of women and the e
services, or addressing the structural difficulties confronting them); and neutral.
21 Jha et al, 2009.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 49/112
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 50/112
CHAPTER 2
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Making it Happen in Forestry
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 51/112
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 52/112
2.1 IntroductionNearly 80% of Nepali rural households derive
some or all of their livelihood from the forestry
sector. For some, their livelihoods are totally
dependent on access to forest products; for
others, forests provide important household
products, inputs to agriculture, income and envi-
ronmental services. Forests account for approxi-
mately 40% of the total national land area in
Nepal (nearly 5.5 million hectares). It is one of the major productive resources: it contributes
around 10% to Nepal’s gross domestic product
(GDP),1 and generates a large amount of govern-
ment cash revenue every year.2
Nepal’s path-breaking achievements since
the 1980s in community forestry and partici-
patory protected area management are globallyrecognized as best-practice models. As the most
advanced form of community resource manage-
ment, community forestry occupies nearly 22%
of the total national forest, reaching over 1.6
million households (about 40% of the popula-
tion) through nearly 15,000 community forest
user groups (CFUGs) throughout the coun-
try. Supported by the government, donors andNGOs, policies on community forestry have
resulted in increasing access and rights of the
rural population to forest products and services.
Partnerships with local communities for resource
management have reversed the loss of forests and
biodiversity and generated income locally for the
wider community as well as national develop-ment (Kanel 2004). hese major advances are
tempered by strong evidence that exclusion on
the basis of income, location, class, caste, ethnic-
ity and gender persists for some at community
under state control. his largely unmana
ernment forestry estate has not been han
to local user groups and communities, aarena where multiple stakeholders com
resource capture through legal and illega
Marginal and poor households often
heavily on these mostly open-access r
(except in the case of some heavily p
arai national parks), but lack the right
use of the resources and are vulnerable ttion, displacement, and, in one recent s
case, murder. his large area of governm
est is thus the domain in which the mos
exclusion takes place, but is also an are
potentially some of the most important i
and livelihood gains could be made in
lessons from community forestry are ap
these management regimes.
2.2 Determinants of Outcomes inSector
here are multiple forms of exclusion i
tion in the forest sector. Apart from econo
tors, social ones such as gender, caste, e
location and age greatly influence who forest resources and decision-making p
and who receives benefits. he distance o
from the settlement (particularly in the
the forms of property regimes (state, c
property, private, open access), and the
ment of rules all dictate the degree t
households gain or are prevented from forests. Figure 2.1 describes these deter
and the exclusion outcomes in the fores
which are discussed in detail in the next
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 53/112
the “rules of the game”—under which forests
are managed. We now look at the intersectionof these three elements: forest resource use and
dependence, the forms of exclusion and property
regime, and the effects on livelihood security.
shaped by the historical, cultural
tings forest users inhabit. he govpolicies, designed either for purp
vation and environmental protect
duction, tend to impose additiona
while providing proportionately m
• Low status in relation to men and lowlevels of voice in groups
• Low levels of influence over decisionsaffecting resource access
• High dependence on forest resourcesand vulneralble to changes in forestaccess and to changes in managementregime
• Key decision-making positions mainlyheld by men
• Poorer households, higher work burdenand time poverty prevents them fromparticipating in group-based activities
• High costs of entry to some groupactivities (savings and credit)
• High dependence on safety netfunctions of forests, vulnerable tochanges in management regime andenforcement of rules
• High correlation between caste, ethnicand gender exclusion and high povertylevels
• High correlation between forestdependency and poverty
• Distant users– occasionaluse of forests –important incomesupplements
• No voice indecisions affectingseasonal resourceuse
• Change inmanagementregimes andenforcementof rules lead toexclusion
• Community forests – access predicamembership of a group
• Strict rules prevent non-members us• State forests – high levels of formal
all groups, use on ‘illegal’ basis• Protected areas – high levels of exc
zones and controlled access in buffe• Forest staff usually male and high c
diversity in community forestry execu• 33% reservations for women in exec
committees• Voice of excluded groups not ensur
included in policy processes and de• FECOFUN: as a body for organised
CFUGs
• Indigenous forest dwellers,hunters and gathererslivelihoods dependent onforests
• Low or no voice in decisionsaffecting access to and useof forests
• Threatened cultural existence
• Low status in relation to• Higher poverty levels a
on forest resources, pagroups – blacksmiths
• Lower education levelstaking up executive posso limited influence ove
• Low levels of voice in g• Discrimination because
untouchability
Economic Location Institutional policy (rules of the ga
LOW ACCESS TO FORESTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED BENEFITSINCREASED LEVELS OF LIVELIHOOD INSECURITY
Figure 2.1: Dimensions of Exclusion and Outcomes in Forest Sector
Ethnicity – Adivasi Janajati Caste – DaGender
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 54/112
options to substitute food and income require-
ments from private sources, and women who
require regular and unmediated access to forests
to perform their gender roles are the most depen-
dent on forests. he loss of access through eitherdegradation or changed management regimes
often has the greatest impact on them (able
2.1). Dependence is greatest among those whose
livelihoods are totally reliant on forest resources
and are shaped socially, culturally and economi-
cally by them. hese include some of the indig-
enous ethnic groups3
such as Raute, Chepang,Kusunda and Bote Majhi. hose with no direct
geographical dependence but for whom forests
supply important but distant environmental ser-
vices are, for example, residents of towns and cit-
exclusionary model of forest managemen
where community users manage and d
access to and use of forest products. H
even these approaches do not guarant
access for all, and access still remains inby social identity, economic status a
graphical location. here have been rec
tive policy shifts, but still many policies
reproduce and reinforce these patterns
tural constraint.
2.4.1 Policy and legislative barriers: Teffects of different management
regimes on exclusion
From an ownership perspective, forests
are broadly divided into two property
Table 2.1: Resource Use and Multiple Values
Resource use category Resource users Values Origin
Subsistence*
•Mostly women, small peasants, subsistencefarmers, forest dwellers, indigenous ethnicgroups, traditional healers and herders
Products for consumption and sale•compost•fodder and grazing•wild foods, medicines and fibers
for clothes•fuelwood and charcoal•construction timber •wood for carving
Privateplantecommor govFinancial •Community user groups
•State (as revenue)•Small- and large-scale entrepreneurs and
employees• Artisans (e.g., Dalit blacksmiths), hunters,
firewood sellers•Timber companies•Women sellers of wild fruit and vegetables
Environmental •Local rural people who live close to forestsrely more on forests for environmentalbenefits compared to urban dwellers anddistant communities
•Control of soil erosion, watershedprotection and contribution tomitigation of climate changethrough carbon sequestration
•Biodiversity repositories**
All fordiffere
Cultural •Indigenous ethnic groups such as Raute,Chepang, Kusunda and Bote Majhi stilllive in forests or survive entirely on naturalresources; their cultural identity andexistence depend on access to forests
•Other ethnic and caste groups also maintainareas of high spiritual significance in forests
•Religious and cultural values• Aesthetic value
All forparticuspiritusignific
* The term “subsistence” is used here to mean the direct use of products for consumption at household level.** The country occupies only 0.1% of global space, but in terms of biodiversity it provides home for 2% of the world’s bios
and 4% of wild animals (Bista 1999).
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 55/112
exclusion is the norm, irrespective of social
identity, economic status or geographical loca-
tion; and a second approach that encouragescommunity-based management and ownership
of forests, where exclusion is more limited but
continues to operate around issues of gender,
social identity, economic status and geographi-
cal location (able 2.2).
he legal framework for the forestry sector,
in particular the Forest Act (1993) and ForestRegulations (1995), imposes an array of barri-
ers to access5 for excluded groups, in particular
failing to recognize many livelihood activities and
making it an offense to practice them in national
forests. hese problems are particularly acute in
protected areas, which include national parks,
conservation areas and hunting reserves (Kothari
et al 200). In these cases, exclusion is not just
confined to those who are poor, but includes all
households. However, the effects are more deeply
felt by more resource-dependent households.
2.4.1.1 Exclusion in government-managed
forests
Formal laws, informal restrictions and the threatof violence present multiple barriers to access-
ing government-managed forests. he evidence
suggests that indigenous populations who his-
torically lived in and around the protected areas,
the poor who have to depend on common forests
for livelihoods, and women who require regular
access to forest products to perform gender roleshave limited options for accessing substitutes
for their requirements, and thus suffer the most
from the loss associated with control over gov-
ernment-managed forests and protected areas.
Management Program.6 Althou
agement regimes are based on
inclusive access to forest resourdisplay different forms and leve
(able 2.2 summarizes this for
regimes). Exclusion happens at di
the community forestry process,
membership selection to particip
sion-making and access to benefit
2.4.2 Gender-based exclusion
Gendered norms and roles of wom
community forestry in particula
ensure there is representation of
decision-making positions in co
estry groups, the prevailing cultu
make it difficult for women to ac
ence decision-making processes.
other management regimes, the m
participation of women in comm
are commendable: by law, at lea
membership in executive commit
teed. his also encourages wom
ship and participation in user g
this, male membership dominategroups (FUGs), with a share of 8
because the head of the household
istered as the CFUG member.
consequences: it affects women’s p
decision making because this is o
to individuals whose names are
members. Even in the general avoting is required, only the “off
whose names are on the list can p
Paudyal 2008). Some of these co
to the exclusion of women are no
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 56/112
Table 2.2: Differential Effects of Forest Quality Change on Excluded People
Process Product Decision-making
Effects on women and men
Indigenous groups Extreme poor Dalits Coping poor
Changes in forest quality
For all these changes in forest quality the effects on women are their male counterparts. Women of all classes and social identityto influence or determine outcomes or exert control over procesSimilarly, women of all classes and social identity suffer more froproducts compared to their male counterparts because of gende
Deforestation
(situation insome parts of
the Tarai)
Conversionof forests toagriculture or
for settlement
Driven by externalfactors
• Lose culturalidentity and socialand economic
livelihood base;dislocation of communities; noother sourcesof land for treeproducts
• Lose access toforest resources;cannot obtain
land for agriculture asgenerally do nothave power toacquire land; maybecome laborersfor others butgenerally toomarginalized
• Highly significantfor women
as moreforest productdependent
• Lose accessto safety-netfunctions of
forest resourcemay becomelaborers for others onconverted foreland
• Women have tfind alternativesources of fueland fodder
Degradation Foods
Variety to diets,palatability,meet seasonaldietaryshortfalls,
snack foods,emergencyfoods
Open-accessresources withlimited control over access
Gradual degradationof cultural valuesand indigenousknowledge; increasedlivelihood insecurity
Diminishing accessto foods, fuels andmedicines makelivelihoods evenmore insecure andmore vulnerable tohazards
Range of producthas two-foldimportance: assafety net, andas income earnercontributingto householdeconomies
Fuels
Firewood,charcoal for household andsmall enterpriseneeds
In areas of highforest cover thisgroup is particularlyhighly forestresource dependent
and most affected bychanges in access or reduction in qualityof forest
For women, theseare often the onlysource of incomethey are allowed access; although
small proportion overall householdincome, they areof high gender significance
Medicines This range of d d
Reduced accessild f d
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 57/112
tion and management of resources in many rural
villages, women’s influence in decision making
is still low compared to that of men. he gen-
dered division of labor results in women facing
severe time constraints in attending public meet-
ings and general assemblies (Buchy and Subba
2003; Buchy and Rai Paudyal 2007). In mostcases, tasks such as attending meetings and vil-
lage assemblies and involvement in political and
decision-making forums fall to men since that has
been a more acceptable male role socially. Even
are reflected in the levels of voice
women are able to exercise in com
Women are still underrepresent
committee positions, with a 26%
ally. Age and status within the h
affect influence in public decisio
cesses. Particularly for young dait is still difficult for them to spe
lenge male authority in public ar
although much of the labor contr
protection and management of f
Process Product Decision-making
Effects on women and men
Indigenous groupsExtreme poor Dalits
Coping poor I
Timber Reduced access totimber usually haslittle impact becausethis group has littlepower to controlaccess to high-valueresources
Benefits of timber are mostly capturedby elites
These groups as are uin any direct way frombenefits of timber harv
Because of their betteand levels of well-beinmore opportunity to btimber contractors (in majority of women, thare not available
Environmentalservices
Across all groups environmental functions of forests are important fowater supplies; inputs to agricultural productivity through improving providing the range of biodiversity necessary to maintain a robust loc
Degradation increases their vulnerability to natural disasters and shodegrade or disappear and reduces their capabilities to cope with incchange
Degradation of environmental services is most acutely felt bythose who have no other options; climate change effects aremore profoundly felt by those whose livelihoods are dependent onagriculture and forest products
Loss of environmental services as a consequence of cl imatic
factors will have increasing the effects on resilience andadaptation capabilities of women, the extreme poor and theexcluded: increased food insecurity is a consequence
Aphrm
mmiswioaoaue
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 58/112
Control over resource access and benefit flow.
he effects of women’s limited participation
mean that decisions over distribution of benefitsand access to other resources may not take into
account the needs of poor women in particular.
For example, if a user group decides on a ban on
entry to the forest or fuelwood collection over
a period of time, women with some economic
means can purchase fuelwood and fodder to
fulfill their requirements but poor women can-not. his results in them either putting in more
hours of walking to gather fuelwood from distant
places, or replacing fuelwood with agriculture by-
products which are often poor-quality fuel and
take more time to cook; this affects the nutrition
quality of food and increases their vulnerability to
punishment for collecting prohibited materials.
2.4.3 Caste/ethnic/regional-identity-based
exclusion
here are no disaggregated data available to ana-
lyze caste and ethnic distribution of membership
in CFUGs. However, some studies (HURDEC
2004) provide evidence of exclusion of Dalits
from membership in some communities basedon their caste identity.
Power relations and the local political econ-
omy all affect the degree to which excluded
groups feel they are able to participate. here are
multiple reasons derived from experiences gov-
erning why people are excluded or exclude them-
selves from group-based activities: their ownself-perceptions of having nothing to say that
others are prepared to listen to; experience of
more powerful people disregarding them and not
seeking their opinions; their relations with more
the confidence to speak; simply not havin
to information about what is happenin
having the opportunity to be part of anrendering them voiceless; and meeting
which do not address their needs or are
their experience. hese are all experience
ferent degrees by Dalits and women.
