Stakeholder perspectives on the effectiveness of governance in red panda conservation programmes in Nepal: a comparative analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Principles, criteria, and indicators (PC&I) used for evaluating governance quality.

Principle	Criterion	Indicator
‘Meaningful participation’	Interest representation	Inclusiveness
		Equality
		Resources
	Organisational responsibility	Accountability
		Transparency
‘Productive deliberation’	Decision-making	Democracy
		Agreement
		Dispute settlement
	Implementation	Behavioural change
		Problem-solving
		Durability

Source: (Cadman 2011). Reproduced courtesy of Palgrave Macmillan.

Table 2. Number of respondents in survey 1 and survey 2 from August-September 2020.

Groups or stakeholders	Survey 1 Number	Survey 2 Number	Total Number	Comments
Government	28	8	36	Forest ministries at national and sub-national levels
Non- governmental organisations	52	7	59	NGOs active in forest and wildlife conservation
Research/Academia	26	1	27	Universities and research institutions
Marginalised groups	10	77	87	Women’s organisations; Dalit; IP’s organisations; Madhesi
Community forest users	4	38	42	CFUG members
Herders’ group	0	19	19	Herders of domesticated grazing animals
Forest guardians	0	30	30	Individual community members employed by conservation NGOs to patrol wildlife habitat
Others	55	2	57	Youth (Self-identifying based on age); Other; media; Online retail; tourism operators; self-identifying as the private sector, forest-based industry
Total	175 (49%)	182 (51%)	357

Table 3. Indicator-wise questions.

Indicator	Questions
Inclusiveness	In your view, are programmes and activities inclusive your interests? Please explain.
Equality	Do you think these programmes and activities treat all interests equally?
Resources	What level of resources do these programmes and activities provide for you to participate?
Accountability	Do you think these programmes and activities act in an accountable manner?
Transparency	Do you think these programmes and activities act transparently?
Democracy	Do you consider these programmes and activities to act democratically?
Agreement	Do you consider the making of agreements in these programmes and activities to be effective?
Dispute settlement	Do you consider the settling of disputes in these programmes and activities to be effective?
Behavioural change	Do you think these programmes and activities will contribute to changing the behaviour that leads to the loss of the red panda habitat?
Problem-solving	Do you think these programmes and activities will help solve the problems of the loss of the red panda and its habitat?
Durability	Do you consider these programmes and activities to be durable?

Table 4. Overall, survey 1 and survey 2 results from the combined respondent of sectors on GFG, RPCP and NHP.

Indicators	GFG			RPCP			NHP
	Overall	Survey 1	Survey 2	Overall	Survey 1	Survey 2	Overall	Survey 1	Survey 2
1. Inclusiveness	2.99	3.16	2.81	2.95	3.36	2.54	2.98	3.38	2.58
2. Equality	2.74	2.9	2.57	2.84	3.21	2.46	2.87	3.23	2.50
3. Resources	2.44	2.61	2.27	2.57	2.87	2.27	2.59	2.94	2.24
4. Accountability	2.87	2.98	2.75	2.90	3.23	2.56	2.82	3.09	2.54
5. Transparency	2.74	2.77	2.71	2.84	3.14	2.53	2.79	3.05	2.52
6. Democracy	2.87	2.99	2.74	2.82	3.05	2.59	2.80	3.00	2.59
7. Agreement	2.91	3.13	2.68	2.92	3.27	2.57	2.93	3.27	2.58
8. Dispute settlement	2.83	3.06	2.59	2.89	3.20	2.57	2.79	3.06	2.52
9. Behavioural change	3.09	3.53	2.64	3.07	3.62	2.51	3.09	3.66	2.51
10. Problem-Solving	3.14	3.75	2.53	3.13	3.80	2.46	3.19	3.91	2.46
11. Durability	3.04	3.37	2.71	3.03	3.43	2.62	3.07	3.50	2.64
Overall scores (out of 55)	31.6	34.3	29.0	31.9	36.2	27.7	31.9	36.1	27.7
Notes:		Highest			lowest

Figure 1. Combined rating by the indicator of the selected sector of respondents on GFG, RPCP, and NHP.

Figure 2. Distribution of respondents and chart of results ((a) East/West (b) geographic distribution and (c) major sectors ratings)) from survey 2.

Figure 3. Geographical distribution of respondents and chart of ratings by gender (phone interview).

Cadman T. 2011. Quality and legitimacy of global governance: case lessons from forestry. London (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar