Is targeting enough to gender equity and social
inclusion issues? Evidence from Independent
Evaluation of Micro-enterprise Development
Programme in Nepal
Dr Birendra Bir Basnyat
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
NARMA/Nepal
29 October 2015
International Development
Evaluation Association (IDEAS)
Global Conference: “Evaluating Sustainable
Development”, 28-30 October 2015, Bangkok
1
Organization of Presentation
A. Brief Introduction to
(a) Gender and Social Inclusion Issues in Nepal
(b) Micro-Enterprise Development Programme
(MEDEP)
B. Evaluation Rationality
C. Methodology
D. Targeting Process and Selection of Target Groups
E. Key Findings
F. Lessons Learnt
2
A. Nepal’s Gender and Social Inclusion Issue
Nepal : A small hilly country with about 31 Million
Population
Multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country
2013 UN Human Development Index (HDI),-145th
out of 187 countries
Gender Inequality Index-8th rank,
Gender Development Index-102th rank
Social groups: 125 based on caste, ethnicity and
religion
Ethnicity : Brahmin & Chhetri -28.8%, Janajati and
others-53%, Dalit, 12-13%, Muslims
4.4%
Religion: Hindus-81.3%, Buddhists- 9.0%,
Christians-1.4% , Islams-4.4%,
Mother tongue- 123
3
Caste-Poverty Structure
Brahman Chhetri(29%)
Indigenous
people/Janajati/
Buddhists
(53%%)
Muslims, Christians, Others
etc (6%)
Dalits (12%)
Incidence of
Poverty
Intensity of
poverty
Socio-
cultural
Disparities
High
( 38 to 40%)
Low
Access to and
control over
development
opportunities
High Low
(10-12%)
4
Overall Poverty Incidence- 25.4% below
$1.25 a day poverty line
Gender and Social Inclusion Issues in Nepal
• Social exclusion and disparities including gender
discrimination high in Nepal due to social, cultural and
religious factors
• Poverty incidence- high among women headed HHs, Dalits
and Janajatis compared to Brahmins/Chhetris
• Gender inequality in education in terms of access,
achievement and completion high
• Increased realization for the needs to address poverty and
gender inequality (general) issues for sustainable
development
• Problems and challenges are evident but solutions are elusive
5
Micro-enterprise Development Project
(MEDEP)
• A multi-million US Dollar Programme implemented since
1998 by the Ministry of Industry / GoN, in partnership with
UNDP (Now in 4th Phase- 2013-18),
• Nepal's oldest, first (poor/ultra poor targeted), highly
publicized and active
• MEDEP Objective- contribute to poverty reduction and
employment generation through micro-enterprise among the
poor, women, marginalized, and socially excluded households
living below the national poverty line
• Investment commitment reached as of 4th Phase- Above 125
M US$ (UNDP, GoN, AusAID, CIDA, DFID, NZAID)
• Coverage- 38 districts
• Micro- entrepreneurs (MErs) developed as of 2015: +66000
6
MEDEP Modality
8
Micro-entrepreneur
ship DevelopmentMarketing Linkages and
Business Counseling
Appropriate Technology
Testing and TransferAccess to Finance
Skills Training
Entrepreneurship
Development Training
Micro-enterprise
Upgrading
Social Mobilization
(Group Formation)
MEDEP Modality Steps
9
Approx 3 year
Pre-Start up
Start
Upgrading
Sustainability
[[[
Approx 3 months
Approx 1 year
Approx 1 year
Selection of Target
Group
Group Formation
Saving and Credit
Mobilization
Group management
training/dynamics
Enterprise
Awareness
Training
Skill Training
Access to
Credit
Technology
Common
Facility Centre
Marketing sup
Enterprise
Establishment
Business
Improvement
Training
(TOEE/TOGE)
Refresher
Training
Branding,
Packaging
Market
Coordination
Sustainable
Enterprise
Linkage with
Commodity
Association
Marketing
Relation and
Expansion
Commodity
Development
and
Diversification
Quality Control
Investment
Partnership for
Service
Acquisition
B. Rationality MEDEP
One of the oldest nationally important development
project
Targets HHs living below the national poverty line
Prioritizes women, unemployed youth and individuals
from socially excluded groups like Dalits, disadvantaged
Janajatis and Madhesis
Highly visible development intervention at grassroots
Engagement of multiple donors/development partners
Government committed to expand it across Nepal (all
75 districts), already reached to 64 districts in 2015,
Internalization of the programme by GoN – initiated
through Micro-enterprise Development Project for
Poverty Reduction (MEDPA ) (spending more than Rs
200 M (Approx. 2 M US$) annually through regular
budget/source (Government funding)
10
Evaluation Rationality/Importance Contd.
