An Analysis Report of Minimum Conditions andlbfc.gov.np/sites/default/files/Analysis Report of MCPM...

An Analysis Report of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures of Local Bodies in Nepal, 2016

Assessment Year2014/2015

Government of NepalLocal Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat

Shree Mahal, Pulchok, Lalitpur, Nepal

May 2017

MCPM Report

An Analysis Report of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures of Local Bodies in Nepal, 2015

Publisher Government of Nepal Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat Shree Mahal, PulchokTelephone No. 977 1 5524788, 5524424, 5524909Fax No. 977 1 5520058Website www.lbfc.gov.npIssue 5/2014/2015Copyright Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat

Date of Publication May 2017

Analysis Coordinators Mr. Reshmiraj Pandey, Joint Secretary Mr. Pashupati Babu Puri, Under Secretary Mr. Surya Upadhyaya, Section Officer Mrs. Shukra Rai, Section Officer Mrs. Chandra Thapa, Section Officer

Report Analysis Mr. Hem Raj Lamichhane, Fiscal Decentralization Specialist

Collection & Distribution Mr. Govinda Bhattarai Mr. Rabin Acharya Mr. Jayanta Shrestha Ms. Sanjila Sapkota Mr. Durgadas Shrestha Ms. Bhimmaya Ghimire Mr. Gopal Lama Mr. Chandra Moktan Mr. Hari Prasad Bhattarai

Press Pragati Printers, Anam Nagar, Phone no. 01-4250655

ii

Publisher’s Note

Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) was formed under the provision of Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, section 237. The scope and the objectives of LBFC are to carry out research on local taxes and to recommend Government of Nepal on grant local tax boundary and fiscal decentralization.

20 District Development Committees (DDCs) were provided additional capital grant based on Minimum Condition and Performance Measure (MCPM) in fiscal year 2004/05. Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat began carrying out MCPM of remaining 55 DDCs in fiscal year 2005/06. Additional capital grant allocation started in fiscal year 2007/08 based on all DDCs' MCPM results of fiscal year 2006/07. Thus, based on MCPM results, additional capital grant was allocated to DDCs from fiscal year 2007/08 and to all municipalities from fiscal year 2008/09. Additional capital grant has been allocated to VDCs based on the MC assessment after DDCs completed carrying out MCPM of concerned VDCs.

Following are the major objectives of the MCPM assessment:

(a) To prepare criteria for allocation of unconditional capital grant based on the result of MCPM assessment for local bodies;

(b) To identify local bodies' strength and weakness; to analyze them; and provide feedback for capacity building; and

(c) To explore realities by analyzing local bodies' policy, plan and program management and to identity various elements which affected overall performance of plan and project in detail?

Implementation of MCPM system has produced notable improvement in performance and other managerial work of many local bodies. Implementation of this process has helped local bodies to be a more responsible to local people and to ensure transparency in activities carried out through local bodies; to abide by legal provisions; and to maintain financial discipline and to reduce fiduciary risk of local bodies.

MCPM, initiated in fiscal year 2006/07, has been carried out continuously thereafter each year. TheAssessment process of MCPM of fiscal year 2014/15 was concluded on the third week of September 2015. This year, 7 DDCs, 10 municipalities and 1,275 VDCs could not meet MC standards. Therefore such failed local bodies received only minimum grant in fiscal year 2016/17 based on the results of MCPM assessment. Local Bodies Fiscal Commission looks forward for the improvement in all local bodies' performance and their success in MCPM in coming years. We express our full confidence that information and data included in this report shall be useful for policy makers, academicians and all concerned individuals and organizations. We ask all to provide suggestions and recommendations to make this report more reader friendly.

Local Bodies Fiscal CommissionShree Mahal, Pulchok,Lalitpur, Nepal

May 2017

iii

Abbreviations

ADDCN Association of District Development Committee of Nepal

DDC District Development Committee

DFDP Decentralized Finance Development Program

DTCO District Treasury Comptroller Office

LBFAR Local Bodies Financial Administration Regulation, 2007

LBFC Local Bodies Fiscal Commission

LBs Local Bodies

LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development Program

LSGA Local Self-Governance Act, 1999

LSGR Local Self-Governance Regulation, 2000

MC Minimum Condition

MCPM Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures

MuAN Municipal Association of Nepal

Mun Municipality

NAVIN National Association of VDCs

PM Performance Measures

UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund

VDC Village Development Committee

v

Table of Contents

Publisher’s Note ..................................................................................................................... iiiAbbreviations .......................................................................................................................... vTables ..................................................................................................................................... viiiFigures .................................................................................................................................... xCharts ...................................................................................................................................... xAppendixes .............................................................................................................................. xiExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter One: Preliminary ..................................................................................................... 11.1. Background .................................................................................................................................... 1............... 1... 11.2. Concept and introduction of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures .......... 2......... 2.. 21.3. Objectives of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures ...................................... 3...................................... 331.4. MCPM result and effect on unconditional capital grant ..................................................... 3..................................................... 33

Chapter Two : Procedures and Indicators of Assessment of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure ...................................................................... �...................................................................... ��2.1 Minimum Condition ................................................................................................................... 6................................................................................................................... 662.2 Performance Measure ................................................................................................................. 7................................................................................................................. 772.3 VDCs' minimum condition assessment ................................................................................... 9................................................................................... 992.4 Procedures of DDCs’ and municipalities’ minimum conditions and performance measures ............................................................................................................... 12............................................................................................................... 12 122.5 Assessment of Quality Assurance (QA) .................................................................................. 14.................................................................................. 14 14

2.6 Provision relating to hearing on MCPM result ...................................................................... 14...................................................................... 14 14

Chapter Three : Analysis of the result of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure ............................................................................ 1�............................................................................ 1�1�3.1 Analysis of the assessment of Minimum Condition ............................................................. 15............................................................. 15153.2 Performance assessment analysis ........................................................................................... 20........................................................................................... 2020

3.2.1 District Development Committee ............................................................................. 20............................................................................. 20203.2.2 Municipalities ................................................................................................................. 38................................................................................................................. 3838

vii

Chapter Four : Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................... ��....................................................... ��4.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 55554.2 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 56..................................................................................................................... 5656Appendixes .................................................................................................... �9

TablesTable 1 : Status of allocation of unconditional capital grant based of formula .............. xivTable 2 : Effect on additional unconditional capital grant based on PM result ............. xvTable 3 : Indicators of minimum conditions for DDCs, VDCs and Municipalities ....... 6Table 4 : Thematic areas, number of indicators and weightage marks for DDCs ........... 8Table 5 : Thematic areas, number of indicators and weightage marks for municipalities .......................................................................................... 8Table 6 : Number of indicators and weightage marks for VDCs ..................................... 9Table 7 : Composition of Evaluator Selection Committee ................................................ 10Table 8 : Structure of Supervision Committee .................................................................... 11Table 9 : DDCs Failed in Minimum Condition Assessment .............................................. 15Table 10 : DDDCs (Based on Geographical Areas) Failed in Minimum Condition

Assessment .................................................................................................................. 16Table 11 : Districts having more than 50% of VDCs secured 'Pass' positions in Minimum Condition Assessment. .......................................................................... 17Table 12 : Districts having more than 50% VDCs failed in MC Assessment in 2014/15 .................................................................................................................... 19Table 13 : DDCs receiving additional 20% unconditional capital grant ............................. 21Table 14 : According to geographical location and development regions DDCs receiving additional 20% unconditional capital grants .......................... 21Table 15 : DDCs receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant ..... 23Table 16 : According to geographical location and development regions DDCs receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant .............. 23Table 17 : DDCs receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant ...... 24Table 18 : According to geographical and development region DDCs receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant ................................... 25

viii

Table 19 : DDCs sustaining 10% reduction in unconditional capital grant ....................... 26Table 20 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 10% reduction in unconditional capital grant .................................. 26Table 21 : DDCs sustaining 15% reduction in unconditional capital grant ...................... 28Table 22 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 15% reduction in unconditional capital grant ..................................................... 28Table 23 : DDCs sustaining 20% reduction in unconditional capital grant ..................... 29Table 24 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 20% reduction in unconditional capital grant ...................................................... 31Table 25 : DDCs sustaining 100% reduction in unconditional capital grant....... 32Table 26 : Major 10 difficult indicators of performance measures of 2014/15 and number of DDCs ........................................................................................................ 32Table 27 : 10 DDCs securing lowest and highest marks in performance measures ........ 33Table 28 : Performance assessment of thematic-area of DDCs ........................................... 34Table 29 : Average marks secured by DDCs based on development regions and thematic-areas .................................................................................................... 34Table 30 : DDCs securing highest and lowest marks in various thematic-areas ........... 35Table 31 : Classification of performance assessment indicators based on secured marks ........................................................................................................... 36Table 32 : 10 Indicators in which DDCs received highest average marks in PM assessment .......................................................................................... 36Table 33 : Ten indicators in which DDCs secured lowest marks in PM assessment .......................................................................................... 37Table 34 : Municipalities receiving additional 20% increment in unconditional capital grant ................................................................................................................. 38Table 35 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 20% increment in unconditional capital grant ................ 39Table 36 : Municipalities receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant ................................................................................................................. 40Table 37 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant ................ 41Table 38 : Municipalities receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant ................................................................................................................. 42

ix

Table 39 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant ................. 42Table 40 : Municipalities sustaining 10% deduction in unconditional capital grant ......... 43

Table 41 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 10% unconditional capital grant .......................................................... 44

Table 42 : Municipalities sustaining 15% deduction in unconditional capital grants ........................................................................................................................... 45Table 43 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 15% unconditional capital grant ......................................................... 46Table 44 : Municipalities sustaining 20% deduction in unconditional apital grant........... 47Table 45 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 20% unconditional capital grant .......................................................... 48Table 46 : Description of marks secured by municipalities in performance assessment of thematic-areas .................................................................................. 49Table 47 : 10 Indicators securing highest average marks in performance assessment ... 50Table 48 : 10 Indicators securing lowest average marks in municipalities' PM assessment ............................................................................................................ 50Table 49 : Trend analysis of DDCs' MCPM assessment ....................................................... 51Table 50 : Trend analysis of municipalities' MCPM assessments ....................................... 52Table 51 : Trend analysis of VDCs' Minimum Condition Assessment ............................. 54

FiguresBox 1 : Provisions of Decentralization Work-plan 1995 ............................................ 1Box 2 : Legal Provision for MCPM ...................................................................................... 2Box 3 : Special Objectives of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures.... 3Box 4 : Provision for Staffs' Motivation .............................................................................. 3Box 5 : MCPM Outcome ..................................................................................................... 56

ChartsChart 1 : DDCs (Based on Geographical Areas) Failed in Minimum Condition Assessment .................................................................................... 16Chart 2 : According to geographical location and development regions

x

DDCs receiving additional 20% unconditional capital grant................... 22Chart 3 : DDCs receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant ........................................................................................................ 24

Chart 4 : According to geographical and development region DDCs receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant .......................... 25Chart 5 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 10% reduction in unconditional capital grant ........................................... 27Chart 6 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 10% reduction in unconditional capital grant .................................. 29Chart 7 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining 20% reduction in unconditional capital grant .............................................. 31Chart 8 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 20% increment in unconditional capital grant......... 39Chart 9 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant ...... 41Chart 10 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant ....... 43Chart 11 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 10% unconditional capital grant................................................... 45Chart 12 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 15% unconditional capital grant ................................................. 47Chart 13 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining 20% unconditional capital grant ................................................ 48Chart 14 : Trend analysis of DDCs' MCPM assessment .............................................. 52Chart 15 : Trend analysis of municipalities' MCPM assessment ............................... 53Chart 16 : Trend analysis of VDCs' minimum condition assessment ....................... 54

AppendixesAppendix 1 : Indicators of performance measurement ..................................................... 59Appendix 2 : Cosulting firms and experts carried out MCPM for DDCs, 2014/15 ..... 65

xi

Appendix 3 : Consulting firms and experts carried out MCPM for municipalties, 2014/15 .............................................................................................................. 68Appendix 4 : Status of assessment of MC of District Development Committees, 2014/15 ....................................................................................... 70Appendix 5 : Municipalities' status of assessment of minimum condition, 2014/15 .. 73Appendix 6 : Results of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure of DDCs, 2014/15 ................................................................................................. 76Appendix 7 : Results of municipalities' Minimum Condition and Performance Measures, 2014/15 ......................................................................................... 81Appendix 8 : Results of VDCs' minimum condition assessment, 2014/15.................. 85

xii

xiii

Executive Summary

The tool of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures (MCPM) has been adopted for measuring mechanism of local bodies which aims to make effective local governance. In order to ascertain the local bodies as people's expectations by adjusting their works, actions and activities as directed by various regulations, work procedures and directives related to them including Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, Local Self-Governance Regulation, 2000, and Local Bodies Financial Administration Regulation, 2007, MCPM is functioning. There is a provision to allocate unconditional additional capital grant for local bodies has been made congruent with MCPM result and staff have been rewarded on this basis. MCPM result incorporates a system of providing assistance to local bodies by other development partner organizations and grants by ministries. After adoption of this system, there was a notable improvement in performance and other managerial work of many local bodies. The analysis report based on the result of local bodies' MCPM assessment of fiscal year 2014/15 showed:

≈ According to the result of MCPM assessment, the average marks of performance measures of DDCs and municipalities are 57 and 67 respectively in 2014/2015.

≈ For quality assurance assessment purpose, 8 DDCs namely Ilam, Sunsari, Sankhuwasava, Rautahat, Baglung, Kapillbastu, Mugu and Baitadi, and 6 municipalities i.e. Inaruwa, Damak, Dhulikhel, Bhaktapur, Byas and Nepalgunj were selected in 2014/2015.

≈ Seven DDCs such as Sunsari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Mugu and Achham (9.3%) could not meet the Minimum Conditions Assessment. Sunsari DDC could not comply with the indicator number . 2 (Annual progress review) and indicator number. 8 (Assets management). Sarlahi DDC could not comply the indicator number. 3, 4 and 9 (Annual and quarterly progress report, internal audit and final audit of VDCs and Personnel management respectively). Rautahat DDC seemed very poor in indicator number . 4, 8 and 9 (Internal audit and final audit of VDCs, Assest management and Personnel management respectively). Bara DDC could not comply indicator number . 3 Annual and quarterly progress report. Similarly, Parsa DDC could not comply with indicator number. 1 and 9 (Annual budget and program approval and Assests management correspondingly). Mugu DDC could not meet indicator number. 1 and 6 (Annual budget and program approval and management of information and documentatino). Finally, Achham DDC could not meet indicator number. 3 and 8 (Annual and quarterly progress report, and Assets Management).

≈ Kathmandu, Dhulikhel, Tikapur and Tulsipur municipalities could not comply indicator number. 10 of MC (Personnel management), whereas, Jaleshor municipality comply indicator number. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. Triyuga municipality could not meet only one indicator number . 4 (Operation of accounts of fund). Lekhnath municipality could not comply MC

xiv

because of the non-compliance of indicator number. 2 (Annual progress review). Of the total 3,157 VDCs, 808 VDCs did not carry out MC assessment and 467 VDCs could not meet the minimum conditions. So only 1,882 VDCs passed MC in 2014/15.

≈ All (100%) VDCs of Taplejung, Sankhuwasava, Khotang, Rasuwa, Lamjung, Kaski, Manang, Palpa, Arghakhachi, Rolpa, Rukum, Salyan, Dang, Banke, Jumla, Bajura, and Kanchanpur districts comply with all the MC indicators. In contrary, all the VDCs of Ilam, Dhankuta, Terhathum, Solukhumbu, Okhaldhunga, Saptari, Siraha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Sindhuli, Gorkha, Jajarkot, Dolpa, Kalikot, Mugu, Humla, Bajhang and Doti did not carry out MC assessment in 2014/15.

≈ Table No.1 shows details of DDCs which received additional unconditional capital grant based on result of Minimum Condition and Performance Measures of 2014/15.

Table 1: Status of allocation of unconditional capital grant based on formula S.N. Description No. Name of DDCs

1 DDCs receiving 20% additional unconditional capital grant based on formula

6 Dhankuta, Banke, Dailekh, Panchthar, Kaski and Puthan


10 Gulmi, Salyan, Rukum, Khotang, Chitwan, Nuwakot, Kavre, Syangja, Bhojpur and Bhajhan


10 Jajarkot, Dhading, Gorkha, Palpa, Dadeldhura, Sangkhuwasava, Solu, Bhaktapur, Kathmandu and Arghakhachi

4 DDCs not receiving additional capital grants based on formula

7 Sunsari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Mugu and Achham

5 DDCs, those sustained 20% deduction in unconditional capital grant based on formula

21 Morang, Jhapa, Surkhet, Kailali, Baglung, Humla, Doti, Siraha, Okhaldhunga, Lalitput, Sindhuli, Lamjung, Manag, Mahottari, Bajura, Darchula, Dolpa, Kalikot, Parbat, Saptari and Dolakha

6 DDCs sustaining 15% deduction in unconditional capital grant based on formula

11 Nawalparasi, Terhathum, Baitadi, Jumla, Ramechhap, Rupandehi, Rolpa, Myagdi, Kapilvastu, Bardia and Mustang

7 DDCs, sustaining 10% deduction in unconditional capital grant based on formula

10 Makawanpur, Dang, Rasuwa, Taplejung, Dhanusa, Tanahu, Sindhupalchock, Ilam, Udayapur and Kanchanpur

Total 7�

xv

≈ In MCPM assessment for fiscal year 2014/15, Dhankuta DDC scored highest 87 marks while Mugu DDC scored lowest 26 marks.

≈ 68 DDCs out of 75 DDCs, scored zero marks in indicator No. 14 "compliance of the limit of recurrent expenditure". It showed that DDCs were facing the problem of maintaining recurrent expenditure from their own source of revenue.

≈ Of the total 75 DDCs, only 41 DDCs scored more than average marks 58, while 34 DDCs scored less than average marks in performance measure assessment.

≈ While paying attention to average marks secured among DDCs, highest 70.67% was secured in "Organization Management and Work Responsibility" and lowest 44.91% was secured in "Resource Mobilization and Financial Management".

≈ Among development regions, Eastern Region has secured highest 61.81% average marks and Central Development Region received lowest 53.95% marks.

≈ Table No. 2 shows detail description of effect on additional unconditional capital grant allocation based on MCPM result of the fiscal year 2014/15.

Table 2: Effect on additional unconditional capital grant based on PM result S.N. Description No. Name of municipalities

1 Municipalities receiving 20% additional unconditional capital grant based on formula

4 Butwal, Dhankuta, Hetauda and Gorahi


11 Itahari, Bhimesor, Bharatpur, Kamalamahi, Panauti, Pokhara, Dharam, Sidharthanagar, Birendranagar, Inharuwa and Ramgram


10 Banepa, Narayan, Dhangadhi, Ratnanagar, Madhyepurthimi, Waling, Biratnagar, Byas, Tansen and Baglung

4 Municipalities sustaining cent percent deduction in unconditional capital grant based on formula

10 Ilam, Siraha, Triyuga, Malangawa, Jaleshor, Kathmandu, Dhulikhel, Lekhnath, Tulsipur and Tikapur

5 Municipalities sustaining 20% deduction in unconditional capital grant based on formula

5 Gorkha, Birgunj, Amargadhi, Janakpur and Dasharathchand

xvi

S.N. Description No. Name of municipalities


8 Gaur, Putalibazar, Kirtipur, Lalitpur, Dipayal-Silgadhi, Kalaiya, Rajbiraj and Bidur


10 Khadbari, Gulariya, Bhaktapur, Damak, Mechinagar, Nepagunj, Bhimdutta, Lahan, Kapilbastu and Bhadrapur

Total number of municipalities �8

≈ In performance measurement of municipalities, Dhankuta municipality secured highest 90% marks and Malangawa secured lowest 21% marks.