Criteria for selection to executive co
positions exclude the poor, Dalits and
nous people from an important decisionforum. In most groups, nomination or
for the executive committee is decided
sensus and proposed by politically ac
lage leaders. Some informal basic criter
the selection of members: availability of
attend meetings; sufficient education to
and interpret forest policy, rules and reg
a personality that is listened to and resp
the majority; and the confidence to ma
sions. hese informal criteria tend to f
landed class and high-caste men, thus e
committees are usually dominated by th
elites. he poor, Dalits and indigenous
even when they are members, often lack
teria required to be in leadership positioare less educated, less heard in the com
and more importantly do not have stron
or other social networks. In communiti
are relatively more heterogeneous, execut
mittee members are elected. here, too, e
teria, power relations and personal linka
important roles which often render posbeyond the reach of the poor and disadv
groups (Rai Paudyal 2008; Khadka 200
2.4.4 Income and location-based excl
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 59/112
do not necessarily live within the particular geo-
graphical boundary set by the group but use the
forest on a seasonal or occasional basis (Banjadeand Paudel 2008). his is a highly contentious
issue in the arai, where distant users in the
southern belt have been restricted from access
to northern forests, leading to loss of seasonally
important sources of products and income.
Membership of a user group provides legiti-
macy to participate and provides a range of incentives, including access to forest products,
funds for infrastructure development, income-
generating activities, and collective forums for
decision-making, and, more importantly, a
sense of collectivism that is important for self-
confidence and social empowerment. As almost
all assistance provided by district forest offices
(DFOs) or any other organization is channeled
through user groups, non-members are not just
excluded from access to forest products but are
also automatically excluded from access to any
other benefits. he criteria and unit of member-
ship determine who is in and who is out. hus,
CFUG membership is inclusive at household
levels and free (or involves minimum entry fee) atthe time the user group is formed. But it is diffi-
cult for newcomers to the area to join an existing
group as FUGs devise a number of criteria aimed
at discouraging new entrants. hese include evi-
dence of permanent residence in the village and
an entry fee assigned by the user group, which is
usually high for the poor.Extreme poor barriers to membership. he land-
less and those who live in ailani land often find
it difficult to provide evidence of permanent
residence in the village. Membership fees often
For the extreme poor, incomple
ing and inadequate access to info
the process and importance of Fship during group formation can
exclusion. First, the poor remain
process and are excluded through
mation. Second, they often cho
exclusion because of the high op
incurred in the initial stages of gr
while benefits only come later. taking ability does not allow the
labor without an immediate retur
they see the benefits of member
costs are too high.
2.4.5 Structural barriers to acc
resource benefits
Legitimate access to forest produc
important incentive for people
in community forestry and inves
and management. hough disa
related to access to forest product
able nationally, independent stud
locations have shown that comm
has resulted in increased availabproducts through better protect
tive management.10 However, the
products is not fully equitable or
class, caste and gender relations p
for the poor and excluded group
members, their share of product
2008; Hobley 2007).The equality not equity rule.
uct distribution rules and crit
user groups are based on “equali
avoid conflict, user groups, unl
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 60/112
poor members often find it difficult to buy some
products, especially fuelwood and timber, at the
price set by user groups. Equitable provisionswould provide price subsidies, which some user
groups practice. Similarly, timber for charcoal
is an important product for blacksmiths but
most user groups ban charcoal production from
forests, making the occupation of blacksmiths
difficult to sustain. he choice of product and
timing for harvest also differ according to socio-economic conditions and gender identity. hese
differentiated needs require an equitable dis-
tributive mechanism in user groups to respond
to the specific needs and priorities of the most
excluded group members.
Income investment in assets and services that pro-
vide more benefits to the non-poor and non-excluded.
Community forest groups generate income from
the forests, and access to this income is an impor-
tant incentive for people to participate in com-
munity forestry. he major sources of income for
FUGs include membership fees, sale of products,
and fines for violation of group rules. Because of
the poor resource base and lack of opportuni-
ties to exploit forest products in the market, usergroups in the hills have limited funds of their
own; in contrast, arai forests are endowed with
high-value timber, thus some arai FUGs have
substantial financial resources. he general ten-
dency is to increase funds by setting higher prices
for forest products (mainly firewood and tim-
ber). his tendency negatively affects the abilityof the poor to buy the products. However, some
recent initiatives have shown that some commu-
nities and CFUGs are able to develop valuable
enterprises and have activities that benefit the
times scholarships), sponsoring oversea
tion, saving and credit, and revolving l
income-generation activities and capaciing of user groups. he majority of thes
ments tend to provide proportionate
benefits to non-poor high-caste men. Fo
ple, many user groups spend significan
on hiring teachers for community schoo
many invest in infrastructure of cultu
religious significance, such as temple amunity buildings.
Cultural barriers to treating women,
and the excluded as citizens with equ
More importantly, incorporation of p
and inclusive policy provisions at use
level depends on the willingness of loca
who influence decisions. At present, th
ity of user groups do not allocate resou
specific target groups unless it is mandat
there are no benefits to the decision-mak
themselves are socialized into accepting
kinds of inequities. Where allocations a
implementation remains uncertain be
lack of leadership commitment. For
many user groups devise differentialsystems for forest products during the
assemblies but often find these difficult t
ment and are reluctant to do so.
2.5 Policy and Legal Framework aProgrammatic Response: How
the Barriers Being AddressedA major determinant of the levels of e
experienced is the policy and institutio
text of the forest sector (see Figure 2.1
his section addresses the first of these
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
ll l d l l f k d d b h
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 61/112
2.5.1 Overall policy and legal framework
he Forest Master Plan, Forest Act 1993,
Forest Regulation 1995, Forest Policy (2000)and Conservation Strategy (2002) are the major
policy documents that provide the overall frame-
work for forestry sector governance in Nepal.
he MFSC has taken some initiatives to institu-
tionalize gender and social equity concerns in its
policies, plans and programs, but this is mainly
in community-managed regimes13
(see Annex2.2 for the GESI elements of these policies).
his follows commitments made in the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper and the hree-Year
Interim Plan and national/international com-
mitments on gender equality and social inclu-
sion, including signing international conventions
such as the Durban Accord for protecting the
rights of the poor dependent on forests and ILO
Convention 169 to protect the rights of indig-
enous communities over natural resources. Key
examples of these initiatives are the gender and
social inclusion (GESI) vision (2004) and GESI
strategy14 (2006) for the sector, and implemen-
tation of revised community forestry guidelines
(2009) and a GESI-sensitive monitoring frame-work (2007).
As summarized in able 2.3, government-
managed forests and protection areas, which
constitute nearly three quarters of the total for-
ests in Nepal, are areas where exclusion is acute.
Current policies and legislative framework for
these areas are not people centered. As legally,no access of communities is allowed, exclusion is
widespread, not only for the poor and women,
but for all.
Although there is a GESI vision in place for
issues, demonstrated by the revis
forestry guidelines and the forest a
for the hree-Year Interim Planthe government has shown a majo
to address some of the exclusion
above, but most changes are limi
nity-managed resources and do n
areas under state management.
2.5.2 Program responses: Gendand social inclusion appro
Other sector actors, including do
programs (see Annex 2.3 for a
programs in the sector), have r
need to address issues of gende
social inclusion. hese include
and Social Inclusion Strategy15
Livelihoods and Forestry Progra
strategy defined the poor and exc
and has been effective in develop
understanding of social exclusion
as strategic approaches to deal w
has been rolled out across staff
he Nepal Swiss Community F
(NSCFP) Livelihoods Improvemis focused on the development in
understanding of the rights of th
disadvantaged;18 its strategy is bas
ization that targeting disadvant
not sufficient to change the struc
that maintain their marginalizat
sion. Instead, approaches based oindividuals and groups to underst
lying causes of poverty and exclu
ing their capacity to transform the
being developed, for example by
T bl 2 3 Diff ti l Eff t f F t M t R i Ch E l d d P l
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 62/112
Table 2.3: Differential Effects of Forest Management Regime Change on Excluded People
Process and productDecision-
making
Impacts on people
Indigenous groups Extreme poor Dalits Poor people
Exclusionfrom forestsunder differentmanagementregimes
Community managed
Community-managedforests,communityforestry
Forest user group,generallyexecutivemembers
In some parts of theTarai, conflict with thosewho have establishedcommunity forests, lossof customary rightsof access and use of forests, reassertion of indigenous rights (under
ILO 169)
Loss of access toforest resourcesfor livelihoods;particularlyaffectsblacksmiths,medicinal herbcollectors and
seasonal usersreliant on incomefrom forestproducts
Community forestrygenerally benefitsmore capable poor households, groupmembership brings arange of additionalbenefits not just forest-related, ensuring
regular access tofuelwood, timber for house construction,grazing, etc
Buffer zonemanagementwithinprotectionareas
State-controlledcommunityparticipationfor protectionunder parkwarden
Affects indigenouspeoples due to loss of cultural and spiritualconnection – dislocationfrom forests
Partial exclusion of all households to fullaccess to forest products; highly controlledaccess under rules determined by state;sharing of park income (20-30% of parkfees)
Leaseholdforests
Group-based, butland alreadyallocated
No specific target, landallocated according topoverty, not to casteand ethnicity
Includes poorest households but oftenunable to access opportunities; requireshigher levels of investment because of low quality of land; excludes non-poor
households but often include themselvesto take control of land
State managed
State-managedprotectionareas (corezones)
State-controlledmanagementdecisions, noinvolvement of people
Dislocation of communities such asthe Raute (in hills) andBote Majhi/Tharu in theTarai
• Guarded by Nepal Army with coreareas as “shoot at sight” zones
• Loss of access to forest resources for consumption and sale; increased risksof personal injury; more acute for thosedependent on forests
State-managedforests,national
State-controlledmanagement;local-level
In some parts of theTarai loss of culturalidentity and social andeconomic livelihood
• No legal rights for forest productcollection
• In practice, access to grasses,deadwood and fruits
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
d d i id p g f pp t f CFUG 2 5 3 Improving inclusive acces
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 63/112
Table 2.4: Policies and Progress Related to Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Policy Progress
GESI vision of forestry sector (MFSC 2006):“Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservationis a gender and social equity sensitive andsocially inclusive organisation practicinggood forest governance to ensure equitableaccess to, benefits from and decisionmaking power over forest resources of allstakeholders.”
The vision is in place but not providing overall guidance to sector and not mainmainly on community-managed forestsRecommended four gender and social equity change areas:• Gender and equity sensitive policy and strategy: Change area 1. Refers to inc
gender and social equity concerns into forestry sector policy and strategy at aspirit of national strategy and plans
• Equitable governance: Change area 2. Refers to fair and balanced participatmaking at all levels in forestry sector by all individuals and groups irrespectivecaste and ethnicity
• Gender and equity sensitive organizational development and programming: 3. Involves addressing gender and inclusion gap in organization (i.e., creatinenvironment for gender- and inclusion-sensitive working conditions and crite
programming (i.e., addressing gender and inclusion concerns in program deimplementation, monitoring and evaluation)
• Equitable access to resources and benefits: Change area 4. Involves addressand barriers for access of women, poor, Dalits and other excluded groups, ameasures to increase access to forest products and other benefits from the se
GESI strategy Not yet implemented except in a few program guidelines
Community Forest Guidelines (2009) Recognizes barriers faced by poor, women and other socially excluded groups; mandatory affirmative action provisions aimed at inclusive membership and decequitable access to benefits
Forestry Approach and Three-year InterimPlan (2011-2013)
• Developed by MFSC with National Planning Commission, emphasizing impoand participatory forest management
• Key strategies for economic contribution and social inclusion include increasiof income generation for the poor and excluded through community-based fomodalities and democratization of governance systems (of government, nongcommunity, network and private organizations) in forestry sector to make themtransparent, and accountable to people; proposed policies for inclusive goveGESI strategy include increasing community forest executive positions for womfor inclusion remains only community based forest management and not ove
ded in a wider program of support from CFUGs
through the livelihoods package FREELIFE-
H2O.19 Skilled facilitation through NGOs forboth processes is a prerequisite to address the
structural causes of exclusion.20 Such approaches
have led to targeted use of community forestry
funds that have responded more directly to the
livelihood needs of poor people rather than just
to those expressed by more articulate, better-off
people. his has signaled a shift away from justsupporting roads and schools to more public
investment in areas such as public lands that can
be directly used by the very poor.
2.5.3 Improving inclusive acces
products
Compared to the private and govaged regime, where legitimate a
products is restricted for all pe
the poor and excluded social gr
nity forestry has increased peop
access to forest products. Comm
has pioneered measures to imp
Reservation of 33% of seats in mittees for women to ensure the
in decision-making, requirements
ranking among users to identify th
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 64/112
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
ACOS 200
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 65/112
(6.26%). Women comprise only 3.25%, Dalits
2.0%, and Muslims 1.6% of the total staff (see
Figure 2.2).
Of the 448 staff at the gazetted level, 6.0%
are women, 68.7%22 are Brahmins/Chhetris,
and 15.8% are Newars. here are 2,679 staff in non-gazetted positions, of whom 3.6% are
women. In addition, 3,709 staff have no grade,
of whom 2.7% are women. he highest presence
of women is in third-class non-gazetted positions
(7.0%). Dalits, other backward classes (OBCs)
and Janajatis (except Newars) have a higher pres-
ence in non-gazetted levels (see Figure 2.3).
Staff diversity in selected programs in the sector
Some forestry programs outside government bod-
ies have made considerable progress during the
ACOS 200
action is appli
recruitment: 3are women,
from a caste/
spective is mu
the majority
drawn from
Chhetri/New
disadvantagedare primarily
(Luintel 2006
adopted the
Agency for
and Cooperat
diversity policy
number of aff
sions to enabof women, D
disadvantaged groups.23 As a resu
the government, the NSCFP staff
inclusive, with 35% women, includ
manager; more interestingly, thr
project-supported districts have
at the district level. he team isin terms of caste and ethnicity: o
34 staff, 44% are from Brahmin-C
social groups and 41% from disadv
groups.24 A third example from t
Sector Support Program for Siw
working in the arai using affir
resource provisions, shows it respconditions, with more than 50% o
Madhesis.
2.6.2 Working environment
Figure 2.2: Workforce Diversity of Civil Personnel in the Forestry Sector
Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; analysis by study team.
Muslim (2%)
OBC (15%)
B/C Madhesi (3%)
Name not mentioned (0%)
Dalit Hill (1%)
Dalit Madhesi (1%)
Janajati Hill (12%)
B/C Hill (54%)
Janajati Tarai (6%)
Newar (6%)
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 66/112
a profession is low, restricted by the difficulties
of attending training institutes that all necessi-
tate women leaving home to study. For the few
women who have academic qualifications, secur-
ing jobs in the ministry/department requires
them to compete with men who are often better
equipped with additional training, work experi-
ence, and exposure, and have limited gender-spe-
responsibilities, especially associated w
of children, force women forest officer
fer postings in relatively more accessibl
reducing their career promotion opport
For poor and excluded groups, gaining s
educational qualifications to get admi
training institutes is a major hurdle, ref
their very low representation in the fore
Figure 2.3: Diversity of Civil Personnel in Forestry Sector at Different Levels (%)70
60
50
40
10
20
30
0DHF DHM DMF DMM JHMJHF JTF JTM NF NM BCHF BCHM BCMF BCMM MF
Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless
Note: DHF/M—Dalit Hill female/male; DMF/M—Dalit Madhesi female/male; JHF/M—Janajati Hill female/male; JTF
female/male; NF/M—Newar female/male; BCHF/M—Brahmin/Chhetri Hill female/male; BCMF/M—Brahmin/Chhemale; MF/M—Muslim female/male; OBCF/M—OBC female/male.
Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; grouped for the study based on GSEA caste/ethnic groupings.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
arships to ensure that these groups acquire the roles, and this affects the time and
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 67/112
p g p q
necessary technical qualifications to gain employ-
ment in the sector.Some programs have tried to address ele-
ments of the culture of the working environment,
including making special provisions for working
mothers. he LFP, for example, provides mater-
nity leave for three months, breastfeeding hours
for working mothers, travel and daily subsistence
allowance for babies and caretakers, and flexibleworking hours for working mothers. Recognition
of women’s reproductive role in the workplace
has not only attracted women staff but also
helped in their retention. Similar arrangements
supporting the reproductive role of women are in
the NSCFP human resource policy.
2.6.3 Location of GESI responsibilityAll the departments within the MFSC have
appointed gender focal points to oversee main-
streaming of gender into sectoral program design
and strategies. Despite policy mandates provided
in the GESI strategy and vision, the gender focal
points have not been successful due to a lack of
clarity about their roles and responsibilities,inadequate resources, their low positions in the
hierarchy and limited authority, and an institu-
tional failure to link their work to the routine
work of the ministry. his is reflected in the rest
of the structure, including a gender equity work-
ing group (GEWG)27 set up in 2003 to develop
and implement strategies for mainstreaming
gender equity and social inclusion in the forestry
sector’s policies and programs. here are also
regional-level GEWGs under the leadership of
regional forestry directorates (in three out of five
cated for effective coordination an
review of the terms of reference/jof senior officials and other d
indicates that except for the mi
coordinator, no one has been giv
sibility on mainstreaming gender a
he gender focal points in severa
ments are supposed to take this r
an additional task on top of their LFP and NSCFP. Both have de
provide technical support on gend
social inclusion. In LFP there is
opment advisor in the central of
overall guidance on GESI, and in
there are social development prog
operationalize GESI policies. h
has two staff specifically recruitemainstreaming GESI and pro-po
he program director and othe
GESI responsibilities integrated in
reference.
2.6.4 Skills, competency and m
MFSC. Implementation of GESIunderstanding among all staff
GEWG coordinator and focal pe
cific analytical skills and capacity
ize the analysis. here has been
in this type of capacity developm
building programs, including th
riculum on participatory forestry,
social concepts (gender, equity, s
power relationships). In recent y
been an increasing trend of pro
sensitization training but buildin
tional systems and structures. he deeply held spent on forest sector activities that are
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 68/112
ideology/beliefs on forestry and foresters’ roles,
the power relations between staff, and personalattitudes and behaviors have been barriers for
effective GESI mainstreaming. Paradoxically,
while Nepal’s innovative participatory forestry
programs are internationally known and have
demonstrated considerable success, and sig-
nificant development has been made in terms
of developing GESI policies and strategies inthe sector, the forest government organiza-
tions have changed little and capitalized little on
the learning in the sector, especially on demo-
cratic procedures, transparency, and downward
accountability within institutions.
Training provision by programs. he LFP pro-
vides orientation training on GESI to almost all
its staff at different levels, and has invested inbuilding skills for the implementation of its strat-
egy. It has also developed and adopted a strong
“zero tolerance” management policy for sexual
harassment, violence against women, and caste-
based discrimination. he NSCFP also has
gender-specific policy provisions and a strong
management policy against sexual harassmentwhich is strictly enforced and can even result
in dismissal. raining and capacity building on
GESI concepts and skills are an ongoing process
for all staff. GESI-related performance indica-
tors are incorporated in the overall staff appraisal
system, increasing the accountability of each staff
member towards the issue. hese include staff
assessment on promoting a multicultural work-
ing environment and workforce diversity within
the portfolio, behavior towards staff from dis-
criminated groups, and annual monitoring.
in some way to help women, the poor
excluded. he objective is to “follow theto assess what efforts have been made to
the issues that constrain these groups’
sector benefits; analyze how much of th
has been allocated and spent on such iss
assess the degree to which government
for these issues is channeled through targ
grams or integrated into mainstream proghe government’s annual budget spee
ents three different types of analysis of th
from a gender and inclusion perspective
ditures in support of “inclusive developm
targeted programs” are identified; the
responsive budget (GRB) exercise is pr
and pro-poor expenditures are identified
8a, 8b, and 8c of the annual budget speec2010, respectively). he budget speech a
Rs 3,424,763,000 for forestry, of which 1
60,453,000) was categorized as “inclusi
opment/targeted programs”, Rs 1,898,
(2% direct, 53% indirect) as gender res
and 52% (Rs 1,780,218,000) as pro-poo
We tried to identify how the classiwere made and the process followed. In
are not specified for inclusive develo
targeted programs but there are indica
GRB30 and pro-poor budgeting.31 Our
sions with ministry and line agency staff
however, that guidelines are not clear, an
end it is left to the budget officer to ca
and score the various budget lines to th
his (it is primarily men) understandin
the scoring and indicators were not clea
other two kinds of budgeting, we have
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
get as directly supportive to women and another Committee, sectoral ministries, d
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 69/112
53% as indirectly supportive; the remainder was
neutral. MFSC and Ministry of Finance (MOF)staff categorize all expenditure items in the for-
estry budget into three categories (directly sup-
portive, indirectly supportive and neutral) based
on five indicators of gender responsiveness: par-
ticipation, capacity building, benefit sharing,
increased access to employment and income-
earning opportunities, and reduction in women’sworkload. However, these indicators, which
were developed in the context of agriculture, are
not necessarily applicable in other sectors. here
are no sub-indicators to guide the scoring of
budget lines or assess how the activities budgeted
contribute to the indicators. Also, the GRB
indicators tend to be better at capturing expen-
ditures for targeted women’s programs than atpicking up expenditures for efforts made in uni-
versal programs to mainstream GESI. Finally, of
course, the GRB exercise focuses only on gen-
der, and does not capture expenditures aimed at
increasing outreach to excluded groups.
herefore, while we have assessed the existing
GRB practice and indicators used, and identi-fied possible sub-indicators for GRB analysis
in forestry, we have also developed and applied
our own tentative GESI budgeting methodol-
ogy.32 his is intended to capture expenditures
that reach and support excluded groups and
those that support women. Although there is
no single rule about how to determine whether
public expenditure is discriminatory or equal-
ity enhancing, there are some general principles
that are discussed in gender budgeting literature,
which we have adapted.33 Our efforts here are
such as UNIFEM, and NGOs
tracking budget expenditures.he GESI budget analysis
activities have been planned/imp
provide direct support to women
excluded social groups to addre
they experience in accessing reso
efits from forestry (e.g., forest r
sidies, land on lease, etc); what made to provide indirect support
disaggregated evidence of dispari
training for foresters, etc); and w
neutral, as it assumes that everyo
equally. We have followed the G
three categories but have not foll
indicators as they have not been v
application across the sectors.he GESI budget analysis wa
two levels. First, we assessed natio
ditures in the forestry sector using
teria. he annual MFSC budget
covering 18 programs, came to
13,254,910,000.34 Our analysis
breakdown shown in able 2.5portive or targeted programs for
4.4%, and minimal for other grou
he next step was to move to t
to ground truth both the natio
budget exercise and our own GE
two districts, Kavre and Mora
worked with the DFO staff to ass
approach to gender-responsive b
were using. In consultations at th
officers stated that for forest and
tion programs all indicators wer
Table 2.5: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Budget of Ministry of FoSoil Conservation 2009 2010
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 70/112
poor and the excluded, and felt these automati-
cally ensured that the entire budget would be
responsive to women or specific excluded groups.
In reality, this has proven to be a problematic
assumption.
Next, we worked with the DFO staff to do aGESI analysis of the district-level forestry bud-
gets using directly supportive, indirectly sup-
portive and neutral categories.37 he results are
shown in able 2.6. In a budget of Rs 1,807,100
for Morang, a minimal amount was identified as
directly supportive for the poor (2%) and indi-
rectly supportive for women and the poor (25%for women; 5% for the poor). In Kavre, it was
much higher for women (51% specific) and the
poor (50%), primarily because of leasehold for-
estry. Other activities included nursery, seed-
lings, beehives, interaction program of m
for women, development of forest area
land by involving poor and vulnerable
holds, etc.
Efforts have been made by the D
MFSC to address the barriers of womenpoor, but for other groups the assumptio
to be that benefits will automatically rea
through implemented activities. But al
activities or funds have been planned to
the barriers of women, the poor and the
discussed in Section 2.2, or the structur
that constrain their access. his indicaa more conscious recognition of the
address such socio-cultural, empowerm
governance issues along with core techn
estry services is required. he key issue
Soil Conservation, 2009–2010
Targetedgroups
Directly supportive Indirectly suppo
% of budget
Examples of activities% of
budgetExamples o
Annual plan, MFSC, Rs. 3,449,974,000
Women 0.48 Training on gender inclusion in forest; establish herbalgarden
0.01 Awareness-raising progand gender equity in sc
Poor 4.42 Development of public land, income-generatingprogram, development of micro-enterprises of forestproducts, work plan on allocated land for marginalizedpeople
0.41 Well-being ranking andtraining
Remotelocations
– – 0.63 NTFP training, demonstSalyan
Source: Annual budget of MFSC, FY 2009-2010; analysis by study team, 2010.
Table 2.6: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of District Forestry Of fices, Kavre aMorang, 2008-2009
Targetedgroups
Directly supportive Indirectly suppo
% of budget
Example of activities% of
budgetExample o
Kavre (total budget Rs. 730,000; leasehold forestry budget Rs 297,000)
Women 51 Nursery, seedlings, beehives, interaction program of b s
15 Group formation, wort
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
criteria, indicators and process of budget review.
G l i l ifi i i i di l
supportive activities. Recent LF
h d i 2009 f R 204
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 71/112
Government analysis classifies activities as directly
or indirectly contributing to women, based ongovernment directives regarding services to them.
A deeper analysis, however, indicates that no
activities are budgeted to address the specific gen-
der-based barriers that women experience. hese
are necessary even within a universal program so
that structural barriers are addressed and a more
even playing field created—only then can GESI
be considered to have been mainstreamed.
he aim of this analysis is to assess whether
the activities to address the barriers identi-
fied in Section 2.1 have been programmed and
budgeted, otherwise they will not be addressed.
Positive policy provisions, too, require activities
and funds to be translated into action. Policy
mandates directing that some services have tobenefit women and the poor provide the basis
for interventions which have enabled Kavre to
allocate a substantive amount for these groups.
Similarly, it is important to recognize the barri-
ers of the other groups and plan activities with
budgets to mainstream gender and inclusion
within universal programs of the forestry sector.
2.7.1 Gender equality and social inclusion
sensitive budgeting in other programs
Forestry programs like the LFP and NSCFP
have made special efforts in the past few years
to make budget and other resource allocations
specific to the needs and priorities of women, the
poor and excluded groups. hough programs use
different tools and methods, the objectives have
been to increase resource allocation to benefit the
excluded.
that during 2009, out of Rs 204
by the program through field ofeither specific or supportive of th
excluded while the remaining 43%
Fund flow analysis at the NSCFP
uses fund flow analysis (FFA)
resource allocations specific to
priorities of disadvantaged group
increase allocations. FFA is a syst
in all SDC-funded projects that lo
the program budget but total budg
spent by the projects. It analyzes t
of budget for various categories s
side (disaggregated by househ
NGOs, government, consultants
organizations), beneficiary side
by poverty, caste, ethnicity, gengraphical distribution (rural, urb
2.4 for FFA format and disaggreg
FFA reports show that 78.9% of t
is targeted for the livelihood and
gram in rural areas, with only 4.6%
for the program at the center. Sim
of four years’ budget expenditurshows that 61% of the program b
specifically for the direct benefit
holds and almost 68% on socially
groups, i.e., women, Dalits and
Janajatis. However, only 30% of th
by the project is received directly
holds and 51% by discriminated g
2.8 Program and MonitorinMechanisms
groups mentioned in planning documents are
t lt d d f ll d d i l i I
essary understanding and skills related
ll ti l i d i f ti
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 72/112
not consulted and followed during planning. In
principle, departmental GEWG coordinatorsand gender focal persons must audit the planning
process and content; in practice, annual plans are
compiled and finalized by planning departments
with no inputs from the gender focal point or
GEWG. hus, often the contents in the plans
are not consistent with the broader sectoral com-
mitment towards addressing GESI.
he monitoring and evaluation (M&E) sys-
tem lacks a social perspective. As a result, indi-
cators are mostly focused on biophysical aspects
of change, and GESI is completely missing.