• MEDEP’s modality /framework for micro-enterprise
development: popular and often claimed as a useful and
appropriate ME model for developing countries like Nepal
which is characterized as a country with high domination of
gender and caste based discrimination
• Apart from targeting poor (below NPL) , women and socially
excluded people in quantitative terms, the study intended to
identify other activities/elements that the MEDEP modality
contributed to redress gender and social inclusion issues?
• Identify best practices and draw lessons for Nepal and
similar developing countries with respect to addressing
gender and social inclusion issues for sustainable
development .11
C. Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation undertaken in 9 districts of which 5 districts (Parbat,
Nawalparasi, and Dhanusa, Pyuthan and Dang) were from first phase
(1998-2003) and 4 districts (Sindhupalchowk, Udayapur, Kavre Planchowk
and Kailali) from 2nd Phase (2003-2007)
Represented Mountains, Hills and Terai, 5 development regions (East,
Central, West, Mid-west and Far-west)
MErs- First and 2nd Phase
12
Evaluation Methodology Contd..
Used mix method approach combining quantitative and
qualitative methods
Quantitative Method
Followed a difference of difference method which comprised a survey of both
randomly selected participants and non-participants following the before and
after method (Treatment Group – 832 samples, Control-183 samples)
t0 t1
Y0
Y1
Y2 Treatment group
(MEDEP Participants)
Control group
(Non- participants)
Net impact of MEDEP or MEDEP Contribution = Y2- Y1
Where, t0 and t1 are time lapses between project y0, y1 and y2 are impact at different time intervals
13
Respondents Characteristics
Respondent categoriesParticipants Non-participants
Number Percent No %
Overall 832 100.0 183 100.0
A. Gender
Women 586 70.4 142 77.6
Men 246 29.6 41 22.4
B. Caste/Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhetri 246 29.6 44 24.0
Dalit 198 23.8 50 27.3
Janajati 329 39.5 62 33.9
Others 59 7.1 27 14.8
C. Age group
Adult (15-29) 177 21.3 63 34.4
Youth (30-59) 606 72.8 116 63.4
Elderly (Above 60 years) 49 5.9 4 2.2
14
Respondents by Enterprise Types
15
MEDEP
ParticipantsResp.
Enterprise type (Percent)- catagorization
Agri. ForestsFood
productsService
Non-
farm
Drop
out
Overall 832 33.4 13.8 9.3 13.9 9.6 20.0
A. Sex
Women 586 35.8 15.2 10.1 11.3 8.7 18.9
Men 246 27.6 10.6 7.3 20.3 11.8 22.4
B. Caste/Ethnicity
Brahmin/
Chhteris246 43.1 8.5 15.4 10.2 0.4 22.4
Dalit 198 11.1 19.2 2.5 17.2 25.3 24.7
Janajati 329 40.4 16.1 10.0 11.2 6.4 15.8
Others 59 28.8 5.1 1.7 33.9 13.6 16.9
Evaluation Methodology Contd..
Qualitative method included intensive participatory
interactions with a large number of actors, stakeholders and
communities or beneficiaries households, key informant
surveys, oral history, focus group discussions, time line
preparation, preparation of impact diagram, observation, flow
chart etc.
16
Data Collection
Primary Sources- MErs Survey, Policy Makers, Programme
Managers/Administrators , Enterprise Development
Facilitators
Secondary Sources
(Literature Review, Review of Reports and Studies
accomplished)
Data Analysis: MERs- Stratified by gender and caste group,
Programme- CS-Pro
17
D. Assessment of the MEDEP Model- Targeting
18
Practical and country specific targeting process (well
designed, targeted, no ambiguities
Target Group Selection (Step wise) by an experienced and
independent firm coordinated by District Enterprise
Development Committee of the District Dev. Committee
First step: Selection of target /cluster/market areas
(potentialities/products, local resources, market demand
analysis, proportion of target group (poor, hard-core
poor, socially excluded, unemployed youths etc.)
Second step- Selection of the Village Development
Committee (VDCs)- based on the proportion of target
group (poor, hard-core poor, socially excluded,
unemployed youths etc. ) (A market centre/cluster
comprises 6 to 8 VDCs)
Targeting contd..