≈ While comparing average marks secured in various thematic areas, highest 17 marks is secured in "Local Governance", and "Financial Resource Mobilization", 14 marks in "Urban basic service management" and 13 marks in "Planning and Program Management Service Management" and lowest 8 marks in "Organization and Human Resource Development".

MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15 [ � ]

Chapter One

Preliminary

1.1.BackgroundThough there is not a long history of modern decentralization and local self-governance in Nepal, since Kirat reign, important efforts had been accomplished for development of local self-governance. Specially, in last five decades notable achievements have been made in development of local self-governance system including decentralization. It has taken momentum after reinstatement of democracy in 1990. In changed political context, Nepali people have been recognized as sovereign citizen and progressive steps have been taken for local self-governance development. Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 had adopted “to maintain a condition suitable to the enjoyment of democracy through wider participation of the people in the governance of the county by way of decentralization” as state’s chief responsibility. Through Decentralization Work-plan 1995, government created important provision to provide villages authority of their area; it is stated in Box No. 1

After few years, implementation of Local Self-Governance Act, 1999 and Local Self-Governance regulation, 2000, gave important contribution in decentralization.

Box �: Provisions of Decentralization Work-plan �995

(a) TomakeVillageDevelopmentCommitteeresponsibleinplanning,implementingandmonitoringactivitiesinsectorssuchaseducation,health,agriculture,irrigationandwatersupply;

(b) TomakeprovisionforprovidingVillageDevelopmentCommitteeadministrativeandfinancialcontrollingauthorityrelatingtoprogramswhereDecentralizationWorkplanshallbeimplemented;and

(c) Toengagepeople’srepresentativesinperformanceassessmentofstaffwhoaredeputedforprogramimplementation.

With mandatory provisions for maintaining at least one Female Member in each Ward Committee and nominating citizens from categories those could not be elected in various levels of local bodies, giving clear directions for development of inclusive local democracy is important aspects of Local Self-Governance Act, 1999. However, after local bodies remained without people’s representatives since July 2002, Local Self-Governance Act, 1999 has not become effective. Article 139 of Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2006, states about the provision of development of local self-governance to provide people services, as much as possible, and to develop institutional democracy. According to the spirit, in the absence of people’s representative in local bodies, through all parties’ political mechanism at the beginning and

[ � ] MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15

now through concerned staff (especially central civil service structure), local bodies have been operated.

1.2.Concept and introduction of Minimum Conditions andPerformanceMeasures

In Nepalese context, Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures (MCPM) is a new concept. Its application has been increasing in Nepal and other parts of the world. It was first implemented as pilot project in Uganda in 1997 with the help of United Nations Capital Development Fund and since 2003, it has been implemented fully. It has been implemented in Kenya and Mali since 2001 and in Tanzania since 2004. Its implementation began in Bangladesh in 2003 and fully implemented in 2007. It has been implemented since 2005 in Indonesia and Pakistan, in Sierra Leone since 2006 and in Ghana and Solomon Island since 2008.

In Nepal, additional unconditional capital grant allocation based on MCPM result began since fiscal year 2004/05 in 20 DDCs where Decentralized Financial Development Program (DFDP) implemented in cooperation of UNCDF. In fiscal year 2006/07, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission carried out assessment of remaining 55 DDCs. Since Fiscal year 2006/07, MCPM was carried out in all 75 DDCs and based on MCPM results DDCs were awarded with additional unconditional capital grant or their unconditional capital grant was curtailed from 2007/08.

Box �: Legal Provision for MCPM

Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures (MCPM) means annual local body’sperformance assessment system based on prescribed indicators under certain standardsprovidedbySection273(d)ofLocalSelfGovernanceAct,2000.MinimumConditions(MC)meanslegalprovisionsthataretobemandatorilyfollowedbylocalbodiesunderLocalSelfGovernanceAct,1999relatedregulations,proceduresanddirectivesandprevailinglaws.MinimumConditionsIndicatorsarepreparedbasedonthethematicareasoflocalbodiestobeperformedunderlegalprovisions.Specially,thisisthemethodandprocedureorientedconcept. These Indicators are mandatory conditions that all local bodies have to fulfill.Theseconditionsarerelatedtoserviceprovidingproceduresandtheydetermineactivitiesoflocalbodies.

MCPM of municipalities is carried out by Local Bodies Fiscal Commission and concerned District Development Committees carryout Minimum Condition assessments of Village Development Committees of the respective districts.

Performance Measures would assess performance of local bodies. This provision would help to assess effectiveness and quality of local bodies’ performance in various sectors; status of services provided and effect made by local bodies on people through their activities; and status of implementation of government’s policies.


1.3.ObjectivesofMinimumConditionsandPerformanceMeasuresMain objectives of MCPM focused on enhancement of local resource mobilization by abiding law and perpetual improvement in local bodies’ performance; and improvement of services by effective use of available resources. Through this, enhancement of service quality provided to people, and extension of help in enhanced responsibility towards people and good governance promotion have been anticipated. MCPM results have been taken as major criteria for unconditional capital grant allocation. Its special objectives are presented in Box. No. 3.

Box �: Special Objectives of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures

(d) To prepare criteria for allocation of unconditional capital grant linked with MCPMresultsforlocalbodies;

(e) Toidentifylocalbodies’strengthandweakness;toanalyzethem;andprovidefeedbackforcapacitybuilding;and

(f ) To explore realities by analyzing local bodies’ policy, plan and program management and various elements those put impact on overall performance in detail.

1.4.MCPMresultandeffectonunconditionalcapitalgrantIndicators of MCPM and analysis system procedures have been formulated in order to implement in all local bodies of Nepal, according to policy to associate resources with their obedience to law and capacity, by linking resource flow to their performance level. In this way, unconditional capital grant to local bodies have been linked with MCPM results. Unconditional capital grant for VDCs from Government of Nepal has been linked with MC since fiscal year 2013/14, while such grant for District Development Committees has been linked since fiscal year 2007/08 and grant for Municipalities has been linked since fiscal year 2008/09.

Box 4: Provision for Staffs’ Motivation

LocalbodiesarerequiredtopassbothMinimumConditionsandPerformanceMeasurestogetadditionalunconditionalcapitalgrant.Thus,DDCsandmunicipalities,securingthebestresults,arealsogettingadditionalgrantasmotivation.Inaddition,provisionforawardhasbeenmadeforstaffofDDCsandmunicipalitiessecuringthebestresults.ThereareprovisionsforprovidingawardsofRs.3hundredthousandeachtoDDCandmunicipalityforsecuringfirstplace,Rs.250thousandforsecuringsecondplaceandRs.2hundredthousandforsecuringthird place. Similarly, there is a provision for providing Rs. 125 thousand to DDCs andMunicipalities which received 15% unconditional additional capital grant and Rupees onehundredthousandtoDDCsandMunicipalitieswhichreceived10%unconditionaladditionalcapitalgranthasbeenmade.

[ 4 ] MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15

(a)CriteriaforgrantallocationtoDDCsbasedonMCPMresult(1) Three DDCs, which pass MC and secure the highest marks in PM, shall get 20% increment

in unconditional capital grant. (2) DDCs, which not succeed to comply with MC, shall not get additional unconditional

capital grant except minimum capital grant. (3) DDCs which meet MC indicators but cannot to secure the minimum mark set for thematic

area performance assessment shall sustain 20% deduction in additional unconditional capital grant to be provided to DDCs.

(4) Remaining DDCs shall get unconditional capital grant in following manner: ≈ 25% of DDCs, securing the highest marks (top category), shall get 15% additional

unconditional capital grant. ≈ 25% of DDCs, securing the second highest marks (second category), shall get 10%

additional unconditional capital grant. ≈ 25% of DDCs, securing the third category, shall sustain 10% deduction in additional

unconditional capital grant.≈ 25% DDCs, securing the lowest category shall sustain 15% deduction in additional

unconditional capital grant.

(b)Criteriaforgrantallocationtomunicipalities(1) Three municipalities, which pass MC and secure the highest marks in PM, shall get 20%

increment in unconditional capital grant. (2) Municipalities, which are unsuccessful in MC, shall not get additional unconditional

capital grants. (3) Municipalities, which meet MC indicators but cannot secure minimum mark set for

thematic areas performance assessment shall sustain 20% deduction in additional unconditional capital grant to be provided to municipalities.

(4) Remaining municipalities shall get unconditional capital grant in following manner: ≈ 25% of municipalities, securing the highest marks (top category), shall get 15% additional

unconditional capital grant. ≈ 25% of municipalities, securing the second highest marks with second category, shall

get 10% additional unconditional capital grant. ≈ 25% of municipalities, securing the third category, shall sustain 10% deduction in

additional unconditional capital grant.≈ 25% municipalities, securing the lowest category shall sustain 15% deduction in

additional unconditional capital grant.

MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15 [ 5 ]

(c)CriteriaforgrantallocationtoVDCs(1) One VDC from each district, which pass and secure the highest marks in PM, shall get

20% increment in unconditional capital grant. (2) VDCs, which can not comply with MC, shall not get additional unconditional capital

grants except minimum capital grant. (3) VDCs which meet MC indicators but not able to secure minimum pass marks set for

performance assessment shall sustain 20% deduction in additional unconditional capital grant to be provided to VDCs.

(4) Remaining VDCs shall get unconditional capital grant in following manner: ≈ 25% of VDCs, securing the highest marks, shall get 15% additional unconditional capital

grant. ≈ 25% of VDCs, securing the second highest marks with second category, shall get 10%

additional unconditional capital grant. ≈ 25% of VDCs, securing the third category, shall sustain 10% deduction in additional

unconditional capital grant.≈ 25% VDCs, securing the lowest category shall sustain 15% deduction in additional

unconditional capital grant.

Though VDC's MCPM Procedure (Including Amendment and Revision), 2009 has been implemented in all VDCs throughout the country since 2013/14, capital grant that VDCs receive from government in fiscal year 2016/17 has not been linked with PM results as mentioned above. Additional unconditional capital grant is based on MC results only.


Chapter Two

ProceduresandIndicatorsofAssessmentofMinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasure

2.1 MinimumConditionContaining major activities, to be mandatorily carried out by local bodies (VDCs, municipalities and DDCs) and provided by Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, Local Self-Governance Regulation, 2000 and various regulations, procedures, directives related to them, as indicators of minimum condition, such indicators have been made mandatory to be followed by local bodies. Minimum conditions are indicators, those assessment of which shall test obedience of mandatory laws by local bodies. Thus, additional unconditional capital grant is determined. Local bodies shall not get unconditional capital grant based on formula in failure even in any indicator.

Minimum conditions for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs are mentioned in Table No. 3 and local bodies have to follow them mandatorily. Failure even in one indicator shall make them failure in fulfillment of minimum conditions and they shall be denied of additional unconditional capital grant.

Table � : Indicators of minimum conditions for DDCs, VDCs and MunicipalitiesDistrict Development

Committees Village Development

Committees Municipalities

S.N. Indicators S.N. Indicators S.N. Indicators1 Annual Budget and

Program Approval 1 Plan and Program

Approval 1 Annual Program

and Budget Approval

2 Annual Progress Appraisal



3 Annual and Quarterly Progress Report

3 Grant Utilization and Accounting

3 Quarterly and Annual Progress Report

4 Internal Audit and VDCs' Final Audit

4 Final Audit 4 Account Operation of Municipality Funds

5 Account Operation of District Development Fund

5 Inventory Management 5 Tax and Record of Internal Revenue Source


District Development Committees

Village Development Committees

Municipalities

S.N. Indicators S.N. Indicators S.N. Indicators6 Information and Record

Management 6 Social Security

Program 6 Audit and

Irregularity Rectification

7 Final Audit and Record of Irregularities

7 Personnel Management

7 Assets Management

8 Inventory Management 8 Building Construction and Design Approval

9 Personnel Management 9 Publication of Revenue and Expenditure Details and Tax rate

10 Personnel Management

Source : Local Body Fiscal Commission (2008 and 2009) District Development Committee’s MinimumCondition and Performance Measure Procedure, 2008, Municipalities’ and VDCs’ MinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasureProcedure,2009.

2.2 PerformanceMeasurePerformance Measure evaluates quality of performance by measuring it; it means it provides information about local bodies’ effectively and quality of performance in various thematic-areas. Performance measure evaluates performance of local bodies in various subject wise areas and performance quality under Acts, regulations and other laws made under them.

Under performance measure, 46 indicators within 5 thematic areas for DDCs, 40 indicators within 5 thematic areas for municipalities and 13 indicators for Village Development Committees have been designed and assessed. Provisions are made to link unconditional capital grant with performance measure’s results only after fulfillment of minimum conditions. The thematic areas for performance measure of District Development Committees and municipalities and indicators for Village Development Committees are mentioned in Tables (4, 5, and 6), below. Similarly, detail descriptions of indicators are presented in Appendix 1. Maximum and minimum marks weightage stipulated for local bodies based on various thematic areas under performance measure is also mentioned in tables. According to Table No. 4 and 5, provision has been made that DDCs and municipalities must attain minimum 40 marks in performance measures.


According to Table No. 4, maximum 12 indicators have been provided to “Monitoring, Assessment, Communication and Transparency” and allocated 26 marks; and provision has been made to require minimum 10 marks to get pass.

Table 4 : Thematic areas, number of indicators and weightage marks for DDCs S.N. Thematic areas Number of

IndicatorsMaximum

MarksMinimum

Marks 1 Planning and Budget Management 8 16 72 Resource Mobilization and Financial

Management11 25 10

3 Budget Release and Program Implementation.

6 16 6

4 Monitoring, Assessment, Communication and Transparency

12 26 10

5 Organization Management and Work Responsibility

9 17 7

Total 4� �00 40

Source : LocalBodyFiscalCommission(2008)DistrictDevelopmentCommittee’sMinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasureProcedure,2008

According to Table 5, while paying attention to thematic areas and to number of indicators stipulated for municipalities, maximum 11 indicators are allocated under “Financial Resource Mobilization and Management”; and provision has been made to secure minimum 11 marks to get pass in this thematic area.

Table 5 : Thematic areas, number of indicators and weightage marks for municipalities

S.N. Thematic Areas Number of Indicators

Maximum Marks

Minimum Marks

1 Local Governance 8 20 8

2 Financial Resource Mobilization and Management

11 28 11

3 Plan and Program Management 8 20 84 Organization and Human

Resource Development 4 10 4

5 Urban Basic Resource Management

8 22 9

Total 40 �00 40

Source : LocalBodyFiscalCommission(2008)Municipalities’MinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasureProcedure,2008.


A total of 13 indicators are developed for Village Development Committees’ performance assessment; and indicators and total weightage marks are given in Table No. 6.

Table � : Number of indicators and weightage marks for VDCsS.N. Indicators Number of

Indicators

1 Participative Village Development Program Formulation 152 Release and Expenditure Status 103 Target Group Area Development Program Budget Allocation and

Expenditure 10

4 Income and Expenditure Statement Publication 105 Social Security Program Implementation 56 Personal Record Database 57 VDC Profile 58 Citizen's Charter 59 Public Audit 5

10 Assessment, Approval and Clearance 511 Internal Resource Management 1012 Public Hearing 513 Advance and Irregularities 10

Total �00

Source : LocalBodyFiscalCommission(2008),VillageDevelopmentCommittees’MinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasureProcedure,2009.

According to Table No. 6, above, maximum 15 marks have been assigned to “Participatory Village Development Plan Formulation” by giving the heading more importance.

2.3VDCs’minimumconditionassessmentFollowing previous years’ trend and based on general guidelines from Local Bodies Fiscal Commission, District Development Committees were assigned with responsibility to assess VDCs’ minimum condition. Similar to previous years, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission published notice, requiring DDCs to collect experts’ application for assessment. Assessment completed according to assign responsibility to DDCs based on necessary guidelines from Local Bodies Fiscal Commission to select evaluators through competition and send assessment result to its secretariat. Following are the additional provision relating to VDCs’ Minimum Conditions Assessment.

[ �0 ] MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15

(a) QualificationandexperienceforevaluatorsAn evaluator should have received a graduation degree from a recognized university and gained at least one year work experience in any subject like rural / community development or community mobilization or public bodies in the position of officer level. However, resident of same VDC shall not be selected as evaluator. Staff of concerned DDCs and VDCs also cannot be evaluators for VDCs of same district. Paying attention to districts’ situation, Office of DDC can select evaluators through Evaluator Selection Committee by adding other qualification in addition to stated qualification.

(b) SelectionCommitteeFollowing is the provision to form Evaluator Selection Committee for Village Development Committee’s Minimum Condition and Performance Measure:

Table � : Composition of Evaluator Selection CommitteeS.N. Position Organization / Office Responsibility

1 Local Development Officer

Office of the District Development Committee

Coordinator

2 Representative Officer District Technical Office Member

3 Representative Officer District Treasury Comptroller Office Member

4 Representative Officer One Officer from a government office located in District as appointed by Local Development Officer

Member

5 Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Officer


Member Secretary


(c) RoleofEvaluatorSelectionCommitteeThe Committee shall appoint Evaluators among applicants having specific qualification and experience and the committee deserves all the right to settle down any depute related with assignment. The Committee itself can determine additional criteria for selection of Evaluators.

Based on geographical situation, the Committee shall form clusters containing 3 to 5 VDCs in a cluster. An Evaluator shall be assigned for a cluster’s Minimum Condition and Performance Measure.

MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15 [ �� ]

(d) RoleandresponsibilityofevaluatorsAfter reaching the VDC, Evaluator first should hold a meeting of concerned staff of local body and local level political leaders and describe them about indicators and get clear information about from whom, how and when he/she shall get necessary documents. Evaluator shall collect necessary information from staff of section, branch and unit for assessment. Evaluator must get the collected documents attested by VDC Secretary. After completion of assessment, the Evaluator must receive work completion certificate from VDC Secretary. Local Bodies Fiscal Commission, to check assessment quality, can select some VDCs representing all development areas and carry out re-assessment. If, the Commission finds huge difference between results of assessment and re-assessment, it can even cancel the results of assessment.

(e) SupervisionCommitteeFollowing Supervision Committee shall be formed (Table No. 8) for supervision, coordination and facilitation of Village Development Committees’ Minimum Conditions and Performance Measure.