Reporting remains against technical param-
eters of forest conditions (Rai Paudyal 2008),
and there is no tracking of contribution of the
sector to the national goal on poverty reduc-tion (Khadka 2009). his makes it difficult to
understand the effects of different management
regimes on the livelihoods of poor and excluded
groups and on national poverty reduction out-
comes. In 2009, the MFSC M&E Division pre-
pared a draft management information system
(MIS) framework which incorporates disaggre-gated database requirements on gender, poverty
and location, but this is yet to be operationalized.
here have been some recent positive changes,
however, especially in the DOF Community
Forestry Division. Since 2009, a gender- and
poverty-sensitive checklist has been incorporated
in the annual DOF planning process. A national
community forest database was established in
the 1990s. he department maintains disag-
gregated data on membership and participation
of women in key decision-making positions; to
collection, analysis and information man
on GESI aspects have not been develope
2.8.2 Monitoring mechanisms in othe
programs
GPSE monitoring initiative. Along with
cess of GESI strategy development, th
forestry sector actors42 initiated GPSE m
ing. he GPSE initiative resulted in th
opment of a set of generic (quantita
qualitative) indicators to monitor the
contribution to poverty reduction an
inclusion, based on the four key chang
A total of eight indicators (two for each
area) have been developed, piloted and
rated into the monitoring framework of
involved in the group (see Annex 2.5 forGPSE indicators). o maintain uniform
use of indicators and help consolidate
obtained, the GPSE group also develop
base formats and software. he indicat
now been integrated into the DOF FUG
system and major forestry program d
However, the focus is still on the ComForestry Division database and not
tor as a whole. In addition, the LFP ha
established mechanism of livelihoods an
inclusion (LSI) monitoring, developed b
Nepal based on the GSEA study framew
its findings. A key element of the LS
work is monitoring outcomes against t
domains of change.43 he program als
tains GESI-disaggregated data and does
on a six-monthly basis. Institutionaliz
GESI-disaggregated monitoring and r
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
against GPSE indicators is well established in
the NSCFP and LFP systems
excluded forest users, helping to i
groups and building their capaci
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 73/112
the NSCFP and LFP systems.
2.9 Good Practices and Lessons Learnedhere are several areas of good practice derived
from experience in community forestry that can
be applied across the sector. In this section we
outline some of the tools and methods that have
been found effective to address some of the struc-
tural barriers to inclusion identified in the ear-
lier discussions. hese are organized around the
three domains of change: building voice, chang-
ing the rules of the game, and improving access
to assets and services.
2.9.1 Good practices
Building voice and influenceBuilding a strong civil society able to represent and
advocate for changes in the rules of the game has
been a major advance in the sector. In particular,
the strong membership networks of FECOFUN
and Himavanti (a women’s network) have dem-
onstrated the importance of this voice in challeng-
ing policy decisions that lead to greater exclusionand livelihood insecurity. he strong role played
by women in some of these organizations is itself
an important reflection of the deeper structural
changes occurring through the community for-
estry movement. However, these organizations
need to address issues of diversity and inclusion
within their structures, where representation of
excluded castes and ethnic groups is low.
Developing new approaches to social mobiliza-
tion based on empowerment and transformation
of structures to build voice and capability of the
groups, and building their capaci
their needs and priorities, participmaking, and access resources an
major departure from earlier mob
tices is the separation of forest tec
(through resource persons train
and social mobilization tasks (th
ers trained on more empowering a
as the underlying causes of pover
Reflect).44 Four key areas where t
lizers focus are targeting and organ
users; capacity building of poor an
group members; strengthening
governance of user groups and inf
and establishing linkage between u
a range of service providers.
ole-level meetings for inclusive in rural communities are increasin
by the government and programs
to address the non-participation o
the excluded in CFUG meetings a
ity to influence decisions. Wit
households working together in
and interests are common, timemobility restrictions are address
lar concern to Muslim women)
women, the poor and the exclu
informed and are able to raise th
a more enabling environment, ge
their peer group. Social mobiliz
the successful application of tole-
As the mobilizers start to work a
they visit each household to bui
ness and convince them to join wi
meet and form a group through w
tion by animators for several months. Given that
each animator usually works with 5-10 CFUGs
line for identifying the poor and the excl
affirmative action CFUGs carry out the
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 74/112
each animator usually works with 5-10 CFUGs,
the formation of tole groups greatly increase theirworkload initially, but the outcomes have been
very promising. he needs and aspirations of the
poor and the excluded are represented when making
decisions on income-generating activities, land
allocation, committee formation, subsidies, equi-
table distribution of forest products, and mem-
bership conditions and fees. hey have taken
responsibility for conservation and management
of forest products in their area and have also been
part of monitoring committees. hrough aware-
ness raising and skill development, the poor and
the excluded have become more empowered,
with increased voice and influence in the func-
tioning of their CFUG. Communication between
excluded members and the executive committeehas become easier.
Work with elites and male members of the com-
munity to instill a sense of responsibility and
accountability in them to work for the empow-
erment of women, the poor and the excluded,
and establish a system of recognition and reward
or vice versa to ensure more equitable socialpractices.
Partnership with NGOs/community-based orga-
nizations (CBOs) is an increasing trend for pro-
grams and government. hese partnerships have
successfully started to clarify and demarcate the
roles of government staff as regulators, service
providers and enablers, and NGO/CBO staff
as the facilitators of voice, accountability mecha-
nisms, and strengthening governance structures.
his has helped to ensure that the poor and
the excluded get access to internal CFUG ser-
affirmative action. CFUGs carry out the
(using economic and social indicators) torize households, and use this to target r
and services and ensure a more equitab
bution of resources and opportunities.
tor will be testing a combined communi
and proxy means test approach to identi
vantaged households, with independent
tion to try to standardize approaches and
the confusion at the local level (LGCDP
Addressing locational exclusion: Use o
lands in the arai for community man
has been an important mechanism to
some of the exclusion faced by distan
Across the arai districts, about 20-23%
suitable for agricultural cultivation is c
as public, and is underutilized and unm(Deuja 2007). An agreement between
development committees and FUGs al
groups to start economic-related works
ponds, vegetable cultivation, NFP cul
etc. Mobilization and support for inv
in the necessary technology are provide
government—mainly the DOF and Depof Social Conservation (DSCO)—an
programs. While protection, plantation
toration-related activities on public land
the whole community and benefit all, li
interventions involve only the landless
poor and benefit them directly.
Changing the rules of the game
Favorable government policies in commu
estry, including the new guidelines, give
mandated provisions for inclusive practi
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
ernment organizations, donor-funded programs)
in policy development has opened up the policy
outcomes. he LFP (through its
ing) uses the three domains of
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 75/112
in policy development has opened up the policy
space to more inclusive outcomes. his approachwas successfully used in the revision of the com-
munity forestry guidelines through a process that
has built widespread ownership and resulted in
inclusive and GESI-sensitive guidance.
Examples of using a workforce diversity policy
illustrate mechanisms to change the structure
of organizations and the rules of the game that
determine entry. hese policies (such as those
adopted by the NSCFP45) have improved inclu-
siveness in organizations and among partners.
hey identify groups to be prioritized, establish
benchmarks for diverse representation in staff
categories, and follow up with affirmative action
to recruit people from discriminated groups until
their representation in various staff categories,committees and working teams is ensured to
reflect their representation in Nepal’s population.
Knowledge, skills, and empathy required to
work with women, the poor and other socially
excluded groups need to be built into the terms
of reference of all professional and administrative
staff, and performance appraisal systems need tovalue achievements in this area.
Revision of constitutions and operational plans
of CFUGs with GESI provisions has been under-
taken by many CFUGs. his has led to signifi-
cant changes within CFUGs to ensure that they
both recognize and address the expressed needs
of women, the poor and the excluded. However,
such efforts are still confined only to those areas
where external support for social mobilization is
provided.
Changing internal budgeting and monitoring
ing) uses the three domains of
influence and agency) to track whand the excluded have been able t
and institutions in their favor.
2.9.2 Lessons learned
Structural exclusion persists, but
more clearly now through the c
estry experience. his understa
translation of necessary action i
toral policy and operational chan
to be achieved.
Effects of management regime
Under a state-controlled forestr
is, in effect, complete formal exclu
from resource use irrespective of
ethnic group or economic statusmanaged forest systems are mor
provide greater access to people
and benefit from the resource.
ment under community forestry h
regulation, management, produ
conservation of resources in cont
tems in state-managed forests, whto deliver effective resource m
conservation.
Dealing with self-exclusion of th
from development processes requir
targeted support to ensure that t
forest resources and other assoc
Action should be based on analys
understanding of the unequal p
created by class, caste/ethnicity an
support provided has to address
dimensions of exclusion.
sector has not yet been implemented despite its
having been prepared through a broad-based
as citizens to have a voice, access decis
share in benefits.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 76/112
g p p g
participatory process and providing clear opera-tional directions. he reasons causing this failure
to implement need to be understood and acted
upon.
Women, the poor and the excluded face multi-
ple exclusions, many of which cannot be tackled
solely through forest-based interventions as the
causes of exclusion are rooted in deep societal
structures that require a coherence of interven-
tions and approaches across the range of service
provision. he choice of intervention also deter-
mines the levels of exclusion and outcomes. For
example, simply providing low-quality leasehold
land is not sufficient to help people move out of
poverty when the initial investments to improve
productivity are large and require time to deliverany benefits. For the extreme poor this could
lead to an increase in livelihood insecurity and
vulnerability.
Behavior change is required to overcome deep-
seated resistance to changing discriminatory
practices in both the workplace and community
groups. Behavior change without systemic struc-tural change in forest sector institutions will con-
tinue to reproduce the gap between fine policies
and poor implementation.
Increased formal representation of the excluded
in groups and committees does not equal
increased voice and influence over decision-
making. here is still limited attendance of the
excluded at meetings, they rarely speak, and, if
they do, are not listened to. Understanding the
informal rules and structure through a more
thorough political power analysis is necessary to
Socio-cultural constraints on women arIt is necessary to work on shifting gend
power relations in both the workplace a
munities. Women tend to have higher o
nity costs involving higher levels of th
for lower levels of benefit than men; and
gender roles, women are more vulnera
loss of access to forest products. Gove
managed approaches need to consid
specific role of women and ensure access
ments are in place.
2.10 Mainstreaming Gender EqualSocial Inclusion: The Way Fo
hese measures to operationalize GES
streaming in the sector are discussed under our framework of three stages:
ing, design and implementation, and mo
and reporting. Exclusion based on gend
ethnicity or location is a complex int
issue which cannot be addressed in i
Multipronged measures are necessary fo
streaming, which is reflected in the sugmade here.46
2.10.1 Step 1: Identifying the barriers
Analyze existing power relations, and th
and informal institutions that enforce
petuate social and economic inequalities
inequality and social exclusion in forests a
to the wider socio-cultural and politico-e
context. Often the “barriers” we need to re
work around in order to provide more equ
to forests are part of interconnected for
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Madhesi, etc). Some of these institutions are for-
mal—like the MFSC’s bureaucracy from the cen-
these systems/practices are negat
care/respecting elders), some of
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 77/112
y
ter down to the range post and the CFUG. hesesystems have rules and procedures which specify
how things should be done and who is responsible
for what. Our projects/programs work with these
systems and try to improve them so that they can
deliver forestry services more effectively. Revised
policies like 33% participation of women, certain
percentage of funds to be spent on pro-poor pro-
grams, and revised operational plans and constitu-
tions of CFUGs are examples of “rules” that the
MFSC is trying to change to improve the forestry
sector in Nepal.
We are aware that changing these “rules” about
how things are done upsets some stakeholders
(like the political parties which have been able
to reward loyal cadres with jobs, transfers andpromotions, advantaged caste groups, and men
who perceive an erosion in their authority) who
have benefited from them in the past. his is
why we always need to be aware of the “political
economy” of our projects and programs so that
we can include ways to keep these stakeholders
from blocking the changes that are needed. Here,we also have to think about the more “informal”
institutions, the ones that are deeply embed-
ded in people’s values, beliefs and ways of doing
things. hese too can block needed change and
keep the projects/programs we support from
achieving their development objectives. Some of
these—like the gender system or the caste hier-
archy—are so deeply ingrained that people often
follow the informal “rules” that structure these
systems without being aware that they are doing
so. It seems “natural” for a woman to be quiet and
p g
“rules” keep some groups from geto the benefits of the changes w
bring in the forestry sector throu
to the project/program.
We are used to designing proj
to bring changes in the formal sys
aware that we need to look carefu
changes can be blocked. So, we w
improved procurement, hum
accounting and auditing, comm
other systems of checks and bal
mize the opportunities for such
GESI framework is a system/m
improve our chances of success in
increased access to forest resourc
the poor and the excluded actuathe ground. GESI work requires
only at the formal systems (the M
cracy, local governments, NGOs
other donors) that we usually dea
at the informal systems (the hiera
and gender, political patronage n
ness interests, etc) which are parpolitical and cultural milieu in wh
projects must work and which
interacting with the formal system
in ways that distort the developm
we are seeking.
So, when we try to “identify b
actually uncovering whole syst
institutions, or “rules of the gam
some individuals and groups from
access to the universal services an
project/program is intended to de
2.10.1.1 Start with the formal systems 2. How does money flow, and who m
decisions along the way?
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 78/112
Assess GESI in existing policy, program, bud-geting, and M&E
Review the sector policies
It is important to assess the existing policy man-
dates that provide the space to work on GESI
issues in the forestry sector. We begin by iden-
tifying the policies that enable, those that con-
strain, and the policy gaps.
A review of existing programs of the MFSC
and other actors is necessary to assess the extent
to which there is an awareness of GESI and
how it is currently being addressed, and the
strengths and areas for improvement. he pro-
grams can be assessed against the three domains
of change.47 How are the issues of the excluded
being addressed (membership exclusion, accessto forest products, land, income, services, funds,
etc), what services are they receiving (e.g., access
to land, literacy, skills building), and how are
their capacities being strengthened? What
capacity building is there to increase the voice of
women, the poor and the excluded to recognize
their rights and pressure for shifts in policies andchange in discriminatory practices? And, for the
last domain of change, what are the interventions
to work on for the necessary policy reform and
changes in social values and attitudes?
Identify through the exploration of existing
programs potential champions within the gov-
ernment system who are willing to lead on GESI.
his may, of course, also identify potential block-
ers who may need to be worked around.
Understand the existing political economy and
governance issues in the sector—and, in particular,
3. If funds are allocated and spent attrict and community levels, how
is the governance of the governme
and community organization maki
decisions?
4. How transparent are their acc
systems?
5. Does the M&E system capture inp
puts and outcomes in a disaggregat
ner? Does it allow multiple stakeho
participate, so that the M&E out
owned by all stakeholders?
6. Who collects the data and who
them?
7. At what level are the M&E results s
8. Check whether the M&E system iing changes in a disaggregated man
on issues that are crucial for women,
and the excluded to increase their ac
9. Does the system provide a baselin
which to track change in the situ
women, the poor and the excluded
ing identification of gender/caste/etreligion/location-differentiated lab
terns for forest management and c
tion, equitability of distribution, a
resources, and decision-making pow
is using which forest resources for w
how equitable is the distribution? W
members and who are not?
10. Does the M&E system allow questi
answered about representation and
pation? Review profiles of CFUG m
and assess the diversity—whether i
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
11. Does the M&E system provide informa-
tion on socio-cultural and economic barri-
tives for required public aud
hearings, with clear provisions o
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 79/112
ers: mobility constraints of women, existing gender and social power relations, and dis-
criminatory practices which constrain the
participation of women, the poor and the
excluded?
12. Does the M&E system provide information on
forest product availability and other resources
brought in by programs to CFUGs: what is
coming in and who is getting access to it?
2.10.2 Step 2: Design and implementation
Addressing institutional and organizational
change issues
• Support the implementation of the GESI
strategy to include understanding why it hasnot been implemented as yet, what are the rea-
sons for the lack of political will to do so, iden-
tification of barriers to implementation, and
design of mechanisms to ensure implementa-
tion (e.g., linking to performance assessment
systems).
• Review gaps in existing policies and reviseas necessary through a broad-based multi-
stakeholder process. he revised community
forestry guidelines incorporate responsive
provisions which address some previous gaps.
A quick review of what is still missing needs to
be done, and then revisions made. he GESI
strategy identifies those policies/Acts/regula-
tions that require revision.
• Develop job descriptions and strengthen inter-
nal systems for GESI—work needs to be done
with the MFSC and the Department of Human
of women, the poor and the exder and social audit must be do
in two years, covering staff div
environment, and program and
and monitoring.
• Develop an institutionalized sy
audit and public hearing to cov
made by executive committee
mentation, and use of income
ture while also ensuring the p
women, the poor and the exclu
• Address longer-term exclusion
longer-term investment in capa
develop a diverse group of profe
fill the government’s civil servi
for women and excluded grouare necessary for technical insti
places for women and the poor
• Human resource policy mu
gender- and inclusion-respon
for recruitment, promotions
Recruitment processes must
value of local languages and of local dynamics. Human re
should support the developmen
ive working environment, espec
ing mothers, to encourage wom
district positions and retain t
the culture of lack of respect
sional capabilities of women
groups is an essential part of irepresentation and retaining th
Addressing the empowerment
• Institutionalizing tole groups and promot-
ing leadership of women, the poor and the
as appropriate following a carefully fa
process to ensure that proper service ev
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 80/112
excluded in these groups will enable theexcluded to participate in meetings and influ-
ence decisions, and also allow them to build
their leadership abilities.
2.10.3 Step 3: Monitoring and reporting
• Disaggregated programming, monitoring and
reporting using the three domains of change
need to be established across the sector. At the
national level, this will require the implemen-
tation of the GPSE monitoring system already
initiated.
• Objectives and indicators need to be disaggre-
gated by gender and caste/ethnicity. Planning
and programming must be based on disag-
gregated information and evidence. WithNGO partners, Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA) tools (e.g., well-being ranking, labor/
access/control profile, resource mapping, etc)
must be used as required at the community
level to identify the poor and map existing
social and power relations. his information
must be used for identifying priorities forprogramming and guiding implementation
practice.
• Uniform MIS and disaggregated data for all
sectors around some basic indicators would
help reduce duplication and identify gaps and
areas of acute exclusion. he GPSE indicators
must be used by all sector actors and institu-
tionalized as a routine activity.• Monitoring and reporting formats must be
standardized, with disaggregation to be fol-
lowed by actors in all sectors. Any specific
occurs and useful understanding is de• Joint monitoring practices like tho
through district forest coordination
tees must be reviewed and based on
institutionalized at the district and
levels. Representatives of organization
excluded and women’s groups must b
the monitoring teams.
• he M&E section in the departm
ministry must be given the responsib
integrating gender and social inclusio
monitoring system and practices of th
• he DFO planning sections need to
the planning, monitoring and GESI
and be made responsible for ensurin
is integrated in planning, monitorreporting.
• Baseline information is required at th
level regarding what services are be
vided and who is accessing them, alo
disaggregated data and evidence r
access to resources of women, the poo
excluded to forest products and other • Good practices and lessons learned ne
documented and shared. Capacity to
good analytical case studies and doc
tion of learning needs to be develop
should include documenting changes
relations as well as the dynamics of gen
social inequality and forest resource u
2.11 Conclusionhe forestry sector has made uneven pr
addressing issues of exclusion. It does, h
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Community forestry has made significant prog-
ress, but in those forests managed directly by
Mainstreaming GESI is about
found difference to the livelihood
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 81/112
the state as national forests or protection areasthere are significant and high levels of exclusion.
Community forestry provides important lessons
on how to move towards more inclusive prac-
tices. hese lessons can be mainstreamed across
all forest management regimes and institution-
alized within government and non-government
structures.
In order to institutionalize GESI, the sector
needs to address the main issues facing women,
the poor and the excluded: the underlying
structural causes of their limited participation
and voice and very low influence over decisions
affecting community forests; the reasons for the
inequitable access to forest products and lack
of understanding of the need to distribute for-est products according to priority; the need to
build responsive processes that address the dif-
ferent needs of social groups; and ensuring rec-
ognition of and response to the cultural rights
of indigenous peoples. At an institutional level,
a variety of issues need to be addressed, includ-
ing the lack of staff diversity, ineffective genderfocal points with no resources or authority, no
structure with responsibility for technical sup-
port on GESI, and the limited integration in
planning, budgeting and monitoring that leads to
a major gap between enabling policies and weak
implementation.
of women, the poor and the excluing that forests continue to respon
of the least resilient and least ad
in Nepal, who are going to be the
by the ongoing climate change. In
ple in forest management is also
ing the value of the wider functio
Nepal. Inclusive forest managem
are beginning to see with comm
has been shown to increase the flo
but at the same time conserve an
amount of land area under produ
cover. Inclusion is not just importa
people’s livelihoods, but is essent
well-being through the protectio
ronmental services.Past efforts in mainstreaming
erty and inclusion issues have fo
a community-based management
not on the overall sector. As les
ter of the forests are managed und
property arrangements, focusing
regime is insufficient to widen eto forest sector benefits. wo ty
are deemed necessary: widening t
the community-based managem
and widening the GESI focus t
sector, including in government
ests and institutions.
Notes1 he GDP estimates vary greatly and no actual assessment has yet been made. A recent MFSC study indicates ove
economic potential is far more than these actual GDP estimates.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 82/112
2 In the fiscal year 2008-2009 alone, the sector generated Rs 590,537,050 (equivalent to nearly USD 8.5 million)from taxes and sales of forest products (MFSC 2010).
3 here are 59 indigenous ethnic groups (Adivasi Janajati) recognized in Nepal, forming about 37% of the total populatio
2009). However, only a few indigenous ethnic groups, such as Raute, Chepang, Kusunda, and Bote Majhi, are entirely de
forests for shelter and survival.
4 Private forests are also managed in different ways, including forest plots, agroforests and guthi.
5 “Access” is about all possible means by which a person or group is able to benefit from things. Right of access
acknowledged claim that society supports, whether through law, custom or social rules and norms based on i
(Ribot and Peluso 2003). A range of economic and social powers affects people’s ability to benefit from resource
determines access.6 Other community management modalities include religious and collaborative forest management, but these are st
cant in terms of coverage.
7 MFSC database, 2010.
8 he requirement to register only the name of the household head as member has recently been changed with th
tion of the revised community forestry guideline. his guideline has recognized the importance of registering nam
men and women and requires their names be written together. he implementation of this provision and its impac
come.
9 However, this variation in time horizons may be related to the initial distribution of wealth. Level of wealth of
may be so low that their participation in collective action violates their survival constraints. he constraints artifto reduce their time horizons since they are forced to attach considerable importance to their present incomes (Cle
Jeffery and Vira 2001).
10 Conditions of forests under community management have improved both in the hills and in the arai (Kanel 2004
Stadtmuller, and Pfund 2005; Gautam et al 2003).
11 As per the Forest Act.
12 One study shows that in eastern Nepal, over the past 10 years CFUGs have reinvested an amount equivalent to U
generated by sustainable use of forests in school grants and literacy program grants for needy students (hies and
2007).
13 he large portion of forests (around 75%) which is managed and controlled by the state sees little reform from a social inclusion perspective, as these regimes are not people-centered.
14 he terminology prevalent at that time was gender and social inclusion, which has now evolved into gender equality
inclusion.
15 his strategy is informed by two LFP studies: a social and geographic audit (HURDEC 2004), and an organizati
ment of mainstreaming gender, poverty and social exclusion issues (Luintel 2006) to identify the situation of w
poor and the excluded and assess internal arrangements. hese self-reflecting initiatives emphasized the need to
organizational strategy to equip staff and partners with a uniform understanding of exclusion and the skills and
necessary to target and extend benefits to the poor and the excluded.
16 he UK Department for International Development (DFID) defines P&E as people who are economically poor adiscriminated against, and includes women, Dalits, disadvantaged Janajatis and religious groups.
17 he LFP’s approach to mainstreaming pro-poor policies at various levels also reflects recommended strategies
DFID’s policy paper on reducing poverty by tackling social exclusion. See DFID (2005) and LFP (2006b) for mo
18 he Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation defines disadvantaged groups as groups of economically p
h l ff f i l di i i ti b d d t / th i it i l id tit h
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
his gap was exacerbated during the 10-year conflict. In response, the government’s 2009 interim plan em
tegic role of civil society and proposed working closely with NGOs in meeting the needs of rural people. In
the LFP currently has partnerships with more than 50 NGOs throughout its project districts to transla
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 83/112
social inclusion strategy into action (LFP 2009). here is a similar shift in the NSCFP, which also works NGOs and user federations to deliver its livelihoods strategy and strengthen governance of user groups.
21 Records of civil servants maintained by Nijamati Kitabkhana (Department of Civil Personnel Records, M
Administration) were reviewed and disaggregated according to the surnames of government staff and their
residence. See Chapter 1 for details of the process.
22 Of whom 64.51% are Hill Brahmin-Chhetri.
23 Candidates from socially discriminated groups (women, Dalits and disadvantaged ethnic groups) ge
screening for selection. If the basic criteria are met, such candidates get preference for interview and selec
positive marking system that gives more marks for candidates from discriminated groups.
24 However, 75% of staff in management and officer-level posts are Brahmin-Chhetri-Newar. Women, ethniare mostly in assistant and support-level positions which have no influence on project decisions. But, as a
has a good record of employing locals from the project area—65% are locals. During the period 2005-2
achieved the target of staff composition proportionate to the district population breakdown.
25 Focus group discussion with women officers, MFSC, March 2010.
26 Personal communication, 2010.
27 Originally the GEWG consisted of gender focal persons from all MFSC departments, major forestry do
(SNV-BISEP-S, SDC-NSCFP, DFID-LFP, AusAid-NACRLMP, and Danida-NARMSAP), the
Commission (NPC), and Himawanti. Current membership also includes the International Union for Con
(IUCN) as GPSE (gender, poverty and social exclusion) group representative. wo major donor programNARMSAP) have left the group as AusAid and Danida phased out support in the forestry sector.
28 Personal observation of key informants and review of job descriptions.
29 For the detailed framework and methodology of how the budget analysis was carried out, refer to Chapte
30 he three prescribed categories are direct contribution, indirect contribution and neutral. Each subactivit
of 1, 2 or 3, considering the percentage of contribution to women. he formula for coding has five indica
20%: capacity building of women, women’s participation in planning process and implementation, wome
sharing, support for women’s employment and income generation, and qualitative progress in the use of
reducing their workload (eAWPB 2.0 Operating Manual 2010). In order to measure these categories quan
itative indicators were assigned quantitative values of equal denominations totaling 100. Direct gender conmore than 50% of the allocation directly benefiting women, indirect gender contribution indicates 20–50
benefiting women, and the neutral category indicates less than 20% of the allocation benefiting women. h
used by ministries like that of health, but due to difficulties in the application of the criteria, which do not
the sectors, it has not been fully used by all ministries.
31 Indicators for the pro-poor budget are investment in rural sector, income-generation program in rural area
ment program in rural areas, budget allocated for social mobilization, expenditure focusing on poverty r
local bodies, social security programs, investment in social sector, especially for education, health, etc
speech 2009–2010). But it is not clear how these are scored and what sub-indicators are used.
32 For a detailed framework and methodology of how the budget analysis was carried out, refer to Chapter 1
33 We are adapting from gender budget initiatives that have aimed to assess the impact of government expend
using three-way categorization of gender-specific expenditure, equal opportunity expenditure and gener
rest) considered in terms of its gendered impact (Budlender and Sharp, 1998).
34 MFSC annual budget in NPC format, 2009–2010.
35 Implemented budget of districts was reviewed to assess actual expenditureand its effect on addressingthe
income-generating activities for the poor identified through well-being ranking, and support for social empower
literacy classes, group organization, capacity building for increased voice and influence). his corresponds to our
“directly contributing.”
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 84/112
40 Supportive activities include gender and equity sensitization, advocacy campaigns, research focused on P&E related capacity building. his corresponds to our category of “indirectly contributing.”
41 P&E-neutral activities include FUG formation, capacity development of user groups for institutional developmen
ancy, furniture support, inventory, etc), plantation, protection, nursery establishment, and forest management tra
also includes support to service providers on technical forestry-related matters.
42 he group has wide membership, including the MFSC, DOF and NPC from the government, forestry progra
by donors (mainly Switzerland, the UK, and the Netherlands), NGOs, and user federations, including FECO
Himawanti.
