July 2012 Submitted by: GoN/MoFALD Nepal Food Crisis Response Programme Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal [IDA Cr. No.: 4510-NEP; Grant No.: H4240_NEP & TF_93058] CONSULTING SERVICES FOR BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL SAFETY NETS PROJECT F F I I N N A A L L R R E E P P O O R R T T Sustainable Infrastructure Development Foundation (SIDeF) SIDeF House, 77- Tara Marga, Sinamangal, Kathmandu G.P.O. Box 1208, Kathmandu, Nepal Tel: (977)-1-4468879, 4481538 Fax: (977)-1- 4487438 [email protected]www.sidef.com.np
Transcript
July 2012
Submitted by:
GoN/MoFALD Nepal Food Crisis Response Programme
Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal
[IDA Cr. No.: 4510-NEP; Grant No.: H4240_NEP & TF_93058]
CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR
BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT
OF
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS PROJECT
FFFIIINNNAAALLL RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT
Sustainable Infrastructure Development Foundation (SIDeF)
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS ABBREVIATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1.1 General Introduction of the Project 1
1.1.2 NFCRP Components, Activities and Districts 1
1.1.3 Introduction of the Public Works Programme (PWP) 2
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY 4
1.3 SCOPE OF THE CONSULTING SERVICES 5
2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
6
2.1 DESK STUDY 6 2.2 FINALIZATION OF WORK SCHEDULE AND TASK ALLOCATION 6
2.3 MEETING WITH CENTRAL STAKEHOLDERS 7
2.4 SELECTION OF SITES AND SAMPLE SIZE 7
2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF CHECKLIST AND QUESTIONNAIRE 8
2.6 SELECTION OF RESEARCH ASSISTANT 8
2.7 ORIENTATION AND TRAINING 8
2.8 FIELD BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT AND DATA COLLECTION 8
2.9 DATA ENTRY, ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION 9
2.10 DESCRIPTION OF SITES/PROJECTS VISITED 9
2.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 11
3. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
12
3A. FINDINGS ON THE PUBLIC WORK PROGRAMME 12
3A.1 RESPONDENTS COMPOSITION 13
3A.2 RECOGNITION/AWARENESS 3A.2.1 Source of Awareness About the Programme
13 13
3A.2.2 Knowledge of Beneficiaries About the Funding Agencies 14 3A.2.3 Knowledge of Beneficiaries about the Programme Execution 14 3A.2.4 Knowledge on Scope of the Programme 15 3A.2.5 Awareness Levels of the Respondents about the Programme 15 3A.2.6 Knowledge about the Food/Cash that They Get 16 3A.2.7 Information Provided to Beneficiaries before Start of Project
Work 16
3A.2.8 Transparency & Information Sharing in Public Audits 17 3A.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION AND INCLUSION OF 19
TARGETED GROUP 3A.3.1 Involvement of Family Member in the Programme 19 3A.3.2 Sustainability Through their Own Agricultural Products 20 3A.3.3 Sustainability Through Additional Income 21 3A.4 PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY BENEFICIARIES AND ITS
UTILIZATION 21
3A.4.1 Payments Received by Beneficiaries from FFA/CFA 21 3A.4.2 Safe of Rice and Utilization of Cash Received from Selling 22 3A.4.3 Results from 'Cash for Asset' Doti 22
3A.5 PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION 23 3A.5.1 Perception of Beneficiaries aobut their Involvement in the
Programme 24
3A.5.2 Women Participation in the Programme 24 3A.5.3 Participation of Poor, Dalits and Marginalized Group in the
Programme 25
3A.6 FORMATION OF USER COMMITTEE 25 3A.6.1 UC Formation Method 25 3A.6.2 Size of the Committee 26 3A.7 LEVEL OF PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION 26 3A.7.1 Role of Beneficiaries in Selection of the Project 26 3A.7.2 Participation of People in the Overall Project Activities 27 3A.7.3 Participation in Formation of User's Committee 27 3A.7.4 Participation in Worker Selection Process 28 3A.7.5 Participation in Division of Work 28 3A.7.6 Beneficiaries Involvement in the Work Valuation 29 3A.7.7 Regularity of User's Meeting 29 3A.8 UTILIZATION AND OWNERSHIP 30 3A.8.1 Utilization of the Constructed Infrastructure 30 3A.8.2 Ownership and Maintenance 31 3A.9 IMPACT 32 3A.9.1 Impact on Feeding Habits 32 3A.9.2 Impact on Environment 33 3A.9.3 Impact on Working Habits 34 3A.10 SATISFACTION LEVEL 35 3A.10.1 Information Mechanism of the Program 36 3A.10.2 Perception of Beneficiaries on Quality 36 3A.11 OTHER AGENCIES AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE
3A.12 THE CONTRIBUTION OF USERS IN THE PROGRAMME 39 3.B FINDINGS ON DOA-SSNP 40
3B.1 LAND HOLDING OF RESPONDENTS 40
3B.2 FOOD DEFICIT STATUS 40
3B.3 INSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF BENEFICIARIES 41
3B.4 AWARENESS LEVEL ABOUT THE PROGRAM 41
3B.5 MAJOR CROPS CULTIVATED 41
3B.6 USE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZER AND IMPROVED SEEDS 42
3B.7 SOURCE OF AVAILABILITY 43
3B.8 AVAILABILITY AGAINST REQUIREMENT 43 3B.8.1 Quantity 43 3B.8.2 Type 44 3B.8.3 Time
44
3B.9 SUPPLY SITUATION AGAINST DEMAND 44
3B.10 INFORMATION WITH FARMERS ON SUBSIDY RECEIVED THROUGH SSNP ON FERTILIZER AND SEEDS
45
3B.11 SUFFICIENCY OF TRAINING AND ADVISORY SERVICES 45 3B.11.1 Level of Training and Advisory Services 45 3B.11.2 Source of Training and Advisory Services 45 3B.12 IMPACT OF FERTILIZER AND SEED SUBSIDY 46 3B.12.1 Effect on Increase in Production 46 3B.12.2 Effect on Reduction of Food Insecurity 46 3C FINDINGS ON NARC-SSNP 47
3C.1 FINDINGS OF MAKWANPUR DISTRICT 48
3C.2 FINDINGS OF KALIKOT DISTRICT 49
4. CONCLUSION, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
4.1 PUBLIC WORK PROGRAMME 51 4.1.1 Conclusion 51 4.1.2 Issues Need to be Addressed 51
4.2 ON DOA-SSNP 54 4.2.1 Conclusion 54 4.2.2 Issues Need to be Addressed 54 4.2.3 Recommendations 55
4.3 ON NARC-SSNP 56 4.3.1 Conclusion 56 4.3.2 Issues Need to be Addressed 56 4.3.3 Recommendations 56
ANNEXES: Annex – 1: Questionnaire for Beneficiary Level assessment Annex – 2: Checklist for Key Informants and Focus Group Discussion Annex – 3: List of Study Team Members Annex – 4: Detailed Data of Beneficiary Assessment
NFCRP/RCIW BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT- 2012: FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NFCRP-SSNP is jointly implemented by GoN/MoFALD and UN-WFP with assistance from the World Bank. This Beneficiary Assessment (BA) study has been carried out to provide feedback to the management of the Social Safety Nets Project in order to contribute to project improvements. The primary audience for the BA is the Social Safety Net National Programme Support Unit (NPSU) and the secondary audience includes the Department of Agriculture (DOA), National Agricultural Research Council (NARC), UN – World Food Programme (WFP), World Bank, other GoN institutions, and other development partners. The main objective of the present study is to understand the perception of beneficiaries towards overall programmes and activities of the project. The study areas included 16 sites in 7 food deficit districts. The sites were selected randomly within the selected districts. The selection of projects/sites/districts was broadly representative to various ecological zones and the regions, component type, implementation modality, investment level and infrastructure project types. Of the total beneficiaries' household in the selected area, at least 10% households had been selected for the study as mentioned in the ToR. It mostly comprised of diverse caste, and ethnic groups. A total of 449 households (HH) were visited during the study. Out of this, PWP comprised 264 HH (58.8%) in 6 districts (8 sites); DOA-SSNP comprised 150 HH (33.4%) in 4 districts (6 sites); and NARC-SSNP comprised 35 HH in 2 districts (2 sites). On average, the sample size was 15% of the population of Public Work Programme, 70% of DOA-SSNP, and 100% of NARC-SSNP sites. A) Summary Findings on PWP: Food for Assets and Cash for Assets programme being launched under Public Work Programme has been considered by very successful and need based programme by the beneficiaries and other local stakeholders. Specifically, as sites under study were found fully incorporated target beneficiaries of food deficit households. The beneficiary households also responded positively about impact of the programme outcomes in addressing the food problem of the beneficiaries. Some gaps were seen in information dissemination in all the sites and lack social mobilization in some of the sites. CFA programme needed further monitoring of the cash use by the participating families and proper selection of target beneficiaries to have adequate contribution on improvement in food security status of target population.
NFCRP/RCIW BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT- 2012: FINAL REPORT
Issues Need to be Addressed in PWP The programme is continuing year by year. Due to this reason, beneficiaries
were not sure how long it will continue or even whether they get support for next year. So, they complained that they were not able to plan on long-term basis and long term vision for sustained food security is missing. Most of the beneficiaries raised this issue everywhere.
As illustrated in the findings before, there were gaps observed in information dissemination system regarding the programme and programme partners in the initial phase of project cycle and regarding the work measurement process in implementation phase. Thrust on information dissemination and social mobilization needs to be properly focused and planned.
The beneficiaries were not clear about function and transparency role of the public audits programme and it needs to be implemented effectively.
Targeting in FFAs has been well considered as food deficit households including dalit and indigenous population were participating highly. On the other hand, in CFA programme in Doti and major cash use was not for food purchase that needs further study and analysis to achieve project objectives.
The beneficiaries were not clear on when and who should be responsible for maintenance of constructed project. They requested for more clarity and efforts in maintenance aspects for sustainability of created assets through PWP.
The beneficiaries were happy with rice payment, but about 30% workers requested for the provision of cash along with the rice so that they need not have to sell rice for other necessities like school fees, medical, clothing, house repair, etc. This may be a point to considered in future.
The workers have reported that the information provided in orientation and training is not enough to operate some specific schemes and they requested for technical training in Bjura (hydro electricity project) and specific training for fruits and vegetable farming in Kalikot and Doti.
Frequent supervision, and monitoring of the project form the district and central level was one of the request from the beneficiaries (20%).
B) Summary Findings on DOA-SSNP: Application of chemical fertilizer and improved seed directly increases the production and productivity of crops. Subsidy on chemical fertilizer and improved seeds is a means through which the fertilizer and improved seed is being made available to the farmers and made possible for them to purchase these inputs. Chemical fertilizer and improved seeds are directly related to the increase of food production and productivity that is most important factor to ascertain long term food security of rural farming households. Sample respondents were found to be in immense demand of these agricultural inputs and they appreciated the Project for the support provided.
NFCRP/RCIW BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT- 2012: FINAL REPORT
Farmers are getting transport subsidy in their purchase price. They can pay to purchase the fertilizer on same basis if the quantity is increased. So the involvement of other sector with the coordination of Government is essential to make the fertilizer easily available to farmers in required quantity. Study findings show that fertilizer and seeds were not available to the farmers in demanded quantity and in due time. It is a problem entire country is facing despite all efforts. As a result, interviewed farmers reported that increase in food production was not as desired. There was some deficiency found in information dissemination system that needs improvement. There is need of specific targeting of recipients and the program needs systematization for sustained results. Issues Need to be Addressed in DOA-SSNP:
The quantity of fertilizer supplied is not sufficient enough to fulfill the demand of the farmers of the whole district. A rough estimate shows that one district needs 5,000 – 10,000 Mt of chemical fertilizer. Fortunately due to SSNP, some farmers are getting fertilizer and improved seeds to some extent. However, the supported quantity is low to fulfill the demand of the whole district.
Farmers are not getting fertilizer and seed on time. The cause may be due to many hurdles to get it transported. The DADO is importing fertilizer and seeds through service providers and is distributing them through cooperatives and groups of farmers. Other farmers not included in group feel difficulty to get it.
There is need of strategic planning to focus program to specific target population or to specific food deficit pocket. At present it provided on ad-hoc basis to satisfy demands of all farmers even with provision of lesser quantity. That indicates need of formation of proper program vision and formulation of long term implementation modality.
Generally, only Urea is available in more quantity than other phosphorous and potash fertilizer. Balancing of nitrogen, phosphorous and potash is required for sustainable increase in productivity.
In Salyan district, somewhere only maize seed were supplied, whereas the farmers needed paddy, wheat and vegetable seeds also. Fertilizer and other inputs were not easily available. In this district, there is no office or depot of Agriculture Input Company Ltd. So there is difficulty in getting or purchase fertilizer and seed.
In Bajura also, same problem is being faced by farmers. They are not getting seed and fertilizer on required time.
C) Summary Findings on NARC-SSNP: NARC is a research council, its main objective is to conduct research and release new variety of seed suitable to the particular area to get more yield. In this program NARC has supported in seed multiplication program. The program was found to be in its initial phase and yet to show its full results. However, the farmers liked the support
NFCRP/RCIW BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT- 2012: FINAL REPORT
provided and requested for its continuity in greater extent. The seed producing farmers opined that due to small coverage they have not been able to gain results as desired. So, they requested to intensify the program further. Issues to be Addressed in NARC-SSNP:
The produced seeds‘ quantity is not sufficient to contribute in seed extension and seed production and to decrease the food deficit situation as required. So, it needs further intensification.
There is need of systematic planning based on clear identification of objectives.
There is need of coordinated effort between DOA-SSNP and NARC-SSNP in the districts to have effective results and impact.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
In Nepal, the people who live below the poverty line must cope with frequent food shortages. The poorest sections of the society – mainly landless and illiterate people – may not have enough food, during the months of May to June and November to January in particular, because either they have consumed all of their own harvest or they are jobless. In remote hill and highland districts, this situation is frequently compounded by scarcity of food in the markets due to inadequate transportation networks and ineffectual food supply systems. Even some of the plain land (terai) districts have pockets of extreme poverty causing food security problem to specific groups of people.
