INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE NEPAL INTEGRATED ASSISTANCE TO IDPs, RETURNEES & OTHER CONFLICT AFFECTED POPULATIONS IN THE MID WESTERN REGION OF NEPAL FINAL EVALUATION REPORT August, 2008 1 List of Abbreviations IRC International Rescue Committee USAID United States Aid for International Development CWG Community Working Group PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal NFI Non Food Item NGO Non Governmental Organization NRC Norwegian Refugee Council INSEC Informal Sector Service Center FORWARD Forum for Rural Welfare and Agriculture Development VDC Village Development Committee IDP Internally Displaced People CRA Conflict Resolution Activity NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society CDO Chief District Officer DAO District Administration Office CPN (UML) Communist Party of Nepal- United Marxist and Leninist CPN-M Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist DDC District Development Committee NHRC National Human Rights Commission 2 Contents Page 1. Executive Summary 4 1.1 Objectives of the Evaluation 4 1.2 Methodology 4 1.3 Key Issues and Conclusions 4 1.4 Recommendations 5 1.5 Key Lessons Learned 5 2. Introduction 6 2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation 6 2.2 Methodology 7 2.3 Limitations 7 3. Major Findings 7 3.1 Relevance 7 3.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness 10 3.3 Impact 11 3.4 Sustainability 13 3.5 Partnerships 14 3.6 Programme Objectives 16 3.6.1 Objective 1 16 3.6.2 Objective 2 24 3.6.3 Cross Cutting Themes 28 4. Lessons Learned 29 Annex 1 –Vulnerability Guidelines 30 Annex 2 – Terms of Reference 31 Annex 3 - List of Questions 34 3 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Objectives of the Evaluation The main objectives of the evaluation were to ascertain the relevance and effectiveness of the programme, note lessons learned and recommendations for future programming. 1.2 Methodology The key evaluation methodology comprised of interviews with IRC staff, and key informants. Focus group discussions and interviews with key informants were held in the communities and at district/regional level. 1.3 Key Issues and Conclusions • IDPs and conflict affected communities do not believe that the government will support their recovery and they must take control of their own circumstances • Unregistered IDPs remain among the most vulnerable in the target communities • The issue of internal displacement in Nepal is a complicated one and it is difficult to identify IDPs for a number of reasons • IDPs and conflict affected people are motivated to take control of their lives and move forward towards durable return to safe and productive lives. They need support in this process both through financial assistance, skills development and through the promotion of an environment that will enable improved access and opportunities for development through structural change • IRC has created strong linkages with the community, has gained trust and respect in the target areas and a good reputation among stakeholders • CWGs are operating well and must be further supported to get to the point where they are fully enabled • Local government needs to be more engaged in the process of community building as well as on issues such as IDPs and ex-Kamaiya rights. More emphasis needs to be placed on capacity building of state institutions and facilitating the creation of an enabling environment for protection and community driven development • Linkages between community and local government need to be created. • PAC meetings, while taking place, need to be made more meaningful and a mechanism to allow for greater inclusiveness and wider access/awareness of PAC needs to be put in place • Overall, IRC has created the basis for the nurturing of a strengthened and empowered environment to help the post-conflict healing process and allow social re-integration of conflict-affected people. 4 1.4 Recommendations Continue to work with the target beneficiaries in the same locations to further support and enable vulnerable individuals and communities to take control of their futures. Expand existing protection programming to include a greater capacity building component that strengthens existing structures, including the government and civil society across a range of sectors that will impact on protection in the short and long term. This should include a strategy to promote an enabling environment for recovery and development. • Re-evaluate the best use of NGO partnerships. • Expand the scope of support in target locations to fit the changing needs of the most vulnerable eg. Livelihoods support, food security • Develop a holistic advocacy strategy that would include robust engagement with government and civil society for the creation of an enabling environment for durable recovery and development for IDPs, returnees and conflict affected communities • Consolidate the work done with CWG formation to create strong community driven structures • Work more closely with the government at district and central level to make interventions more effective and more durable. • Re-assess the types of information being gathered on IDPs and use this information more productively through regular dissemination/sharing with other agencies • IRC should continue and strengthen its cross-agency referral and monitoring systems to ensure vulnerable individuals do not ‘fall through the gaps’. 1.5 Key Lessons Learned • The issues among IDPs and conflict affected are multiple, diverse and complex • Trainings should be long enough to ensure maximum benefit to participants and have adequate follow-up • Better use should be made of NGO/civil society partnerships. • It was found the community as a whole was very receptive to IRC staff and welcomed the fact they established an office at local level. • There is a need for livelihood training and access to markets/vocational opportunities • There is little interest/knowledge/commitment among government officials in the districts on addressing IDP issue/ex-Kamaiya issue • IRCs integrated approach is effective and should be continued to ensure immediate needs are met and longer term development is enabled. • IRC staff are working ‘above the call of duty’ and have integrated well into the community. • More emphasis needs to be placed on staff capacity building/training 5 • Sharing/coordination meetings for staff and partners should be held regularly • Time and geographical areas are major constraints in project implementation in the region of operation and need to be factored into project design/planning 2. Introduction From mid 2007 to 2008, the IRC conducted an integrated assistance project to support safe and durable return in six districts of the Mid-West region of Nepal, through integrated assistance that strengthens protection services and improves quality of life for IDPs, returnees and other conflict-affected households. The project aimed to assist returnees and conflict affected households by providing targeted assistance and monitoring the return processes to ensure that people’s rights are respected and any needs identified. As part of this monitoring process, the information collected was used toward addressing the ‘data gap’ on IDP return by feeding information into the international community, Nepalese authorities and other stakeholders. The project’s main components involved the dissemination of information and distribution of assistance packages, while also focusing on fostering improved relationships between returnees and communities through Conflict Resolution Activities. This project aimed to take an integrated approach to assisting returnees and conflict￾affected households, addressing the needs highlighted above through components which: • Provided targeted field monitoring capacity in the areas of highest return/population movement in the Mid-West, to begin to address the ‘data gap’ on IDP return and reintegration; • Offered an information, advice, and referral service for IDPs, returnees and conflict￾affected households in the areas of highest return/population movement in the Mid￾West, underscoring needs and directing vulnerable clients to appropriate services; • Provided vulnerable returnees with a basic assistance package tailored to their specific needs. After consultation with the individuals and an in-depth look at local markets, IRC offered an essential basic package of NFIs. IRC also provided minimum transportation support for return on a case-by-case basis. • Promoted a secure environment for return through Conflict Resolution Activities (CRAs) in areas of high return in order to foster improved relationships between returnees and communities. • Assisted the international community, Nepalese authorities, and other stakeholders in addressing the IDP return and reintegration challenge in a more coherent and comprehensive manner, through support for the development of common policies and action plans. 2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation The final evaluation was carried out between July 19th-August 11th 2008 by Remy Herbert, Protection Program Coordinator, IRC Nepal. The main objectives of the 6 evaluation were to ascertain the relevance and effectiveness of the programme, note lessons learned and recommendations for future programming. 2.2 Methodology The key evaluation methodology comprised of interviews with IRC staff, and key informants at local level. Focus group discussions and interviews with IDPs, conflict affected groups, Community Working Groups, school students and teachers were held in the communities in two districts. At district level, the Evaluator met in Surkhet with INSEC(NGO partner), the District Chief Development Officer, senior staff of the Village Development Committee, Nepal Red Cross Society, and Norwegian Refugee Council. Officer. In Bardiya, the evaluator met with the Chief Development Officer and District Development Committee. At regional level, the evaluator met with FORWARD and INSEC NGO partners and UN OCHA. Interviews of Protection Officers and project staff were conducted in Nepalganj. 2.3 Limitations The time scale for the evaluation was short. Given the time constraint and the geographical area, there was no time to cover all project sites. This evaluation is based on the above meetings/interviews plus document based research. It was possible to interact extensively with the IRC staff who worked on this project over all locations. 3 Major Findings 3.1 Relevance Analysis The conflict between the Maoists and the State in Nepal took place over a 10 year period directly followed by an intense and effective people’s movement in 2006 which resulted in the toppling of the monarchy and heralded the inclusion of the CPN-Maoists into the government. Never-the-less, peace remains fragile and the peace process has undergone many setbacks in 2007, not least the inter-communal tensions in the Terai region. In the latter six months of 2007, 82 people were killed through conflict and some 1,600 additional people were internally displaced.1 An estimated 50-70,000 people remain displaced nationwide as a result of the long conflict years and vulnerability in general terms has increased (including food insecurity, health, natural disasters). According to INSEC records, in Bardyia alone, there were 181 cases of disappearances, 120 of abduction and a total of 337 people killed (254 by the Maoists and 83 by the State) during the conflict years. 7 With the establishment of a new government, Nepal will undergo significant change processes which will hopefully herald not only political stability but also good governance at all levels. But these changes will take time. At present, district administration structures are extremely weak. They are under-resourced and clearly lack the capacity to meet the needs of the communities they serve. This is particularly the case in the remote Terai area that IRC targets. It is extremely difficult to calculate the number of IDPs in Nepal as many are not registered, either because of their own choice (through fear of repercussions), or through an inability to do so. Others may not identify themselves as displaced people, in that seasonal and permanent migration between areas and across national boundaries is common within Nepal. Others are living with relatives. Despite the fact that if they had registered with the CDO they would have been eligible for compensation, many of the very poor could not do so, for various reasons and have not been counted. These are among the most deprived, excluded and vulnerable groups in the country. Some IDPs have now returned to their land, thus becoming “Returnees”. Of these many find that their houses and/or crops have been destroyed. Others have no money to rebuild and face too many barriers in obtaining the small compensation that is available. A portion do not wish to return, mostly due to fear and the psychological scars caused by the victimisation, brutality and torture that is now associated with these places for them. These families try to integrate into host communities, but face discrimination and disenfranchisement in addition to what are often desperate living conditions. Though there is an IDP Policy in Nepal, it is not being implemented, or is only being partly implemented. A set of Directives has been drafted for rolling out the IDP Policy, and is waiting for approval from the Cabinet. In the meantime, assistance to IDPs, which in itself is limited, focuses solely on return and has not enabled full registration of all IDPs. There are other groups who are not officially classed as IDPs but have been displaced. For example, the case of ex-Kamaiyas, who were displaced by the government. Ex￾Kamaiyas have little rights, have lost their homes, are extremely vulnerable and living in camps. IRC has made sure to include them in its programme. Those who have been termed conflict affected face a myriad of challenges that do not have simple solutions. The challenges include: the trauma of loss, the physical and emotional scars of torture, uncertainty as to whether missing family members are alive or dead. Their situation is compounded by the continuing lack of means to recovery. Without money, land, skills or access to livelihoods, many of those most affected by the conflict face the grim reality of worsening vulnerability due to entrenched cycles of poverty, poor health, poor nutrition and poor living conditions in areas that are prone to natural disaster. Female headed households are extremely vulnerable. Without land or property, many displaced women whose husbands were killed or disappeared during the conflict face the 8 challenge of raising children often with no means of support other than through daily￾wage work. Of the six districts IRC worked in, all are remote, most lack basic infrastructure and are vulnerable to seasonal factors which limit agricultural production and/or the ability to transport agricultural goods. Some, such as Bardiya, are prone to flooding. IRC planned to address some of the major needs of the conflict affected population, including IDPs, in six districts in the west of Nepal through an integrated programme which combined protection, education, health and community capacity building and strengthening. Given the context, IRC’s integrated approach of at once mapping the unmapped (in terms of IDP status), providing immediate support to the displaced to assist in their return or integration, and facilitating their access to services, was relevant. The conflict resolution activities enabled communities to begin the process of rebuilding and re-shaping their futures on their own, which was and remains a crying need given the stagnation they faced due largely to the inability of the government to provide infrastructure and services that are a precondition to any form of development. Communities were able to find solutions to problems that they faced collectively, such as health and education issues, while finding common ground beyond the barriers of caste, ethnicity, gender and age. IRC was able to provide essential non-food items to IDPs and returnees, enabling families to return to some semblance of normal daily life. They provided assistance for IDPs who wished return to their homes and support for those who did not. IRC gave, gathered and shared information on IDP rights and status and worked closely with other agencies to assist IDPs meet basic needs and claim their entitlements. Though the project was limited in scope due to budget and time constraints, where it was able to intervene, the project made a tangible and positive difference in the lives of the people it aimed to assist. Recommendations • Continue the programme among the same target group, increase beneficiaries to include those most vulnerable i.e., unregistered IDPs • Expand the scope of the program so that it remains integrated but addresses the changing needs of the community at various levels Increase advocacy and information sharing for IDP status • Build stronger linkages with government and aim to strengthen capacities for good governance during this time of transition 9 3.