19
Third step- Selection of target group/households (HHs)-
HHs whose average annual income is below national
poverty line (NPL)
Undertake Participatory Rural Appraisal (settlement
area) and categories HHs into 5 classes- well-off,
middle level, lower middle, poor and very poor)
Carryout HH Survey to triangulate PRA results,
assess demands/needs, willingness, potentialities
Final selection of target HHs/potential MErs
Group Formation based on ME type
Assessment of the MEDEP Model- Targeting
20
Relevancy- High (consistent with country’s existing
situation, needs and development plan/policies)
More than 85% respondents satisfied with the target group
selection process adopted by MEDEP and satisfied with the
outcome (Effectiveness- high)
Micro- Entrepreneurs: Women- 70%+ , Dalits- 2 5% +,
Janajatis- Approx. 40%
Likewise, non-participants (+ 75%) demanded to expand
programme coverage so as to include their areas as well
E. Key Findings
21
Nearly 73% participants moved out of poverty
Nearly 9 out of 10 of enterprises succeeded to improve
labor productivity, increase production capacity and reduce
the cost of production through adoption of modern and
improved technologies in MEs.
Income - 512% increase among participants compared to
192% among non-participants
Higher proportion of Dalit using of modern technologies
and that of BCTS for improved technologies.
E. Key Findings contd..
22
Despite substantial contribution of MEs to increase assets
among women MErs, higher proportion of men (41%)
making high income (Rs. 50,000 per annum) from MEs than
women (28.2%) who reported to have increased income
Proportion of other Terai caste people (61.7%) receiving
high income (Rs. 50,000 per year) than Dalits (37.4%) than
E. Key Findings Contd..
23
Compared to Dalits and ethnic groups, proportion of
Brahmins/Chhetris moving to high income group is high
(14% vs 5.2% (Dalits and Janajatis (10.8%).
Performance of MERs who failed to receive
complementary assistance/services timely or weak to
demand and utilize such support/services could not
continue their enterprises despite they were
encouraged with the initial outcome (income increase,
employment opportunity and increase in social prestige
etc.)
E. Key Findings Contd..
24
All ethnic groups showed net increase in number of food
sufficient months (from 3.8 months to 5.8 months)
significant at 1% level of confidence) with relatively high
increase among other Terai caste people followed by
Janjatis, Dalits and Brahmin/Chhetris.
ME drop out rate is high (23 to 25%)
Performance of MERs who failed to receive
complementary assistance/services timely or weak to
demand and utilize such support/services could not
continue their enterprises despite they were encouraged
with the initial outcome (income increase, employment
opportunity and increase in social prestige etc.)
Conclusion
25
MEDEP's efforts towards assisting a large number of women
and other disadvantaged groups to identify their latent
entrepreneur skills, to provide them with the necessary
entrepreneurial skills and to create and develop micro-
enterprises is commendable.
Targeting is necessary, must be carefully planned and
executed. It should be participatory and appropriate to the
local situation.
But targeting is not sufficient.
Proactive gender responsive service delivery and
institutional arrangement is crucial for the goals of gender
equity and inclusive development.
F Best Practices- Policy Reform
26
Mainstreaming GESI (Gender and Social Inclusion Issue at all
levels- from policy to grassroots via implementation level)
Social Mobilization through Trained Enterprise Development
Facilitators (EDFs)
At least 2/3 rd decision making positions in MEGA (Micro-
enterprise development associations) and District Micro-
group Associations are occupied by women and deprived
groups (Dalits and ethnic minorities)
F. Best Practices (Implementation level) Contd
27
High priority to social mobilization and group formation and
ensure continuity through activities such as saving and credit
Formation and mobilization of Micro-enterprise groups at
different levels from grassroots to policy support- Micro-
enterprise group (MEG), Micro-enterprise group association
(MEGA), District Microenterprise Group Association
(DMEGA) and National Microenterprise Group Association
(NMEGA)
Training- women friendly environment and support to at
least one care taker when women entrepreneurs have small
babies
F. Best Practices (Implementation level)
Contd…
28
Provision of Common Facility Centres to work in groups
and learn from each others
Ensure opportunities for aforementioned groups to
participate in trade fairs to share marketing experiences
observe and learn from others’ products and so forth
Intensive monitoring and technical backstopping (Area
Support Office and Enterprise Development Facilitators)
Recommendations
29
Design differential gender responsive service delivery
approach for different target groups.
Level of support and incentives need to be adjusted
accordingly for achieving sustainable development goals.
Enhancing the responsive and capacity of the different
actors and stakeholders at different levels with responsible
monitoring and evaluation is crucial.
When ME development project targets only hardcore poor
and disadvantaged groups, prospect of MEs sustainability
could be low. Therefore, MEs should specifically include
HHs above the poverty line as well.