In response to these problems, in 1995, Government of Nepal (GoN), Ministry of Local Development (MLD recently named as Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development or MoFALD) initiated the Rural Community Infrastructure Works Programme (RCIWP) as a joint effort with the assistance of the United Nations‘ World Food Programme (WFP) and the German Government through German Technical Cooperation (GTZ later termed as GIZ). A second phase of RCIW commenced in July 2000, based on its accomplishments and lessons learnt during the first five years. GoN considered RCIW programme as one of the major poverty alleviation programmes as it caters to the most food insecure and most deprived people of Nepal. After GIZ phased out in 2007, both WFP and MoFALD continued the programme and in 2008 the World Bank (WB) became involved to further finance the programme under Social Safety Nets Project (SSNP) to support GoN‘s Nepal Food Crisis Response Programme (NFCRP). 1.1.1 General Introduction of the Project The Nepal Food Crisis Response Programme (NFCRP) addresses the short and medium term implications of the global food crisis for Nepal by improving access to food and strengthening agricultural production particularly for food insecure districts and small holders. The Social Safety Net project (within the NFCRP) includes support to implementation of social safety net measure to maintain access to food and basic needs among vulnerable households in food insecure districts, and has a short term programme for vulnerable districts through various Public Work Programme (PWP). The overall development objective of NFCRP is to generate long-term benefits that improve the livelihoods of people living in the most food deficit districts of Nepal. Its immediate objectives are to enable poor people to obtain and maintain assets that increase the availability of food and income in both their community and the individual households. NFCRP follows integrated food security concept, which aims to address constraints on food availability and people's access to food.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
2
1.1.2 NFCRP Components, Activities and Districts The Public Works Programme (PWP) under NFCRP is jointly implemented through GoN/MoFALD and WFP. The Public Work Programme includes: i) Food for Assets (FFAs), Cash for Assets (CFAs) and combination of Food and/ Cash for Assets (F/CFAs) as a social safety net, ii) the creation of productive assets to improve livelihood opportunities, and iii) a nutrition safety net. FFAs, CFAs and F/CFAs are used to address the immediate, short-term food needs of vulnerable population and support their recovery from multiple shocks by creating productive assets. The nutrition intervention includes micronutrient supplements and treatment of moderate acute malnutrition for children 6-59 months. Public Works Programme is being implemented in 21 districts. Implementation of PWP is undertaken by the GoN through Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW) and is also directly implemented by I/NGOs partners hired through WFP. The same I/NGOs are also mobilized by WFP to provide the technical assistance and social mobilisation for the 21 RCIW districts. In addition to the Public Work Programme, SSNP also has a provision of essential inputs (Seed/Fertilizer) to enhance agricultural productiveness in 23 districts of Nepal, as an integrated programme under Social Safety Nets Project (SSNP) which includes transport subsidy for transportation of seeds and fertilizer up to the Agricultural Service Center level, data collection, monitoring activities to ensure small farmers are getting the subsidized fertilizer including the design and piloting of a voucher scheme for poor farmers and farmer sensitization on the proper use of fertilizer through Department of Agriculture (DOA). NARC has been identified for seed sub component under the Additional Financing for the SSNP. This sub component provides support for seed production and capacity building with the objective to develop a sustainable breeder and foundation seed production system, improve the production and supply of quality seeds, and ensure a functional, sustainable seed production and supply. 1.1.3 Introduction of the Public Works Programme (PWP) The PWP provides 50-70 days of employment annually in public works to about 400,000 beneficiaries in 21 districts. Asset development includes small-scale irrigation and other water management system, greenhouses, orchards, and fish ponds. Past assets until 2010 also included roads, which was until then the majority of the assets that were created. These are complemented with agriculture and livelihood training in some of the project areas. The activity is jointly implemented by GON/MoFALD, UN-WFP, with support of various technical assistance and social mobilization partners which include GIZ, Mercy Corps, MDI, SAPROS, Save the Children and TMI. In the short run, the programme works to alleviate the temporary food shortages of food insecure households mainly through Food, Cash or combination for Asset projects. Asset projects involve the construction of labour based rural infrastructures
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
3
like rural roads, pond, flood control structures, irrigation schemes, etc., where unskilled labours are paid in terms of food, cash or combination. This type of intervention is only adequate to guarantee immediate food supply, short-term employment and to create infrastructures that may be helpful for long-term food security of the target population. All of the activities are carried out by the user groups (UGs), who are the representatives of the most food insecure households in the district and are managed by the user committees (UCs) who are the chosen ones from among the user groups, with technical and social mobilization support from the programme. There is National Programme Support Unit (NPSU) in MoFALD to administer and coordinate the programme activities and there is District Programme Support Units (DPSU) in each programme district under MoFALD to manage the activities locally and to support the UCs in implementation of activities. In many districts there is also technical assistance (TA) support from competent NGOs to support the DPSU and UCs. There are following work elements/ major activities in a typical Public Work Programme:
Identification and selection of sub-projects done by UG with assistance of DDC/DPSU and TA-NGOs. DDC and VDCs play facilitating role.
Approval of projects and allocation of resources: by MoFALD/NPSU with support from donor/TA agencies.
Formation and orientation of UC/UG: by DPSU/TA
Contract between DDC/LDO and UC facilitated by DPSU
Procurement, quality control and transportation of food item (rice) up to Extended Delivery Point (EDP): by WFP in coordination with DDC/DPSU
Procurement and delivery of non-food items (tools, equipments) up to EDP: by WFP/NPSU or TA in coordination with MoFALD/RCIW
Local level training and awareness activities: by TA in general supported by DPSU and local TA
Technical supervision, work certification and management support for implementation: DPSU/DDC with support from local TA
Storage and handling of food (rice, pulse) and non-food items in district store and transfer to site stores: DDC/DPSU
Transport of food/non-food items from district stores to sites and distribution to workers as per bill prepared by DPSU:UC in coordination with DPSU
Social mobilization and public audits: TA in coordination with DPSU and with support from UC
Monitoring of work progress and reporting: DPSU/DDC with support from TA and also from WFP and NPSU
Monitoring of handling of food and non-food items: WFP and MoFALD/NPSU
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
4
Operation and maintenance of completed structures: UC/UG with assistance from DDC/VDC
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY NFCRP undertook Beneficiary Assessment (BA) to provide feedback to the management of the Safety Net Project in order to contribute to project improvements. The primary audience for the BA is the Social Safety Net National Programme Support Unit (NPSU) and the Joint Secretary of MoFALD to whom the unit reports. And the secondary audience includes the Department of Agriculture (DOA), National Agricultural Research Council (NARC), the Vital Registration and Population Statistics Unit of MoFALD, UN – World Food Programme (WFP), World Bank, other GoN institutions, and other development partners. The main objective of the present study is to understand the perception of beneficiaries towards overall programmes and activities of the project. The SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES of the study are presented below:
Different levels/types of participation, the motivation and challenges for different groups of people for participation.
Beneficiary access to the different components of the programme
The beneficiary use/ (and where relevant maintenance) of the infrastructure/asset/seeds/cash/food provided by the programme.
Beneficiary preference for process/implementation of programme (including transfer of food/cash, amounts, timing and location of transfer) and how they feel the programme can be improved. Overall review the appropriateness of the project in the context of the food security situation of the targeted area.
The impact/benefits (particularly around food security, food consumption patterns, vulnerability) of the programme(s) to the beneficiaries (at all levels: individual, family and community).
Beneficiary knowledge of programme, processes and institutions which deliver the programme.
The effectiveness of Food, Cash or combination for Assets activities towards achieving project objectives through the participation of beneficiaries themselves.
Beneficiary recognition/awareness of programme and support/assistance provided by different partners/institutions working in the project.
The sustainability of assets created (maintenance plan, maintenance committee, fund collection and management, ownership feeling by the beneficiaries, institutional development and linkages).
The beneficiary satisfaction on the targeting mechanism (are the needy people getting the benefit from, need based scheme selection and prioritization).
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
5
Collect information from the beneficiaries directly that how this project is helping them to improve food security situation of their households and how it is going to enhance the agricultural productivity in the targeted areas in the long run for the long term food security.
Seed and fertilizer use among the beneficiaries farmer on some key indicators such as on production, productivities and food security aspects.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE CONSULTING SERVICES The Beneficiary Assessment (BA) Consultants had to conduct study/assessment and recommend the impacts/benefits particularly around food security, food consumption patterns, vulnerability etc. of the programme and conduct study/assessment and recommend the necessary modification in the programme implementation, use/maintenance. The BA Consultants had also to conduct study/assessment of levels/types of participation and beneficiaries feelings for the improvement of the programme implementation. The Consultant was also required to submit the data disaggregated by district and programme components under SSNP. As per the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the study, it was desired to survey about 12 sites in six districts. Later one more district was added to include one ‗Cash for Asset‘ site. The selection of sites/districts was to be broadly representative of the ecological zones and the regions, implementation modality, investment level and project types. The ToR of study desired total number of households to be 10-25 percent of the beneficiaries in the areas. The individuals surveyed were to be stratified by the gender, ethnicity and caste (detailed process adopted has been described in the methodology chapter). The major research issues and scope of work for the BA as defined in the ToR of the assignment include the following topics: A. Recognition/Awareness — beneficiary recognition/awareness towards the
programme and institutions which deliver the programme. B. Participation — different levels and types of participation, the motivation and
challenges for different groups of people for participation. C. Impacts/Benefits — impacts/benefits (particularly around food security, food
consumption patterns, vulnerability) of the programme to the beneficiaries (individual, family, and community) and recommendations of the assessment.
D. Use/Maintenance — beneficiary use/maintenance of the infrastructures built by
programme and recommendations for improvements. E. Process — beneficiary preference for process/implementation of programme
(including transfer of food/cash, amounts, timing and location of transfer) and how they feel the programme can be improved.
F. Recommendations — overall review the appropriateness of the project in the
context of the food security situation of the targeted area and suggest for improvements in future works.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
6
CCHHAAPPTTEERR –– 22:: SSTTUUDDYY AAPPPPRROOAACCHH AANNDD MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY The study approach had been designed in line with the specific objectives to achieve the main objectives of the study. The study was designed with descriptive and analytical approaches to interpret the collected data with suitable tables, pie-chart, bar-diagrams etc. The whole study approach was social in the sense that it was based on an investigation of the social dimensions/social perception on local development. Structured Questionnaire with mostly closed ended questions had been developed to gather information and knowledge from interview with beneficiaries from the selected households. This helped to understand their interest, views, perception, satisfaction level, suggestions etc. (for detail see Annex-A). To supplement the information collected from the beneficiaries, interview was taken with few key informants in each study area. As far as possible, key informant was chosen from the project related institutions or organizations such as NGOs, government officials, chair person, secretary or other members of UC, ex-VDC chair person, VDC secretary, etc. For the interview with key informant, checklist was prepared with common consensus of all team members (See Annex-2). This interview aided experts to frame opinions and understanding about the beneficiaries and the project area including impacts. Apart from these tools, at least 4 focus group discussions (FGD) with wider beneficiaries (like general users, political party representatives, social workers, teachers, shop-keepers, past VDC representatives, local NGO/CO representatives, etc.) were conducted in each site. Major issues and suggestions received from respondents were discussed in the FGD for in-depth field analysis and for formulation of recommendations. Apart from above mentioned tool and techniques, extensive field observation and professional analysis was also be carried out for the better understanding of the project areas. 2.1 DESK STUDY Documents like project report, annual reports and other secondary information and available demographic information of the proposed districts have been studied. Further, past studies carried out and information related with technological aspects and social framework conditions was also reviewed for analysis and as base for further field evaluation work. To finalize the above mentioned tasks, meetings were held in multi-stages between the team members in SIDeF office and between team members and central stakeholders in MoFALD. Multi stages meetings also helped to have common understanding among the members of the team and central stakeholders on different aspects of the assessment. 2.2 FINALIZATION OF WORK SCHEDULE AND TASK ALLOCATION With the common consensus of the team members, second week of the month of April 2012, had been finalized for the field visit. It had been decided to visit two project areas by each senior team members who includes Team leader and other
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
7
three senior researchers along with allocated Assistant Researchers (Enumerators). Senior team members (Team leader and Senior Researchers) mainly focussed on the interview of district level stakeholders as well as focus group discussions and interview with key informants at field level. They also carried out thorough observation of the project areas as far as possible. Beside this, keen observation was also made while research assistant took interview with beneficiaries. 2.3 MEETING WITH CENTRAL STAKEHOLDERS As recommended in the project proposal, a meeting was held with the Central stakeholders that included UN-WFP and MoFALD-NPSU officers at WFP conference hall on 5 April 2012 and meetings were also held with other central level stakeholders like DOA-SSNP and NARC prior to the commencement of the study. The main objectives of this meeting was to get introduced with each other (central stakeholders and consultant team), discuss the scope of work, proposed research methods, the work programme, and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different researchers. The meeting was also useful for sharing general information regarding the proposed activities and getting comments on the field questionnaires. Another key issues discussed at the meeting was the survey design including the sampling, site locations, sampling unit and methods of analysis that all research teams would use. 2.4 SELECTION OF SITES AND SAMPLE SIZE Number of sites to be visited and sample size was clearly defined in the ToR. In the ToR, 12 sites had been proposed for the study in 6 districts. But after discussions with the stakeholders, 16 sites in 7 districts were selected. Selection of districts was made by the Steering Committee meeting. The sites were selected randomly within the selected districts. The selection of projects/sites/districts was broadly representative to various ecological zones (mountain, hill, inner terai) and the regions (five development regions), component type (Public Work Programme, DOA-SSNP, NARC-SSNP), implementation modality (FFAs, CFAs), investment level and infrastructure project types (road, trail, irrigation, pond, micro-hydro). Of the total beneficiaries' household in the selected area, at least 10% households had been decided to be selected for the study as mentioned in the ToR. In some sites (specifically the DOA-SSNP & NARC-SSNP sites) sample size exceed this percentage (i.e. up to 100%) depending upon the population size and the time frame. On average, the sample size was 15% of the population of Public Work Programme, 70% of DOA-SSNP, and 100% of NARC-SSNP sites. Members of NARC-SSNP group were very small in number i.e. below 20 persons; so, all members of the group were selected as respondents in NARC-SSNP sites. Similarly, members in DOA-SSNP sites also were smaller in number. Hence, on average 70% of the farmers in particular sites were sampled as respondents to maintain statistical soundness of the sample size. Stratified random sampling was adopted to select the sample households. First of all, respondents were stratified by the gender, ethnicity, caste etc. From each stratified group, at least 10 percent households were selected that also made at least 10 percent of total household of particular site.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
8
2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF CHECKLIST AND QUESTIONNAIRE Discussions were held in multi-stages at SIDeF office to prepare questionnaire and checklist for the proposed study. It was decided to prepare questionnaire to extract the views of beneficiaries and, similarly, it was also decided to prepare separate checklist to get the information from key informants. Specific tasks were given to each senior members of the study team (Which includes Team Leader and other three senior researchers). With common consensus, it was decided to adopt structured questionnaire with mostly closed ended questions. However, checklist was prepared with both open ended question topics. After completion of questionnaire and checklist, it was presented to the central stakeholders (MoFALD-NPSU, UN-WFP, DOA-SSNP, NARC) and their comments and suggestions were incorporated and necessary amendments were made in the final questionnaire and checklist. 2.6 SELECTION OF RESEARCH ASSISTANT After finalizing the questionnaire, field enumerators (Assistant Researchers) were hired as per ToR; and their list of tasks was finalized. To have common understanding on the different aspects of the study, team discussion was held in SIDeF office along with the Project Director of SIDeF, Team Leader, Senior Researchers and Assistant Researchers.