Table � : Structure of Supervision Committee S.N. Position Organization / Office Responsibility

1 President District Development Committee Coordinator

2 Local Development Officer Office of the District Development Committee

Member

3 Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Officer


Member

4 MCPM focal person of District Development Committee


Member Secretary


(f) Role,responsibilityandauthorityofSupervisionCommitteeSupervision Committee shall supervise and monitor VDCs’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure carried out by the Evaluator. The Committee shall coordinate and facilitate VDCs’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure. The Committee shall mediate to resolve any dispute or problem that can arise during VDCs’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure and carry out other task assigned by Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development and Local Bodies Fiscal Commission.

[ �� ] MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15

2.4ProceduresofDDCs’andmunicipalities’minimumconditionsandperformancemeasures

Considering population and geographical region, District Development Committees and municipalities have been divided into 22 and 15 clusters for the purpose of Minimum Condition and Performance Measures respectively. Similar to previous years, DDC’s and Municipalities’ assessment has been carried out according to Minimum Conditions and Performance Measure Procedures by forming an assessment team comprising two persons from each group. There has been provision to call proposals from organizations engaged in research with terms to include experienced persons with qualification and skill given below for this purpose.

(a) LocalGovernanceExpert(Evaluator)The Local Governance Expert must have gained Master’s Degree from a recognized university and 5 years’ work experience in local development, local bodies or local governance sector. Working experience at Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development or subordinate entities or at concerned sector for other government or international entities, or experience gained through teaching and research in concerned subject area shall be eligible for the position.

(b)FinancialManagementExpert(Evaluator)Master’s Degree in Management, Economics or Financial Management from a recognized university and at least 5 years’ work experience in financial management shall be eligibility criteria for the position of Financial Management Expert. Work experience at government or semi government or international entity or work-experience gained through teaching, research or auditing is included in eligibility criteria. Person having experience of auditing must present evidence that he/she had gained such experience by auditing accounts of at least 5 organizations in last five years.

For the assessment of fiscal year 2014/15, 103 proposals from 15 organizations were received for 37 clusters including DDCs and Municipalities. Among selected experts, experts for DDCs’ Minimum Conditions and Performance Measure were given 4 day’s orientation, for municipalities were given 3 days orientation by Local Bodies Fiscal Commission, and were sent them to their fields. Detail description and consultation firms and experts are given Appendix 2.

MCPM Procedure has a provision for forming following Supervision and Management Committee for management and supervision of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure.


SN Representation Position1 Secretary, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development Chairperson2 Joint Secretaries, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

- all four DivisionsMember

3 Member Secretary, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat Member4 Director General, Local Infrastructural Development and

Agriculture Road DepartmentMember

5 Joint Secretary (Looking after Local Development), National Planning Commission

Member

6 Joint Secretary (Budget and Program Division), Ministry of Finance Member7 Director (Looking after Local Development), Office of Auditor

GeneralMember

8 Representative, Association of District Development Committees of Nepal (ADDCN)

Member

9 Representative, Municipal Association of Nepal (MuAN) Member10 Representative, National Association of Village Development

Committees in Nepal (NAVIN)Member

11 National Programme Manager, LGCDP Member12 Under Secretary, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat Member Secretary

Note : TheCommittee,foritsworkperformance,caninviterepresentativesfromconcernedgovernmentandnon-governmentorganizations.

Above Supervision and Monitoring Committee shall carry out following necessary managerial and supervisory works for local bodies Minimum Condition and Performance Measure:

(1) To provide guidance to LBFC secretariat in management of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measure.

(2) To carry out or caused to be carried out monitoring and supervisory task of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure.

(3) To make necessary arrangement for assuring quality of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure.

(4) To carry out or caused to be carried out effectively management program of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure.

(5) To approve results of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure based on quality test report.

To help Supervision and Management Committee and to assist Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat for carrying out Minimum Condition and Performance Measure and other managerial task, provision has been made to form following Facilitation and Management Subcommittee:


SN Representation Position

1. Member Secretary, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Coordinator

2. Under Secretaries (3) Local Bodies Assistance Section, Act, Regulation Consultation Section and Financial Administration Section (Ministry of Federal Affairs and Laocal Development)

Members

3. Under Secretaries (3), Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat Member

4. National Program Manager (LGCDP) Members

5. Section Officer, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission Secretariat Member Secretary

Note : RepresentativeofconcerneddonoragencycanbeinvitedinthemeetingoftheCommitteeasinvitedmember.

2.5 AssessmentofQualityAssurance(QA)With intention to make Minimum Condition and Performance Measure results factual and credible, MCPM procedure has made provision to test quality of MCPM. Quality test has the following objectives:

(a) To make MCPM System credible and effective.(b) To make MCPM report qualitative and realistic(c) To enhance evaluator’s professional accountability (d) To provide feedback to reform assessment system. To maintain assessment quality, test was carried in 8 DDCs (Ilam, Sunsari, Sangkhuwasava, Rautahat, Baglung, Kapilbastu, Mugu and Baitadi) and 6 municipalities (Inharuwa, Damak, Dhulikhel, Bhaktapur, Byas and Nepalgunj) in 2014/15.

2.6ProvisionrelatingtohearingonMCPMresultAssessment experts have to submit their report to Local Bodies Fiscal Committee Secretariat after completion of Minimum Condition and Performance Measure task. Secretariat shall provide its suggestions on the report to assessment team after studying it and the team must revise it and present final report to the secretariat in line with the feedback provided by LBFC secretariat. Provision has been made that secretariat shall send the report to concerned DDCs and municipalities for their reactions. DDCs and municipalities need to send clarification with evidence as an appeal within 15 days, if they do not agree with the report. Procedure has made provision that Secretary at Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development shall have responsibility to hear appeal made by DDCs and municipalities and the procedure has been translated into practice. After the hearing, MCPM report uses to get finalized and made public.

MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15 [ �5 ]

Chapter Three

AnalysisoftheresultofMinimumConditionandPerformanceMeasure

Minimum Condition and Performance Measure began in fiscal year 2006/07 and has been carried out each year then after. After completion of assessment procedures, the report was published in last week of July 2016.

3.1AnalysisoftheassessmentofminimumconditionIn Minimum Condition Assessment, 68 districts are found successful and only 48 municipalities among the 58 old municipalities secured ‘pass’ positions. Similarly, among 3157 Village Development Committees (all VDCs in Nepal) 2349 were evaluated and 1882 secured ‘pass’ positions in Minimum Condition assessment and 1275 VDCs including 808 VDCs those did not evaluate their Minimum Conditions, scored ‘fail’ positions. Following is the analysis of positions of local bodies in Minimum Condition assessment.

(a)DistrictDevelopmentCommitteeIn Minimum Condition assessment, 7 District Development Committees (Sunsari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara , Parsa, Mugu and Acham ) could not comply MC. This number is 9.33% of total number of DDCs. Among 9 indicators of DDCs’ Minimum Condition Assessment, Sarlai and Rautahat District Development Committee failed in maximum 3 Indicators, Sunsari, Parsa, Acham and Mugu DDC were unsuccessful in 2 Indicators and Bara DDC failed in 1 Indicator each. Table No. 9 shows that Indicator No. 1 (Annual Budget and Program Approval) could not be met by Parsa and Mugu DDCs. Similarly, Indicator number. 2 (Annual progress review) is failed by Sunsari DDC. In the same way, Indicator Number . 3(Annual and quarterly progress report) is failed by Sarlahi and Bara DDCs. Also, Indicator Number. 4 (Internal audit and final audit of VDCs) is failed by Sarlahi and Rautahat DDCs. Indicator No. 6 (Information documentation and management) is not complied with by Mugu DDC. Similarly, Indicator Number. 8 (Assets management) could not be met by Sunsari, Rautahat and Acham DDCs. And, the Indicator No. 9 (Personnel management) is could not be met by the Sarlahi, Rauthat and Parsa DDCs.

Table 9 : DDCs failed in Minimum Condition AssessmentS.N. DDCs Failed in Number of Indicators Indicators

1 Sunsari 2 2,8

2 Sarlahi 3 3,4,9

3 Rautahat 3 4,8,9


S.N. DDCs Failed in Number of Indicators Indicators

4 Bara 1 35 Parsa 2 1,96 Mugu 2 1,67 Achham 2 4,8

Source : DDCs’MCPMresults,2014/15

Table 10 shows that of the total 75 DDCs, the failed DDC each 1.3% of DDCs belong to hill and mountain area respectively and the remaining 6.7% of districts belongs to Terai area.

Table �0 : DDCs (Based on Geographical Areas) failed in Minimum Condition Assessment

Geographical Area Number of failed DDCs Percentage of failure Mountain 1 1.3

Hill 1 1.3

Tarai 5 6.7

Total � 9.�

Source : DDCs’MCPMresult,2014/15

Table 10 and Chart 1 show that the total 7 DDCs including 5 DDCs of Terai and each in Mountain and Hill area, have failed in Minimum Condition Assessment.

Chart � : DDCs (Based on Geographical Areas) failed in Minimum Condition Assessment

Source : Table10


(b) MunicipalityTotal 10 indicators were determined for municipalities’ Minimum Condition assessment for fiscal year 2014/15. In Minimum Condition assessment of this year, among all 58 municipalities only 48 municipalities secured ‘pass’ positions in all Minimum Condition’s indicators. In previous year’s assessment (2013/14), all the 58 municipalities had secured the pass position.

(c)VillageDevelopmentCommitteeIn Minimum Condition assessment, 1882 VDCs among total 3157 VDCs secured ‘pass’ position and 1275 VDCs failed. Among failed VDCs, 808 VDCs did not evaluate their Minimum Condition. Districts, having more than 50% VDCs securing ‘pass’ positions in Minimum Condition assessment are listed in Table Number. 11. The Table 11 shows that all VDCs of Taplejung, Sankhuwasava, Khotang, Rasuwa, Lamjung, Kaski, Manang, Palpa, Arghakhanchi, Rolpa, Rukum, Salyan, Dang, Banke, Jumla, Bajura and Kanchanpur districts secured ‘pass’ positions. While only one VDC failed in Rupandehi, Surkhet, Bardiya and Tanahun districts. Two VDCs in Baglung, Nawalparasi, Achham, Parvat, Pyuthan, Udayapur, Panchthar, Kailali, Dadeldhura, Mustang and Chitwan were failed in the assessment. It shows that in 49 districts, more than 50% of VDCs were failed in 49 districts in 2014/15, whereas, more than 50% of VDCs were failed in 61 districts in 2013/14.

Local Bodies Fiscal Commission has been conducting quality-assurance test of Village Development Committees’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure. For quality assurance, minimum 3 and maximum 5 VDCs must be selected. However, quality assurance test could not be carried out due to lack of internal human resources in fiscal year 2014/15. Because of non-cooperation of VDCs secretaries and other reasons, hard copies of full reports could not be received from all districts and quality assurance test could not be carried out. However, quality-assurance test shall be carried out in coming fiscal years.

Table �� : Districts having more than 50% of VDCs secured ‘Pass’ positions in Minimum Condition Assessment.

S.N. Districts Total number of VDCS

Passed Numberof VDCS

Failed Number of VDCS

Pass Percentage

1 Taplejung 48 48 0 100

2 Sankhuwasava 25 25 0 100

3 Khotang 72 72 0 100

4 Rasuwa 18 18 0 100

5 Lamjung 35 35 0 100

6 Kaski 32 32 0 100

7 Manang 13 13 0 100





Pass Percentage

8 Palpa 60 60 0 100

9 Arghakhanchi 35 35 0 100

10 Rolpa 49 49 0 100

11 Rukum 39 39 0 100

12 Salyan 35 35 0 100

13 Dang 31 31 0 100

14 Banke 33 33 0 100

15 Jumla 26 26 0 100

16 Bajura 24 24 0 100

17 Kanchanpur 4 4 0 100

18 Rupandehi 48 47 1 98

19 Surkhet 40 39 1 98

20 Tanahun 37 36 1 97

21 Baglung 59 57 2 97

22 Nawalparasi 56 54 2 96

23 Achham 56 54 2 96

24 Gulmi 75 72 3 96

25 Parvat 47 45 2 96

26 Pyuthan 42 40 2 95

27 Udayapur 40 38 2 95

28 Panchthar 38 36 2 95

29 Bardiya 18 17 1 94

30 Dailekh 49 46 3 94

31 Kailali 28 26 2 93

32 Makwanpur 35 32 3 91

33 Jhapa 33 30 3 91

34 Syangja 53 48 5 91

35 Morang 50 45 5 90

36 Ramechhap 45 40 5 89





Pass Percentage

37 Dadeldhura 18 16 2 89

38 Mustang 16 14 2 88

39 Myagdi 35 30 5 86

40 Lalitpur 19 16 3 84

41 Baitadi 56 45 11 80

42 Dhading 46 36 10 78

43 Chitawan 8 6 2 75

44 Sindhupalchok 68 50 18 74

45 Kapilvastu 53 36 17 68

46 Sunsari 39 26 13 67

47 Kavrepalanchok 75 43 32 57

48 Rautahat 84 45 39 54

Source : VDCs’MCPMresult,2014/15

Table 12 shows the descriptions of districts, which failed. There are 25 districts in this group. That are Dhanusha, Bara, Nuwakot, Darchul, Parsa, Dolakha, Bhojpur, Ilam, Dhankuta, Terhathum, Solukhumbu, Okaldhunga, Saptari, Siraha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Sndhuli, Gorkha, Jajarkot, Dolpa, Kalikot, Mugu, Humla, Bhajang and Doti. In those districts, more than 50% of the VDCS failed.

Table �� : Districts having more than 50% VDCs failed in MC Assessment in �0�4/�5SN Districts No. of VDCs Passed VDCs Failled VDCs Failed %

1. Dhanusha 71 33 38 54

2. Bara 68 27 41 60

3. Nuwakot 61 24 37 61

4. Darchula 36 13 23 64

5. Parsa 66 23 43 65

6. Dolakha 48 11 37 77

7. Bhojpur 54 7 47 87

8. Ilam 43 0 43 100

9. Dhankuta 28 0 28 100


SN Districts No. of VDCs Passed VDCs Failled VDCs Failed %

10. Terhathum 21 0 21 100

11. Solukhumbu 30 0 30 100

12. Okhaldhunga 50 0 50 100

13. Saptari 91 0 91 100

14. Siraha 63 0 63 100

15. Mahottari 66 0 66 100

16. Sarlahi 84 0 84 100

17. Sindhuli 50 0 50 100

18. Gokhara 60 0 60 100

19. Jajarkot 26 0 26 100

20. Dolpa 23 0 23 100

21. Kalikot 30 0 30 100

22. Mugu 24 0 24 100

23. Humla 27 0 27 100

24. Bajhang 42 0 42 100

25. Doti 50 0 50 100

Source : VDCs’MCPMresult,2014/15

3.2 PerformanceassessmentanalysisDistrict Development Committees and Municipalities have been receiving unconditional capital grant based on performance assessment from fiscal year 2006/07, while on such base Village Development Committees received grants from fiscal year 2014/15. Earlier, only VDCs’ Minimum Conditions were evaluated. MCPM Procedure has stated that assessment shall include Performance Indicators in fiscal year 2014/15. In this part, using various tables and charts District Development Committees’ and Municipalities’ performance assessment is analyzed.

3.2.1 DistrictDevelopmentCommitteeDistrict Development Committees’ performance assessment has been carried out from last several years. 6 DDCs among 75 DDCs received 20% additional unconditional capital grant and 21 DDCs could not get minimum marks allocated to various thematic areas in performance assessment of fiscal year 2014/15 and they lost 20% deduction in their additional unconditional capital grant. Descriptions of DDCs, which received increment or deduction in unconditional capital grant, are given below.


(a) DDCs receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grantDDCs of Dhankuta, Banke, Dailekh, Panchthar, Kaski and Pyuthan received 20 percent increment in unconditional capital grant based on Minimum Condition and Performance Measure results for the fiscal year 2014/15. Table 13 shows that District Development Committee of Dhankuta scored the highest total 87 marks, Banke and Dailekh are two districts scored the second highest total 85 marks and Panchthar and Kaski received 75 marks and stood in third position.

Table �� : DDCs receiving additional �0% unconditional capital grant

S.N.Name of Districts

Planning, and Budget

Management

Resource Mobilization and Financial Management

Budget Release and Expenditure

and Program Implementation

Monitoring Assessment,

Communication and

Transparency

Organization management

and Work responsibility

Total Marks

1 Dhankuta 14 17 13 26 17 87

2 Banke 14 18 16 20 17 85

3 Dailekh 13 18 15 22 17 85

4 Panchthar 10 20 14 21 10 75

5 Kaski 11 14 14 23 13 75

6 Pyuthan 12 16 10 21 16 75


Similarly, among 6 the best performing districts, no districts receiving 20% additional capital grant in Mountain, 5 districts that are Dhankuta, Dailekh, Kaski, Panchthar and Pyuthan lie in Hill and only one district that is of Tarai received 20% additional grant. Table 14 shows that of the total 6 best DDCs, 5 DDCs belong in Hill and one in Mountain area. Among best districts, 2 lie in Eastern Region, no district lie in Central Region and 1 in Western Region, 3 in Mid- Western Region while no district from Far-Western region secured the best performing place.

Table �4 : According to geographical location and development regions DDCs receiving additional �0% unconditional capital grants

Geographical Area

Number ofDDCs

Percentage Development Regions

Number DDCs

Percentage

Mountain 0 0 Eastern 2 2.7

Hill 5 6.7 Central 0 0

Tarai 1 1.3 Western 1 1.3

Mid Western 3 4.0Far Western 0 0

Total � � Total � �



Chart 2 also shows DDCs receiving additional 20% unconditional capital grant and their geographical and development region.

Chart � : According to geographical location and development regions DDCs receiving additional �0% unconditional capital grant

Source:Table14

(b) DDCs receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant (Group A)Number of District Development Committees receiving additional 15% unconditional capital grant based on assessment was 10 and it was 13.4% of total 75 DDCs. Table 15 shows the name of districts included in this group and marks they secured in performance assessment. Table shows Gulmi DDC received 74 marks and stood in the first position and Bhajang DDC received 69 marks and stood in 10th position.


Table �5: DDCs receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant

S.N. Name of DDCPlanning and

Budget Implementation

Source Mobilization

and Financial Management

Budget Release, Expenditure, and Program

Implementation

Monitoring, Assessment,

Communication and

Transparency

Organization Management

and Work Responsibility

Total Marks

1 Gulmi 11 14 12 21 16 74

2 Salyan 14 12 15 18 15 74

3 Rukum 13 14 13 18 16 74

4 Khotang 14 10 10 24 15 73

5 Chitawan 10 16 10 22 15 73

6 Nuwakot 11 19 12 16 15 73

7 Kavrepalanchok 7 14 13 24 14 72

8 Syangja 12 16 11 17 14 70

9 Bhojpur 13 10 16 19 11 69

10 Bajhang 14 11 14 19 11 69


In this assessment, the highest number 3 DDCs (4%) each included from Central Region. Eastern Region, Western Region and Mid- Western region contains 2 DDCs (2.6%) each. Similarly, Far- Western region has 1 DDC (1.3%). Table 16 and Chart 3 show geographical and development areas of districts receiving 15 percent increment in grant.

Table �� : According to geographical location and development regions DDCs receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant

Geographical AreaNumber of

DDCs Percentage

Development Regions

Number of DDCs

Percentage

Mountain 1 1.3 Eastern 2 2.7

Hill 8 10.8 Central 3 4.0


Total 10 13.4 Mid-western 2 2.7

Far-western 1 1.3

Total 10 13.4



Chart � : DDCs receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant

Source : Table16

(c) DDCs receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant (Group B)

10 DDCs received 10% increment in unconditional captial grant based on perfromance assessment of fiscal year 2013/14. Table 17 shows Jajarkot DDC scored 68 marks and Arghakhanchi DDC scored 63 marks.

Table �� : DDCs receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

S.N. Name of DDCsPlanning

and Budget Implementation


Budget Release, Expenditure and Program

Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks

1 Jajarkot 13 14 9 18 14 682 Dhading 13 14 9 16 15 673 Gokhara 12 12 14 14 14 654 Palpa 11 11 9 22 12 655 Dadeldhura 11 11 12 16 15 646 Sankhuwasava 13 15 12 12 12 647 Solukhumbu 9 13 12 15 15 648 Bhaktapur 8 10 10 22 14 649 Kathmandu 7 13 7 22 15 64

10 Arghakhanchi 7 16 11 17 13 63

Source : DDCsMCPMresult,2014/15


Table 18 shows descriptions of DDCs receiving 10% increment in unconditional capital grant.

Table �� : According to geographical and development region DDCs receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Geographical AreaNumber of

DDCs Percentage Development Regions

Number of DDCs

Percentage



Tarai 0 0 Western 3 4.0

Total �0 ��.� Mid-western 1 1.3

Far-western 1 1.3

Total �0 ��.�Source : DDCs’MCPMresult,2014/15

Ten DDCs, based on geographical area, received 10% increments in unconditional capital grant, 2 from mountain, 8 from hill and no DDC from Tarai. 3 DDCs each from Central and Western Development Regions, 1 DDC each from Mid-Western and Far- Western Region and 2 DDCs from Eastern Region and one DDC each from Central and Far-Western Region are included in this group. Detail descriptions are provided in Table 18 and Chart 4.

Chart 4 : According to geographical and development region DDCs receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Source : Table18


(d) DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant (Group C)In performance assessment of fiscal year 2014/15, 10 DDCs sustained 10% reduction in additional unconditional capital grant. This group includes Makwanpur securing 63 marks and Kanchanpur with 58 marks. Details are provided in Table 19.

Table �9 : DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant S.N. Name of DDCs Planning




Implementation


Communication and Transparency



Total Marks

Secured

1 Makwanpur 10 10 10 18 15 63

2 Dang 9 13 9 21 11 62

3 Rasuwa 11 10 10 17 14 61

4 Taplejung 12 14 10 14 11 61

5 Dhanusha 8 17 8 18 10 61

6 Tanahun 11 13 11 12 14 60

7 Sindhupalchok 11 14 8 14 13 59

8 Ilam 12 11 11 15 10 59

9 Udayapur 9 11 8 18 13 59

10 Kanchanpur 9 10 9 18 13 58


Table 20 shows DDCs in the largest number 4 (5.3%) from Terai, in the second largest number 3 (4%) from Mountain and Hill region. 10% decrease in additional unconditional grant. It shows that 1 DDC (1.33%) each from Western region, Mid- Western region and Far- Western region. 4 DDCs (5.3%) from Central region and 3 DDCs (4%) from Eastern region sustained 10% deduction in grant while DDCs from Mid-western and Far-western regions did not suffer any deduction.

Table �0 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Geographical Area

Number of DDCs

Percentage Development

Regions Number of

DDCs Percentage





Geographical Area

Number of DDCs


Regions Number of

DDCs Percentage

Total �0 ��.� Mid-western 1 1.3

Far-western 1 1.3

Total �0 ��.�


Chart 5 gives description about DDCs sustaining 10% deduction in grant and their development regions.

Chart 5 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Source : Table20

(e) DDCs sustaining �5% deduction in unconditional capital grant (Group D)Eleven DDCs (15%) DDCs sustained 15% deduction in grants based on performance assessment of District Development Committees for fiscal year 2014/15. This group includes Mustang securing 66 marks and Bardiya securing 49 marks each. Descriptions of DDCs included in this group are stated in Table 21.


Table ��: DDCs sustaining �5% reduction in unconditional capital grant S.N. Name of

DDCsPlanning




Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks

Secured

1 Nawalparasi 7 13 13 14 11 57

2 Terhathum 12 10 12 13 10 56

3 Baitadi 12 10 6 15 13 56

4 Jumla 8 11 13 11 13 53

5 Ramechhap 11 12 6 10 14 53

6 Rupandehi 8 10 10 13 12 53

7 Rolpa 7 10 10 14 12 52

8 Myagdi 10 10 9 14 9 51

9 Kapilvastu 7 10 10 14 10 50

10 Bardiya 13 11 8 11 7 49

11 Mustang 7 12 8 15 7 49


Table 22 shows division of 11 District Development Committees, based on development and geographical regions, which sustained 15% deduction in grant. In this group, highest 5 (6.7%) DDCs from hill and 4 (5.3%) DDCs from Tarai included and 2 (2.6%) from mountain. Similarly, 1 (1.3%) DDC from each regions i.e. Eastern, Central and Far Western Region, 5 (6.7%) DDCs from Western Regions, 3 (4%) from Mid-Western Region and 2 (2.6%) from Central Development Region.

Table �� : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �5% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Geographical Area

Number of DDCs


Area

Number of DDCs

Percentage

Mountain 2 2.6 Eastern 1 1.3Hill 5 6.7 Central 1 1.3Tarai 4 5.3 Western 5 6.7Total �� 4.� Mid-western 3 4.0

Far-western 1 1.3Total �� 4.�



Regional status of District Development Committees sustaining 15% unconditional capital grants is presented in Chart 6.

Chart � : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Source : TableNo.22

(f) DDCs sustaining �0% deduction in unconditional capital grantTwenty-one (28%) DDCs sustained 20% deduction in grant based on performance assessment results of 2014/15. Table 23 shows Dolakha DDC received 30 marks and Morang DDC received 66 marks.


Table �� : DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant S.N. Name of

DDCsPlanning




Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks

Secured

1. Morang 12 9 13 16 16 66

2. Jhapa 10 8 13 18 13 62

3. Surkhet 10 9 12 18 13 62

4. Kailali 11 7 13 17 11 59

5. Baglung 7 8 10 19 12 56

6. Humla 14 9 13 13 6 55

7. Doti 13 7 8 18 9 55

8. Siraha 9 8 5 16 14 52

9. Okhaldhunga 10 12 5 15 9 51

10. Lalitpur 7 12 3 13 15 50

11. Sindhuli 7 6 7 19 10 49

12. Lamjung 5 13 10 12 9 49

13. Manang 8 8 7 11 14 48

14. Mahottari 9 8 9 10 12 48

15. Bajura 10 9 12 11 5 47

16. Darchula 8 12 10 4 13 47

17. Dolpa 9 7 8 8 14 46

18. Kalikot 7 7 8 12 10 44

19. Parbat 7 7 9 8 8 39

20. Saptari 4 9 5 11 8 37

21. Dolakha 6 4 9 4 7 30


Table 24 shows 28 District Development Committees sustaining 20% deduction in grant in ecological and development regions. In highest number 12 (42.85%) DDCs from hill and 8 (10.67%) each from mountain and hill. Similarly, 6 (21.42%) DDCs from Eastern Region, 8 (28.57%) DDCs from Central Region and 4 (14.28%) DDCs from Western Region, 5 (17.85%) each from Mid-Western and Far-Western region.


Table �4 : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Geographical Area

Number of DDCs

Percentage Development Regions

Number of DDCs

Percentage




Total �� Mid-western 5 6.67

Far-western 4 5.33

Total ��

Source:DDCs’MCPMresult,2014/15

Chart � : According to geographical and development regions DDCs sustaining �0% reduction in unconditional capital grant

Source : TableNo.24

(g) DDCs sustaining deduction of cent percent additional unconditional capital grant

Based on District Development Committees’ performance assessment for the period of 2014/15, 7 (9%) DDCs sustained cent percent (100%) reduction in unconditional capital grant in FY 2014/15. Table 25 shows Mugu DDC scored 26 marks while Sunsari DDC scored 54 marks in this group.


Table �5 : DDCs sustaining �00% percent reduction in unconditional capital grantS.N. Name of

DDCsPlanning




Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks

Secured

1 Sunsari 7 10 9 13 15 54

2 Sarlahi 5 11 8 9 4 37

3 Rautahat 6 7 4 3 9 29

4 Bara 3 4 7 10 9 33

5 Parsa 4 9 6 11 9 39

6 Achham 10 7 8 14 8 47

7 Mugu 5 5 5 5 6 26


(h) Major difficult indicators of performance measurement of �0�4/�5In performance assessment of 2014/15, DDCs secured the lowest marks in Indicator 14 (Quality of Financial Transaction). In this Indicators 68 District Development Committees did not get any marks. Similarly, in Indicators Number . 13 (Project Agreement and Budget Expenditure) 67 DDCs did not get any marks. Table 26 shows 10 indicators those seemed difficult and number of Districts Development Committees that could not get any marks.

Table �� : Major �0 difficult indicators of performance measures of �0�4/�5 and number of DDCs

S.N. Indicator No

Indicators Number of Districts those get zero marks

1 14 Quality of Financial Transaction 68

2 13 Project Agreement and Budget Expenditure 67

3 34 Impact Assessment of Projects and Programs 63

4 16 Audit and Irregularities 60

5 2 Project cost estimation and budget allocation 55

6 17 Irregularities Rectification 54

7 22 Limit of Recurrent Expenditure 53

8 37 District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (DPMAS)

52

9 43 Preparation of Capacity Development plan 43

10 4 Periodic District Development Plan 42



Table 27 shows 10 District Development Committees, which scored low marks in performance measurement for fiscal year 2014/15 and marks they secured for two years. Mugu DDC scored lowest 26 marks in 2014/15 whereas this DDC secured 39 marks in 2013/14. Similarly, Bajura DDC secured 46 Marks while this DDC received 31 marks in previous fiscal year.

Similarly, Table 27 presents 10 DDCs that secured the highest marks in performance assessment of fiscal year 2014/15 and marks they secured in previous two fiscal years 2013/14 and 2014/15. This table shows that Dhankuta DDC secured the highest 87 marks in this year which is followed by Banke DDC with the marks 85. In the previous Year Dhankuta received 80 marks and Banke received 69 marks. In current fiscal year, Dhankuta scored 7 marks more than the previous year and Banke received 16 marks higher than previous year. Other districts securing 10 top positions include Panchthar, Kaski, Pyuthan, Rukum, Salyan, Gulmi, and Khotang.

Table �� : �0 DDCs securing lowest and highest marks in Performance MeasuresLowest Marks Secured Highest Marks Secured

Districts �0��/�4 �0�4/�5 Districts �0��/�4 �0�4/�5

Mugu 39 26 Dhankuta 80 87

Rautahat 50 29 Banke 69 85

Dolakhha 79 30 Dailekh 77 85

Saptari 57 33 Panchthar 75 75

Sarlai 42 37 Kaski 67 75

Parsa 44 37 Pyuthan 66 75

Parbat 44 39 Rukum 60 74

Kalikot 41 39 Salyan 50 74

Dolpa 42 44 Gulmi 70 74

Bajura 31 46 Khotang 66 73


(i) Results of thematic areas

Table 28 shows secured average marks in various five thematic-areas determined for District Development Committees’ performance assessment. The table shows that thematic area 5 (Organization, Management and Work Responsibility) secured highest marks, where average secured marks is 70.67 per cent while in previous fiscal year the thematic -area had secured average marks of 68.86 per cent. The thematic-area “Resource Mobilization and Financial Management” has secured lowest 44.91 average marks, whereas this area had secured 45.61 per cent average marks in last fiscal year.


Table �� : Performance assessment of thematic-area of DDCs

S.N.Work-areas for Performance

AssessmentFull

Marks Average Marks

Average Marks

(percentage)

Highest Secured Marks

Lowest Secured Marks

1 Planning and Budget Management 16 9.7 60.33 14 3

2Resource Mobilization and Financial Management

25 11.2 44.91 20 4

3Budget Release, Expenditure and Program Implementation

16 10.0 62.33 16 3

4Monitoring, Assessment, Communication and Transparency

26 15.4 59.08 26 3

5Organization, Management and Work Responsibility

17 12.0 70.67 17 4


Among various thematic-areas, Table 29 shows secured average marks based on development regions. Eastern Region secured the highest marks in performance assessment and its average marks was 62.9, which was 3.4 points higher than national average marks of 55.6. Eastern Region has stood in the highest position 3 in thematic-areas: resource mobilization and financial management; monitoring, assessment, communication and transparency and organization, management, and work responsibility. Mid-Western Region stood in the second position with 61.1 marks. Likewise, Western Region in the third position with 58.1 marks, Far-Western Region in fourth position with 56 marks and Central Region in fifth position with 54.1 marks.

Table �9 : Average marks secured by DDCs based on development regions and thematic-areas

Development Region

Planning and Budget

Management



Implementation



Organization, Management


Total

Eastern 10.6 11.7 10.5 16.6 12.4 61.9Central 8.1 11.1 8.2 14.6 12.1 54.0Western 8.8 11.7 10.5 15.4 11.8 58.1Mid-western 10.7 11.6 10.9 15.3 12.5 61.0Far-Western 10.9 9.3 10.2 14.7 10.9 56.0National

Average9.07 11.2 10.0 15.4 12.0 58.0



DDCs securing the highest and lowest marks in thematic-areas are presented in Table 30. Dhankuta, Bhajang, Banke, Salyan Khotang and Humla DDCs secured the highest 14 marks in “Planning and Budget Management” - thematic -area 1, while Bara DDC secured lowest 3 marks in this area. Bara and Dolakha DDCs secured the lowest marks in thematic -area 2 - “Resource Mobilization and Financial Management” that is equal to 4. On the other hand, Panchathar DDC showed the highest rank in that area. In this thematic area 3 : Budget Release, expenditure and Program implementation, Bhojpur and Banke DDCs secured the highest marks that are equal to 16. On the other hand, Latlitpur district secured the lowest in that thematic area which is equal to 3. In thematic- 4 “Monitoring, Assessment, Communication and Transparency”, Dhankuta DDC secured the highest 26 marks while Rautahat secured the lowest 3 marks. Similarly, in thematic area 5, “Organization, Management and Work Responsibility”, Dhankuta, Bakne and Dailekh DDCs secured the highest 17 marks each and Sarlahi DDC received the lowest 4 marks.

Table �0 : DDCs securing highest and lowest marks in various thematic-areas

S.N. Work Area

DDCs securing highest marksDDCs securing lowest marks

DDCs Full Marks Secured

MarksDDCs

Secured Marks

1 Planning and Budget Management

Dhankuta, Banke, Salyan, khotang, Bhajang

and Humla16 14

Bara3

2 Resource Mobilization and

Financial Management Panchthar 25 20

Bara,

Dolakha4

3 Budget Release,

Expenditure and Program Implementation

Bhiojpur, Banke 16 16 Lalitpur 3


Dhankuta 26 26Rautahat

3

5 Organization, Management and Work Responsibility

Dhankuta, Banke, Dailekh

17 17Sarlahi,

4


Table 31 presents marks received by District Development Committees in various 46 indicators of performance assessment in four groups. The table shows that this year indicators 15 received 96 marks in average. Indicators 5 received 94 marks in average. Eleven indicators received 80 or more marks. Similarly, second group includes Indicators receiving more than 60 marks up


to 79 marks. Thirteen indicators are included in this group. There are 13 indicators in group containing 40 to 59 marks. Nine indicators are included in group receiving less than 40 marks.

Table �� : Classification of performance assessment indicators based on secured marks

Indicators receiving �0% or more marks

Indicators receiving �0% to �9% marks

Indicators receiving 40% to 59% marks

Indicators receiving less than 40% marks

Indicator No.

Secured Percentage

Indicator No.

Secured Percentage

Indicator No.

Secured Percentage

Indicator No.

Secured Percentage

15 96 24 79 11 58 3 325 94 21 77 7 57 37 31

30 93 25 77 45 56 22 299 92 27 77 40 55 2 21

39 92 12 75 29 54 17 1941 92 6 74 35 53 16 178 89 46 74 33 51 34 16

44 89 26 72 10 48 13 842 88 28 72 38 47 14 518 81 36 68 4 4419 80 20 67 32 44

31 63 23 431 62 43 43


Table 32 shows the average scores received by DDCs and the percentage of DDCs receiving full marks in the most top ten indicators. The indicators are 15, 5, 9, 41, 30, 44, 42, 39, 8 and 19 in 2014/15. For example, 96 per cent DDCs received full marks in indicator no 15 and 77 per cent DDCs received full marks in indicator no. 19.

Table �� : �0 Indicators in which DDCs received highest average marks in PM assessment

S.N. Indicator No.

Indicator Full Marks Average Marks DDCs Receiving Full Marks (%)

1 15 Financial Assistance 1 0.96 96

2 5 District Transpotation Master

Plan and Implementation

2 1.88 92

3 9 Resource Estimation 2 1.84 92


S.N. Indicator No.

Indicator Full Marks Average Marks DDCs Receiving Full Marks (%)

4 41 Staffs' Meeting 1 0.92 92

5 30 Consumer Committee’s Fund Release and Public Audit

2 1.87 91

6 44 Social Mobilization in VDCs 2 1.79 89

7 42 Grievance Hearing Officer and Reception Management

2 1.76 88

8 39 Assets Description 2 1.84 84

9 8 Target Group Development Program

2 1.79 83

10 19 Operation of Trail Account 1 0.80 77


In performance assessment of 2014/15, 10 Indicators i.e. 14, 17, 13, 16, 3,3 2, 38, 2, 34 and 22 are the poor indicators in terms of the number of DDCs receiving full marks. (Table 33).

Table �� : Ten indicators in which DDCs secured lowest average marks in PM assessment

S.N. Indicator No.

Indicator Full Marks

Average Marks

DDCs Receiving Full

Marks (%)1 14 Quality of Financial Transactions 2 0.09 02 17 Irregularities Rectification 3 0.56 03 13 Project Agreement and Budget

Expenditure 3 0.24 3

4 16 Audit and Irregularities Rectification 3 0.51 105 3 Project Maintenance 2 0.64 116 32 Monitoring and evaluation report 3 1.32 127 38 Organizational Development, Study,

Punishment and Reward3 1.40 15

8 2 Project Cost Estimation and Budget Allocation

2 0.41 16

9 34 Impact Evaluation of projects and Programs

2 0.32 16

10 22 Recurrent Expenditure 3 0.88 29


3.2.2 MunicipalitiesMunicipalities’ performance assessment has been carried out under “Municipalities’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure Procedure (Including Amendment and Modification), 2009. In municipalities’ assessment of fiscal year 2014/15, they secured 67.3 marks in average; however, as compared to last year they had secured 66 marks in average.

(a) Municipalities receiving �0% increment in additional unconditional capital grant

Based on Minimum Condition and Performance Measure results of 2014/15, Butwal municipality stood in the first position securing 90 marks. While Dhankuta and Hetaunda municipalities stood in the second position with 89 marks .Similarly, Ghorahi Municipality stood in third position securing 88 marks. Thus, municipalities, securing the first, second and third position received 20% increment in unconditional capital grant for the fiscal year 2016/17.

Table 34 shows the marks secured by these 4 municipalities in performance assessment of various thematic areas.

Table �4 : Municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

S.N. Municipalities Local Governance

Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management

Planning and Program Management

Organization and Human

Resource Development

Urban Basic Resourcea

Management

Total Marks

1 Butawal 20 23 19 10 18 90

2 Dhankuta 20 22 17 9 21 89

3 Hetaunda 20 20 18 9 22 89

4 Ghorahi 20 19 19 10 20 88

Source : Municipalities’MCPMresult,2014/15

Municipalities receiving additional 20% unconditional capital grant and their geographical and development regions are presented in Table 35. Only one municipality Dhankuta - , situated in Hilly region and all other three municipalities that are Butawal, Hetaunda and Ghorai are situated in Terai region. Dhankuta municipality is located in Eastern Region while, Butawal Municipality in Western Region and Ghorahi Municipality in Mid-Western Region. Similarly, the Hetaunda municipality is located in Central Development Region.


Table �5 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Development Region

Number of Municipalities

Percentage Geographical Region


Percentage

Eastern 1 1.7 Mountain 0 0.00

Central 1 1.7 Hill 1 1.7

Western 1 1.7 Tarai 3 5.1

Mid-western 1 1.7 Total 4 6.8

Far-western 0 0

Total 4 6.8


To clarify the results, Chart 8 shows status of development regions those received additional 20% increment in unconditional capital grant. Eastern, Central, Western and Mid- Western Development Region includes 1.7% of municipalities in each, where as Far Western Region include no municipalities getting additional 20% grant. While paying attention through geographical perspective, 3 (5.1%) municipalities lie in Tarai and one municipality lies in Hill area.

Chart � : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Source : Table35


(b) Municipalities receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant (Group A)

Eleven (19%) municipalities are successful to receive additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant in fiscal year 2014/15. Municipalities receiving 80 to 86 marks are included in this group. Table 36 shows that total secured marks in five various thematic areas in performance assessment of municipalities.

Table �� : Municipalities receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant


Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management




Urban Basic Resource

Management

Total

1 Itahari 19 21 18 10 18 86

2 Bhimeshwor 19 16 20 9 21 85

3 Bharatpur 17 21 18 10 18 84

4 Kamalamai 20 17 17 9 20 83

5 Panauti 20 23 13 9 18 83

6 Pokhara 18 16 17 10 22 83

7 Dharan 16 22 16 10 18 82

8 Siddarthanagar 19 16 20 10 16 81

9 Birendranagar 18 21 16 9 17 81

10 Inaruwa 19 21 14 10 16 80

11 Ramgram 18 20 19 9 14 80


Municipalities which received additional 15% increment in unconditional capital grant and their geographical representation are presented in Table 37 which shows that 3 (5.2%) municipalities among 11 municipalities received additional 15% unconditional capital grant. These municipalities are from hill region. Similarly, 7 (12.1%) were from Tarai and remaining one is from mountain region for getting the additional 15% increment. In highest number, 4 (6.9%) municipalities from Easter Region received additional 15% increment and in the second highest number, 3 (5.2%) municipalities each from Central and Western Region received the increment. One (1.7%) municipality Mid-Western Region received 15% increment, while no municipality from Far-Western Region could get additional 15% increment in grant.

MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15 [ 4� ]

Table �� : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant

Development Region


PercentageGeographical

RegionNumber of

MunicipalitiesPercentage



Western 3 5.2 Terai 7 12.1

Mid-western 1 1.7 Total �� 9.0

Far-western 0 0

Total �� 9.0


Chart 9 shows municipalities receiving additional 15% increment in capital grant and their development and geographical region.

Chart 9 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �5% increment in unconditional capital grant.

Source : Table38

(c) Municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in additional unconditional capital grant (Group B)

Ten municipalities received additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant based on MCPM assessment of fiscal year 2014/15. The municipalities received 73 to 79 marks in

[ 4� ] MCPM Analysis Report 2014/15

performance assessment. Table No. 38 shows municipalities with marks received in concerned thematic area.

Table �� : Municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant


Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management





Management

Total Marks

1 Banepa 18 14 18 8 21 792 Narayan 19 17 18 9 16 793 Dhangadhi 20 18 15 10 13 764 Ratnanagar 18 20 13 10 14 755 Madhyapur

-Thimi 20 17 14 7 17 756 Waling 18 18 14 10 15 757 Biratnagar 19 16 15 6 18 748 Byas 20 18 13 9 13 739 Tansen 19 14 14 9 17 73

10 Baglung 18 16 14 9 16 73


Table 39 shows municipalities which received additional 10% increment in unconditional capital grant and their development and geographical regions. Among 10 municipalities in this group, the highest in number 4 (6.9%) are from Western Development Region, the second highest number 3 (5.2%) from Central Development Regions, and 1 each from Eastern, Mid-Western Region and Far- Western Region. Similarly, 7 municipalities from Hill, 3 municipalities from Tarai and none from Mountain are included in this group.

Table �9 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Development Region



RegionNumber of


Eastern 1 1.7 Mountain 0 0



Mid-western 1 1.7

Far-western 1 1.7

Total �0 ��.� Total �0 ��.�



Chart 10 shows municipalities receiving 10% additional grant and their development regions.

Chart �0 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities receiving additional �0% increment in unconditional capital grant

Source : Table39

(d) Municipalities sustaining �0% deduction in additional unconditional capital grant (Group C)

Ten municipalities sustained 10% deduction in unconditional capital grant in fiscal year 2016/17 based on MCPM results of fiscal year 2014/15. Table 40 shows municipalities sustaining 10% deduction in unconditional capital grant and their secured marks in work-areas. These municipalites secured 61 to 71 marks.

Table 40 : Municipalities sustaining �0% deduction in unconditional capital grantS.N. Municipalities Local

Governance Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management





Management

Total Secured Marks

1 Khandbari 18 19 12 8 14 71

2 Gulariya 19 16 14 8 14 71

3 Bhaktapur 18 19 8 6 18 69



Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management





Management

Total Secured Marks

4 Damak 17 17 11 8 15 68

5 Mechinagar 17 17 12 6 14 66

6 Nepalganj 19 15 15 6 11 66

7 Bhimdutta 18 15 13 8 12 66

8 Lahan 15 15 14 7 14 65

9 Kapilvastu 17 14 12 9 10 62

10 Bhadrapur 15 15 14 7 10 61


Municipalities form Eastern Development Region placed in the highest number 5 sustained 10% deduction in grant, while 2 municipalities from Md Western Development Region sustained on the 10% reduction of grant. On the other hand, each from Central, Western and Far-Western Development Region sustained such deduction. Similarly, 8 (13.7%) municipalities from Tarai in the highest number sustained 10% deduction in grant, while 1 (1.7%) each from hill and mountain sustain in such deduction. (Table 41)

Table 4� : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining �0% unconditional capital grant

Development Region



RegionNumber of




Western 1 1.7 Terai 8 13.7

Mid-western 2 3.4 Total �0 ��.�

Far-western 1 1.7

Total �0 ��.�



The result has been clarified in Chart 11.

Chart �� : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining �0% unconditional capital grant

Source : TableNo.41

(e) Municipalities sustaining �5% deduction in additional unconditional capital grant (Group D)

Table 42 shows 8 municipalities sustaining 15% deduction in unconditional capital grant based on performance assessment of fiscal year 2014/15. In this group, Bidur Municipality secured lowest 46 marks while Gour Municipality secured 60 marks.

Table 4� : Municipalities sustaining �5% deduction in unconditional capital grants

S.N. Municipalities Local

Governance

Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management





Management

Total Marks

1 Gour 14 15 12 8 11 60

2 Putalibazaar 16 13 11 7 13 60

3 Kirtipur 13 15 12 4 15 59

4 Lalitpur 15 12 12 8 12 59


S.N. Municipalities Local

Governance

Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management





Management

Total Marks

5 Dipayal-Silgadhi 17 13 11 5 11 57

6 Kalaiya 14 13 10 5 11 53

7 Rajbiraj 11 11 9 5 12 48

8 Bidur 11 11 8 7 9 46


Table 43 shows that municipalities which sustaining 15% deduction in unconditional capital grant in ecological and development regions. . Among eight municipalities sustaining 15% capital grants, 2 each are from Eastern, Central and Far-Western Development Region and 1 each from Western and Mid-Western Development Region. Similarly, in the highest number 6 municipalities from hill area sustained such deduction while 2 municipalities from Terai sustained such deduction while no municipality from mountain sustained such deduction.

Table 4� : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining �5% unconditional capital grant

Development Region



AreaNumber of





Mid-western 0 0

Far-western 1 1.7

Total � ��.� Total � ��.�


Chart 12 shows municipalities sustaining 15% deduction in unconditional capital grant in 2016/17 based on their performance assessment for fiscal year of 2014/15 and their development regions.



Source : TableNo.43

(f) Municipalities sustaining �0% additional unconditional capital grantFive municipalities sustained 20% deduction in capital grant based on their performance assessment result of fiscal year 2014/15 as presented in Table 44. In this group, Dasarathachanda Municipality secured the lowest 43 marks and Gorkaha Municipality secured the highest 59 marks.

Table 44 : Municipalities sustaining �0% deduction in unconditional capital grant

S.N. Municipalities

Loca

l G

over

nanc

e Financial Resource

Mobilization and

Management

Plan

ning

an

d Pr

ogra

m

Man

agem

ent


Resource Development U

rban

Bas

ic

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t

Tota

l Mar

ks

1 Gorakha 16 15 11 9 8 59

2 Birganj 13 14 7 5 12 51

3 Amargadhi 14 10 11 6 5 46

4 Janakpur 11 13 13 3 5 45

5 Dashrathchand 14 7 7 6 9 43


Table 45 shows municipalities sustaining 20% unconditional capital grant in ecological and development regions. Among 10 Municipalities sustaining 10% deduction grants, 1 each are from Eastern and Mid-Western Regions, 2 are from Far-Western region and 6 from Central, while no municipality is included in this group from Western Region. Total 17.20% of municipalities are included in this group.

Table 45 : According to development and geographical regions municipalities sustaining �0% unconditional capital grant

Development Region


Percentage Geographical Region


Percentage

Eastern 0 0 Mountain 0 0.0



Mid-western 0 0 Total 5 8.5

Far-western 2 3.4

Total 5 8.5


Chart 13 shows municipalities sustaining 20% deduction in unconditional capital grant and their development and geographical area.


Source : Table45


(g) Provision for �00% deduction in additional unconditional capital grantUnder present legal provision, municipalities which do not fulfill minimum condition have to sustain deduction of all additional unconditional capital grants. In Minimum Condition assessment of fiscal year 2012/13, Dashrathchand Municipality sustained deduction of all unconditional capital grants because of failure in MC assessment, however, all municipalities succeeded in minimum conditions assessment of 2013/14. But, According to the minimum conditions assessment of fiscal year 2014/15, ten municipalities failed to get the additional unconditional grant. They are Tikapur, Dhulikhel, Tulsipur, Kathamandu, Triyuga, Lekhnath, Ilam, Siraha, Jaleshwor and Malangawa. So, they did not get any unconditional capital grant for the Fiscal Year 2016/17.

(h) Thematic area-wise marks secured by municipalities in performance assessment Responsibilities to be fulfilled by municipalities are divided in five thematic-areas. Table 46 shows average marks secured in Minimum Condition and Performance Measure of those various thematic-areas and their percentage. Among average marks and percentages of various thematic-areas, the highest 82.5% mark was secured in “Local Governance”. The second highest mark 76.03% was secured in “Organization and Manpower Development” and the third highest marks 66.72% was secured in “Planning and Program Management”. Likewise, the lowest marks 56.90% was secured in “Financial Resource Mobilization and Management” and 63.17% “Urban Basic Resource Management”. Municipalities secured average 67.3% percentage in this assessment.

Table 4� : Description of marks secured by municipalities in performance assessment of thematic-areas

S.N. Thematic AreasTotal

MarksPass

MarksAverage Marks

Average Maarks

(Percentage)

Highest Marks

Secured

Lowest Marks

Secured

1 Local Governance 20 8 16.5 82.5 20 7

2Financial Resource Mobilization and Management

28 11 15.9 56.90 23 6

3Planning and Program Management

20 8 13.3 66.72 20 1

4Organization and Human Resource Development

10 4 7.6 76.03 10 2

5Urban Basic Resource Management

22 9 13.9 63.17 22 3



Table 47 shows 10 indicators securing highest average marks in Municipalities’ performance assessment for the fiscal year 2014/15.

Table 4� : �0 Indicators securing highest average marks in performance assessment

S.N. Indicator No. Indicators Full MarksAverage Marks

Municipals Receiving Full

Marks (%)

1 18 Abidance of Financial Assistance Limit 2 2 100

2 29 Service Flow Management 2 1.97 98

3 35 Transport Vehicle Parking Management 2 1.95 97

4 1 Participatory Urban Development Plan 4 3.86 92

5 39 Vital events registration management 2 1.88 92

6 30 Staff Welfare Fund 2 1.81 90

7 2Fund allocation for Target Group Development Program

2 1.79 90

8 7Monthly and Annual Physical and Financial Progress Description

2 1.84 86

9 16 Bail Account Status 2 1.81 86

10 23 Trail, Approval and Settlement 2 1.74 79


Table 48 shows 10 indicators those secured the lowest average marks in municipalities’ performance assessment in 2014/15. All the municipalities (58) could not get any marks in indicator number. 14 namely compliance of limitation of recurrent expenditure from their own source revenue.

Table 4� : �0 Indicators securing lowest average marks in municipalities’ PM assessment

S.N.Indicator

No.Indicators

Full Marks

Average Marks

MunicipalsReceiving Full

Marks (%)

1 14Compliance of limitation

of recurrent expenditure 2 0 0

2 15 Accrual Accounting System 2 0.1 3

3 34 Environment Management 4 1.1 19

4 17Quality of Financial Transaction

2 0.41 21


S.N.Indicator

No.Indicators

Full Marks

Average Marks

MunicipalsReceiving Full

Marks (%)

5 24 Maintenance Management 4 2.67 22

6 20Periodic Urban Development Plan

2 0.86 22

7 32Code of Conduct and

Assets Description 2 1.16 29

8 19 Local Resource Mobilization 4 1.74 31

9 33Sanitation and Waste Management

4 1.98 31

10 21 Feasibility Study 2 0.81 34


(i) Trend analysis of DDCs’ minimum condition and performance measuresTable 49 and Chart 14 show summary description of assessed DDCs’ number, failed DDCs’ number and percentage, including average marks secured by DDCs in Minimum Condition and Performance Measure from 2004/05 to 2014/15.

Table No. 49: Trend analysis of DDCs’ MCPM assessmentFiscal

Years of Performance Assessment

Assessed Fiscal Years

Number of Assessed

DDCs

Number of Failed DDCs

Failed Percentage

Average Marks Secured

2004/05 2005/06 20 3 15.00 55

2005/06 2006/07 55 45 81.82 42

2006/07 2007/08 75 28 37.33 56

2007/08 2008/09 75 8 10.67 66

2008/09 2009/10 75 12 16.00 62

2009/10 2010/11 75 14 18.67 60

2010/11 2011/12 75 11 14.67 59

2011/12 2012/13 75 6 8.00 63

2012/13 2013/14 75 8 10.67 64

2013/14 2014/15 75 5 6.66 57

2014/15 2015/16 75 7 9.33 58

Source : DDCs’MCPMresultspreparedbyLocalBodiesFiscalCommissionofvariousyears


Chart �4 : Trend analysis of DDCs’ MCPM assessment

Source:Table49

(j) Trend analysis of municipalities’ minimum condition and performance measuresTable 50 and Chart 15 show summary description of assessed municipalities’ number, failed municipalities’ number and percentage, including average marks secured by municipalities in Minimum Condition and Performance Measure from 2007/08 to 2014/15.

Table 50 : Trend analysis of municipalities’ MCPM assessments Fiscal

Years of Performance Assessment

Assessed Fiscal Years

Number of assessed

Municipalities

Number of Failed

Municipalities

Failed Percentage

Average Marks

Secured

2007/08 2008/09 58 2 3 492008/09 2009/10 58 5 9 552009/10 2010/11 58 7 12 632010/11 2011/12 58 4 7 662011/12 2012/13 58 5 9 742012/13 2013/14 58 1 2 682013/14 2014/15 58 0 0 662014/15 1015/16 58 10 17 67

Source : DDCs’MCPMresultspreparedbyLocalBodiesFiscalCommissionofvariousyears


Chart �5 : Trend analysis of municipalities’ MCPM assessment

Source : Table50

3.2.3 VillageDevelopmentCommitteesVDCs Minimum Condition and Performance Measure have been carried out from fiscal year 2007/08. Only in later years, VDCs’ Minimum Condition and Performance Measure could be completed. While paying attention on VDCs included in the assessment, the highest number (93%) of VDCs were seen successful in assessment for fiscal year 2008/09, whereas the lowest number (70%) of VDCs were seen successful in assessment for fiscal year 2013/14. Percentages of failed VDCs are seen increasing in Minimum Condition assessment since Local Bodies Fiscal Commission began quality ensuring test.

(a) Trend Analysis of VDCs’ Minimum Condition AssessmentChart 16 shows trend of Village Development Committees that were successful in Minimum Condition Assessment for fiscal years from 2007/08 to 2014/15. Number of VDCs, which were successful in 2008/09, is greater in comparison to number of VDCs in other years. There were 89% VDCs passed in MC which was increased to 93% in 2008/09. However, percentage of successful VDCs decreased then after. After beginning Minimum Condition assessment quality ensuring test, successful percentage decreased considerably. In fiscal year 2013/14, only 70% of VDCs were successful. Table 51 and Chart 16 show this trend. Conversely, only 60% of VDC passed in 2014/15 assessment.


Table 5� : Trend analysis of VDCs’ minimum condition assessment Minimum Condition

Assessment Fiscal Years

Number of assessed

VDCs

Number of Passed

VDCs

Percentage of Passed VDCs in MC

Assessment

2007/08 3830 3409 892008/09 3626 3356 932009/10 3733 3344 902010/11 3915 3406 872011/12 3915 3076 792012/13 3915 3079 792013/14 3625 2547 702014/15 3157 1882 60

Source : VDCs’MCPMresultspreparedbyLocalBodiesFiscalCommissionofvariousyears

Number of successful VDCs were decreased considerably after they employed quality test procedure. Only 70% of VDCs were successful in fiscal year 2013/14. That was decreased as compared to 2014/15. It remained at the percentage of 60% performance assessment of fiscal year 2013/14 was carried out in fiscal year 2014/15 and Government of Nepal combined many VDCs to declare additional Municipalities. These VDCs did not carry out MC assessment and they were listed as as unsuccessful VDCs. In other words, due to the strike of VDC secretaries, some VDCs did not submit the documents for MCPM assessment. Thus, these VDCs were treated as failed VDCs. Therefore, percentage of successful VDCs decreased. Chart 16 shows this trend.