43 Access to livelihoods, assets, and services; the ability of the poor and the excluded to exercise voice, influence and a
changes in the “rules of the game” in favor of the poor and the excluded.44 For detail of these approaches, see LGCDP (2009).
45 Workforce diversity means an inclusive workforce composed of people with different human qualities and r
different social groups from the perspective of gender, caste/ethnicity, age, culture, religion, and race. It identifi
differences as essential and natural. o capitalize on the strengths of diversity, organizations need to make consc
towards inclusion of people from diverse social backgrounds in their staff composition (SDC 2005).
46 We would like to clarify that these are not recommendations for the forest sector, which is beyond the scope of t
and also not the aim.
47 Refer to Chapter 1 for a discussion on this concept.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 85/112
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 86/112
CHAPTER 3
Checklist for Mainstreaming Gender Equalitand Social Inclusion
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 87/112
inclusion. A core group of selected staff m
analytical skills on gender and inclusio
i d id h i l
3.1 Introductionhe first chapter of this monograph presented
h d li d i l i l i (GESI)
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 88/112
in order to provide technical support totime has to be created at all management
identify issues, design processes and im
activities; and resources need to be ident
consistently made available. A gender/em
ment/inclusion perspective needs to be in
into all policies, activities and routine fun
the sector, with appropriate manageme
tures in place, followed by M&E methodsresponsive to empowerment efforts/p
Finally, strong outside technical suppo
local and external providers is also necess
3.3 Core Information RequiremenGender Equality and Social In
(GESI) Mainstreaming • Key data should be disaggregated by s
ethnicity, class, location, age and any o
evant variable (e.g., disability or HIV
status, where required).
• Issues of division of labor, access to r
and decision-making power (who
what, who has access to what, who m
ultimate decisions) have to be asse
their differential impact on women an
different social identity groups.
• Key policies, programming and bu
institutional arrangements; human r
issues; and M&E systems must be
from a GESI perspective by those d
the project/program or policy and thsented and discussed with stakehold
the government, project staff, partner
zations and community groups.
the gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)mainstreaming framework, summarizing the key
findings from the GESI review of the seven sec-
tors with the steps required to move forward.
Chapter 2 focused on how to make projects, pro-
grams and policies in the forestry sector more
accessible and useful for the poor and the socially
excluded. his final chapter is presented mainly
as a handy reference guide. It sets out the genericsteps necessary for mainstreaming GESI in any
sector with a few blank formats that practitioners
may find useful in the course of their work. Of
course, these need to be contextualized, made
sector specific and refined to address the issues of
different social groups. We follow the five steps
of mainstreaming: 1) identification; 2) design; 3)implementation; 4) monitoring and evaluation;
and, when necessary, 5) responding to the moni-
toring and evaluation (M&E) findings by revi-
sions in project design or policy framework. Some
tools that can be used for the required analysis are
also presented and discussed.
3.2 Organizational Prerequisites forEffective Gender Equality and SocialInclusion (GESI) Mainstreaming
Even though sector policies have often integrated
gender and inclusion concerns, persistent gaps in
implementation continue to hinder the achieve-
ment of equitable outcomes in different sectors.
As discussed in Chapter 1, these gaps occur formultiple reasons, ranging from technical capac-
ity to attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders.
Mainstreaming GESI effectively requires some
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
here the generic steps and some suggestions on
how to implement them.3.4.3 Step 4: Monitoring, eval
reporting
Objective o design/strengthen
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 89/112
3.4.1 Step 1: Identification phase—Situation
analysis
Objective. o identify the specific barriers of
women, the poor and specific excluded groups
in accessing services and opportunities, and the
causes of their exclusion; and to understand
the political economy of the sector or subsec-
tor, both nationally and locally, in the particu-lar sites1 where the project or program will be
implemented. Identifying the excluded groups in
a particular sector and understanding their situa-
tion involve using available qualitative and quan-
titative data to answer the question: “Who had
access in the past to resources and decision-mak-
ing, and how are different social groups doing atpresent?”
o understand the barriers these groups face in
gaining access, it is necessary to look at and think
through several levels. able 3.1 shows the levels,
what to do and some suggestions on how to do it.
We can thus assess barriers constraining each
group from enjoying their rights and areas where
additional measures are needed to address the
barriers comprehensively or where existing sec-
toral efforts need improvement.
3.4.2 Steps 2 and 3: Design and implement
responses that address exclusion
Objective. o address the sociocultural barriers
and weaknesses in the policy framework or deliv-ery system by revising/strengthening policies,
program activities, resource allocations, institu-
tional arrangements and staff incentives as well
Objective. o design/strengthen to collect and analyze disaggregat
puts, outcomes and development
3.3), and ensure that the system
management decision-making an
loop to changes in implementatio
Note that none of the existin
M&E systems in the sectors rev
series has been able to monitor Geffectively. Although some sector
have made a good beginning, com
consistent systems are not in place
lyze and report with disaggregati
steps and process outlined below
cacy as well as technical support. P
ects have initiated some good praneed to be institutionalized. Majo
achieved if the National Plannin
(NPC) and the Ministry of Fina
vigorate the collection and co
sectoral output and outcome d
in the poverty monitoring and a
(PMAS). A common system for
analysis of disaggregated data a
tors would allow NPC to generat
accurate picture of progress and
on the path towards gender equ
inclusion.
he roles of the different acto
ing of monitoring are summarized
3.4.4 Step 5: Changing policy a
design to respond to M&E
inclusion.
perfect, it is important to build in formal pol-
icy reviews and project mid-term and periodic
evaluations that ask for data-based analysis of
hi h b fi i f h li
that certain groups are being left out,
suggestions for responding outlined i
3 2 can be used to guide a critical re-f h d
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 90/112
Table 3.1: Analysis of Barriers
S.N. Level Analysis of barriers How to do
1 Household &community
•What practices, beliefs, values and traditions at family andcommunity levels constrain women, the poor and the excludedfrom accessing sectoral resources, opportunities and services?
•What are the different rules, practices, divisions of labor, socialexpectations and differences in vulnerability and mobility for women and men and for different caste/ethnic groups? Howhave these impacted on women, the poor and the excluded?
•Stakeholder consultation;appraisal (PRA) tools like access and control profile
• Anthropological and sociNepal
2 Status of women, thepoor and theexcluded
•Collect disaggregated data and substantive evidence to findout existing status of women, the poor and the excluded, andassess areas and level of disparities—with particular attentionto data on their participation and status in sector for which theprogram or policy is being designed.
•Review Census, Nepal LivDepartment of Health Semanagement informationDemographic and Healthmanagement information
Development Report, MilGoals progress reports, erelated information
3 Policy2 •What policies exist, and how have these affected women andmen of different social groups?
•What new policy initiatives are being taken to address sectoralissues, and what are the likely gender/caste/ethnic/regionalidentity differentials in access to benefits from such initiatives?
•What policies have the potential to transform existing relationsof inequality, i.e., bring changes in socially prescribed divisionof labor and access to resources and decision-making power
between women and men, and between people of excludedand non-excluded groups?
•Review government policrelevant to the sector (seeanalysis matrix); project/poperational guidelines/otother guidelines, partnersguidelines, etc
4 Formalinstitutionalstructures andprocesses
•What kind of institutional structures/mechanisms/processesare there in the sector, and how responsive are they to theneeds and issues of the excluded (e.g., how representative arecommittees, project offices, other such bodies formed at local,district and national levels)?
•Is work on GESI specifically mentioned as a responsibility of any of these different institutions or their constituent units?
•What kinds of structures/mechanisms exist to enable womenand the excluded to be part of planning and monitoring
processes in the sector?•Human resource policies for recruitment, transfer, promotion,
staff performance evaluation: how diverse is the staff profile interms of gender, region, caste/ethnicity and other variables?What provisions recognize specific issues/constraints of women,e.g., maternity leave, breastfeeding, flexible hours, security?
•Develop disaggregated soffice, partner organizatiopartner, user groups form
Annex 3.2 for format)•Review job descriptions o
divisions and staff such aplanning officer, field facother relevant staff) and teconsultants and other tea
•Facilitate interactions/discsituation regarding workin
which groups are benefiting from the policy or
program and require specific follow-on actions
to respond to the findings. If this analysis reveals
3.2 can be used to guide a critical re-of the various processes, criteria and un
assumptions upon which the policy or
has been designed.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
S.N. Level Analysis of barriers How to do
5 Programmingand budgeting
•What have been the main interventions in the sector? Howhave these interventions affected women and people from
other excluded groups (e.g., how did gender/caste/ethnicdifferentials support/constrain access to opportunities from
•Review annual budget (see Anformat) of government agency
projects/partner organization;adequately activities addressin
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 91/112
S.N. Level Responses Process1 Policy •Ensure policies (e.g., government directives at
the national level, project criteria/guidelines atcommunity levels, program goals and objectives)explicitly address constraints of women and theexcluded, and mandate action to address them
•Results planned in project plans/log frames must aimto improve assets, capabilities and voice of women,the poor and the excluded; they must addressformal and informal practices that are inequitableand discriminatory, and aim to transform existingstructural frameworks that disadvantage women and/or the excluded
•Policies can support a targeted approach or addressGESI issues in a non-targeted manner, integratingwhatever special measures may be necessary(and economically feasible and sustainable) intomainstream programs to overcome barriers faced bywomen and excluded groups in accessing services,opportunities and benefits provided by the sector
•Organize participatory workshops/consustakeholders—women and men of differtime, venue, methodology, language ansuitable for women and the poor in part
•Phrase objectives, outputs, activities andstatements to reflect both technical and
•Review who will benefit—which women,(with caste, class, location, ethnicity, agewho is likely to have access to benefits frWho is likely to control them? Who is likfrom this intervention? Are targeted grouclear terms or are general terms such asor “vulnerable” used without a clear defthey are? What assumptions are being mroles, responsibilities, time and access toover resources? On the capacity of peogroups?
•With the above in mind, what procedureof working can shift these patterns to be What incentives for sector staff and recipcan be built into the interventions and o(government and non-government) instit
sector?2 Formal
institutionalstructures andprocesses
•There must be desks/units/sections/departments withspecific GESI responsibility located within sectoralinstitutions/organizations from national to communitylevels, adequately resourced and mandated toprovide technical support to address GESI issues
•Identify GESI work responsibilities at diffexisting mechanisms to assess how they identified responsibilities—what has worhas not, why not; identify through a partwhat existing structures and organization
Table 3.2: Responses to Exclusion
g p ( g , g / /differentials support/constrain access to opportunities frominterventions)? Did interventions have explicit inclusion goalsand outcome indicators? Did they have an M&E system thatwas sufficiently disaggregated to track differential outcomes for different groups?
•What is the budget allocation and expenditure on activities toaddress issues of women, the poor and the excluded?
p j /p g ;adequately activities addressinhave been budgeted for; whaof the entire project cost has grelated activities; how transforbudgeted activities?
•Review M&E system and a samand special reports and studieinterventions in the sector
6 Informalinstitutions
(kinship,gender andcaste systemsand businessand partynetworks)
•What are the income levels, social and human developmentcharacteristics of groups identified as excluded in the sector
that might present barriers to their access?•What are the existing employment options in the sector andwhat barriers exist for women and other excluded groups interms of skill levels, mobility, social norms, etc?
•Who has access to control over what resources in the sector?•How are political parties active in this sector at different levels?
At the national level what are their linkages with the sectoralministry and other key organizations in the sector?
•Consultation/interaction•Political science, economic, s
anthropological literature on
S.N. Level Responses Process
sensitive, and personnel policies must supportgender-specific responsibilities
•Performance evaluation systems must captureresponsibilities for GESI dimensions and efforts
issues constraining applications fromgroups; adopt alternative strategies
through networks, in local languageinclude language skills understandi
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 92/112
y presponsibilities for GESI dimensions and effortsmade by staff to address gender and inclusion issues
g g ginclude language skills, understandicultures, etc
3 Informalinstitutions
• Activities (e.g., sustained dialogue and advocacy)must be developed and implemented to addressinformal institutions that violate human rights of women, the poor and the excluded; strategies to workwith rich, powerful, advantaged men and boys tochange values and attitudes, getting buy-in from eventhe privileged members of the community to changethe status quo. are necessary and have often beenvery successful
•Through consultations and review oidentify what has blocked implemenissues, values, social norms have be
•Identify measures necessary to worpoor and the excluded and with facommunity leaders, local political e.g., poverty analysis with leaders,sustained dialogue with men on mcampaigns against social ills like cboksi
4 Programmingandbudgeting
•There must be programmatic activities andbudget allocations that specifically address issuesexperienced by women and people from excludedgroups; budget must also be allocated for activitiesthat can create a supportive environment to addressgender/caste/ethnicity and other dimensions of exclusion
• Activities must ensure that livelihoods and voice of women, the poor and the excluded are enhanced,along with changing inequitable social norms andformal policies; sufficient budget allocations must bemade for these activities
•Estimate required resources and include humanand financial resources for activities on gender and inclusion awareness for women and menand capacity building of women at program andorganization level
•Include resources required to support childcareresponsibilities, field escort for security reasons andother specific constraints/responsibilities faced bywomen and people of excluded groups
• Allocate suff icient resources for gender-balancedstaff, training and institutional capacity building;include sufficient budget and time to build linkagesand networking to strengthen different interestgroups and to make sure that communicationmaterials can be produced in several languages if need be
•Those responsible for implementation must be heldaccountable for ensuring that planned activities areexecuted and the budget allocated is spent
•Review program activities and budglikely impact of each activity on womexcluded
• Ask whether activities are addressingwill poor and excluded women and resources and benefits coming frombe their benefits? Will they get theseactivities help to address structural isprogress of women, the poor and thviolence against women or untouchprovide immediate benefits by improor welfare? Identify percentage of bdifferent activities addressing barrierthese will enable groups to benefit e
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Table 3.3: Monitoring and Evaluation
S.N. Level Responses Process
1 NPC •Revise planning, budgeting, M&E and reporting formats
and processes to capture GESI dimensions accordingh d f h h /
•Review existing formats; identify strengt
improvement; advocate for revision; creh
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 93/112
to three domains of change: changes in assets/services;changes in voice and ability to influence; changes ininformal and formal policies and behavior
•Issue directives to all ministries to report disaggregationat output and outcome levels; provide common formatfor gender and social disaggregation to be used by allsectoral ministries
•Review and strengthen PMAS and the District PovertyMonitoring and Analysis System (DPMAS)—or whatever province-level system may be established after the new
federal structure is determined
change
2 Ministry •In every program/project at least some objectives,outputs, and indicators must be phrased in a way thatcaptures gender and inclusion issues; these indicatorsdemand collection of disaggregated data
•M&E section to be strengthened to monitor accordingto three domains of change ((services, voice, rules) withdisaggregation, and guide departments and other keystakeholders to monitor and report with disaggregationand analytical evidence
• As revision of NPC formats may take time, the M&E
section of the sectoral ministry involved in the project/program must develop operational guidelines thatidentify what disaggregated information is possibleat national and district levels, and document caseexamples of success and lessons learned on how toensure services and opportunities to excluded groups
•Log frame/results framework to be deveparticipatory manner with representativorganizations; log frame development texpert on GESI
•Develop M&E and reporting formats redisaggregated information to be develo
•Information management system to be strengthened
•M&E officers to be trained on GESI-sen
3 Department •Revise necessary formats, indicators and monitoringguide to collect disaggregated information andevidence
•Monitor programs implemented by government andnongovernment actors in the sector
• Assess information provided by districts and reportaccordingly
•In joint consultation with ministry and oidentify steps required to make existing GESI responsive and revise accordingly
•Remember qualitative data and participinvolving the beneficiaries can be an iminsight about the GESI impact of interve
4 District •District line agencies to monitor whether programsare implemented as planned and expected outputs/outcomes achieved, and report with disaggregation
•District Information and Documentation Centers(DIDCs) to be strengthened to maintain disaggregateddatabase showing status of women and people of other excluded groups in district
•GESI implementation committee to be formed indistrict development committees (DDCs) accordingto approved MLD GESI strategy; collaboration and
linkages between these must be established, with clarityin roles
•Budget expenditure and planned progress (monthly andquarterly) must be disaggregated, as must reporting
•In annual reports, analysis must not be activity basedbut should be based on data that capture outcomes for
•To achieve all this, the Ministry of Loca(MLD) has to give a directive to the loca
•Local bodies will need technical suppoGESI-sensitive M&E and to establish dathat can be maintained to provide disainformation about progress and achiev
S.N. Level Responses Process
•Work jointly with the Integrated Planning Committee(IPC) in VDCs and Ward Citizens’ Forums (which are
to be established in each ward according to MLD VDCBlock Grant Operational Manual 2009 of MLD) for
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 94/112
p )monitoring
•Develop mechanisms and work according to an M&Eplan.
•Establish/strengthen systems for use of socialaccountability tools like public audit, citizens’ scorecard,public hearing, etc, and ensure that these areimplemented by disinterested third parties who can beobjective about the results
6 Project/program
• All of the above•Incorporate GESI dimension in all processes,
mechanisms and progress of project/program activities
•Work with government bodies as restrengthen government systems
•Efforts must be made not to establbut rather to identify joint monitorinproduce disaggregated data and afor different social groups by gend
•Reflect in log frame/results framewand indicators in a consultative pro
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Table 3.4: Roles and Timing in Monitoring
Time Ward Citizens’
Forum/ward level
Village Citizens’Forum, Integrated
PlanningCommittee/VDC
GESIimplementation
committee/socialcommittee, DDC
GESI section/division/unit
of ministry/department
Projects/prog
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 95/112
, p
Facilitate settinof GESI-sensitivmonitoring andreporting system
Monthly • Monitor progress ingroup participation,access to
services, cases of discrimination
• Maintaindisaggregated dataabout programimplementation asper plan
• Self-monitoring
Regular meetings,monitoring of social mobilization
and programimplementation
• Regular supervision• Assessment of
progress as per
plans• Basis of monitoring
to be three domainsof change (services,voice, rules)
• Regular supervision
• Assessment of
progress as per plans
• Basis of monitoring to bethree domains of change
Quarterlyreview
Review progress withfocus on the threedomains of change
• Monitoring visits• Review with
disaggregation
as per the threedomains of change
• Analyze reports of VDCs
• Integrate progressand learning toinform decisionmakers for strategic change
• Report as per three domains of change
Six-monthly Public hearing,covering programimplementation andsocial mobilizers’ work
• Public hearing• Public audit
• Participation inpublic hearing andaudit
• Quarterly report tocover GESI
Supervision anreview
Annual Gender and socialaudit
Gender and socialaudit
• Participation inpublic hearing andaudit
• Annual report to
cover GESI
Report
Source: Adapted from GESI strategy of LGCDP, MLD, 2009.
Notes1 In a national program, a mapping of the local political economy of the sector in a sample of the different
the program would be implemented would provide enough to go on.
2 Policy is understood here as a statement of intent, so it can be at the macro, meso or micro level, and it can
ment Act or program-level guidelines/criteria) or informal, such as social practices/norms.3 See SIAG (2009) for suggestions to increase GESI sensitivity in recruitment policies.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 96/112
Annexes
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 97/112
Annex 1.1: Definitions of Socially Excluded Groups
Brief definitions1 of the socially excluded groups (women, Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, M
people with disabilities and people of geographically remote areas) are provided below.
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 98/112
Women. Due to existing gender relations in Nepal and a patriarchal society, women experien
qual power relations, resulting in their social exclusion. Although the depth of gender discrim
varies between social groups in Nepal, all women are excluded. However, women from exclud
munities face caste, ethnicity and location-based constraints in addition to the constraints imp
their gender. Women constitute 51% of Nepal’s population.2
Dalits.3 People who have been suffering from caste and untouchability-based practices and r
social, political and cultural discrimination form 13% of Nepal’s population. Within the Da
munity, there are five sub-caste groups from the hills (Hill Dalits) and 22 sub-caste groups
arai (Madhesi Dalits).
Adivasi Janajatis.4 Peoples or communities with their own mother tongue and traditional soc
tures and practices, separate cultural identity, and written or unwritten history form 37% ofpopulation, with 5.5% Newars and 31.8% Hill and arai Janajatis. here are 18, 24, 7, and
groups respectively among the Mountain, Hill, Inner arai and arai Janajati groups.
Madhesis. People of plains origin who live mainly in the arai and have languages such as M
Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Urdu and Hindi as their mother tongue are considered Madhesis. hey
Madhesi Brahmin/Kshatriyas (2% of the population), Madhesi “other” caste groups (13
Madhesi Dalits.
Muslims. Muslims are a religious group found predominantly in the arai and form 4.3% of
population.
People with disabilities.5 “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical,
intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder t
and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”.6 Persons with full disabili
not manage daily life without assistance. hey include people with total mental, intellectual orimpairment such as complete blindness. People with partial disability are persons who have lo
physical and/or mobility impairments, and require regular assistance to manage daily life.
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
he specific issues of exclusion differ between these groups. For Dalits it is caste-b
for Adivasi Janajatis it is cultural rights/language-based exclusion; for Madhesis it is
exclusion; for the poor exclusion is economic-based; while for remote regions it is distan
women, it is gender-based, a characteristic that cross-cuts each of the other dimension
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 99/112
Notes1 Gender equality and social inclusion strategy, LGCDP/MLD, 2009.
2 Population figures are from Census 2001, CBS/NPC, Government of Nepal.
3 Based on the National Dalit Commission reports.
4 Based on NFDIN descriptions.
5 Based on Social Security Guidelines, MLD/Government of Nepal, 2065 (p. 1).
6 ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-conven
Annex 1.2: Step 1 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Framework: Anof Policy, Institutional, Program, and Monitoring and EvalBarriers
As part of designing responses that are based on the assessment done in Step 1 the analysis of
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 100/112
As part of designing responses that are based on the assessment done in Step 1, the analysis of
riers and responses must be viewed at several levels.
Policy. Analysis at this level assists us to identify which policies are addressing or reinforci
inequalities, and reducing, maintaining or increasing disparities. his analysis will, in turn, gu
the design of appropriate strategies for reprioritization or redefining policies. Policies exist at
Some are more formal and official, others more informal and traditional.
Organizational structures. he rules and practices within organizations need to be reviewed to
ways in which social inequity is created and maintained. he extent to which GESI policy comm
are formulated and effectively implemented depends on the understanding, skills and com
of the staff in policy-making, planning and implementation roles. Additionally, most organ
have official rules and procedures, but unofficial norms and practices operate informally an
ence results. ools for organizational assessment in projects/NGOs/partner organizations
disaggregated staff profiles showing who has access to what opportunities and types of resoulevels of decision-making power; reviewing the job descriptions and terms of reference for i
GESI in objectives, tasks/responsibilities, and key skills/competencies; and human resource
for recruitment, promotion, capacity building and support for gender-specific responsibilities
Program and budgeting . he program activities should be reviewed to assess the strengths and
areas of improvement for addressing the needs and interests of women, the poor and the exclud
program and budget should be assessed on whether they are specific, supportive or neutral
these groups. A financial commitment to gender- and inclusion-related activities is an essenment of mainstreaming GESI, reflecting the spending choices the concerned organization has
per its available resources. When auditing budget and program design to assess their effectiv
reaching different excluded groups and the poor, it is important to keep a separate eye on expe
for men and women in these various groups. Otherwise gender-based disparities may not b
up. Similarly, when conducting a gender audit, it is important to look separately at the expe
and outcomes for women from different social groups since women from certain social groups
have been reached.
Monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and reporting should follow the conceptual frame of t
areas/domains of change: 1) changes in assets/services; 2) changes in voice and ability to influe
3) changes in informal and formal policies and behavior. All monitoring and reporting form
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Annex 1.3: List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender ESocial Inclusion Budgeting Covering 22 Programs and Aof Two Ministries
S tNumber of project/
Li t f b d t i d f FY 2009 2010 f GESI b d ti
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 101/112
Sector p j /
program budgetsList of budgets reviewed of FY 2009-2010 for GESI budgetin
Agriculture 3• Commercial Livestock Development Project, ADB• Project for Agriculture Commercialization and Trade, WB• Regular program of MOAC: extension services
Education 5
• School Sector Reform Program• School Sector Support Program• Capacity Development Program• Secondary Education Support Program, district level
• Education for All, district level
Health Annual plan (covering 41programs)
• Annual budget of FY 2009-2010 of MOHP
Forest Annual plan (covering 18programs) + 2
• Annual budget of FY 2009-2010 of MOFSC• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009
Water supplyand sanitation
6
• Community-based Water Supply and Sanitation Program• Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board• Small Town Water and Sanitation Project• Regular program of district water supply and sanitation
Irrigation 3
• Community-managed Irrigation and Agriculture Support Progr
• Integrated Water Resource Management Program• Department of Irrigation• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009
Ruralinfrastructure
4
• Rural Access Program• Rural Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project• Decentralized Rural Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement• District Road Support Program• Rural Access Integrated Development Program• Annual program budget of Kavre and Morang, FY 2008-2009
Annex 2.1: Area under Different Forest Management Regimes
Category of ownership regime Subcategory of management regime Number of
groups
Area
National forest (state property), all ownedby central state
Government-managed national forest NA 3,673
P t t d i l di b ff NA 887
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 102/112
by central state Protected areas, including buffer zones NA 887
Community forest 14,439 122
Leasehold forest 4,918 26
Collaborative forest 5 10
Religious forest NA
Private forest (private property) Private forest NA 2
Note: NA—Not applicable. Figures are rounded; official figures vary, as the database is not updated. Some forest areas acommunity forests which are not yet handed over to communities and are not included.Source: MFSC (2009).
Annex 2.2: Other Major Policies in the Sector and Their Gender EqualitInclusion Focus*
Policies Inclusion focus Gaps
1977–1978 amendments of Forest
Act 1976
People’s participation in forest management
recognized for first time
Totally silent on gender and
Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988–2010)
Livelihood of local people through forestryemphasized
Poor and women also recognized as primary usersof community forests
No caste and ethnic heteroguser groups and their livelihconceptualized
Forest Act 1993
Forest Regulation 1995
Legal rights to use and manage forests by user groups
Leasing degraded forests to groups of the poor
No social heterogeneities wtheir livelihood needs were c
Buffer Zone ManagementGuideline 1999
Allocation of 30% of budget for communitydevelopment through user group work plans
Totally insensitive to gender
Farming and indigenous occ
excluded are negatively aForest Policy 2000 Allocation of 35% of user group income for the
poor No specific affirmative rulespeople
Leasehold Forestry Policy Guideline2002
Streamline implementation process for handover of leasehold forests to the poor
Formation of user groups by giving priority towomen
Insufficient strategies to inclupeople and provide benefits
Tenth Plan (2002–2007) Involvement of the poor, women and backwardpeople (by forming their sub-groups) in user groups,their capacity building, and income generationactivities for them
Insufficient approaches and Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis andexcluded people in user groprovide benefits to them
Three-Year Interim Plan (2007–2011)
Specific income-generating activities for poor women, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis
Promotion of gender equality, social empowerment,and good governance in user groups
Insufficient approaches and Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis andexcluded people in user groprovide benefits to them
* A t f th di d l d i th t t
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Annex 2.3: Forestry Projects/Programs Currently Working in Nepal
Project/program Donor countries/organizations
Commitment Implementing institutions Time period
BISEP-ST Netherlands €4.2 million MFSC, DOF, DSCWM,DNPWC, DPR
January 2007–July 2009
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 103/112
y
LFP United Kingdom £18 million MFSC, DOF, DSCWM July 2001–July2011
NSCFP Switzerland SF3.1 million DOF July 2008–July2011 (Phase VI)
WTLCP United NationsDevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)
US$13.1 million MFSC, DOF, DNPWC August 2006–July 2012
LFLP Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) US$12.8 million DOF, DLS 2005–2013(Phase II)
TA for LFLP Finland throughFood and AgricultureOrganization (FAO)
US$3.5 million DOF, DLS 2010–2014
TAL World Wide Fund (WWF) US$5.8 million DOF, DNPWC 2007–2011
SHLP World Wide Fund (WWF) US$3.5 million MFSC, DNPWC 2007–2011
NMCP World Wide Fund (WWF) US$0.7 million DNPWC 2007–2011
CSUWN UNDP GlobalEnvironmental Fund GEF
US$2.4 million MFSC, DNPWC 2007–2012
MDBR Common Fund for Commodities (CFC)–International Networkfor Bamboo and Rattan(INBAR)
Rs. 5.2 million DFRS February 2009–January 2010
BMRGMPE Nepal Trust For NatureConservation (NTNC)
Rs. 4.4 million DNPWC 2009–2010
FRA Nepal Finland €4.7 million DFRS 2010–2014
PWMLGP Japan InternationalCooperation (JICA)
N/A DSCWM July 09-July10
Full forms
Projects/programs
BISEP-ST: Biodiversity Sector Support Program for Siwalik and Tarai
LFP: Livelihoods and Forestry Program
NSCFP: Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project
WTLCP: Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project
LFLP: Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program
TA for LFLP: Technical Assistance to LFLP
TAL: Terai Arc Landscape Program
SHLP: Sacred Himalayan Landscape ProgramNMCP: Northern Mountain Conservation Program
CSUWN: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal
MDBR: Market Development of Bamboo and Rattan
BMRGMPE: Biological Management of Rhinoceros Grassland Management and
Implementing government institutions
MFSC: Ministry of Forests and Soil Con
DOF: Department of Forests
DPR: Department of Plant Resources
DNPWC: Department of National ParksConservation
DFRS: Department of Forest Research a
DSCWM: Department of Soil ConservaWatershed Management
DLS: Department of Livestock
Annex 2.4: Logical Framework of Selected Programs/Projects on Forestr
Project: insert project namePeriod of analysis: insert period of analysisB d t i t t
GESI sensitive budgeting: Format used for Fund Flow Analysis at NSCFP
Fund Receivers Beneficiaries
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 104/112
Budget: insert amountCurrency: currency
Budget Expense Headings Geographicaloutreach
BudgetExpense Amount
Insertamount
Districtrural
Cen-tral
Inter-na-
tional.