To collect field level data from each selected site of sampled districts, as per ToR, eight research assistants were selected. Past experience in similar works was the main criteria while selecting research assistants all of them were well experienced and energetic youth having past experience with RCIW and field data collection work along with keen interest in completing such challenging task within scheduled time. All of them were made clear about their job description. The experts carried out field monitoring of research assistant's work and provided necessary support to them. 2.7 ORIENTATION AND TRAINING After finalizing all the field staff selection procedure including research assistant, a formal two days orientation and training programme for the research assistants was conducted in Kathmandu in second week of April 2012. On the first day, selected research assistants were given general information about the study, its aim, target, and way of doing work with theoretical approaches and data collection methodology. And, on the second day, training was given on sampling process, understanding on questionnaire and checklist, practical aspects of the data collection, way to cope with possible obstacles during data collection etc. This orientation and training was given by the expert senior consultants. This orientation and training programme also helped to have common understanding between all the members of the study team. 2.8 FIELD BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT AND DATA COLLECTION The Beneficiary Assessment Team comprising of Team Leader/ Senior Researchers and Assistant Researchers made field visit to carry out the assessment work in line
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
9
with the tasks and key areas of exploring mentioned in the ToR. Basically, the tools applied were household interview with direct beneficiaries of sampled households using structures questionnaire, field observation & professional analysis, information collection from key-informants, focus group discussion at 4 places in each site, discussion with user groups, and discussions with central (MoFALD-NPSU, WFP, DAO-IWRMP-SSNP, NARC-SSNP) and district level stakeholders (DPSU, DDC, DTO, DADO, NARC Research Station) to ascertain their perception, suggestions and possibilities of future activities and linkages. The experts carried out central and district level interactions and field monitoring of Assistant Researchers' work and provided hands-on support to them. 2.9 DATA ENTRY, ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION Completed questionnaires and information sheets were entered in computer with coding using SPSS software to get easy data analysis results. After return of Assistant Researchers from field, they quick-checked the data formats brought by them before entry in computer. The entered data were verified with original formats on daily basis for accuracy. Discussion among the expert team was done before coming to conclusions and report preparation. The expert team provided analytical remarks and suggestions based on the field findings, remarks from the communities, stakeholders interaction, and also the independent analysis of the experts. 2.10 DESCRIPTION OF SITES/PROJECTS VISITED During the NFRCRP-SSNP-NPSU meeting held on 5 March 2012, it was decided to conduct the study in six districts covering 12 sites incorporating the schemes/sites of Public Work Component DAO-SSNP, and NARC-SSNP. Further, during meeting held at WFP on 5 April 2012 to finalise sites, it was decided to add one more district (Doti) to include a ‗Cash for Asset‘ site. There is only DOA programme in Gorkha. Thus, the consultants proposed to study three sites in this district to cover reasonable number of households. Similarly, the beneficiaries of hydropower scheme in Bajura were found scattered in three settlements during field visit; and it was decided to cover them all. Hence, total number of sites covered became 16 in 7 districts at the end of field work. List of visited sites, district/programme wise details of respondents, sex and ethnic composition of respondents has been provided below.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
3. Gorkha Agricultural Group Palungtar-1,6,7,8 Gorakhkali Municipality-3,4,5,6,7,9
DOA-SSNP
4. Salyan Agarneta-Patihalna Mule Trail
Kupindedaha- 1,2,3
4.48 Km. FFA
Agricultural Group Marke-2,4,5 DOA-SSNP
5. Kalikot Community Pond Badalkot-4 2 No. FFA
Pantadi Community Organization
Gela-5 7 Ropani (Wheat)
NARC- SSNP
6. Bajura Badhu Micro-hydropower
Badhu-9, Kolti-4,3
1 No. FFA
Agricultural Group Kuldevmandu-7 DOA-SSNP
7. Doti Irrigation Scheme Kalena-4 8 Ha. CFA
Table 2: District/Programme wise Number of Respondents
S.N. District Public Work Programme DOA-SSNP NARC-SSNP Total
1 Khotang 60 25 - 85
2 Makawanpur 60 - 15 75
3 Gorkha - 75 - 75
4 Salyan 51 25 - 76
5 Kalikot 42 - 20 62
6 Doti 26 - - 26
7 Bajura 25 25 - 50
Total 264 (58.8%) 150 (33.4%) 35 (7.8%) 449 (100%)
A total of 449 households (HH) were visited during the study. Out of this, PWP comprised 264 HH (58.8%) in 6 districts (8 sites); DOA-SSNP comprised 150 HH (33.4%) in 4 districts (6 sites); and NARC-SSNP comprised 35 HH in 2 districts (2 sites). Number of households in NARC-SSNP sites is small even after covering the entire beneficiary HH, because they were small groups. As per statistical norms the representativeness of the sample is good as they lead to 95% confidence level.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
11
Table 3: Sex and Ethnic Composition of Respondents
S. N.
Programme Type
Sex Ethnicity
Male Female Total Dalit Janajati Others Total
1
PWP
152 (57.6%)
112 (42.4%)
264 (100%)
106 (40.2%)
103 (39%)
55 (20.8%)
264 (100%)
2
DAO-SSNP
73 (48.7%)
77 (51.3%)
150 (100%)
1 (0.7%)
46 (30.7%)
103 (68.6%)
150 (100%)
3
NARC-SSNP
22 (62.9%)
13 (37.1%)
35 (100%)
- (0%)
3 (8.6%)
32 (91.4%)
35 (100%)
Total
247 (55%)
202 (45%)
449 (100%)
107 (23.8)
152 (33.9%)
190 (42.3%)
449 (100%)
Above table depicts that people involved in PWP are fairly represented considering their sex and ethnicity.
2.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study is limited to beneficiaries‘ assessment on various aspects of SSNP. Hence, the data presented in this study represents the perceptions of the beneficiaries, which in some cases may differ from facts. Verification of the information provided by beneficiaries has not been made with other secondary data. For example, data provided by beneficiaries on food deficit status or increase in production in studied sites has not been verified with secondary data available with line agencies and it may differ from them. However, in evident cases expert‘s views has been indicated in notes under beneficiaries data. Another limitation of the study was time frame. The study has to be completed within 3.5 months. There were many road blockades and strikes happening during the study that created hurdles and delay in field work. Resources were limited too. Therefore, only 7 districts were selected for the study. The analysis is limited to simple analysis of tables, averages and percentages. It was not possible to include census of all people. Every attempt was made to make the sample as representative as possible but it may not represent every aspects of people's perception.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
3.A.1 Respondents Composition Nepal is highly diverse country with more than 100 different social groups recognized with varying cultural traditions. There are many sub-groups within the major caste/ethnic social groups. It is equally true in the study areas (selected districts) where projects were implemented. Although, there are intra-group differences in access to opportunities, it can nevertheless be said that broadly, the Brahmans, Chhetris (both Hill and Terai) and Thakuri have got adequate opportunities in different fields in the national and local level. Those who have been left out from the opportunities and who have lower economic, education and health outcomes are generally Dalit communities (both hill and Terai), Janajati (both Hill and Terai) and Muslims.
Table 4: District wise Number of Respondents
S.N. District No. of Respondent Percentage
1 Bajura 25 9.5
2 Doti 26 9.8
3 Kalikot 42 15.9
4 Khotang 60 22.7
5 Makawanpur 60 22.7
6 Salyan 51 19.3
Total 264 100.0
The proposed study areas mostly comprise of Damai, Kami, Sarki, and Sunar as the Dalits. Similarly Rai, Magar, Newar, Gurung etc. are the most prominent ethnic groups. Likewise, Muslim is the most eminent minority group in the study areas. The following table shows the Caste/Ethnic Composition of the sampled beneficiaries. Table 5: Caste/Ethnicity Composition
S.N. Caste/Ethnic Group No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Scheduled Cast (Dalit) 106 40.2
2 Indigenous Nationalities (Janjati) 103 39
3 Minorities (Muslim) 1 0.4
4 Others 54 20.5
Total 264 100
Note: Others include Brahmin, Chhetri, Thakuri, and Sannyasi Out of 264 selected respondents (beneficiaries), 40% were recorded as Dalits. Ethnic people were found to be 39% followed by minorities (0.4%). Most noteworthy finding of the study is that despite high social status and rank in the social stratification, beneficiaries were found predominantly from the upper lower caste and ethnic group. The other group comprising Brahmin, Chhetri, Thakuri, and Sannyasi
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
13
were 20.5 % of the total sampled beneficiaries. They are listed as others in the above table. Of the total 264 respondents, 152 (58%) were recorded male and 112 (42%) were female. Average family size of the beneficiaries was recorded from 5 to 7. Likewise, 50% family (of the total) were found with more than 6 members and almost repeated family size is also 6. RECOGNITION & AWARENESS ASPECTS 3A.2 RECOGNITION/ AWARENESS LEVEL The ToR asked the study team to assess beneficiaries‘ recognition and awareness level towards the Project and institutions involved in the project. It also meant to know the adequacy of information dissemination system in practice. The awareness level was assessed through various indirect questions on the project activities and stakeholders to determine their overall awareness and adequacy of information dissemination system as presented below. 3A.2.1 Source of Awareness about the Programme For any Programme to be successful, information plays a vital role. Information sharing is the most essential element for the development activities which adopts model of people's participation. Various mechanisms were introduced in the programme to aware the local people about the programme. The most common methods employed included meetings among the User's group, VDC representative, DDC representatives and Programme representatives.
Table 6: Sources of Information about the Programme
S.N. Source No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Users Meeting 189 71.6
2 VDC 3 1.1
3 Programme Representatives From District
34 12.9
4 Neighbouring Villagers 5 1.9
5 Other 6 2.3
6 Users Meeting & Neighbouring Villagers
2 0.8
7 Users Meeting & District Reps 25 9.5
Total 264 100
Above table clearly shows that majority of the respondents (about 72%) were informed about the programme through the meetings held among the Users. Programme representatives from the district, VDC and DDC representatives also played a significant role (about 24%) in supplying information to the beneficiaries. About 2% of the total sampled beneficiaries reported that neighbouring villagers also helped them to know about the information of the programme. The most effective
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
14
method was found to be calling of user's meeting by users committee to share the information about the programme.
3A.2.2 Knowledge of Beneficiaries about the Funding Agencies The study scope included assessment of beneficiaries‘ awareness level on Project and institutions involved in the Project. The study revealed that the beneficiaries did not have clear information on all the programme partners or institutions supporting/implementing the activities. It indicates that there are some lapses in prevailing information dissemination system. Among the sampled beneficiaries, none of them reported about the World Bank and its involvement in the programme. However, majority of the respondents reported WFP as the major sponsor of the programme. Majority of people were not aware about involvement of GoN and MoFALD.
Table 7: Funding Agencies of the Programme
S.N. Funding Agency No. of Respondents Percentage
1 GoN 25 9.5
2 DDC 2 0.7
3 VDC 7 2.6
4 WFP 193 73.0
5 Don't Know 37 14.2
Total 264 100
The table above indicates that majority of the respondents were well of the opinion that World Food Programme is the main sponsor of the programme. About 13% of them believed that government, DDC and VDC were also supporting the programme but 14% respondents expressed their ignorance about the sponsors and supporters of the programme which indicate that there is still some confusion about who is actually funding the programme. 3A.2.3 Knowledge of Beneficiaries about the Programme Executors
The beneficiaries were well aware of the executors the programme. Table 8: Knowledge of Executor
S.N. Executor No. of Respondent Percentage
1 DDC 3 1.2
2 Users Committee 192 75.3
3 MoFALD 1 0.4
4 All of them 39 15.3
5 Don't Know 20 7.8
Total 255 100
The above table indicates that of the total sampled population, 75% knew that the project activities were executed by User's Committee and 2% beneficiaries reported that the programme was executed by the Governmental bodies such as DDC, VDC
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
15
and MOFALD itself. 15% thought all (User Committee, DDC, DVC, Donor Agencies and MOFALD) were equally responsible executors of the Project. The beneficiaries, who did not know about the executor of the programme was 8%, majority of them were from micro project. Rest of the respondents did not answer the asked question. Many villagers wish not to answer to questions when they are not sure about it.
3A.2.4 Knowledge on Scope of the Programme The study revealed that knowledge of the beneficiaries regarding the scope of the whole programme is limited. Almost all the beneficiaries thought that the work which is being carried out in their area is only the work that the programme does. The respondents where road projects were implemented believed that the scope of the project was limited to road construction. Hence, it may be concluded that beneficiaries did not possess thorough knowledge on the scope of the programme.
Table 9: Knowledge of Beneficiaries on the Scope of the Programme
Scope No. of Respondent Percentage
1 Road 171 64.8
2 Bridge 7 2.7
3 Irrigation 61 23.1
4 Water-Supply 4 1.5
5 School 15 5.7
6 Other 5 1.9
7 No Response 1 0.4
Total 264 100
Of the total respondents, majority (65%) reported that the main work that the programme does is road construction in rural areas. They did not have any knowledge about the other works that the programme performs. Similarly, 23% believed that the programme was only for irrigation work. Whereas, 1.5% said water supply is the main work of the programme. However, 0.4% did not have any answer.
3A.2.5 Awareness Levels of the Respondents about the Programme
Despite the information mechanism of the programme, it is noticed that villagers also took initiative to share the information about the programme in their personal level in their own villages.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
16
Table 10: Level of Awareness of the Villagers about the Programme
S.N. Awareness about Programme
No. of Respondents Percentage
1 All 122 46.2
2 Most 132 50.0
3 Few 5 1.9
4 Don't Know 1 0.4
5 No Response 4 1.5
Total 264 100.0
Of the total, 46% respondents believed that all the villagers are well aware of the project that is being introduced by RCIWP. It is followed by 50%, who believed that most of the villagers know about the programme. However, 5 respondents (2%), thought that only few people have information about the programme and 1 respondents (0.4%) was not sure about the villagers whether they have been aware or not. 3A.2.6 Knowledge about the Food/Cash that They Get During the field survey, people were asked if they were aware about the food/cash they get for the work. Of the total respondents, 95% reported that people were aware of the fact that they are given either rice or cash for the work but they were not sure about exactly how much quantity of rice or cash they can get. The study also revealed that majority of the respondents had an idea about the basis of payment but they did not know details of it. They opined that, the amount of payment depends upon some kind of evaluation for the work that they have done in the project. 3A.2.7 Information Provided to Beneficiaries before Start of Project Work Before initiation of the project, it is found that the concerned authorities provided necessary information to the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were informed and made aware about the project work, the wages, the ledger, the working style, the process of measurement and the evaluation. Total 89% reported that information they received from workers gathering, 4.5% by simple discussion and 6% said that they had no information sharing.
Table 11: Method of Information Sharing before Start of Work
S.N. Information Received by No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Informed at worker's gathering 234 88.6
2 Simple discussion was held 12 4.5
3 Don't know 16 6.1
4 No response 2 0.8
Total 264 100.0
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
17
Table 12: Information Sharing Topics before Start of Work
S.N. Information Provided about No. of Answers Percentage
1 Programme 175 33.6%
2 Remuneration 148 28.4%
3 Project Ledger 58 11.1%
4 Measurement Process 39 7.5%
5 Working Style 98 18.8%
6 Other 3 0.6%
Total 521 100.0%
Note: The question contained multiple answers Majority of the respondents (34%) reported that they were informed on the programme followed by remuneration (28%), working style (19%), project ledger (11%) and measurement process (7.5%). Similarly when respondents were asked about the knowledge of project book (ledger), nearly 34% were found not aware of the things that are written in the project book. However, about 26% said that income and expenditure of rice and account of the project as a whole is written in the project book.
Table 13: Knowledge on Content of Project Book
S.N. Knowledge on Content of Project Book
No. of Answers Percentage
1 Project account 56 16.4
2 Remuneration distribution 72 21.1
3 Income/expenses of rice 90 26.4
4 Don't know 115 33.7
5 Other 8 2.3
Total 341 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers 3A.2.8 Transparency & Information Sharing in Public Audits In order to ensure transparency, participatory public (social) auditing has been introduced. From the field study, it is revealed that the programme was transparent to some extent. It had to systematically follow the steps of public auditing and seems that the step has been moderately implemented. Only 54% (male 64.5 % and female 40%) respondents conveyed that they had participated in the public auditing after they had received their wages either in cash or food. 12%(male 9.9 % and female 14.3 %) said that they had never participated in the public auditing, and 14.4% were found with no idea about public auditing and about 20% of them did not respond to this query. This shows that further improvements are needed in this aspect. Most of the beneficiaries in Makwanpur and Salyan districts conveyed that they were not satisfied with information provided to them on project activities and measurement procedures. Only 3.3% respondents in Makwanpur and 12 % respondents in Salyan district considered the information sharing to them as adequate.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
18
However, on transparency aspect, the result was found very good. When respondents were asked, almost all the respondents replied that they have either signed or thumped the receipt while receiving money or rice for their work.
Table 14.1: Summary of participation on public audit
S. N. Participation on Public Audit No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes 143 54.2
2 No 31 11.7
3 Don't Know 38 14.4
4 No response 52 19.7
Total 264 100
Here there is one notable point that in Makwanpur district only 25 % beneficiaries participated in public audit programme that is quite below expected level of participation. Results in other districts were found better in this aspect. Similarly, compared to males, female participation was lower as illustrated in table below.
Table 14.2: Gender wise participation on public audit
S. N. Participation on Public Audit No. of Respondents Percentage
Male
1 Yes 98 64.5
2 No 15 9.9
3 Don't Know 13 8.6
4 No response 26 17.1
Total 152
Female
1 Yes 45 40.2
2 No 16 14.3
3 Don't Know 25 22.3
4 No response 26 23.2
Total 112
Nearly 25% respondent said that they had participated only once over the duration of the entire programme. 28% said twice and 0.4% of the respondents reported that they had participated for more than twice.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
19
Table 15: Frequency of Public Audit
S.N. Frequency of Public Audit No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Once 66 25.0
2 Twice 73 27.7
3 More than twice 1 0.4
4 Don't know 56 21.2
5 No response 68 25.8
Total 264 100
Regarding the issues, agendas or topics discussed in the public audit, the most widely discussed issue was payment and accounting (according to 43.8% of the respondents). 28% beneficiaries reported that the projects progress and 17% reported that problems associated with the programme are also discussed during the public auditing to find out the possible alternative.
Table 16 : Issue Raised During Public Audit Discussion
S.N. Frequency of Public Audit No. of Answers Percentage
1 Project's progress 102 28.1
2 Project's account 54 14.8
3 Payment of rice/cash 105 29.0
4 Project's problem and its solution 63 17.2
5 Don't know 40 10.9
Total 364 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers Most of the respondents believed that public audit programme was fruitful to solve the problem raised during project implementation. 4% was negative on public audit and 34.5% did not have idea about this issue.
Table 17: Fruitfulness of Public Audit to Solve Problems
S.N. Was Public Audit Fruitful No. of Respondents Percentage
1 No 11 4.2
2 Yes 162 61.4
3 Don't know 91 34.5
Total 264 100
PROCESS ASPECTS 3A.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION AND INCLUSION OF TARGETED GROUP 3A.3.1 Involvement of Family Member in the Programme The size of the family is an important factor which can play significant role in the participation level. Average family size of the selected respondents is 5 to 7. But it is not found that all the family members in the project areas forcefully tried to participate in the work to have additional income for the household. More opportunity was given to the more food deficit family for work. Hence, some households had
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
20
involved more than three members in the work. But such households are very less in number.
Table 18.1: Number of Family Members Involved in the Work
S. N. Number of Family Member No. of Respondents Percentage
1 One 186 70.5
2 Two 62 23.5
3 Three 12 4.5
4 More than three 3 1.1
5 No response 1 0.4
Total 264 100
Table 18.2: Gender wise number of Family Members Involved in the Work
Sex No of Member No of Respondents Percentage
Male
One 110 72.4
Two 32 21.1
Three 7 4.6
More than three 2 1.3
No response 1 0.7
Total 152 100
Female
One 76 67.9
Two 30 26.8
Three 5 4.5
More than three 1 0.9
Total 112 100
According to the table, 71 percent (male 72.4 % and female 67.9 %) reported that one family member participated from their household for work followed by 23.5% (male 21.1 % and female 26.8 %) two in number, 4.5% three in numbers, 1.1% with more than three members from their household involved in work. It is reported by other sampled beneficiaries that households who involved three and more than three members in the work were from extreme food deficit family. 3A.3.2 Sustainability through their Own Agricultural Products The economic level of the local people in the study area was found to be very poor. Nearly all the respondent indicated that they cannot sustain year-round need with their own products despite land of their own. Those with the most acute food shortages were the dalits, marginalized community and some ethnic groups. Brahmin, Chhetri and Thakuri were found to be relatively good in terms of food sufficiency. Insufficient land, lack of improved seed, lack of easy availability of chemical fertilizer, lack of awareness about the pesticides to kill harmful insects, lack of proper knowledge of high yield farming methods further increase the chances of low productivity and high chances of deficiency.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
21
3A.3.3 Sustainability through Additional Income The people of the study area had no option to take alternative occupation to earn additional income to support the family throughout the year. The most common alternative source of income in the study area is portering, to work as labour in different field and going to India. However, initiation of the programme had obviously reduced seasonal migration to India. Table 19: Sustainability Status of Beneficiaries with Their Income
S.N. Sustainability Status of Families No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Up to 3 months 94 35.6
2 3 to 6 months 146 55.3
3 6 to 9 months 22 8.3
4 9 to 12 months 1 0.4
5 Yearly or more than that 1 0.4
Total 264 100
Of the total respondents, majority (91%) can sustain their family for one to six months with their additional income. 9% reported that they are able to sustain their family for six to 12 months by involving them in additional job. Those who could not sustain for the whole year or are forced to take an increasing proportion of loan from year to year. 3A.4 PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY BENEFICIARIES AND ITS UTILIZATION 3A.4.1 Payments Received by Beneficiaries from FFA/CFA The programme helped majority of the people to sustain themselves for three to six months. It is found that the respondents worked on an average of 48 days. The minimum work-day is 5 days (female-7 days) and maximum is 90 (female-80) days. It also shows that the respondents received on an average of 257 kg. (male-257.49 kg. and female-256.13kg.) rice. The minimum payment was of 5 kg. rice (male-4 kg. and female-11 kg.) and maximum is of 800 kg. (male-800 kg. and female-600 kg.). It also shows that the respondents received on an average of 40 kg. lentils in Kalikot district. Lentil was also given in Kalikot district along with the rice. It also shows that the respondents received on an average cash of 10,208 (male 9,990 and female-12,000) rupees in Doti district where ‗Cash for Asset‘ programme is being executed. The minimum payment in Doti was NRs. 160 and maximum was NRs. 12,000.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
22
Table 20.1: Working Days and Receiving Status of Rice, Lentil and Cash
Status Days Worked Quantity of Rice (Kg.) Received
(in 6 Districts)
Quantity of Lentils (Kg.)
Received (in Kalikot
only)
Amount of Cash (NRs.) received
(in Doti only)
Average 48.16 256.90 40 10,208
Minimum 5 5 40 160
Maximum 90 800 40 12,000
Table 20.2: Gender wise working Days
Sex Status Days Worked
Quantity of Rice (Kg.) Received
(in 6 Districts)
Quantity of Lentils (Kg.)
Received (in Kalikot
only)
Amount of Cash (NRs.) received
(in Doti only)
Average 47.57 257.49 40 9,990
Male Minimum 5 4 40 5,120
Maximum 90 800 40 12,000
Average 48.61 256.13 40 12,000
Female Minimum 7 11 40 12,000
Maximum 80 600 40 12,000
3A.4.2 Sale of Rice and Utilization of Cash Received from selling Out of 239 households involved in FFA, most of the beneficiary reported that they used food received for work by themselves for consumption. 186 respondents (i.e. 78% of FFA participants) said they did not sell the rice and consumed it in daily food; while only 36 of them (i.e. 15% of FFA) said they sold some rice; and 17 of them did not give any answer. Out of the beneficiaries who sold rice, 47.4% used the cash received from selling for petty expenses. Similarly, 17% used it for clothing, 11.4% for house repair, 10.5% for medicinal purpose, 8.2% for other food items, and 5.8% for child education.
3A.4.3 Results from ‘Cash for Asset’ Doti Cash for asset programme of Doti district was also selected for this assignment. In this case the programme gave the money instead of food for their work. The selected sub-project was irrigation of Kalena VDC-4. The settlement was about 2 hours walking distance from road head. Total 26 respondents were in the group. They received cash of RS. 10,208 in average as mentioned earlier.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
23
Table 21: Utilization of Cash in CFA Programme Doti
S.N. Cash Utilized for No. of Answers Percentage
1 House maintenance/roofing 3 5.0
2 Clothing 9 15.0
3 Child education 8 13.3
4 Medical expenses 16 26.7
5 Buy grain/food 13 21.7
6 Other 11 18.3
Total 60 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers All the 26 respondents responded to this question, which is multiple response and the total has increased due to this reason. 27% utilized received money for medical expenses. Nearly 15% used it for clothing, 13% used it for child education and 5% used it for house maintenance /roofing. Only 22 % respondent used this money for buying grain/food which is below the expectation of CFA vision. May be targeting was not as desired or it may be also because the selected site was nearer to the road-head.
Table 22: Place Where Cash Received from the CFA was Spent
S.N. Expense Place No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Shop within the village 23 88.5
2 Nearest market 2 7.7
3 Headquarter 1 3.8
Total 26 100
Among 26 respondents 23 (88.5%) spent the money in shop with in the village, 2 (7.7%) respondent spent at nearest market center and one respondent spent the money at district headquarters. Market centre was less than one hour walking distance from the village.
Table 23: Distance of Nearest Market from Their Village
S.N. Distance of market No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Less than one hour 25 96.2
2 2 to 4 hours 1 3.8
Total 26 100
PARTICIPATION ASPECTS 3A.5 PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION People's participation is the most widely recognized concept to introduce development activities in local level especially in the developing countries. Hence, the study has also revealed some of the facts related to the people's participation.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
24
3A.5.1 Perception of Beneficiaries about their Involvement in the Programme
Food and economic deficit are the main reason behind the involvement of beneficiaries in the programme since majority of them cannot sustain themselves for even six months with their own production. So, their main objective behind their involvement in the programme is to overcome food/economic deficit.