Chart�� : Trend analysis of VDCs’ minimum condition assessment

Source : Table51


Chapter Four

ConclusionandRecommendations

4.1.ConclusionMinimum Condition and Performance Measure System was adopted with the objectives of assessing local bodies’ (District Development Committees, Municipalities and Village Development Committees) extent of success in bearing responsibilities stipulated in Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, Local Self-Governance Regulations, 2000 and other various regulations, procedures and directives and to improve their performance and to increase effectiveness of local bodies’ performance.

As local bodies are local level democratic institutions established by law, they need to be sensitive to develop democratic system, alert to respecting laws and duty, through its roots. Minimum Condition and Performance Measure system is believed to analyze the extent of effectiveness of responsibility provided to local bodies, according to the decentralized governance system and creating environment in which good governance is guaranteed by their performance.

Since local bodies are important infrastructures, which provide services to people, this system has been found useful in making effective service system in people centered bodies with paying attention to result; in enhancing quality of service provided; and also maintaining administrative and financial discipline. Such type of practice has stressed local bodies to be accountable to the sovereign citizen by maintaining transparency and bearing responsibility. With provision to measure overall practice and activities including objective indicators of performance and to provide additional grant to local bodies that secured the best performance for motivation, one can see the development of positive competition among local bodies with reform in their performance.

Similarly, Minimum Condition and Performance Measure analysis have contributed management in prioritizing performance; in making performance effective by stipulating staff’ responsibilities; in developing functional organization by structural reform; and in stipulating section wise work description. This system has made local bodies to understand their duty to bear responsibilities according to Local Self-Governance Act, relating regulations.

There is need for additional investment and efforts to enhance capacity in sector related indicators of local bodies, which could not meet the standard set in Minimum Condition and Performance Measure. In other words, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development must pay additional attention for monitoring and assessing the performance periodically because there are still sufficient rooms to improve in the areas of capacity development of local bodies.


Box 5: MCPM Outcome

In MCPM assessment of fiscal year 2014/15, Dhankuta DDC stood in first place among DDCs securing 87 marks. Butawal Municipality secured best position among municipalities by gaining 90 marks. Similarly, all VDCs of Taplejung, Sankhuwasava, Khotang, Rasuwa, Lamjung, Kaski, Manang, Arghakhachi, Rolpa, Rukum, Salyan, Dang, Banke, Jumla, and Kanchanpur districts are successful in MC assessment in the same fiscal year.

Among DDCs, Sunsari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Mugu and Achham could not meet Minimum Conditions assessment and 10 municipalities i.e. Tikapur, Dhulikhel, Tulsipur, Kathmandu, Triyuga, Lekhnath, Ilam, Siraha, Jaleshor and Malangawa also were not able to maintain minimum standard in MC Assessmemnt in 2014/15. 72 DDCs received full marks one (1) in indicator number. 15 (Financial Assistance) and 68 DDCs received full marks (2) in indicator number. 30 (Fund Release for Consumer Groups and Public Audit). However Indicator number. 14 (Quality of Financial Transaction) has been found most difficult. Detail is given in Table no. 26.

Among municipalities, the majority municipalities showed good result in “Local Governance”, and “Organization and Human Resource Development” indicators. However many municipalities could not secure good marks in indicators under “Urban Basic Service Management” and “Financial Resource Mobilization and Management”. In indicator 29 (Service Flow Management), 57 municipalities secured full marks two (2) and 100 percent Municipality could not get any mark (Zero) in indicator number . 14 (Compliance of limit of administrative expenses).

Based on geographical area, on an average, local bodies of hill region secured good performance compared to other regions. Similarly, DDCs of Eastern Development Region secured comparatively good result. Some municipalities from Terai also secured best results.

4.2RecommendationFor the last 14 years, local bodies have not been led by people’s representatives. In such situation, grant system based on Minimum Conditions and Performance Measure has been observed as important tool to make inter government financial transfer system more effective and judicious, to promote local good governance, to maintain financial discipline and to identify weaker areas of local bodies, to enhance capacity and to ensure compliance of rules and regulation. After enforcement of this system, refinement has been seen in local bodies’ work and activities, service flow system, recording and reporting to concerned entities and abidance of legal procedures. Since local bodies can get additional capital grant based on formula when they perform well under this system, development of competence has been seen among them.

Following recommendations have been made, after making analysis on Minimum Condition and Performance Measure results for the fiscal year 2014/15 and drawing conclusion:


≈ Since majority of the indicators of MCPM are related to process and procedures, it would be appropriate to reduce the number of such indicators and to add indicators relating to results of service flow and impact assessment through local bodies. Also it is very important to reduce the assessment time framework.

≈ Though one can find no difference in marks secured by local bodies gaining the best positions in Minimum Condition and Performance Measure, however, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Governance should pay special attention to local bodies which have been constantly failed. It indicates to provide additional motivation to such local bodies by making monitoring system effective and implementing capacity development programs.

≈ Local bodies' capacity in using information technology has not been improved as expected and their activities and achievements have not been visible to the extent that common people could experience them. Thus, if Local Bodies Fiscal Commission could develop system of self assessment, online assessment, e-submission to make MCPM more effective and to carryout quality test in larger number, after a year this procedural embarrassing situation could be curtailed and local bodies could be made more responsible.

≈ If result of MCPM could be published within second trimester of the current fiscal year, capacity development program can be lunched for local bodies, which would be failed in performance assessment, and their performance could be improved in coming fiscal year.

≈ To make MCPM more effective, staff working in account, internal auditing, and revenue sections must be made more responsible by implementing motivation policy.

≈ Since disintegrated data have to be collected from local bodies for MCPM, and such data, record and report would not be uniform, sometimes credibility of the data would have to be questioned; Local Bodies Fiscal Commission and Ministry should facilitate them and provide them direction to make information to be provided by local bodies uniform and credible.

≈ Since there have been grievances about the ineffective VDCs' MCPM assessment carried out by DDCs, necessary attention must be paid to minimize such grumblings and make DDCs more effective and credible. Similarly, enough stress must be put to enhance VDCs' capacity.

≈ Local Bodies Fiscal Commission and Ministry must take necessary step to carryout special programs for DDCs and municipalities, which have constantly failed.

≈ MCPM results must be linked with performance assessment and promotion of concerned staff of local bodies and necessary provision must be made to provide motivation, award and punishment to staff including head of local bodies based on the results.

≈ Since DDCs' quality of financial transaction is found poor, necessary programs to enhance quality of such transaction must be formulated and implemented.


≈ DDCs have not given importance of impact evaluation of projects' and programs implemented. Thus, estimation of impact made in poverty reduction, production, employment and environment from DDCs' investment and expenditure has been difficult. DDCs must be made aware in this aspect.

≈ Since most municipalities of hill and mountain regions have limited internal resources and unlimited administrative expenditures and they have been unable to abide by the administrative expenditure limitation, it is better to increasing limit of administrative expenditure and internal resources. Or Government of Nepal should increase grant for recurrent expenditure to the municipalities having limited internal resources.

≈ Since DDCs', municipalities' and VDCs' results in MCPM would be dependent on performance of their chiefs and post bearers' performance, such post bearers should not be transferred to other bodies unless they complete 2 years in such bodies. Provision must be made to transfer such chiefs and post bearers based on MCPM results.

≈ The Ministry should send the chief of local bodies in time and they should not be transferred within very short period time. It has showed the negative impact on local bodies' MCPM results; such activities should be reduced and discouraged.

≈ To adopt system of giving priority in nominating responsible staff of all three entities securing highest marks in MCPM assessment for international exposure visit.

≈ Still most of the municipalities have not been able to give enough attention to environment management. They have given less attention on environment impact assessment and initial environment examination (IEE). Similarly, municipalities have been far behind in formulation and implementation of climate change adaptation programs. Thus, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development should provide necessary directions to municipalities to formulate and implement programs giving priority for environment sector.

≈ It is very urgent to implement the capacity development programs/activities focusing to the newly declared municipalities. It would be prejudice to carry out the MCPM assessment to new municipalities unless they are properly oriented and strengthened.

≈ Policy debate about the responsibility (Who will do?) and process (How?) of carrying out MCPM assessment is required in the federal context of the country. It is because, in the unitary system, LBFC is responsible institution to carry out the MCPM assessment.

≈ It is important to use the MCPM result while providing grants such as project based conditional grant, special grant and equalization grant to local levels by federal and province level in the days to come.


Appendixes

Appendix1:Indicatorsofperformancemeasurement

(1) DistrictDevelopmentCommittee(a) Thematic areas, indicators, full marks, and pass marks

Work-Area Thematic Area’s Name Number of

Indicator Full Marks Pass Marks

1 Planning and Budget Management 8 16 7

2 Resource Mobilization and Financial Management 11 25 10

3 Budget Release, Expenditure and Program Implementation 6 16 6


1226 10

5 Organization, Management and Work Responsibility 9 17 7

Total 4� �00 40

(b) Indicators and weightage of performance measures

Thematic Area No. �: Planning and Budget Management

Indicator No.

Indicators' Name Marks Full Marks

Pass Marks

1 Project Prioritization and Selection Criteria 3

16 7

2 Project Cost Estimation and Budget Allocation 2

3 Project Maintenance 2

4 Periodic District Development Plan 1

5 District Transportation Master Plan and its Implementation

2

6 Energy and Environment Management 2

7 Participatory Planning of Cross-Cutting Sectors 2

8 Target Group Development Program 2


Indicator No.


Pass Marks

Thematic-Area No. �: Resource Mobilization and Financial Management

9 Resource Estimation 2

25 10

10 Internal Revenue Projection/Forecast and Collection 4

11 Sharing of Internal Revenue 2

12 Establishment and Operation of Special Fund 1

13 Project Agreement and Budget Expenditure 3

14 Quality of Financial Transaction 2

15 Financial Assistance 1

16 Audit and Irregularities 3

17 Irregularities Rectification 3

18 Procurement Management 3

19 Bail Account Operation 1

Thematic-Area No. �: Budget Release, Expenditure and Program Implementation

20 Annual Budget Allocation Expenditure 3

16 6

21 Target Group Development Program Expenditure 3

22 Recurrent/Administrative Expenditure 3

23 Agriculture and Livestock Development Program and Budget

2

24 Provision for Consumers' Committee Formulation 3

25 Water Supply and Sanitation Management 2


Indicator No.


Pass Marks

Thematic-Area No. 4: Monitoring, Assessment, Communication and Transparency

26 Project Information Board 2

26 10

27 Provision for Web-Site 3

28 Public Hearing 2

29 Social Audit 2

30 Consumer Committee's Fund Release and Public Audit 2

31 Gender Responsive Budget 2

32 Monitoring and Evaluation Report 3

33 Project Inspection, Approval and Settlement 2

34 Impacat evaluation of Projects and Programs 2

35 Social Security Program 3

36 Vital events registration and record managemnet 2

37 Operation of District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System

1

Thematic-Area No. 5: Organization, Management and Work Responsibility

38 Organization Development (Study, Punishment and Award)

3

17 7

39 Assets Description 2

40 VDCs' MCPM assessment 2

41 Staff' Meeting 1

42 Grievance Hearing Officer and Reception Management 2

43 Capacity Development Plan 1

44 Social Mobilization in VDCs 2

45 Local Bodies Joint Committee 1

46 Coordination and Mobilization of Non governmental Organization

3


(2)Municipalities(a) Thematic area-wise indicators of performance measures, marks and weightage

S.N. Thematic Area’s Name Number of Indicator

Full Marks Pass Marks

1 Local Governance 8 20 8

2 Financial Resource Mobilization and Management

11 28 11

3 Planning and Program Management 8 20 8

4 Organization and Manpower Development 5 10 4

5 Urban Basic Resource Management 8 22 9

Total 40 �00 40

(b) Indicator-wise marks and weightage of performance measures

Thematic Area �: Local governance

Indicator No.


Pass Marks

1 Formulation of participatory urban Plan 4

20 8

2 Allocation in Target Group Development Program 2

3 Expenditure in Target Group Development Program

2

4 Child Development and Protection 2

5 Information Management 4

6 Implementation of Social Security Program 2

7 Monthly and Annual Physical and Financial Progress Description

2

8 Public Hearing 2


Indicator No.


Pass Marks

Thematic -Area No. � Financial resource mobilization and management9 Study and forcaste of Revenue potentialities 2

28 11

10 Actual Income and Expenditure 4

11 Revenue Administration Management 4

12 Integrated Property Tax 2

13 Public PrivatePartnership 2

14 Abidance of Administrative Expenditure Limit 2

15 Accrual Accounting System 2

16 Bail Account Status 2

17 Quality of Financial Transaction 2

18 Abidance of Financial Assistance Limit 2

19 Local Resource Mobilization 4

Thematic -Area No. �: Planning and program management

20 Periodic urban Plan 2

20 8

21 Feasibility Study 2

22 Procurement Management 4

23 Trail, Approval and Settlement 2

24 Provision for Maintenance 4

25 Transparency in Project Operation 2

26 Monitoring and Evaluation 2

27 Social Audit 2

Thematic-Area No. 4: Organization and human resource development

28 Staff' Work Description and Monthly Meeting 2

10 429 Service Flow Management 2

30 Staff' Welfare Fund 2

31 Service Contract 2

32 Code of Conduct and Assets Description 2


Indicator No.


Pass Marks

Thematic- Area No. 5: Urban basic resource management

33 Sanitation and Waste Management 4

22 9

34 Environment Management 4

35 Transport Vehicle Parking Management 2

36 Regulation and Management of Slauter Houses 2

37 Public Health Promotion 2

38 Emergency Service and Disaster Risk Management 4

39 Vital events registration management 2

40 Implementation of building code standard and National Building Code, 2003

2

(3) VDCFollowing are the VDCs’ performance assessment indicators based on VDCs’ minimum condition and performance measure procedure, 2009.

(a) Indicatorsandtotalmarksofperformancemeasures1. Formulation of Participatory Village Development Plan 15 Marks2. Release and Expenditure Status, 10 Marks3. Budget allocation and expenditure of Target Group Area Development Programs, 10 Marks4. Publication of Income and Expenditure 10 Marks5. Implementation of Social Security Program 5 Marks 6. Vital Events Registration Record 5 Marks7. Preparation of Village Profile 5 Marks 8. Citizen’s Charter 5 Marks9. Public Audit 5 Marks10. Trail, Approval and Settlement 5 Marks11. Internal Resource Management 10 Marks12. Public Hearing 5 Marks 13. Advance and Irregularities 10 MarksTotal �00 Marks


Appendix2:ConsultingfirmsandexpertscarriedoutM

CPMforDDCs,2014/15

Gro

up

No.

N

ame

of D

istr

icts

N

ame

of o

rgan

izat

ions

Nam

e of

exp

erts

Emai

l Ph

one

No.

1Ta

plej

ung,

Pan

chth

ar,

Ilam

, Jha

pa

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGC

hola

kant

a Sh

arm

a sh

arm

ack0

7@gm

ail.c

om98

4135

2652

FMM

anira

m P

ande

m

anin

p4@

gmai

l.com

9851

1305

83

2Su

nsar

i, D

hank

uta,

Te

rhat

hum

Sa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj N

epal

LG

Nav

araj

Bha

ttar

aine

wko

pila

@gm

ail.c

om98

4138

4655

FMH

em P

rasa

d N

eupa

ne

hem

neup

ane@

nrb.

org.

np98

4151

2254

3M

oran

g, B

hojp

ur,

Sank

huw

asav

a Id

ea N

epal

LG

Sant

a Ba

hadu

r Thap

asa

nta.

thap

a17@

yaho

o.co

m98

5113

2050

FMRa

jan

Thap

a th

apar

ajan

35@

hotm

ail.c

om98

0328

6955

4Sa

raja

, Sap

tari,

U

daya

pur,

Kho

tang

Sa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj N

epal

LGSu

rya

Man

i Pou

del

poud

elso

orya

@gm

ail.c

om98

4109

4314

FMG

eeta

Shr

esth

a ge

eta_

shre

stha

16@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4122

8506

5Si

ndhu

li,

Okh

aldh

unga

, So

lukh

umbu

Mol

ung

Foun

datio

n LG

Kam

al M

ani K

afle

kmka

fle@

gmai

l.com

9741

0453

26

FMH

ari P

okha

rel

hari_

pokh

rel@

outlo

ok.c

om98

4937

2609

6D

hanu

sha,

Mah

otta

ri,

Raut

ahat

Sa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj N

epal

LGN

aren

dra

Raj B

aral

nb

aral

58@

gmai

l.com

9851

0940

24

FMBh

ola

Nat

h Ba

ral

bhol

abar

al@

nrb.

org.

np98

4653

3148

7Si

nchu

palc

hok,

D

olak

ha, R

amec

hhap

Sw

asha

san

Adh

yaya

n Pr

athi

stan

LG

Rudr

a Pr

asad

Pou

del

98

6011

8811

FMIc

hha

Baha

dur

Budh

atho

ki

ich5

1@liv

e.co

m98

4131

2289

8K

athm

andu

, Bh

akta

pur,

Lalit

pur,

Kav

repa

lanc

hok

Byab

asay

a Pr

abar

dhan

A

nusa

ndha

n Ta

tha

Sanc

har P

vt. L

td.

LGH

em S

harm

a Po

khar

el

omsh

antih

em@

yaho

o.co

m98

5114

2895

FMK

rish

na M

ani P

araj

uli

krish

nam

anip

araj

uli@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4187

3639


Gro

up

No.

N

ame

of D

istr

icts

N

ame

of o

rgan

izat

ions

Nam

e of

exp

erts

Emai

l Ph

one

No.

9Ba

ra, P

arsa

, Chi

taw

an,

Mak

awan

pur

Mol

ung

Foun

datio

n LG

Bire

ndra

Kum

ar Jh

a bi

rend

rajh

agau

r@gm

ail.c

om98

4948

1132

FMBa

jra N

ath

Thak

ur

bnth

akur

@ho

tmai

l.com

9851

0132

50

10G

orak

ha, D

hadi

ng,

Rasu

wa

Sam

brid

ha S

amaj

Nep

alLG

Ram

ji K

hare

l rjk

hare

l066

@ya

hoo.

com

9841

5496

34

FMM

adha

v Pr

asad

Sh

arm

a pu

dasa

ini1

@gm

ail.c

om98

4126

5207

11Ta

nahu

n, L

amju

ng,

Man

ang

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGD

hrub

a Ba

ndhu

Ary

al

band

hu@

gmai

l.com

9841

5845

046

FMBa

dri K

umar

Shr

esth

a ba

drik

umar

8@ya

hoo.

com

9841

2878

45

12Pa

rbat

Bag

lung

, M

yagd

i, M

usta

ng

Sam

brid

ha S

amaj

Nep

alLG

Nar

ayan

Gya

wal

i na

raya

ngya

wal

i58@

gmai

l.com

9851

0738

09

FMBa

shis

tha

Adh

ikar

i ba

shis

tha5

22@

gmai

l.com

9841

3410

63

13K

aski

, Sya

ngja

, Pal

pa,

Gul

mi

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGA

mal

Kira

n D

haka

l dh

akal

amal

@ya

hoo.

com

9841

6690

90

FMK

rish

na N

ath

Kha

nal

krish

na.n

ath.

khan

al@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4159

2812

14N

awal

para

si,

Rupa

ndeh

i, K

aipl

vast

u.

Arg

hakh

anch

i

Sam

brid

ha S

amaj

Nep

alLG

Kha

dga

Baha

dur

Cha

paga

in

kbch

apag

ain1

@gm

ail.c

om98

4244

8800

FMSh

ivah

ari U

padh

yaya

ad

hish

ivah

ari@

gmai

l.com

9841

5624

46

15D

ang,

Rol

pa, P

yuth

anM

olun

g Fo

unda

tion

LGN

etra

Pra

sad

Shar

ma

97

4119

5868

FMBh

akta

raj J

oshi

br

josh

i6@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4170

7859

16Ba

nke,

Dol

pa, J

umla

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGSu

rya

Bhak

ta K

hana

l so

orya

bhak

ta@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4170

7859

FMK

rish

na P

rasa

d Po

udel

kp

aude

l_ba

ra@

yaho

o.co

m98

5502

2875


Gro

up

No.

N

ame

of D

istr

icts

N

ame

of o

rgan

izat

ions

Nam

e of

exp

erts

Emai

l Ph

one

No.

17Ba

rdia

, Mug

u, H

umla

Ba

njhu

rusu

Ra

striy

a A

dhya

yan

Ken

dra

LGBh

uvan

Pra

kash

Bis

ta

bhub

anpr

akas

hbis

ta@

gmai

l.com

9851

1389

18

FMRi

chan

a Ra

jkar

nika

r D

aiba

gya

richa

na.d

aiba

gya@

gmai

l.com

9841

3429

38

18Sa

lyan

, Ruk

um, J

ajar

otSa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj N

epal

LGTi

kara

m G

him

ire

trgh

imire

15@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4703

8702

FMSu

gam

Jung

KC

om

suga

m@

yaho

o.co

m98

1882

7415

19Su

rkhe

t, D

aile

kh,

Kal

ikot

M

anav

Ta

tha

Prak

riti

Sam

raks

han

LGYo

graj

Bha

ttar

ai

bhat

tara

iyog

araj

@ya

hoo.

com

9841

5740

97

FMM

adan

Raj

Mish

ra

mad

anra

jmish

ra@

gmai

l.com

9841

3529

08

20D

oti,

Ach

ham

, Baj

ura

Idea

Nep

al

LGC

hund

aman

i Giri

ch

udag

iripe

ople

@gm

ail.c

om98

4135

3851

FMJa

gadi

sh C

hand

ra

Ghi

mire

ja

gadi

sh_c

g@ya

hoo.

com

9841

2583

80

21K

anch

anpu

r, K

aila

li,

Dad

eldh

ura

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGBa

ldev

Pra

sad

Bhat

ta

bhat

taba

ldev

pd@

gmai

l.com

9843

4107

69

FMH

ari B

ahad

ur

Dal

lako

ti ha

ridal

lako

ti@gm

ail.c

om98

4136

0539

22D

arch

ula,

Bai

tadi

, Ba

jhan

g Sa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj N

epal

LGIs

hwor

i Pra

sad

Ghi

mire

gh

imire

ishw

ari@

gmai

l.com

9841

3988

24

FMD

amod

ar P

rasa

d A

ryal

dp

agol

@ho

tmai

l.com

9841

3411

36


Appendix3:ConsultingfirmsandexpertscarriedoutM

CPMformunicipalties,2014/15

Gro

up

No.

N

ame

of m

unic

ipal

itie

sN

ame

of o

rgan

izat

ions

Nam

e of

exp

erts

Emai

l Ph

one

No.

1Ila

m, M

echi

naga

r, Bh

adra

pur,

Dam

ak

Mol

ung

Foun

datio

nLG

Har

i Kri

shna

Kha

tiwad

a ko

rkal

i811

89@

gmai

l.com

9841

8207

98

FMA

nand

a Ba

llav

Pand

epa

nday

anan

da20

13@

gmai

l.com

9841

2028

01

2Ita

hari,

Dha

ran,

D

hank

uta,

Kha

ndba

ri

Man

av T

atha

Pra

kriti

Sa

mra

ksha

nLG

Bhup

nath

Sha

rma

sdw

nepa

l@ya

hoo.

com

9841

5949

05

FMA

chyu

t Gya

wal

i ac

hyut

g@ya

hoo.

com

9851

0778

85

3Bi

ratn

agar

Inar

uwa,

Ra

jbira

j, Tr

iyug

a M

olun

g Fo

unda

tion

LGM

urar

i Pra

sad

Shar

ma

shar

mam

urar

i14@

yaho

o.co

m98

4178

4065

FMTe

eka

Pras

ad S

hres

tha

tp-s

hres

tha@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4152

2098

4Si

raha

, Lah

an, J

anak

pur,

Jale

shw

or

Sam

brid

ha S

amaj

N

epal

LGJa

nak

Lal B

hatt

arai

bh

atta

raija

nakl

al@

gmai

l.com

9851

0493

73

FMK

apil

Man

Sin

gh

kmsk

apil@

gmai

l.com

9841

3547

11

5M

alan

gaw

a, G

aur,

Kam

ala

Mai

Man

av T

atha

Pra

kriti

Sa

mra

ksha

nLG

Chi

tra

Pras

ad D

evko

ta

cpde

vkot

a@liv

e.co

m98

4158

1899

FMD

war

ika

Pras

ad A

char

ya

acha

rya.

dwar

ika@

gmai

l.com

9841

2282

28

6Ra

tnan

agar

, Bha

ratp

ur,

Birg

anj,

Kal

aiya

M

olun

g Fo

unda

tion

LGRa

m P

rave

sh Y

adha

v ya

davr

ampr

awes

h@gm

ail.c

om98

4159

9820

FMK

rish

na R

aj Jo

shi

kjos

hi14

@ho

tmai

l.com

9841

5295

99

7K

athm

andu

, Kir

tipur

, H

etau

nda

Man

av T

atha

Pra

kriti

Sa

mra

ksha

nLG

Bish

wo

Nat

h K

arm

acha

rya

bnka

rmac

hrya

@gm

ail.c

om98

4144

2376

FMPa

dam

Pra

sad

Adh

ikar

i pa

dam

adhi

kary

@gm

ail.c

om98

4135

0477

8La

litpu

r, Bh

akta

pur,

Mad

hyap

ur, B

idur

By

abas

aya

Prab

ardh

an

Anu

sand

han

Tath

a Sa

ncha

r Pvt

. Ltd

.

LGSu

vas S

harm

a su

bass

harm

a@gm

ail.c

om98

4125

6769

FMBi

nod

Kum

ar D

evko

ta

devk

otab

inod

2000

@gm

ail.c

om98

4145

5989


Gro

up

No.

N

ame

of m

unic

ipal

itie

sN

ame

of o

rgan

izat

ions

Nam

e of

exp

erts

Emai

l Ph

one

No.

9D

hulik

hel,

Bane

pa,

Pana

uti,

Bhim

eshw

or

Sam

brid

ha S

amaj

N

epal

LGBh

agira

th S

ingh

foss

oo5@

gmai

l.com

9841

5665

90

FMRa

m K

aji S

ainj

u rk

khai

ju@

gmai

l.com

9741

0072

77

10G

orak

ha, B

yas,

Lekh

nath

an

d Po

khar

a M

olun

g Fo

unda

tion

LGPa

dam

Nar

ayan

Shr

esth

a pa

dam

nsth

a@ya

hoo.

com

9841

2395

19

FMM

ohan

Vila

s Pan

ta

moh

anbi

lasp

ant@

yaho

o.co

m98

4162

1544

11Ba

glun

g, P

utal

i Baz

aar,

Wal

ing,

Tan

sen

Mol

ung

Foun

datio

nLG

Jivan

Sha

rma

Poud

el

paud

eljs2

059@

hotm

ail.c

om98

5108

3437

FMJa

nakr

aj G

outa

m

jana

krga

utam

@gm

ail.c

om98

4102

8792

12Bu

taw

al, R

amgr

am

Sidd

hart

ha N

agar

K

apilv

astu

Man

av T

atha

Pra

kriti

Sa

mra

ksha

nLG

Min

Pra

sad

Shar

ma

Gya

wal

i m

pgny

awal

i@ho

tmai

l.com

9851

0998

78

FMH

ira M

ani

hmla

mic

hhan

e@ya

hoo.

com

9841

3733

09

13G

hora

hi, T

ulsip

ur,

Bire

ndra

Nag

ar, N

aray

an

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent I

nstit

ute

Pvt.

Ltd.

LGD

evila

l Jos

hi

josh

idev

ilal@

yaho

o.co

m98

4171

2222

FMJa

nard

an P

rasa

d U

padh

yaya

G

him

ire

jana

rdan

ghim

ire@

live.

com

9741

0856

00

14N

epal

ganj

, Tee

kapu

r, G

ular

iya,

Dha

ngad

i Sa

mbr

idha

Sam

aj

Nep

alLG

Gan

esh

Pras

ad G

yaw

ali

gane

shgy

awal

i@ho

tmai

l.com

9851

1882

22

FMRa

tna

Dhw

aj K

hadk

a

9841

4624

85

15A

mar

gadh

i, D

ipay

al,

Das

hrat

hcha

nd,

Bhim

dutt

a

Byab

asay

a Pr

abar

dhan

A

nusa

ndha

n Ta

tha

Sanc

har P

vt. L

td.

LGPr

em S

harm

ash

arm

a-pr

@ho

tmai

l.com

9851

1908

30

FMJiv

Nar

ayan

Bar

al

jnba

ral@

hotm

ail.c

om98

4143

4140


Appendix4:StatusofassessmentofMCofDistrictDevelopment Committees,2014/15

S.N. Group No.

Name of Districts

� � � 4 5 � � � 9 Number of Pass

Indicator

Number of Fail

Indicator

1 1 Taplejung 9 0

2 1 Panchthar 9 0

3 1 Ilam 9 0

4 1 Jhapa 9 0

5 2 Sunsari q q 7 2

6 2 Dhankuta 9 0

7 2 Terhathum 9 0

8 3 Morang 9 0

9 3 Sankhuwasava 9 0

10 3 Bhojpur 9 0

11 4 Khotang 9 0

12 4 Udayapur 9 0

13 4 Saptari 9 0

14 4 Siraha 9 0

15 5 Solukhumbu 9 0

16 5 Okhaldhunga 9 0

17 5 Sindhuli 9 0

18 6 Dhanusha 9 0

19 6 Mahottari 9 0

20 6 Sarlahi q q q 6 3

21 6 Rautahat q q q 6 3

22 7 Ramechhap 9 0

23 7 Dolakha 9 0

24 7 Sindhupalchok 9 0

25 8 Kavrepalanchok 9 0

26 8 Lalitpur 9 0


S.N. Group No.

Name of Districts

� � � 4 5 � � � 9 Number of Pass

Indicator

Number of Fail

Indicator

27 8 Bhaktapur 9 0

28 8 Kathmandu 9 0

29 9 Makwanpur 9 1

30 9 Bara q 8 1

31 9 Parsa q q 7 2

32 9 Chitawan 9 0

33 10 Nuwakot 9 0

34 10 Rasuwa 9 0

35 10 Dhading 9 0

36 10 Gokhara 9 0

37 11 Lamjung 9 0

38 11 Tanahun 9 0

39 11 Manang 9 0

40 12 Mustang 9 0

41 12 Myagdi 9 0

42 12 Parvat 9 0

43 12 Baglung 9 0

44 13 Syangja 9 0

45 13 Kaski 9 0

46 13 Gulmi 9 0

47 13 Palpa 9 0

48 14 Nawalparasi 9 0

49 14 Rupandehi 9 0

50 14 Kapilvastu 9 0

51 14 Arghakhanchi 9 0

52 15 Pyuthan 9 0

53 15 Rolpa 9 0

54 15 Dang 9 0


S.N. Group No.

Name of Districts

� � � 4 5 � � � 9 Number of Pass

Indicator

Number of Fail

Indicator

55 16 Banke 9 0

56 16 Dolpa 9 0

57 16 Jumla 9 0

58 17 Bardiya 9 0

59 17 Mugu q q 7 2

60 17 Humla 9 0

61 18 Rukum 9 0

62 18 Salyan 9 0

63 18 Jajarkot 9 0

64 19 Surkhet 9 0

65 19 Dailekh 9 0

66 19 Kalikot 9 0

67 20 Bajura 9 0

68 20 Achham q q 7 2

69 20 Doti 9 0

70 21 Kailali 9 0

71 21 Kanchanpur 9 0

72 21 Dadeldhura 9 0

73 22 Bajhang 9 0

74 22 Baitadi 9 0

75 22 Darchula 9 0


Appendix5:Municipalities’statusofassessmentofminimum condition,2014/15

S.N. Municipalities Number of Indicators of Minimum Conditions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Mechinagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

2 Ilam √ √ √ 0 √ 0 √ √ √ √

3 Bhadrapur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

4 Damak √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

5 Dharan √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

6 Dhankuta √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

7 Itahari √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

8 Khandbari √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

9 Biratnagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

10 Triyuga √ √ √ 0 √ √ √ √ √ √

11 Inaruwa √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

12 Rajbiraj √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

13 Janakpur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

14 Jaleshwor 0 0 0 √ √ √ √ √ 0 0

15 Lahan √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

16 Siraha √ 0 √ √ √ √ √ √ 0 √

17 Kamalamai √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

18 Gour √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

19 Malangawa √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 0 √

20 Ratnanagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

21 Kalaiya √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

22 Bharatpur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

23 Birganj √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

24 Hetaunda √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

25 Kirtipur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

26 Kathmandu √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 0



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

27 Bhaktapur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

28 Bidur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

29 Lalitpur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

30 Madhyapur -Thimi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

31 Bhimeshwor √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

32 Dhulikhel √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 0

33 Banepa √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

34 Panauti √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

35 Lekhnath √ 0 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

36 Byas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

37 Pokhara √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

38 Gorakha √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

39 Tansen √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

40 Baglung √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

41 Waling √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

42 Putalibazaar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

43 Kapilvastu √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

44 Butawal √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

45 Ramgram √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

46 Siddarthanagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

47 Ghorahi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

48 Birendranagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

49 Tulsipur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 0

50 Narayan √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

51 Teekapur √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 0

52 Dhangadhi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

53 Gulariya √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

54 Nepalganj √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

55 Bhimdutta √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

56 Dipayal-Silgadhi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

57 Amargadhi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

58 Dashrathchand √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Source : LBFC(2016),MCPMAssessementResultof2014/15

Notes :

√= Conditions fulfilled

0= Conditions not fulfilled


Appendix6:ResultsofM

inimum

ConditionandPerform

anceMeasureofDDCs,2014/15

S.N

.

Name of Districts

Planning and Budget

Management



Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks of PM

Status of MC Results

Outcomes of Performance Assessment

Grant

1D

hank

uta

1417

1326

1787

Pass

Pass

20% additional grant

2Ba

nke

1418

1620

1785

Pass

Pass

3D

aile

kh

1318

1522

1785

Pass

Pass

4Pa

ncht

har

1020

1421

1075

Pass

Pass

5K

aski

11

1414

2313

75Pa

ssPa

ss

6Py

utha

n 12

1610

2116

75Pa

ssPa

ss

7G

ulm

i 11

1412

2116

74Pa

ssPa

ss


8Sa

lyan

14

1215

1815

74Pa

ssPa

ss

9Ru

kum

1314

1318

1674

Pass

Pass

10K

hota

ng

1410

1024

1573

Pass

Pass

11 C

hita

wan

10

1610

2215

73Pa

ssPa

ss

12N

uwak

ot

1119

1216

1573

Pass

Pass

13K

avre

pala

ncho

k 7

1413

2414

72Pa

ssPa

ss

14Sy

angj

a 12

1611

1714

70Pa

ssPa

ss

15Bh

ojpu

r 13

1016

1911

69Pa

ssPa

ss

16Ba

jhan

g 14

1114

1911

69Pa

ssPa

ss


S.N

.

Name of Districts

Planning and Budget

Management



Implementation


Communication and

Transparency



Total Marks of PM



Grant

17Ja

jark

ot

1314

918

1468

Pass

Pass


18D

hadi

ng

1314

916

1567

Pass

Pass

19G

okha

ra

1212

1414

1466

Pass

Pass

20Pa

lpa

1111

922

1265

Pass

Pass

21D

adel

dhur

a11

1112

1615

65Pa

ssPa

ss

22Sa

nkhu

was

ava

1315

1212

1264

Pass

Pass

23So

lukh

umbu

9

1312

1515

64Pa

ssPa

ss

24Bh

akta

pur

810

1022

1464

Pass

Pass

25K

athm

andu

7

137

2215

64Pa

ssPa

ss

26A

rgha

khan

chi

716

1117

1364

Pass

Pass

27M

akw

anpu

r10

1010

1815

63Pa

ssPa

ss

10% reduction in additional grant

28D

ang

913

921

1163

Pass

Pass

29Ra

suw

a 11

1010

1714

62Pa

ssPa

ss

30T

aple

jung

12

1410

1411

61Pa

ssPa

ss

31D

hanu

sha

817

818

1061

Pass

Pass

32T

anah

un

1113

1112

1461

Pass

Pass

33Si

ndhu

palc

hok

1114

814

1360

Pass

Pass

34Ila

m12

1111

1510

59Pa

ssPa

ss

35U

daya

pur

911

818

1359

Pass

Pass

36K

anch

anpu

r 9

109

1813

59Pa

ssPa

ss


S.N

.

Name of Districts

Planning and Budget Management


Budget Release,Expenditure,




Organization Management and

Work Responsibility

Total Marks of PM



Grant

37N

awal

para

si 7

1313

1411

58Pa

ssPa

ss

15% recuction in additinal grant

38Te

rhat

hum

1210

1213

1057

Pass

Pass

39Ba

itadi

12

106

1513

56Pa

ssPa

ss

40Ju

mla

8

1113

1113

56Pa

ssPa

ss

41Ra

mec

hhap

1112

610

1453

Pass

Pass

42Ru

pand

ehi

810

1013

1253

Pass

Pass

43Ro

lpa

710

1014

1253

Pass

Pass

44M

yagd

i 10

109

149

52Pa

ssPa

ss

45K

apilv

astu

7

1010

1410

51Pa

ssPa

ss

46Ba

rdiy

a 13

118

117

50Pa

ssPa

ss

47M

usta

ng

712

815

749

Pass

Pass

48M

oran

g 12

913

1616

66Pa

ssFa

il

20% reduction in additional grant

49Jh

apa

108

1318

1362

Pass

Fail

50Su

rkhe

t 10

912

1813

62Pa

ssFa

il

51K

aila

li 11

713

1711

59Pa

ssFa

il


S.N

.

Name of Districts








Work Responsibility

Total Marks of PM



Grant

52Ba

glun

g 7

810

1912

56Pa

ssFa

il

53H

umla

14

913

136

55Pa

ssFa

il

54D

oti

137

818

955

Pass

Fail

55Si

raha

9

85

1614

52Pa

ssFa

il

56O

khal

dhun

ga10

125

159

51Pa

ssFa

il

57La

litpu

r 7

123

1315

50Pa

ssFa

il

58Si

ndhu

li 7

67

1910

49Pa

ssFa

il

59La

mju

ng

513

1012

949

Pass

Fail

60M

anan

g 8

87

1114

48Pa

ssFa

il

61M

ahot

tari

98

910

1248

Pass

Fail

62Ba

jura

10

912

115

47Pa

ssFa

il

63D

arch

ula

812

104

1347

Pass

Fail

64D

olpa

9

78

814

46Pa

ssFa

il

65K

alik

ot

77

812

1044

Pass

Fail

66Pa

rbat

7

79

88

39Pa

ssFa

il

67Sa

ptar

i 4

95

118

37Pa

ssFa

il

68D

olak

ha

64

94

730

Pass

Fail


S.N

.

Name of Districts








Work Responsibility

Total Marks of PM



Grant

69Su

nsar

i7

109

1315

54Fa

ilPa

ss

No additional grant

70Sa

rlahi

5

118

94

37Fa

ilFa

il

71Ra

utah

at

67

43

929

Fail

Fail

72Ba

ra

34

710

933

Fail

Fail

73Pa

rsa

49

611

939

Fail

Fail

74A

chha

m

107

814

847

Fail

Fail

75M

ugu

55

55

626

Fail

Fail

Tota

l72

484

274

811

5290

143

67

Ave

rage

1011

1015

1258

Max

imum

1420

1626

1787

Min

imum

34

33

426

Not

e:7

DD

Csc

ould

not

pas

sin

Min

imum

Con

ditio

nan

d27

DD

Csc

ould

not

mee

tin

Perf

orm

ance

Ass

essm

ent


Appendix7:Resultsofmunicipalities’minimumconditionand performancemeasures,2014/15

S.N. Municipalites

�. L

ocal

Gov

erna

nce

�. F

inan

cial

Res

ouce

s M

obili

zati

on a

nd

Man

agem

anet

�.Pl

anni

ng a

nd P

rogr

am

Man

agem

ent

4. O

rgan

izat

ion

and

Hum

an

Res

ourc

e D

evel

opm

ent

5. U

rban

Bas

ic S

ervi

ce

Man

agem

ent

Tota

l Per

form

ance

Tota

l Per

fom

ance

M

ange

men

t

Grant

1 Butawal 20 23 19 10 18 90 Pass

20%

add

ition

al

gran

t

2 Dhankuta 20 22 17 9 21 89 Pass

3 Hetaunda 20 20 18 9 22 89 Pass

4 Ghorahi 20 19 19 10 20 88 Pass

5 Itahari 19 21 18 10 18 86 Pass

15%

add

tion

gra

nt

6 Bhimeshwor 19 16 20 9 21 85 Pass

7 Bharatpur 17 21 18 10 18 84 Pass

8 Kamalamai 20 17 17 9 20 83 Pass

9 Panauti 20 23 13 9 18 83 Pass

10 Pokhara 18 16 17 10 22 83 Pass

11 Dharan 16 22 16 10 18 82 Pass

12 Siddarthanagar 19 16 20 10 16 81 Pass

13 Birendranagar 18 21 16 9 17 81 Pass

14 Inaruwa 19 21 14 10 16 80 Pass

15 Ramgram 18 20 19 9 14 80 Pass


S.N. Municipalites

�. L

ocal

Gov

erna

nce

�. F

inan

cial

Res

ouce

s M

obili

zati

on a

nd

Man

agem

anet

�.Pl

anni

ng a

nd P

rogr

am

Man

agem

ent

4. O

rgan

izat

ion

and

Hum

an

Res

ourc

e D

evel

opm

ent

5. U

rban

Bas

ic S

ervi

ce

Man

agem

ent

Tota

l Per

form

ance

Tota

l Per

fom

ance

M

ange

men

t

Grant

16 Banepa 18 14 18 8 21 79 Pass

10%

add

ition

al g

rant

17 Narayan 19 17 18 9 16 79 Pass

18 Dhangadhi 20 18 15 10 13 76 Pass

19 Ratnanagar 18 20 13 10 14 75 Pass

20 Madhyapur -Thimi 20 17 14 7 17 75 Pass

21 Waling 18 18 14 10 15 75 Pass

22 Biratnagar 19 16 15 6 18 74 Pass

23 Byas 20 18 13 9 13 73 Pass

24 Tansen 19 14 14 9 17 73 Pass

25 Baglung 18 16 14 9 16 73 Pass

26 Khandbari 18 19 12 8 14 71 Pass

10%

red

uctio

on in

add

ition

gra

nt

27 Gulariya 19 16 14 8 14 71 Pass

28 Bhaktapur 18 19 8 6 18 69 Pass

29 Damak 17 17 11 8 15 68 Pass

30 Mechinagar 17 17 12 6 14 66 Pass

31 Nepalganj 19 15 15 6 11 66 Pass

32 Bhimdutta 18 15 13 8 12 66 Pass

33 Lahan 15 15 14 7 14 65 Pass

34 Kapilvastu 17 14 12 9 10 62 Pass

35 Bhadrapur 15 15 14 7 10 61 Pass


S.N. Municipalites

�. L

ocal

Gov

erna

nce

�. F

inan

cial

Res

ouce

s M

obili

zati

on a

nd

Man

agem

anet

�.Pl

anni

ng a

nd P

rogr

am

Man

agem

ent

4. O

rgan

izat

ion

and

Hum

an

Res

ourc

e D

evel

opm

ent

5. U

rban

Bas

ic S

ervi

ce

Man

agem

ent

Tota

l Per

form

ance

Tota

l Per

fom

ance

M

ange

men

t

Grant

36 Gour 14 15 12 8 11 60 Pass

15%

red

uctio

on in

add

ition

gra

nt

37 Putalibazaar 16 13 11 7 13 60 Pass

38 Kirtipur 13 15 12 4 15 59 Pass

39 Lalitpur 15 12 12 8 12 59 Pass

40 Dipayal-Silgadhi 17 13 11 5 11 57 Pass

41 Kalaiya 14 13 10 5 11 53 Pass

42 Rajbiraj 11 11 9 5 12 48 Pass

43 Bidur 11 11 8 7 9 46 Pass

44 Gorakha 16 15 11 9 8 59 Fail

20%

re

duct

ion

in

addi

tion

gran

t

45 Birganj 13 14 7 5 12 51 Fail

46 Amargadhi 14 10 11 6 5 46 Fail

47 Janakpur 11 13 13 3 5 45 Fail

48 Dashrathchand 14 7 7 6 9 43 Fail

49 Teekapur 19 15 18 9 14 75 PassN

o ad

ditio

nal g

rant

pro

vide

d50 Dhulikhel 16 14 18 9 17 74 Pass

51 Tulsipur 19 19 12 8 12 70 Pass

52 Kathmandu 14 15 16 8 15 68 Pass

53 Triyuga 17 18 12 5 13 65 Pass

54 Lekhnath 12 16 14 7 10 59 Pass

55 Ilam 9 12 10 3 10 44 Fail

56 Siraha 7 12 4 5 4 32 Fail

57 Jaleshwor 10 7 1 4 4 26 Fail

58 Malangawa 9 6 1 2 3 21 Fail


S.N. Municipalites

�. L

ocal

Gov

erna

nce

�. F

inan

cial

Res

ouce

s M

obili

zati

on a

nd

Man

agem

anet

�.Pl

anni

ng a

nd P

rogr

am

Man

agem

ent

4. O

rgan

izat

ion

and

Hum

an

Res

ourc

e D

evel

opm

ent

5. U

rban

Bas

ic S

ervi

ce

Man

agem

ent

Tota

l Per

form

ance

Tota

l Per

fom

ance

M

ange

men

t

Grant

Total 95� 9�4 ��4 44� �0� �90�

Averae 16 16 13 8 14 67

Minimum 7 6 1 2 3 21

Maximum 20 23 20 10 22 90


Appendix8:ResultsofVDCs’minimumconditionassessment, 2014/15

S.N. Districts Number of VDCS

MC Result Number of VDCs not Evaluated

MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

1 Taplejung 48 48 All VDCs passed

2 Panchthar 38 36 2 Subhang, Bharapa

3 Ilam 43 43 All VDCs failled

4 Jhapa 33 30 3 Pathamari, Baigundhura, Korobari

5 Morang 50 45 5 Rajghat, Thalaha, Jante, Bahuni Madhumalla

6 Sunsari 39 26 13 Paschim Kasuha, Chhitaha, Madhuwan, Rajganj,Sahebganj, Basantapur, Chimdi, Narshinhatappu, Chadwela,Gautampur Ramnagar Bhutaha, Jalpapur, Mahendranagar

7 Dhankuta 28 28 All VDCs failed

8 Terhathum 21 21 All VDCs failed

9 Sankhuwasava 25 25 All VDCs passed




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

10 Bhojpur 54 7 47 Aamtep, Annapurna Bastim, Deurali Bhulke, Champe,Changre, Charambi, Chaukidada, Chhinamukh, Dalgaun, Deurali, Dewantar, Dhodalekhani, Dobhane, Dummana, Gogane, Gupteshwar, Hasanpur, Homtang, Jarayotar, Khairang, Khatamma, Khawa, Kot, Kudak Kaule, Kulunga, Lekharka, Mane Bhanjyang, Nagi, Nepaledanda, Okhre, Pangcha, Patle Pani, Pyauli, Ranibas, Sano Dumba, Shyamsila, Siddheshwar, Sindrang, Thidingkha, Thulo Dumba, Timma, Tiwari Bhanjyang, Walangkha, Yaku, Yangpang

11 Solukhumbu 30 30 All VDCs failed

12 Okhaldhunga 50 50 All VDCs failed

13 Khotang 72 72 All VDCs passed

14 Udayapur 40 38 2 Myakhu, Nametar

15 Saptari 91 91 All VDCs failed

16 Siraha 63 63 All VDCs failed




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

17 Dhanusha 71 33 38 Aurahi, Baphai, Balabakhar, Balaha Kathal, Balaha Sadhara, Bateshwar, Bhutahi Paterwa, Bisarbhora, Chakkar, Chora Koilpur, Dubarikot Hathalekha, Duhabi, Giddha, Goth Kohelpur, Hansapur Kathpula, Harine, Hathipur Harbara, Inarwa, Itaharwa, Khajuri Chanha, Khariyani, Lakhauri, Lakkad, Lakshminibas, Mithileshwar Nikash, Mukhiyapatti Mushargiya, Nagarain, Nunpatti, Pachaharwa, Patanuka, Paterwa, Phulgama, Raghunathpur, Sapahi, Shantipur, Sonigama, Suga Madhukarahi, Thadi Jhijha, Tulsiyahi Nikas,

18 Mahottari 66 66 All VDCs failed

19 Sarlahi 84 84 All VDCs failed

20 Sindhuli 50 50 All VDCs failed

21 Ramechhap 45 40 5 Bhuji, Kubukasthali, Majuwa, Priti, Sanghutar

22 Dolakha 48 11 37 Alampu, Babare, Bhedapu, Bhirkot, Bhusapheda, Bigu, Bocha, Bulung, Chankhu, Chilankha, Chyama, Dandakharka, Ghang Sukathokar, Hawa, Japhe, Jhyaku, Kalingchok, Katakuti, Khare, Khupachagu, Laduk, Lakuri Danda, Lamabagar, Lamidanda, Lapilang, Malu, Melung, Orang, Pawati, Phasku, Shailungeshwar, Sunakhani, Sureti, Susma Chhemawati, Syama[2] Tamchet dhuda pokhari




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

23 Sindhupalchok 68 50 18 Barhabise, Chaukati, Gati, Ghorthali, Ichok, Karkhali, Kiul, Lisankhu, Listikot, Maneshwara, Marming, Palchok, Phulping Katti, Phulpingkot, Ramche, Tatopani, Thulo Dhading, Ghumthang

24 Kavrepalanchok 75 43 32 Walting, Baluwapatti Deupur, Banakhu Chaur, Bekhsimle, Bhimkhori, Budhakhani, Dhuseni Siwalaya, Ghartichhap, Gokule, Gothpani, Kartike Deurali, Katunje Besi, Khahare Pangu, Kurubas Chapakhori, Mahadevsthan Mandan, Mahadevtar, Milche, phatale khet Phoksingtar, Pokhari Chaunri, Pokhari Narayansthan, Saldhara, Salmechakala, Sankhu Patichaur, Sanowangthali, Saping, Sarmathali, Sarasyunkharka, Sipali Chilaune,

25 Lalitpur 19 16 3 Bukhel, Nallu, Sankhu

26 Nuwakot 61 24 37 Bageshwari, Barsunchet, Belkot, Bhadratar, Budhasing, Bungtang, Chaturale, Chauthe, Dangsing, Deurali, Duipipal, Gerkhu, Ghyangphedi, Gorsyang, Jiling, Kalikahalde, Kabilas, Kintang, Kumari, Lachyang, Likhu, Madanpur, Narjamandap, Panchkanya, Ralukadevi, Rautbesi, Samari, Samundratar, Sikre, Sundaradevi, Sunkhani, Taruka, Thanapati, Thansing, Thaprek, Urleni[2]




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

27 Rasuwa 18 18 All VDCs passed

28 Dhading 46 36 10 Darkha, Jharlang, Kumpur, Lapa, Maidi, Mulpani, Nalang , Satyadevi, Sirtung, Semjong

29 Makwanpur 35 32 3 Raigaun, Gogane and Agra

30 Rautahat 84 45 39 Ajagabi, Akolawa, Auraiya, Bahuwa Madanpur, Banjaraha, Bariyarpur, Bhediyahi, Birtipraskota, Debahi, Dharhari, Gangapipra, Gadou, Inarbari Jyutahi, Inaruwa, Jatahare, Jowaha, Kakanpur, Lakshmipur, Madhopur, Basedewa, Matsari, Mithuawa, Narkatiya Guthi, Pataura, Pipariya, Pipra Bhagwanpur, Pipra paroha, Pipra Rajbara, Pratappur Paltuwa, Prempur Gunahi, Rajdevi, Santapur, Sarmujawa, Saruatha, Saunaraniya, Shitalpur Bairgania, Tejapakar, Tengraha,




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

31 Bara 68 27 41 Amarpatti, Amlekhganj, Avab, Bagadi, Bahuari, Balirampur, Bagwan, Barainiya, Beldari, Bhagwanpur, Bhuluhi Marwaliya, Bishnupur, Buniyad, Dewapur, Dharmanagar, Dohari, Gadhahal, Inarwamal, Inarwasira, Itiyahi, Jhitakaiya Dhakchin, Kabahigoth, Kabahijabdi, Kachorwa, Khopawa, Lakshmipur Kotwali, Lipanimal, Madhurijabdi, Pakadiya Motisahar, Paterwa, Pheta, Piparpati Jabdi, Pipra Basantapur, Pipradhi Goth, Prasauni, Prastoka, Purainiya, Rampur Tokani, Srinagar Bairiya, Sihorwa, Sisahaniya, Tedhakatti, Uttar, Umarjan[2]

32 Parsa 66 23 43 Amarpatti , Bagbana, Bahauri Pidari, Bahuarba Bhatha, Basadilwa, Beriya Birta, Bhedihari, Bhisawa, Ghore, Hariharpur, Hariharpur Birta, Harpur, Jagarnathpur, Jaimanglapur, Janikatala, Jhauwa Guthi, Jitpur, Kauwa Ban Kataiya, ahawarthakari, Lakhanpur, Lal Parsa, Langadi , Mahadevpatti, Mahuwan, Mainpur, , Mirjapur, Mudali, Nirchuta , Pancharukhi, Parsauni Matha , Prasurampur, Ramnagari, Sabaithawa, Shankar Saraiya, Subarnapur, Sugauli Birta, Sugauli Partewa, Surjaha, Tulsi Barba, Vhimpur, Pakaha, Kouwa Bankataiya, Pipra Ghodadhoud




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

33 Chitawan 8 6 2 Siddi, Lothar

34 Gokhara 60 60 All VDCs failed

35 Lamjung 35 35 All VDCs passed

36 Tanahun 37 36 1 Rupakot

37 Syangja 53 48 5 Arukharka, Phedikhola, Sorek, Tindobate, Wangsing

38 Kaski 32 32 All VDCs passed

39 Manang 13 13 All VDCs passed

40 Mustang 16 14 2 Tukuche, Lo Manthang

41 Myagdi 35 30 5 Babiyachaur, Dana, Darwang, Dowa, Mudi.

42 Parbat 47 45 2 Nagliwang Arthar, Dadakharka

43 Baglung 59 57 2 Singana, Rajkut

44 Gulmi 75 72 3 Limgha, Jaisithok, Chhapahile

45 Palpa 60 60 All VDCs passed

46 Nawalparasi 56 54 2 Bedoli and Kusma

47 Rupandehi 48 47 1 Man Materiya

48 Kapilvastu 53 36 17 Bidyanagar, Basantapur, Baskhaur, Bijuwa, Bithuwa, Dharampaniya, Dohani, Gauri, Haranampur, Hardauna, Nanda Nagar, Nigalihawa, Patariya, Patthardaihiya, Phulika, Pipari, Sauraha

49 Arghakhanchi 35 35 All VDCs passed

50 Pyuthan 42 40 2 Dhatiwang, Puja

51 Rolpa 49 49 All VDCs passed

52 Rukum 39 39 All VDCs passed

53 Salyan 35 35 All VDCs passed

54 Dang 31 31 All VDCs passed




MC

Name of Failed VDCs

Passed Number

Failed Number

55 Banke 33 33 All VDCs passed

56 Bardiya 18 17 1 Patabhar

57 Surkhet 40 39 1 Kapalkot

58 Dailekh 49 46 3 Kasikandh, Bansi, Lakhandra

59 Jajarkot 26 26 All VDCs failed

60 Dolpa 23 23 All VDCs failed

61 Jumla 26 26 All VDCs passed

62 Kalikot 30 30 All VDCs failed

63 Mugu 24 24 All VDCs failed

64 Humla 27 27 All VDCs failled

65 Bajhang 42 42 All VDCs failed

66 Bajura 24 24 All VDCs passed

67 Achham 56 54 2 Budhakot and Tumarkhad

68 Doti 50 50 All VDCs failed

69 Kailali 28 26 2 Dansinhapur, Boniya

70 Kanchanpur 4 4 All VDCs passed

71 Dadeldhura 18 16 2 Bagarkot, Ajayameru

72 Baitadi 56 45 11 Basuling, Dehimandau, Durga Bhabani, Giregada, Gurukhola, Hat, Kotila , Malladehi, Mathraj, Nagarjun, Rudreshwar

73 Darchula 36 13 23 Bhagawati, Boharigau, Byans, Datu, Dethala, Dhaulakot, Dhuligada, Eyarkot, Ghusa, Gokuleshwar, Gulijar, Hunainath, Khandeshwari, Khar, Kharkada, Lali, Latinath, Ranisikhar, Sikhar, Sipti, Sitaula, Sunsera, Uku

Total ��5� �� 4�� 0�

Note: VDCs those not assessesd MCPM are categorized as failed VDCs

Date post:	30-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

An Analysis Report of Minimum Conditions andlbfc.gov.np/sites/default/files/Analysis Report of MCPM...

Documents