Discrimi-nated
Non-Dis-criminated
DAG Non-DAG
Gen-eral andcommon
cost
Ccdi
Discriminationperspective
(Caste, ethnicity/gender)
Disadvantaged groupperspective
(Economically poor andsocially discriminated)
Fund Receivers Beneficiaries
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Total amount
Action lineBudget
0000
Gender Beneficiary Monitoring
Male Female
- - - - - - - -
Introductory Notes on FFA formatIn line with the Swiss Cooperation Strategy 2009-12 (outcome 2), DAG are able to benefit more from effectivdevelopment interventions Fund Flow Analysis aims to analyse and monitor the flow of funds towards targetedand beneficiaries and to provide information as to the percentage of project’s investment to various target groand beneficiaries to be used consciously for decision making at project and program level.
The new FFA form is a simplified version of FFA that was introduced in 2007. It has three main dimensionflow monitoring:
Fund Receivers: The fund receiver dimension is analysed in two perspective, namely Geographical and Discperspective. Receiver indicates the act of receiving payments (money) from project. The receiver is determ
receipts, vouchers, advance settlement accounts and reports.• Geographical perspective – receiver: the figures, numbers are distributed among the three columns
to the domicile of party receiving money e.g., District, Centre (Kathmandu) and International.• Discriminated receiver: Discriminated receivers are the attention groups who are defined as discrim
SDC’s policy; like: Women, Dalit and Janajati All other payments received by non-discriminated group
* Fund Flow Analysis (FFA) is adopted by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) across all Swiss funded p
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Investment (cluster district): Swiss Strategy has defined 4 central districts and 4 western districtsalso called as cluster districts. SDC aims at increasing investment in these districts. FFA intends to mof investment made and investment trend in these districts.
Timing: FFA assessment and reporting follows the project cycle; e.g., at the time of phase budgeting, aplanning and while preparing annual reports Consolidation of data and results is done at SDC and s
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 105/112
planning and while preparing annual reports. Consolidation of data and results is done at SDC and sprojects annually.
Data entry: The entire (100%) amount of project budget or expenditure is to be covered for FFA moproject’s budget or expenditure should appear in each FFA analysis. Every of budget or expenditure in all four categories independently.
Attribution of percentage: Except for column 3 meant for value of Budget/expenditure the percent
be attributed to all the columns (column 4 to 14). The total of percentage value must be 100 for eaanalysis; e.g, Fund receivers (geographical out reach 100, DAG perspective 100), Beneficiary 100%,
The total of all 4 categories will sum up to 400%.
Annex 2.5: Monitoring Indicators Related to Gender, Poverty and Socia Change area 1: Gender- and equity-sensitive policy and strategy
Primary level % of amended or new NRM group policy documents (e.g., constitutions, operational plansinitiatives or benefit-sharing mechanisms showing affirmative action towards the P&E.
Advanced level % of NRM institutions that have
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 106/112
• P&E-sensitive policy and strategies
• P&E indicators in their M&E system
• provision for gender and social equity budgeting in budget process
• provision for involving P&E groups in policy and strategy formulation process
Change area 2: Equitable governance
Primary level Proportionate representation in NRM groups
• % of women members in NRM groups
• % of P&E in NRM group executive committee
• % of NRM groups with at least one P&E member in the three key decision-making positioand treasurer)
Advanced level % of P&E expressing that committee decisions address their needs very well, well, satisfacto
Change area 3: Gender- and equity-sensitive organizational development and programming
Primary level % of excluded staff in NRM institutions at field level, managerial level, and overall
Advanced level % of budget allocated and spent for P&E activities
Change area 4: Equitable access to resources and benefits
Primary level % of NRM groups with P&E receiving at least average share* of fuelwood, fodder, grass, tim
Advanced level % of P&E people who are not members of NRM groups
* Working definition of average share of natural resources: total of natural resource products distributed divided by numbe
NRM groups.Source: Adapted from IUCN (2009) and MFSC (2006).
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Annex 3.1: Policy Analysis Format
Policy, provision, article No GESI analysis of policy statements, provisions, criteria, guidelines, etc
Addresses human condition withinexisting social hierarchy and division of responsibilities, does not make structural
changes
Establishesequal rights andpromotes structural
transformation
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 107/112
changes transformation
1……
2…..
Annex 3.2: Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile
S.N. Post
DalitJanajati
Brahmin/ChhetriOther
MadhesiCastes/
OBCgroups
MuslimOthers
NewarsHill Madhesi Hill Tarai Hill Madhesi
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M
1
2
3
4
5
6
Annex 3.3: Program and Budget Analysis Format
Description
Directly supportiveactivity (1)
Indirectly supportiveactivity (2)
Neutral activity (3)
Amount % Amount % Amount % Am
Women
Dalit
Janajati (exceptNewar)
Newar
Brahmin/Chhetri
Muslims
Other MadhesiCastes/Other Backward Classes(OBC)
Location (rural,remote, Karnali,
Bibliography
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 108/112
Acharya, K.P., J. Adhikari and D. Khanal. 2008. “Forest enure Regimes and their Impact on Liv
in Nepal.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 7:1.
ADB. 2009. “Nepal: Country Partnership Strategy 2010-2014: A Strategy for a Country in raSeptember. Manila: Asian Development Bank (ADB).
______. 2010. “Gender Mainstreaming in ADB Projects: Report of the echnical Working
February. Manila. Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Bampton, J.F.R. and B. Cammaert. 2006. “How Can imber Rents Better Contribute to
Alleviation through Community Forestry in the erai Region of Nepal?” Paper pres
International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportu
Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing, Ho Chi Minh City, 3-6 October.
Banjade, M.R. and N.S. Paudel. 2008. “Mobile Pastoralism in Crises: Challenges, Conflicts and
Pasture enure in Nepal Mountains.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 7:1.
Bennett, L., D.R. Dahal and P. Govindasamy. 2008. Caste, Ethnic and Regional Identity in Nepa
Analysis of the 2006 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton, MD: Macro Interna
Bista, R. 1999. “Conserving Bio-diversity: Experiences and Challenges in Nepal.” A report publ
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal.
Buchy, M. and B. Rai Paudyal. 2008. “Do Women-Only Approaches to Natural Resource Man
Help Women? he Case of Community Forestry in Nepal.” In Gender and Natural Management in Asia: Livelihoods, Mobility and Interventions, edited by B. Resurreccion
Elmhirst. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Buchy, M. and S. Subba. 2003. “Why is Community Forestry a Social- and Gender-blind ec
he Case of Nepal.” Gender, Technology and Development. 7:3, pp. 313-332.
Budlender, D. and R. Sharp with K. Allen. 1998. How to do a Gender-Sensitive Budget Analysis: Cont
Research and Practice. London, Canberra: Australian Agency for International Developm
Commonwealth Secretariat.Central Bureau of Statistics. 2002. National Population Census, National Report 2001. Kat
National Planning Commission Secretariat.
Cleaver, F. 2001. “Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Devel
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
Gautam, A.P. et al. 2003. “Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Change Pattern in a Moun
in Nepal.” Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment. 99, pp. 83-96.
Government of Nepal. 2007. “he Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2007).” http://ww
sion.gov.np/en/documents/prevailing-laws/constitution/func-startdown/163/______. 2008. “he hree Year Interim Plan.” Kathmandu: National Planning Commiss
H bl M 2007 Wh i h W ld I Th P F P li d T R f
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 109/112
Hobley, M. 2007. Where in the World Is There Pro-poor Forest Policy and Tenure Reform
DC: Rights and Resource Initiatives.
Hobley, M., J. Baral, N. Rasaily and B. Shrestha. 2007. “Nepal Swiss Community Fo
External Review.” Report prepared for MFSC and SDC, Kathmandu.
HURDEC. 2004. Social and Geographical Audit of Six Hill Districts. Kathmandu: Livelihoo
Program.IUCN. 2009. Natural Resource Management, Poverty and Social Equity Monitoring Indicators
Kathmandu: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Nepal.
Jeffery, R. and B. Vira. 2001. Introduction in Conflict and Co-operation in Participatory N
Management. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jensen, R.I. et al. 2006. “Evaluation of DFID’s Policy and Practice in Support of Gend
Women’s Empowerment.” Volume 1. Synthesis Report. Evaluation Report EV
Department for International Development (DFID).
Jha, C., S. Prasai, M. Hobley and L. Bennett. 2009. “Citizen Mobilization/Social M
ransformation Review Report.” Kathmandu: MLD, DFID/WB/SDC.
Kabeer, N. 1994. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. London:
Kanel, K.R. 2004. “wenty-five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution to Millennium
Goals.” In Proceeding of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, edited
et al. Kathmandu: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forests.
Khadka, M. 2009. Why does Exclusion Continue? Aid, Knowledge and Power in Nepal’s Com
Policy Process? Maastricht: Shaker Publishing B.V.Kothari, U. 2001. “Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development.”
The New Tyranny?, edited by W. Cooke and U. Kothari. London: Zed Books. pp. 1
LFP. 2005a. “Pro-Poor and Social Inclusion Strategy.” Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Fores
(LFP).
______. 2006a. “Animation and Social Mobilisation: Empowering Local Communities to
and Resources.” Good Practice Paper Series 4. Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Forest
DFID Nepal.______. 2006b. Increasing the Voice and Influence of Poor and Excluded People in Communi
and Interest Groups in CFUGs. Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Forestry Program.
______. 2009. “Community Forestry for Poverty Alleviation: How UK Aid Has Increa
Concerns.” Kathmandu: Livelihood and Forestry Program.
Mayers, J. 2007. “rees, Poverty and argets: Forests and the Millennium Developmen
Environment for the MDGs.” London: Integrated Institute for Environment and Develop
MFSC. 1978. Amendments of Forest Act 1976. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Con(MFSC).
1988 Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988 2010) K th d Mi i t f F t
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 110/112
______. 1988. Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988-2010). Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest
Conservation.
______. 1993. Forest Act 1993. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.
______. 1995. Forest Regulation 1995. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.
______. 1999. Buffer Zone Management Guideline 1999. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest
Conservation.______. 2000. Forest Policy. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.
______. 2002. Leasehold Forestry Policy Guideline 2002. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forest
Conservation.
______. 2006. Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy. Kathmandu: Gender and Equity Working
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.
______. 2009. Nepal’s Readiness Preparation Proposal REDD (2010-2013). Kathmandu: Mi
Forest and Soil Conservation.
______. 2010. Approach Paper to Three-year Interim Plan (2011-2013). Kathmandu: Ministry
and Soil Conservation /National Planning Commission.
NFFIN. 2009. Socioeconomic Status of Indigenous People: Final Report. Nepal Federation of In
Nationalities (NEFIN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
NPC. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan for Government of Nepal (2002-2007). Kathmandu: National
Commission (NPC).
______. 2007. Three-Year Interim Plan (2007-2011). Kathmandu: National Planning Commiss
NSCFP. 2007a. “Looking at NSCFP from Gender and Equity Eyes.” Issue Paper No. 9. KatNepal Swiss Community Forestry Project (NSCFP).
______. 2007b. “he Contribution of NSCFP to Poverty Reduction at the Household Level.” Iss
No. 11. Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project.
Pokharel, B., . Stadtmuller, and J.L. Pfund. 2005. “From Degradation to Restoration: An Asses
the Enabling Conditions for Community Forestry in Nepal.” Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss Com
Forestry Project, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
Rai Paudyal, B. 2008. Agrarian Structure and Distributive Outcomes: A Study of Community FNepal. he Hague: Institute of Social Studies/Shaker Publishing.
Ribot, J.C. and N.L. Peluso. 2003. “A heory of Access.” Rural Sociology. 68 (2). pp. 153-181.
SDC. 2005. Policy on Workforce Diversity. Kathmandu: Swiss Agency for Development Cooperatio
Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion
______. 2006. Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal. Kathmand
DFID.
World Bank. 2006. “Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gend
(Fiscal Years 2007-10).” September. Washington, DC: World Bank.______. 2009. “Interim Strategy Note for Nepal 2009-2012.” Washington, DC: World B
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 111/112
7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Forestry (Monograph 3)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sectoral-perspectives-on-gender-and-social-inclusion-forestry-monograph-3 112/112
A woman grazing her goats inKanepokhari forests, Morang district, eastern Nepal, 2012.
Photograph by Mani Lama; design by Chiran Ghimire.Book design by Norbo Lama.