Table 24: Reasons for Their Participation in the Programme
S.N. Reasons for Participation No. of Answers Percentage
1 To overcome food/ economic problem
238 68.6
2 Development of village 72 20.7
3 To cover the health expenditure 30 8.6
4 To do some work 6 1.7
5 Other reason 1 0.3
Total 347 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers
The table shows that the majority of the respondent (69%) believed that the main reason behind their involvement in the programme was to overcome the food/economic deficit situation since they are living below the poverty line. They do not possess adequate land to sustain their family throughout the year. A significant number of respondents (21%) conveyed that they participated in the work so that they can contribute in the development of village. 9% reported that they participated in the work programme so that the wages received from the work can be utilize to fulfil health expenditure.
3A.5.2 Women Participation in the Programme
Gender bias is a worldwide phenomenon, but it is especially pernicious in the rural areas of Nepal. Most of the women in Nepal engage themselves in such activities that did not provide economic support. Generally, women help their men in major agricultural work. Women are the keepers of their house. But the conditions of women in the project areas have been recorded different.
Table 25: Women Participation in the Work
S.N. Rate of Participation No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Less than one-fourth 6 2.3
2 One-fourth 2 0.8
3 One-third 17 6.4
4 Half 174 65.9
5 More than half 58 22.0
6 No response 7 2.7
Total 264 100
According to the beneficiaries, women's participation in the programme is encouraging. 22% believed that there were more than 50% women workers involved in the programme and 66% respondents believed that there was 50% women involvement in the programme which is followed by 6.4% who believed that there
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
25
was one third women participation. 0.8% reported that women covered one fourth of all the workers. Of the total respondents, only 2.3% reported that women participation in the work was less than one fourth. It is reported that most of the male members of the villages have gone away from the home in search of income generating activities and as a result, large number of women participation was possible. Rest of the time, such women are commonly found to have engaged in agricultural work, heavy manual works like carrying fodders and firewood.
3 A.5.3 Participation of Poor, Dalits and Marginalized Group in the Programme
Especially, RCIW as a programme was initiated with the objective to include Poor, Dalits and Marginalized group of people in the project area as far as possible. They are the most prominent group of people with food deficiency in the project areas. The programme also aimed to teach some skills to them so that they can sustain their life easily in long run. In this sense, programme was found to be successful to include such group of people. The table below shows high participation of poor, dalits and marginalized people.
Table 26: Participation of Poor, Dalits and Marginalized Group
S.N. Rate of Participation No. of Respondents Percentage
1 One-fourth 53 20.1
2 One-third 32 12.1
3 Half 67 25.4
4 More than half 89 33.7
5 All 18 6.8
6 No response 5 1.9
Total 264 100
Of the total respondents, 34% reported that poor, dalits and marginalized people in the programme comprised of more than half. 25% responded that they were half in number. Similarly, 7% believed that the entire participants came from poor and marginalized back ground. However, 20% said that such workers were only one fourth of the total workers.
3A.6 FORMATION OF USER COMMITTEE
Political influence and biasness were not reported while forming User's Committees during the study. In general, most of the UCs were formed with the common consensus of the beneficiaries in the users‘ meeting. The respondents' perception that the UCs were formed by thorough discussions and common consensus was reported quite higher in micro projects.
3A.6.1 UC Formation Method VDC and district representative also facilitated beneficiaries to form UCs. But they tried to convince local beneficiaries to include mostly poor, dalits and marginalized group of people in the UCs. They did not interfere in the formation procedure.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
26
Table 27: Users' Committee Formation Methods
S.N. UC Formation Methods No. of Respondents Percentage
1 By election 2 0.8
2 By consensus at user gathering 236 89.4
3 Don't know 24 9.1
4 No response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
Above table shows the clear picture about the methods of formation of User Committee. 89% of the respondents reported that UCs were formed with the common consensus of the beneficiaries in the users gathering. In fact, this is the best method of committee formation since there are less chances of competition and rivalry among the members in such committee and environment for the best co-operation can be achieved in such condition. 0.8% respondents reported that they formed committee through the fair election which may be due to lack information with them. 3A.6.2 Size of the Committee The UCs were usually small so that they can execute action easily, quickly and efficiently. It is reported that most of the committees consisted of as small as 7 members and as large as 13 members. Of the total beneficiaries, who responded to the question, 51.5% reported that their committee comprised of 7 members and it is followed by 13 members (9.1%), and 8 members (4.5%). It is notable that about 31% of respondents had no idea on size of UC that reflects lack of proper information dissemination.
Table 28: Number of Member in Users Committee
S.N. Number in UC Members No. of Respondents Percentage
1 7 136 51.5
2 8 12 4.5
3 9 4 1.5
4 11 7 2.7
5 13 24 9.1
6 Don't know 73 27.7
7 No response 8 3.0
Total 264 100
3A.7 LEVEL OF PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION
3A.7.1 Role of Beneficiaries in Selection of the Project
Peoples participation is people centred development through the active involvement of the concerned people in various phases of the programme. It looks forward for the active cooperation and involvement of the targeted group of people in the programme from its initiation period (i.e. project selection) to its evaluation and control. It is also a voluntary support of the people to promote and strengthen
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
27
development process in the country. The study indicates that users had played significant role in the project area to select the project.
Table 29: Selections of the Project and People's Participation
S.N. Rate of Participation No. of Answers Percentage
1 Discussion with Users 157 56.9
2 By VDC 4 1.4
3 By DDC 14 5.1
4 Previous continued project 52 18.8
5 Don't know 48 17.4
6 Other reason 1 0.4
Total 276 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers
The study revealed that the road projects were continuation of the previous programme while micro projects were newly initiated. Hence, majority of the respondents in micro project areas reported that projects were selected after the thorough discussions with the users. It seemed that beneficiaries of micro projects were more involved in the selection of the project than the beneficiaries of the road projects.
In general, the study indicates that the current projects in the sampled districts were selected with the discussion among the UG/UC (579%) which is followed by continued project from previous year (19%). Most importantly, 17% of the respondents were unaware about the project selection procedure. 6.5% thought that programme was selected with the influence of local governmental bodies such as VDC and DDC.
3A.7.2 Participation of People in the Overall Project Activities
Majority i.e. 82% of the respondents believed that the people's participation was good in different level of actions during the programme while 17% of them said, participation was satisfactory. Rest of the respondent did not respond on the asked question.
Table 30: Overall Level of Public Participation in the Programme
S.N. Overall Level Of People Participation
No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 216 81.8
2 Satisfactory 45 17.0
3 No response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
3A.7.3 Participation in Formation of User's Committee The study also revealed satisfactory result in the case of people's participation for the formation of the UC. 74% of respondent said user committee formation process on programme was remarkable. 25% respondents thought that the committee formation process on programme as fair.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
28
Table 31: Satisfaction Level about the UC Formation Process
S.N. Satisfaction on UC Formation No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 196 74.2
2 Satisfied to some extent 66 25.0
3 No response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
3A.7.4 Participation in Worker Selection Process Food/cash for Asset programme was directly related to the income generating activity of the people who were not able to subsist through their own agricultural product. Hence, the study find out that procedure of selecting the worker was satisfactory. Local people with food shortage were given more priority while selecting the worker. Worker selection process was reported good by 78% of respondent, 21% respondents thought that the worker selection process was fair. Only 0.8% respondents said that they were not properly informed during selection process.
Table 32: Feeling about the Worker Selection Process
S.N. Worker Selection Process No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 207 78.4
2 Satisfied to some extent 55 20.8
3 Not fair 2 0.8
Total 264 100
3 A. 7.5 Participation in Division of Work The work division in general was carried out mostly by discussing among members (36%) followed by the group leader (Naike) (33.3%), and the technician (14.4%), and with the decision of technician and Naike (5.7%). However, the division of the work carried out with the discussion among the workers is high in the case of micro project. The study revealed higher participation of beneficiaries in the micro project compared to the road project for the division of work.
Table 33: Participation in Division of Work
S.N. Division of work No. of Respondents Percentage
1 By discussion among members 95 36.4
2 By the leader 88 33.3
3 By the technician 38 14.4
4 By the leader and technician 15 5.7
5 Leader, technician and members 1 0.4
6 Users Committee 5 1.9
7 Members and technician 19 7.2
8 No response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
29
3A.7.6 Beneficiaries Involvement in the Work Valuation Majority of the respondent (71%) reported that work measurement for valuation was done in the presence of at least few workers. They thought that valuation was transparent. Remaining said that they do not understand the techniques used for the valuation and they did not feel it was necessary to be present at the time of valuation. It was observed that this section of the respondents were relying more on their group leader and technician for work measurement.
Table 34: Group Participation in the Work Valuation
S.N. Level of Participation No. of Respondents Percentage
1 All were present 91 34.5
2 Few were present 97 36.7
3 Leader and technician did 74 28.0
4 No response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
Specifically, participation of workers was found low in Salyan, Makwanpur, and Bajura districts where only 4%, 8%, and 12% respectively of them participated in work measurement in field. 3A.7.7 Regularity of UC Meeting Regular meeting once in a month among the users can help programme by identifying problems that are seen on the way of its implementation. It further helps to detect the merits and demerits of the programme on time. The study found that regular meetings were not organized in the project area. Regular discussions were not held among the users. Of the total sampled beneficiaries, only 33% believed that meetings were held regularly; and 30% informed that UC meetings were held occasionally. Rest of the population did not have any idea about the frequency of the UC meeting. Specifically, regularity of UC meeting was found low in Salyan, Makwanpur, and Doti districts where 47%, 85%, and 65% of respondents respectively had no knowledge about users committee meeting. Most discussed agenda in the meeting was payment since it was a centre of the interest for many beneficiaries. Similarly, 90% of the respondents informed that users used to raise work related issues and problems in the meeting occasionally. They said that some times, meetings were successful to give solution for site related problems.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
30
Table 35: Regularity of Users Committee Meeting
S.N. Regularity of UC Meeting No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes, regularly 87 33.0
2 No, occasionally 79 29.9
3 Don't know 96 36.4
4 No response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
Most of the user committee members (62%) occasionally discuss the challenges and problems with the respondents. However, 30% of them did it regularly while nearly 8% did not discuss it.
Table 36: Level of UC Members’ Discussion with UG on Problems Faced
S.N. Discussion Level No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Continuously 79 29.9
2 Occasionally 164 62.1
3 Never 20 7.6
4 No response 1 0.4
Total 264 100
USE & MAINTENANCE ASPECTS 3A.8 UTILIZATION AND OWNERSHIP
3A.8.1 Utilization of the Constructed Infrastructure Of the total, 98% of the respondent informed that they used the constructed infrastructure fully. This section of the respondent believed that constructed infrastructure (e.g. road) has opened up avenues and micro projects (e.g. irrigation, pond) have helped them to cultivate agricultural products even during the winter seasons when there is no rain fall. But 1% beneficiaries reported that constructed infrastructure has not been completed properly in their area so they are not being able to use the infrastructure.
Table 37: Utilization of Constructed Infrastructure
S.N. Infrastructures Utilized or not No. of Respondents Percentage
1 No 3 1.1
2 Yes 259 98.1
3 No Response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
31
Table 38: Utilization Level
S.N. Utilization Level No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Fully 220 83.3
2 Partially 43 16.3
3 No response 1 0.4
Total 264 100
Most of the respondents (83%) reported the constructed infrastructures are being used fully by the users. Only 16% used the constructed infrastructure partially due to incompleteness, due to lack of maintenance. 3A.8.2 Ownership and Maintenance The responsibility of the maintenance is very important aspect of the programme to sustain the constructed infrastructure. It has now become a global trend to assign the responsibility of maintenance in the hands of the users. It is because if UC members take maintenance as their own responsibility then maintenance becomes more effective. The feeling of self ownership of the constructed infrastructure encourages the users to use them carefully and maintain them on time. This feeling of self ownership helps to save time, resources and further damages. But most of the UC members are very poor and they find it difficult to generate the fund required. Furthermore, certain section of the people usually thinks that it is the responsibility of the donor agencies or government line agencies to take care of the maintenance.
Table 39: Ownership of the Infrastructure
S.N. Ownership No. of Answers Percentage
1 Users Group 26 9.4
2 Users Committee 190 68.3
3 VDC 2 0.7
4 WFP 60 21.6
Total 278 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers
Majority of the respondents (i.e. 68%) expressed that Users Committees are the main owners and hence have taken responsibility to look after the constructed infrastructure. 9% of the respondents claimed constructed infrastructure as their own project for everything. They showed their self ownership; which is followed by Local Government bodies. 0.7% of the respondents thought that Local Government Bodies including DDC and VDC are the owners of such infrastructure. Amazingly, 22% said that WFP is the main sponsor of the programme; hence, its main ownership is under WFP which again cites example of lack of proper information dissemination on this aspect.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
32
Table 40: Status of Maintenance
S.N. Status of Maintenance No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Excellent, done regularly 29 11.0
2 Well, done sometimes 166 62.9
3 Not well, done when breaks down 38 14.4
4 Worst, not functioning 3 1.1
5 No response 28 10.6
Total 264 100
Only 11% of the respondents reported that the project being maintained regularly and is of excellent status. Nearly 63%, on the other hand, reported its status as well and maintained sometimes only. 14.4% of them reported it being maintained when it breaks down and status of being not well, while 1% reported it being not functional and of worst status.
Table 41: Responsibility of Maintenance
S.N. Responsibility of Maintenance No. of Answers Percentage
1 Users Groups 61 20.5
2 Users committee 169 56.7
3 VDC 4 1.3
4 DDC 2 0.7
5 WFP 51 17.1
6 All together 11 3.7
Total 298 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers
Total 57% respondents expressed their view that the responsibility goes to the UC and 20.5% expressed that the users themselves were responsible for maintenance. 17% thought that maintenance responsibility was of WFP. 3.7% said that all the partners of the programme including government bodies are its owners and they all should take its maintenance and other responsibility together. Key difficulty reported by the beneficiaries (25%) was maintenance fund. It may be the reason behind the lack of regular maintenance of the constructed infrastructure. 53% did not know about maintenance fund at all. BENEFIT & IMPACT ASAPECTS 3A.9 IMPACT
3A.9.1 Impact on Feeding Habits
The ‗Food for Asset‘ programme was mainly carried out in food deficit areas. The people who worked were paid in rice or with cash. As a result, many of them developed the habit of eating rice at least a meal per day as their staple food. While the programme was running, they had ample supply of rice but after the completion of the project, the supply of rice was discontinued and they had to search alternative.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
33
Table 42: Additional Sustenance Period with the Rice/Cash Received
S.N. Additional Time of Sustenance No. of Respondents Percentage
1 One month 2 0.8
2 Two months 40 15.2
3 Three months 60 22.7
4 Four months 78 29.5
5 Five months 41 15.5
6 Six months 34 12.9
7 Above six months 6 2.3
8 No response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
Only 2% reported that they can sustain more than 6 months from the rice/cash they received from the project. Majority (29.5%) of respondent sustained for four months and 23% for three months from the income of implemented project.
Table 43: Did Beneficiaries’ Family Income Increase due to the Project?
S.N. Income Increased or Not No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes 248 93.9
2 No 4 1.5
3 No response 12 4.5
Total 264 100
Nearly 94% of the respondents reported that their family income increased due to this project.
Table 44: Change of Feeding Type
S.N. Description No. of Respondents Percentage
1 No change at all 8 3.0
2 Started eating one rice meal/day 62 23.5
3 Started eating two rice meals/day 190 72.0
4 Started easting nutritious foods (milk, curd, ghee etc.) with food
1 0.4
5 No response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
The above table shows that 23.5% of the respondents started eating rice at least one meal per day while 72% of them began to eat two rice meals a day. However, it did not affect nearly 3% of them. 3A.9.2 Impact on Environment Most of the respondents (91%) said that the programme had positive impact on environment in terms of increased greenery plantations, raised awareness regarding environmental protection, etc. Only 0.4% respondent believed that this programme have negative impact on environment such as soil erosion, cutting of trees.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
34
Table 45: Environmental Impact of the Project
S.N. Type of Environmental Impact No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Has positive impact 240 90.9
2 Has negative impact 1 0.4
3 No Response 23 8.7
Total 264 100
3A.9.3 Impact on Working Habits The programme also had an important impact on the working habit of the beneficiaries. The study found that the programme was partly successful to develop sense of cooperation and self-help. 53% of the sampled beneficiaries felt that due to the programme, they learnt to work in the group by cooperating with each other and they felt that this knowledge will definitely help them in long run to develop their village by themselves. However, many of them (45.5%) reported that it had only partial effect on self-help and group work as it was not always possible to work together by cooperating with each other all the time. Their interest may not be similar in all kind of work but they opined that sometimes they can work together in programme which have common interest. Rest of the population did not feel any significant changes in their working habits.
Table 46: Did the Project Encourage Cooperative Work in the village?
S.N. Description No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes 140 53.0
2 Partially 120 45.5
3 No 2 0.8
4 No Response 2 0.8
Total 264 100
Table 47: What Would They Do if this Project was Not Available?
S.N. Description No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Work on own land/as agricultural labour
175 66.3
2 Go outside/ abroad 53 20.1
3 Stay unemployed 1 0.4
4 Other 28 10.6
5 No response 7 2.7
Total 264 100
Nearly two-third of the respondents reported that they would have worked on their own agricultural land or as agricultural labourer if the project was not implemented. Likewise, nearly 20% would have gone abroad and nearly 11% would have done ―other‖ things like portering, wage work, etc.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
35
BENEFICIARY PREFERENCE ASPECT 3A.10 SATISFACTION LEVEL The study revealed that the programme is successful to satisfy majority (98%) of the sampled beneficiaries. They did not have any considerable complain towards overall nature of the programme. Of the total sampled beneficiaries, 37% liked the programme because it has generated local employment opportunity especially to the poor community with food scarcity. It helped to solve their hand to mouth problem though for short period of time. They also felt that at the same time, it helped them to develop infrastructure in their own village. It has also developed sense of self ownership of the developed infrastructure among the beneficiaries. It is a positive part of the programme they reported.
Table 48: Beneficiaries’ Feeling about the Programme
S.N. Description No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Very good 136 51.5
2 Good 122 46.2
3 Satisfactory 2 0.8
4 Bad 1 0.4
5 No Response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
Respondents liked the programme mainly due to poor people getting job 37% followed by able to get rice 26%. They also like it because it was constructed by the users themselves 16% and there was no misuse of remuneration 15%. Around 5.3% also liked it for work quality being good.
Table 49: Reasons for Satisfaction
S.N. Reasons for Satisfaction No of Answers Percentage
1 Poor people getting job 204 37.2
2 Constructed by the users themselves
86 15.7
3 Able to get rice 144 26.3
4 Not misuse in remuneration 84 15.3
5 Quality of work being good 29 5.3
6 Other 1 0.2
Total 548 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers However, only 6 respondents out of 264 reported some weakness of the programme. They did not have any complain towards the plan and process of the programme, but they felt some problems in its implementation level.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
36
Table 50: Reason of Weakness
S.N. Reason of Weakness No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Delayed payment 1 16.7
2 Misuse 1 16.7
3 Work for short period 3 50.0
4 Not getting cash 1 16.7
Total 6 100
Of the total beneficiaries, who reported some weakness of the programme, 3 felt that programme should be implemented for longer period of time so that food deficit and poor group could have employment opportunity. 1 of them found that delayed payment was another weakness of the programme. 3A.10.1 Information Mechanism of the Programme
Perception of the beneficiaries about the information mechanism of the programme throughout the period was found to be satisfactory. However by expert analysis lapses have been identified in this aspect.
Table 51: Beneficiaries' View on Information Mechanism of the Programme
S.N. Adequacy of Information No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Yes, adequate 82 31.1
2 Satisfactory 163 61.7
3 Not adequate 16 6.1
4 No response 3 1.1
Total 264 100
Of the total sampled, 31% reported that they had received adequate information about the programme throughout its period in every phase while 62% respondents said that they got information fairly except 6% who expressed their dissatisfaction on the information mechanism of the programme. They felt that they did not get adequate information as they expected in the programme from its initiation to the end and they felt shortcoming in information dissemination regarding construction and measurement process for payment. Only, 1.1% did not respond to the questions. 3A.10.2 Perception of Beneficiaries on Quality 3A.10.2.1 Quality of Constructed Infrastructure People's perception about the quality of constructed infrastructure remained good. Of the total respondents, 64% felt that they were of good quality while 35% of them said that it was satisfactory. Only 0.4% had mentioned it as bad. Hence, beneficiaries seemed to be satisfied with quality of the constructed infrastructure
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
37
Table 52: Perception on Quality of Constructed Infrastructure
S.N. Quality of Infrastructure No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 170 64.4
2 Satisfactory 93 35.2
3 Not good 1 0.4
Total 264 100
3A.10.2.2 Quality of Distributed Rice Majority of the beneficiaries were found satisfied with the rice and its quality given to them in return of the work that they have done. Of the total, 69% said that quality of rice was good while 20.5% said it was Satisfactory. Only 10% complained that the given rice is not good.
Table 53: Perception on Quality of Rice they Received
S.N. Quality of Rice No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 183 69.3
2 Satisfactory 54 20.5
3 Not good 27 10.2
Total 264 100
3 A.10.2.3 Quality of Tools & Construction Material People's perception about the tools and construction material seemed positive. Of the total, 45.8% of the respondents reported that the used material that they have seen were good. Other 44.7% of them said it was satisfactory. On the contrary, 6.8% reported that the quality of tools and construction was bad. Remaining 2.7% did not reply the question. Table 54: Perception on Quality of Tools/Construction Materials Used
S.N. Quality of Tools/ Construction Materials
No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Good 121 45.8
2 Satisfactory 118 44.7
3 Bad 18 6.8
4 No response 7 2.7
Total 264 100
3A.10.2.4 Work and Payment Process Ominously, all the respondents opined that they did not receive their payment/rice promptly after they finished their work. It is found that mostly one month is the time to provide payment/rice to the beneficiaries from the time they started their work. Within project‘s framework this timing is considered good but the beneficiaries considered it late and wanted delivery of rice soonest after completion of their work.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
38
Of the sampled beneficiaries 76% said that they received their wages after a month from the beginning of the work while 0.8% received after 2 months from the time they started their work. In Makwanpur district (comprising 20.8% of total respondents) payment of rice was made three months after completion of work, which can be considered a big delay in payment. It was mainly because works were completed at the end of fiscal year and payment of rice was made in forthcoming fiscal year.
Table 55: Time Gap Between Work Completion & Payment
S.N. Time Taken Time to Receive Payment
No. of Respondents Percentage
1 One month 200 75.8
2 Two months 2 0.8
3 Three months (All are of Makwanpur)
55 20.8
4 No response 7 2.7
Total 264 100
Recipients' perception about the nature and system of payment showed mixed results. About 38% of them said that payment in rice was good. 21% said that it was hard to carry the rice all the way to their home. Most of these respondents had their houses at the distance from the place where food was distributed. While beneficiaries located closer to the food distribution area preferred the payment in food the beneficiaries residing far preferred cash payment. It is notable that about 25% respondents complained that cash payment should also be made. 10% complained about late payment and about 5% of the total respondents felt that the process was non-transparent as the rice was taken by the Naike and the measurement calculation was ambiguous. 1.1% of them could not clearly explain about the payment system.
Table 56: Perception and Difficulties in Payment Process
S.N. Perception on Payment Process No. of Answers Percentage
1 Good , no problem 107 38.1
2 Payment was late 28 10.0
3 Calculation was not clear 2 0.7
4 Difficult as the leader gets all the payment
12 4.3
5 Had to walk far to get rice 60 21.4
6 Cash payment also needed 69 24.6
7 No response 3 1.1
Total 281 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
39
3A.11 OTHER AGENCIES AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROGRAMME
Majority of the respondents were found not known about the other agencies and their involvement in the programme. 63% of the total respondents expressed such views. However, 3% were found familiar with the local agencies and their direct or indirect involvement in the programme. These agencies were mainly local clubs and different samuhas (e.g. Mahila Samuha, Aama Samuha etc). 15.5% of the respondents thought that there were no such agencies to support the programme.
Table 57: Involvement & Support of Other Agencies in the Project
S.N. Support of other agency No. of Respondents Percentage
1 No 41 15.5
2 Yes 7 2.7
3 Don't know 166 62.9
4 No response 50 18.9
Total 264 100
3A.12 THE CONTRIBUTION OF USERS IN THE PROGRAMME
The beneficiaries have assisted the programme in many ways. Of the total, 93% of the respondents helped the programme by providing voluntary labour in some work. 4.5% of them provided the material and tools. Only one of them said that he did not contribute in the programme in additional ways. Remaining of them did not respond to the question. Hence, it can be concluded that programme was successfully implemented with the additional contribution of the majority of users in one way or the other.
Table 58: Mode of Users Contribution in the Programme
S.N. Type of Contribution No. of Respondents Percentage
1 Labour contribution 245 92.8
2 Contribution in kind (tools, materials, etc.)
12 4.5
3 Don't know 6 2.3
4 No contribution 1 0.4
Total 264 100
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
40
3.B FINDINGS ON DOA-SSNP There are food deficit areas in the districts and some districts as a whole are food deficit. People are suffering due to this situation. Many reasons account for this. One of them is low production of crops. This is further exacerbated by the increasing demand from ever growing population. The best and immediate option available to address food insecurity is to increase food production at the local level. To pursue this, it is important to ensure that production inputs such as quality seeds and fertilizers are available on time at a price affordable to farmers. Through SSNP, the programme has made available quality seeds of major staples in addition to providing chemical fertilizers. In case of chemical fertilizer only transportation subsidy is given and in seed 50% subsidy on cost with transportation subsidy is given to the farmers. The SSNP under Department of Agriculture, IWRMP is addressing the issue of food insufficiency in 23 districts. Among the 23 districts where DOA-SSNP is being implemented with WB/IDA support, this beneficiary assessment was conducted only in four districts viz. Khotang, Gorkha, Salyan, and Bajura. A total of 150 households were surveyed under DOA-SSNP. There were 50% of respondents in Gorkha and rest three districts had 50% altogether. 3B.1 LAND HOLDING OF RESPONDENTS On average, the respondent farmers have 6 ropanis of Khet land (irrigated land). Half of the farmer respondents have 5 and more ropanis of irrigated fields. The respondents have the minimum 1.5 and maximum of 22 ropanis of irrigated land. On an average, the respondent farmers have 6 ropanis of Bari (un-irrigated land). Half of them have 5 or more ropanis of Bari land whereas most of them have 4 ropanis of Bari land. One had not Bari fields while one had 20 ropanis of Bari fields. On an average, the respondent farmers have 4.3 ropanis Pakho (unirrigated slopes) land. Half of them have this type of land 2 and more ropanis where as most of them (35 % of respondents) have no pakho land (unirrigated slopes). The minimum was found as 0 whereas maximum was 20 ropani.
Table 59: Land holding of the Respondent Farmers
Land in Ropanies Khet Bari Pakho
Minimum 1.5 0 0
Mean 6.4 5.3 4.9
Maximum 22 20 20
(Note: 1 Hectare equal to about 20 ropani of land) 3B.2 FOOD DEFICIT STATUS Only 38% of the respondents had sufficient food around the year and 29% had it for 6 – 12 months. Twenty nine percent of the respondents had food just enough to meet 3 to 6 months. Four percent had food for less than 3 months.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
41
Table 60: Food Deficit Status
S.N. Food Sufficiency Status No. of Respondents Percent
1 Around the year 57 38
2. 6-12 months 43 28.7
3. 3- 6 months 44 29.3
4. Less than 3 months 6 4
Total 150 100
3B.3 INSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF BENEFICIARIES Nearly 77% of farmers reported being involved with a farmers‘ group. The involvement was cent percent in Bajura and Salyan. The group was mostly formed by the group meeting. The group formation process was different in different districts.
Table 61: Involvement in Group (CBO)
S.N. Respondents Involved in Groups
No. of Respondents Percent
1 No 34 22.7
2. Yes 115 76.7
3. Missing 1 0.6
Total 150 100
3B.4 AWARENESS LEVEL ABOUT THE PROGRAMME 51% of the farmers had information on Social Safety Nets Project. Almost half of the respondents did not have information about SSNP support provided to them. They thought that it was regular government programme. Beneficiaries appreciated the support provided to them but had not clear information about SSNP. This shows a gap in the information dissemination system prevailing. The information on social safety nets was found to be lowest in Gorkha.
Table 62: Awareness Level about the SSNP
S.N. Respondents Aware of SSNP No. of Respondents Percent
1 Yes 76 50.7
2. No 71 47.3
3. Missing 3 2.0
Total 150 100
3B.5 MAJOR CROPS CULTIVATED Rice was found to be mostly cultivated crop followed by Maize and Wheat in the sampled households. However, the cropping is dependent on topographical location of the site and the district besides various factors. Detailed table showing the crop types by districts is provided in the detailed statistical analysis in Annex for
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
42
reference. The table below shows the summary of the crops cultivated by the respondents.
Table 63: Major Crops Cultivated
Cultivated Crops in Ropani
Rice Wheat Maize Millet Potato Tori Turmeric Buck wheat
Vegetable
Minimum 1 0 0 3.o 0.5 3 0.5 3 0
Mean 6 3.7 4.9 4.7 0.9 3 0.5 3 0.6
Maximum 22 25 20 7.0 3.0 3 0.5 3 1
Farmers prefer mostly the rice for food and vegetable as cash crop. 3B.6 USE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZER AND IMPROVED SEEDS 51% of the respondent farmers perceived that they were using chemical fertilizer satisfactorily. However, it does not mean they are using it as per recommended dose of NPK. 48% of the respondent farmers said that they used it only ‗to some extent‘ that means not as per required quantity in their view. It was difficult for them to provide detailed information on quantity of fertilizer applied by them per unit area for different crops. In Gorkha and Khotang the DAP and Potash were also transported and provided to farmers. The farmers of these districts used NPK also but not as per recommended scientific doze. Farmers in other districts mostly get urea only and used urea only. Nearly 53% of farmers were found to be using improved seeds satisfactorily in their perception and 45% were using it only ‗to some extent‘, means not as much as required to fulfil their demand. All the farmers opined that the support provided to them was of great help considering the national shortage of chemical fertilizers. The data shows that even with SSNP support, all the farmers are not using chemical fertilizers and improved seeds as required quantity. It is mainly because they are not getting it in required quantity and time. So, the programme needs to be further intensified.
Table 64: Fertilizer Use Status
S.N. Respondents level of Using Chemical Fertilizers
No. of Respondents Percent
1 Used satisfactorily 77 51.3
2. Use to some extent only 72 48
3. Missing 1 0.7
Total 150 100
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
43
Table 65: Improved Seed Use Status
S.N. Respondents level of Using Improved seeds
No. of Respondents Percent
1 Used satisfactorily 79 52.7
2. Use to some extent only 68 45.3
3. Not used 2 1.3
4. Missing 1 0.7
Total 150 100
3B.7 SOURCE OF AVAILABILITY The programme provides transportation subsidy in chemical fertilizer and improved seeds to the farmers. This subsidy is provided to the farmers through the DADO of concerned districts. This is the duty of DADO to get the chemical fertilizer and improved seeds transported and distributed to farmers. DADO gets it done by contractors and make available to the Agriculture Service Centres or Cooperatives or retailers (registered in the DADO). AIC has not done this work in studied districts. In the answer of the question about the source of chemical fertilizer and seeds, they replied that 35% of them received the chemical fertilizer and improved seeds from DADO, 39% from cooperatives, while 25% received from retailers registered in DADO and rest from AIC.
Table 66: Sources of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds
S.N. Source No. of Answers Percent
1 From AIC (fertilizer) 2 0.8
2. DADO 92 35.4
3. Cooperative 100 38.5
4. Retailers registered in DADO 66 25.4
Total 260 100
Note: The question contained multiple answers 3B.8 AVAILABILITY AGAINST REQUIREMENT 3B.8.1 Quantity Below mentioned is the quantity of chemical fertilizer transported by DADO for SSNP.
Table 67: Quantity of Chemical Fertilizer Transported by DADO
S.N. Fertilizer Imported Urea (Mt) DAP(Mt) Potash
1. Gorkha 114.550 41.450 4.000
2. Khotang 205.000 121.000 5.000
3. Salyan 260.000
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
44
3B.8.2 Type Urea is the most common fertilizer used and this is the only fertilizer available, according to 99 per cent of the respondents. However, DADO records shows the supply of DAP and Potash as well, as seen in the table above. It may have been provided to other areas in the district.
Table 68: Type of Chemical Fertilizer Usually Available
S.N. Respondents status No. of Respondents Percent
1. Urea 149 99.3
2. Others 1 0.7
Total 150 100
Unlike fertilizer, varieties of seeds were available to the farmers usually. 33.3% farmers reported having all type the seeds available usually to them. Majority (91%) of the farmers reported that the supply of fertilizer & seed is not easy 3B.8.3 Time Nearly 97% of the farmers reported that they did not get the chemical fertilizer and improved seed on time. If they get the subsidized chemical fertilizer and improved seeds in time they will purchase and pay for it (in subsidized rate).
Table 69: Timely Availability of Chemical Fertilizer & Improved Seed
S.N. Fertilizer/ Seeds Available on Time?
No. of Respondents Percent
1 No 145 96.7
2. Yes 3 2.0
3. Missing 2 1.3
Total 150 100
3B.9 SUPPLY SITUATION AGAINST DEMAND Most of the farmers (91%) reported that the supply of fertilizer/seed being not easy.
Table No 70: Supply Situation of Chemical Fertilizer/ Improved Seed
S.N. Supply Situation No. of Respondents Percent
1 No easy supply of both 136 90.7
2. Easy supply of fertilizer only 3 2.0
3. Easy supply of seed only 7 4.7
4. Missing 2 1.3
Total 150 100
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
45
3B.10 INFORMATION WITH FARMERS ON SUBSIDY RECEIVED THROUGH SSNP ON FERTILIZER AND SEEDS:
The farmers lacked details of information on having subsidy on chemical fertilizer and improved seeds provided by DADO through the support of SSNP. They perceived in general that as they had to pay for both of these items, there was no subsidy available. This shows a gap in the prevailing information dissemination system from the programme to the farmers. Farmers‘ perception on the subsidy received ranges from none to 100% and variation can be observed between and within districts as well.
Table 71: Farmers’ Perception on Received Subsidy from SSNP
S.N. Farmers’ Perception on Subsidy Received
No. of Respondents Percent
1 No subsidy received 73 50.7
2. Received on both fertilizer and seed
17 11.3
3. Received on fertilizer only 56 37.3
4. Received on seed only 3 2.0
5. Missing 1 7.0
Total 150 100
Perception of the number of farmers having information on receiving subsidy from the sampled households ranged from none to 40; and the most (64%) thought that they did not receive any subsidy in fertilizer. Similarly, 30% of farmers of the sampled households thought that they did not receive any subsidy on improved seeds. 3B.11 SUFFICIENCY OF TRAINING AND ADVISORY SERVICES 3B.11.1 Level of Training and Advisory Services Nearly 61% of the farmers received training on using fertilizer/seed. This percentage varied from district-to-district. All the farmers in Gorkha received training that is very encouraging situation. However, only 16%, 20% and 32% received it in Khotang, Bajura and Salyan respectively that is quite below the expectation of farmers.
Table 72: Training on using Fertilizer/Seed Received
S.N. Status of Training Received No. of Respondents Percent
1. Yes, received 92 61.3
2. No, not received 55 36.7
3. Missing 3 2.0
Total 150 100
3B.11.2 Source of Training and Advisory Services Most of the farmers (82%) receiving the training from Agriculture Service Centers (ASC) in villages and few also received from District Agriculture Development Office (DADO) at district headquarters. ASC and DADO are the same organization, but the
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
46
approach and training type & duration is different. ASC provides one day training and DADO provides three days district level training. However, they responded that advisory services were availed from DADO and local lead farmers and agro-vets. Usually farmers go to the agro-vets to purchase inputs. The agro-vets owner suggests them how to use agricultural inputs. So, the respondent farmers have answered that they took advice from agro-vets also. Farmers were satisfied with the quality of training and advisory service they get from DADO and other organization.
Table 73: Sources of Training Services
S.N. Training Source No. of Respondents Percent
1 ASC 77 81.9
2. DADO 13 13.8
3. Other 4 4.3
Total 94 100
3B.12 IMPACT OF FERTILIZER AND SEED SUBSIDY 3B.12.1 Effect on Increase in Production 67% respondents have replied that there is increase in production by using the chemical fertilizer and improved seeds. The increase in crop after getting and using chemical fertilizer and improved seeds through SSNP ranged from none to high. One third of them reported no increase. It should be noted that it was difficult for them to quantify the increase as it was affected by various factors, and getting the results from SSNP support alone was almost impossible without close monitoring. If farmers are complaining that no increase of yield after application of chemical fertilizer, the cause is considerable. It may be lack of knowledge of the proper methods of application, time of application, lack of balance dose of NPK, acidity of soil. So, further training and demonstration about the fertilizer application is necessary to provide. 62% of farmers reported using new crops after getting fertilizer/seed where as 37.3% continued using the old crops. In Gorkha and Khotang, farmers are using new crops. Farmers in Bajura and Salyan are using old crops instead. The reason may be because they were unable to get new seeds. 3B.12.2 Effect on Reduction of Food Insecurity Majority of the farmers (79%) reported that the programme reduced the food insecurity to some extent and 1.3% reported that it had no positive effect. 18% of the respondent farmers informed that the programme (fertilizer/seed subsidy programme) has been able to contribute highly to reduce food insecurity to them and their area. Some extent means those who had food for 3 months only, now they
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
47
have for 6 months and highly means food insecurity reduced for more than 6 months. In Gorkha 36% of farmers reported that the programme reduced the food insecurity highly.
Table 74: Effect of the Programme in Reducing Food Insecurity
S.N. Effect on Reducing Food Insecurity
No. of Respondents Percent
1 Highly 27 18.0
2. To some extent 118 78.7
3. None 2 1.3
4. Missing 3 2.0
Total 150 100
3.C FINDINGS ON NARC-SSNP Seed multiplication programme conducted by NARC under SSNP was studied in two districts Makwanpur and Kalikot. The first site was in cooperative of Makawanpur district with 15 members and the other was farmer group of Kalikot district. In Makawanpur District the cooperative has conducted the programme in one hector area and the crop was paddy of variety ‗Makwanpur-1‘. Farmers‘ training, inspection and certification of seed were conducted by Regional Seed Testing Laboratory (RSTL) Hetauda. The yield was 2.48 Mt. DADO has formed the group and NARC has worked in the cooperation of DADO and RSTL. In Kalikot, first year group formation, training and other activities as prerequisite were completed. The seed multiplication programme was started this year only in one hectare area and the crop was wheat of variety ‗BL-3503‘. The yield was 480 to 900 kg/ha. The members of the group are 20. In Kalikot the seed multiplication plot was damaged by hail-stone at the time of production. So the there was low yield (interview with chief of the seed production at NARC Dr. Jwala Bajracharya). Both group told that the yield and seed production is not sufficient enough to decrease the food deficiency and to fulfil the demand of the farmers of particular area. So the area and seed production quantity must be increased as it was a good programme in their view.
The role of NARC in the SSNP is to support in the seed multiplication programme conducted by DADO. So the NARC has implemented seed multiplication programme as out-reach activities as a programme partner of SSNP. Summary of findings in both districts are as follows.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
48
3C.1 FINDINGS OF MAKWANPUR DISTRICT
1. The seed multiplication programme was launched in the Gupha Sthan Cooperative in the Makwanpur District in paddy crops. The detail is as follows:
a. Name of the group: Gupha Sthan Cooperative
b. Number of the members in the organization: 1
c.Crop of seed multiplication- Paddy
d. Variety: Makwanpur -1
e. Area of seed multiplication: 1 ha.
2. District Agriculture Development Office (DADO) has formed the group and later on the group has converted and registered as cooperative.
3. The source of seed supply: The Regional Seed Company Hetauda has provided the seed of paddy.
4. The level of seed was Foundation Seed.
5. Regional Seed Testing Laboratory has provided training of the seed multiplication programme for seed growing farmers.
6. The production was 124 Kg/ Ropani i.e. 2.48 Mt. /hectare.
7. When farmers were asked about the increase of the yield, they answered that there was increase in the yield but it was not in notable quantity to give impact. They were not satisfied with the quantity of seed made available to them for seed multiplication and demanded its further intensification.
8. The inspection and certification activities of the seed growing programme were done by Regional Seed Testing Laboratory, Hetauda.
9. In the question, where they have sold the produced seed, they answered that they sold to the members of cooperative and other farmers of village. 11 farmers out of 15 answered that seed was sold to the members of cooperative and 4 answered that they sold to other farmers out of group in their village.
10. When asked the question ―how much did it support in to fulfil the demand of farmers‖, they answered that this programme had supported to some extent. Here ‗to some extent‘ means that the demand of improved seed is high and the quantity of seed provided is far less than their requirement.
11. In the question ―how much it contributed in the decrease of food deficit situation in the area‖, they told that it has supported little bit. The area of seed multiplication programme should be increased to decrease the food deficit situation of the area, they said. 12 farmers replied that this programme has not supported to decrease the food deficit situation in the area sufficiently and 11 of them emphasized to increase the area for seed multiplication.
12. In the question ―what means should be adopted to increase the area for production of seed‖, they suggested to form more farmers groups. 12 farmers suggested that other individual farmers outside of the group should also be included in the seed growing programme.
13. In the question ―where they will sell if the seed production increases‖, they told there would not be problem of seed market at all.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
49
14. Farmers are simple, they answered in simple way, are active and their awareness has increased enhancing their confidence level.
3C.2 FINDINGS OF KALIKOT DISTRICT The seed multiplication activity was not launched in F.Y. 2067/068 in Kalikot District. In that year, only group was formed, training was provided and other necessary preparatory activities were done. In the current F.Y. 2068/069 the seed multiplication activity started. This is the report of both fiscal year 2067/68 & 2068/69.
1. Introduction of the group:
a. Name of the group: Patandi Community Group b. Number of the members: 20 c. Crop grown as seed: Wheat d. Variety: BL-3503 e. Area : About one hectare
2. Farmers have formed this group themselves
3. Himalayan Organization (NGO) had supported in supply of the seed.
4. The level of the seed was the Foundation Seed.
5. Training: 13 farmers (65%) were trained by Himalayan organization and 4 farmers (20%) were trained by JT/JTA. 3 respondents were not trained.
6. The production was 24-45 kg/ropani i.e. 480-900 Kg/hectare. It was learnt that the production was damaged by hail-stones that reduced the production considerably.
7. When farmers were asked about the increase of the yield, they answered that there was no significant increase of the yield as the crop was damaged by natural calamity. They were not satisfied with the increase of such quantity of seed. 3 farmers told 15% increase in yield, 15 farmers told 25% increase in yield and 2 farmers told not in notable quantity.
8. The inspection and certification activities of the seed growing programme were done by Regional Seed Testing Laboratory, Dailekh. 18 farmers have got help and 2 farmers did not opt for help.
9. In the question, ―where they have sold the produced seed‖, they answered that they sold to the Himalayan Organization (NGO) and JT/JTA. 15 farmers out of 20 members answered that seed was sold to the Himalayan Organization and 4 to JT/JTA.
10. In the question, ―how much did it support to fulfil the demand of farmer‖ they answered that this programme has supported to some extent.
11. In the question, ―how much it contributed to lessen the food deficit situation in the area‖; they told that it had supported little bit. They told that the area of seed multiplication programme should be increased to decrease the food deficiency of the area. 5 farmers replied that this programme has contributed little bit, 7 farmers replied that this programme has not supported to decrease the food deficiency as needed and 6 farmers emphasized to increase the area for seed multiplication.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
50
12. In the question, ―what means should be adopted to increase the area for production of seed‖, they suggested to form more farmers groups. 12 farmers suggested increasing quantity of seed by increasing the involvement of other individual farmers outside of the group also in the seed growing programme.
13. In the question, ―where they will sell if the seed production increases‖, they told there would not be problem of seed selling.
14. Farmers have to wait to get seed. Everybody could not get seed. There are storage problem and farmers face difficulty in storage.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
4.1 Public Work Programme 4.1.1 Conclusion Food for Assets and Cash for Assets programme being launched under Public Work Programme has been considered by very successful and need based programme by the beneficiaries and other local stakeholders. Specifically, as sites under study were found fully incorporated target beneficiaries of food deficit households. The beneficiary households also responded positively about impact of the programme outcomes in addressing the food problem of the beneficiaries. Some gaps were seen in information dissemination in all the sites and lack social mobilization in some of the sites. CFA programme needed further monitoring of the cash use by the participating families and proper selection of target beneficiaries to have adequate contribution on improvement in food security status of target population. 4.1.2 Issues Need to be Addressed The programme is continuing year by year. Due to this reason, beneficiaries
were not sure how long it will continue or even whether they get support for next year. So, they complained that they were not able to plan on long-term basis and long term vision for sustained food security is missing. Most of the beneficiaries raised this issue everywhere.
As illustrated in the findings before, there were gaps observed in information dissemination system regarding the programme and programme partners in the initial phase of project cycle and regarding the work measurement process in implementation phase. Thrust on information dissemination and social mobilization needs to be properly focused and planned.
The beneficiaries were not clear about function and transparency role of the public audits programme and it needs to be implemented effectively.
Targeting in FFAs has been well considered as food deficit households including dalit and indigenous population were participating highly. On the other hand, in CFA programme in Doti and major cash use was not for food purchase that needs further study and analysis to achieve project objectives.
The beneficiaries were not clear on when and who should be responsible for maintenance of constructed project. They requested for more clarity and efforts in maintenance aspects for sustainability of created assets through PWP.
The beneficiaries were happy with rice payment, but about 30% workers requested for the provision of cash along with the rice so that they need not have to sell rice for other necessities like school fees, medical, clothing, house repair, etc. This may be a point to considered in future.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
52
The workers have reported that the information provided in orientation and training is not enough to operate some specific schemes and they requested for technical training in Bjura (hydro electricity project) and specific training for fruits and vegetable farming in Kalikot and Doti.
Frequent supervision, and monitoring of the project form the district and central level was one of the request from the beneficiaries (20%).
4.1.3 Recommendations
The project has actually helped the beneficiaries to overcome and manage food crisis specially, of the poor. It has enabled them to produce and earn additional income by selling fruits, vegetables, livestock and livestock products by using the constructed infrastructure. The beneficiaries therefore, wish for the continuity of the project.
The beneficiaries are not clear enough about the continuity of the programme, and they consider it as one year project. On the other hand, the project has been continued for number of years and it is recommended to conceive long-term vision with project concept so that it could be extended to the remote or new areas within the district for both FFAs and CFAs.
Orientation on the program should be held more than once. All aspect of the programme should be explained to them more clearly. Issues like development of ownership and future maintenance management should be included in the orientation program. In orientation and training programme, it needs highlighting role of all stakeholders including GoN/NPSU to the concerned stakeholders.
Orientation should also focus on work measurement system, payment modality, per day and per unit Norms utilized in RCIW, book keeping, public auditing etc. Similarly, the orientation should also include the issues like development of ownership and future maintenance management as well.
To have continuous information sharing, local Social Mobilizer should be appointed or should be stationed at site.
Payment of food was good and beneficiaries were happy with the payment. As per beneficiaries request cash component is also to be added to rice if possible.
Generally, people are happy with the payment received by them but they do not have much idea how the payment was calculated and what was their entitlement. The public audit should be increased to at least 2-3 times in a year. Similarly, beneficiaries should be well oriented about the objective of public auditing and detail of the project book keeping.
Illiterate people do not know what is written in the Project Book, so, the write ups made in the Project Book should be explained to the public by reading it aloud.
Social mobilization was carried out by the NGOs in districts, and they were mostly involved during the time of payment of rice. Since, the majorities of the targeted beneficiaries are women and oppressed classes who need additional support. The programme should make provision of intensification of social mobilization process for further income generation activities for sustainability.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
53
The supervision and monitoring from Public Work Programme in the project area is inadequate; so, it needs strengthening. The representatives from the district must make frequent visits to the work sites as opined by the beneficiaries.
As the construction work and payment to the workers becomes very difficult during monsoon or rainy season, such construction work and its payment should both be carried out in the dry winter seasons.
In FFAs and CFAs participating workers are selling rice and using cash in order to meet their household daily necessity. However it is observed that the expenditure pattern of the participating household in CFAs in Doti was more for medical education rather than purchasing of rice. It is recommended to introduce monitoring device in both the programme like FFAs and CFAs so that experience of monitoring could be used for extension of the programme to other remote. In addition to monitoring, a case study in CFAs regarding the expenditure pattern and purchasing food from the local market is recommended.
The provision should be made for periodic independent third party assessment and feed-back system covering all aspects of the programme for effective project outcomes.
Critical road sites having long length of hard rock and landslides should not be taken under RCIW which cannot be handled manually.
Institutionalization of operation and maintenance system is greatly missing PWP. Beneficiaries showed their big concern on this aspect. Hence, it is recommended that the provision of maintenance fund must be made and User Committee must be made responsible for this job.
Technical and management related training should be devised for operation and maintenance of some specific schemes like road, micro-hydro, etc. For their sustainability.
Some thoughts need to be built up for the road maintenance separately. Users' Committee must be made responsible for supported roads. The sponsors should financially assist the UC to raise funds for maintenance of the constructed infrastructure. It should be taken as built-in process of the project both by the beneficiaries as well as the project people.
There should be post-completion support and monitoring also to strengthen the maintenance system.
4.2 ON DOA-SSNP 4.2.1 Conclusion Application of chemical fertilizer and improved seed directly increases the production and productivity of crops. Subsidy on chemical fertilizer and improved seeds is a means through which the fertilizer and improved seed is being made available to the farmers and made possible for them to purchase these inputs. Chemical fertilizer and improved seeds are directly related to the increase of food production and productivity that is most important factor to ascertain long term food security of rural
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
54
farming households. Sample respondents were found to be in immense demand of these agricultural inputs and they appreciated the Project for the support provided. Farmers are getting transport subsidy in their purchase price. They can pay to purchase the fertilizer on same basis if the quantity is increased. So the involvement of other sector with the coordination of Government is essential to make the fertilizer easily available to farmers in required quantity. Study findings show that fertilizer and seeds were not available to the farmers in demanded quantity and in due time. It is a problem entire country is facing despite all efforts. As a result, interviewed farmers reported that increase in food production was not as desired. There was some deficiency found in information dissemination system that needs improvement. There is need of specific targeting of recipients and the program needs systematization for sustained results. 4.2.2 Issues Need to be Addressed
The quantity of fertilizer supplied is not sufficient enough to fulfill the demand of the farmers of the whole district. A rough estimate shows that one district needs 5,000 – 10,000 Mt of chemical fertilizer. Fortunately due to SSNP, some farmers are getting fertilizer and improved seeds to some extent. However, the supported quantity is low to fulfill the demand of the whole district.
Farmers are not getting fertilizer and seed on time. The cause may be due to many hurdles to get it transported. The DADO is importing fertilizer and seeds through service providers and is distributing them through cooperatives and groups of farmers. Other farmers not included in group feel difficulty to get it.
There is need of strategic planning to focus program to specific target population or to specific food deficit pocket. At present it provided on ad-hoc basis to satisfy demands of all farmers even with provision of lesser quantity. That indicates need of formation of proper program vision and formulation of long term implementation modality.
Generally, only Urea is available in more quantity than other phosphorous and potash fertilizer. Balancing of nitrogen, phosphorous and potash is required for sustainable increase in productivity.
In Salyan district, somewhere only maize seed were supplied, whereas the farmers needed paddy, wheat and vegetable seeds also. Fertilizer and other inputs were not easily available. In this district, there is no office or depot of Agriculture Input Company Ltd. So there is difficulty in getting or purchase fertilizer and seed.
In Bajura also, same problem is being faced by farmers. They are not getting seed and fertilizer on required time.
4.2.3 Recommendations
The program has helped to decrease food deficit situation of people. So the identification of food deficit places, people and group must be done and program should be planned according to that.
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
55
Everywhere there is less supply than demand. Fertilizer and seeds should be made available on time and as per need of the farmers.
Mostly urea is supplied to the farmers. Supply of DAP and potash is not as required. So the urea, DAP and potash should be made available in balanced way. Farmers need to be well informed and advised on the use of fertilizer in a balanced way including organic manures.
Farmers should be trained/ oriented for proper use of fertilizer and improved seed production. Seed production should be conducted in district on the different locations to fulfill the demand of the district.
System Base: Systematic process for subsidized chemical fertilizer and improved seed distribution is recommend as follows:
1. Identification of food deficit area;
2. Identification of people/ group suffering food deficit problem highly;
3. Finding out the causes of food deficit;
4. Prioritize the causes and try to remove them;
5. If the cause is due to lack and low production of crops then find out problems;
6. If the causes of low production is due to lack of chemical fertilizer and improved seeds then plan to find out the solution;
6. Collection of need and demand of the seed and fertilizer;
7. Orientation to identified target farmers on use of fertilizer and seeds;
8. Transportation, distribution, and use supplied inputs;
9. Follow-up, monitoring, and other extension services in a planned way.
It is recommended to distribute the seed according to agro-climatic regions in the district.
Where the subsidized seed and fertilizer have been distributed, the production has increased. In order to increase the food production to meet the need long term food safety of the farmers, it is recommended to carry out regular monitoring of seed / fertilizer distribution among the needy farmers as well as monitoring of increased production with the subsidy availed in this program.
It is recommended to identify in this program the potential pockets to increase food and vegetable production in the districts and provision for required fertilizers and seeds accordingly.
4.3 ON NARC-SSNP 4.3.1 Conclusion NARC is a research council, its main objective is to conduct research and release new variety of seed suitable to the particular area to get more yield. In this program NARC has supported in seed multiplication program. The program was found to be in its initial phase and yet to show its full results. However, the farmers liked the support provided and requested for its continuity in greater extent. The seed
NFCRP/RCIW SSNP BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT-2012: FINAL REPORT
SIDeF Page |
56
producing farmers opined that due to small coverage they have not been to gain results as desired. So, they requested to intensify the program further. 4.3.2 Issues to be Addressed
The produced seeds‘ quantity is not sufficient to contribute in seed extension and seed production and to decrease the food deficit situation as required. So, it needs further intensification.
There is need of systematic planning based on clear identification of objectives.
There is need of coordinated effort between DOA-SSNP and NARC-SSNP in the districts to have effective results and impact.
4.3.3 Recommendations
First the seed demand of the district should be taken under consideration and on that basis the seed multiplication program should be conducted.
The area of the seed production must be increased. The number of the farmers‘ group should be increased. Private firms, farmers and other agencies must be encouraged and included in this program.
Higher number of farmers and farmer groups should be trained and included in seed multiplication program.
NARC has cooperated technically with Regional Seed Testing Laboratory and District Agriculture Development Office Makwanpur. The cooperation of NARC is positive and it may be considered as beginning step towards seed growing in the farmer level.
If the organizations jointly worked and seed production area increased at least to 100 hectare in cooperation with cooperatives, farmer groups, seed dealers, agro-vets, private retailers, etc.; the program would be a big success. Variety should be high yielding so that yield could be increased.
Improve seed production is being carried out by the NARC also with USAID support. It needs coordination among them.
The farmers wanted to have price guarantee. It is advisable that the government announce the sale price of produced seeds one year earlier to gain higher farmers participation.
![s]Gb|Lo cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog OsfO{mofald-clpiu.gov.np/public/kcfinder/upload/files/Gorkha(1...S.N P.A No Beneficiary Name District VDC/MUN Ward Slip No HH_SN MOBILE 1 R-36-1-1-0-002](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b022ce77f8b9a952f8f826b/sgblo-cfofhgf-sfofgjog-osfomofald-clpiugovnppublickcfinderuploadfilesgorkha1sn.jpg)
![s]Gb|Lo cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog OsfO{mofald-clpiu.gov.np/public/kcfinder/upload/files/...S.N P.A No Beneficiary Name District VDC/MUN Ward Slip No HH_SN MOBILE 1 R-24-1-8-3-001 Mahesh Prasad](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b022ce77f8b9a952f8f8282/sgblo-cfofhgf-sfofgjog-osfomofald-clpiugovnppublickcfinderuploadfilessn.jpg)