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness Analysis The structure of partnerships was not effective in terms of genuine capacity building from either an institutional or a programmatic perspective. The partnerships were not partnerships in which IRC enabled local partners to implement durable protection programs through training, skills development and experiential learning. Rather, the nature of the partnership was to utilise the staff and resources of organisations to meet IRC’s project objectives. While this did not compromise the project, as such, it has meant that the work that went into implementation, the lessons learned and experience gained have been limited to a small number of partner staff who worked on the project. Have the partners become better as protection practitioners as a result of the project? Institutionally, they have not. Often, planning institutional strengthening is overlooked in the design phase of projects, and unfortunately this component was not given careful consideration from the outset. Long term effectiveness and sustainability could have been enhanced by that kind of focus. Not enough training was given to staff and partners. Training materials were developed and disseminated to all project staff but, because of the time constraints, the prohibitive costs and the distance between project sites it was extremely difficult and sometimes physically impossible to coordinate regular capacity building sessions for staff. The extent to which partners and staff were orientated into the objectives of the project and their role in it was limited, largely due to the fact that many staff were recruited after the project had already started. Though staff and partners rose to the challenge admirably, many expressed dissatisfaction at the level of training they received. The project would have been more efficient had staff and partners had more opportunity to come together to share experiences and overcome obstacles together, rather than working in isolation. The project was under-staffed with unrealistic workloads for protection officers in the field who lacked administrative and logistical support in their field sites. Valuable time was wasted by protection officers who also had to undertake administrative, clerical and sometimes cleaning duties in their field stations. The need for adequate human resources is heightened given the challenges of a vast and remote geographical coverage of project sites and limited time. Budget allocations for human resources should reflect these demands. Efficiency and effectiveness of the four main objectives of the programme are given in section 3.6. 10 Key Conclusions IRC staff worked above and beyond the call of duty to make the project work. From an institutional perspective the project could have been operationalised better through more thorough planning at the outset and through a more inclusive and participatory approach. Due to the time constraints and lack of staff at the outset of the project IRC was unable to find a balance between meeting programme goals and building staff and partner capacity and ensuring staff and partners were adequately trained, prepared and consulted about their concerns and expectations through the implementation process. IRC Nepal needs to clearly define and come to consensus on a definition of partnership and define, with partners, the goals and objectives of any partnership. Genuine partnerships focus on shared goals, mutual learning and institutional strengthening. IRC should aim for a model that enables the mainstreaming of IRCs priority themes into the community by working to bolster the local organisations with whom IRC partners. Recommendations • Re-evaluate the best use of NGO partnerships; • Re-evaluate structure/systems of operations in field sites • Ensure regular interactions/meetings for staff and partners • Build in staff capacity building into project design • Consider how institutional strengthening can be incorporated during the project design phase 3.3 Impact Analysis The overall impact that IRC had is extremely positive. All sectors covered by the programme had qualitative and quantitative positive impacts – physical/material needs were met, services improved through community action and changes in attitudes and practices of communities and particularly vulnerable groups is evident.. However, it is not realistic to assume that impacts could be sustainable after a short intervention such as this. Further support for the communities IRC has been working with will be a decisive factor in the long term. There is a great need for support for durable return and durable recovery interventions in the six districts. There is limited support for return for IDPs provided by the government, which many have not been able to access due to bureaucratic process or simply because they are not registered (and may not be as the government has closed the process of IDP registration). The communities IRC works with are vulnerable, remote and 11 disenfranchised with little if any support forthcoming from the government to ensure basic needs are met. This project has had significant impact by meeting basic needs of targeted IDPs and enabling communities to work together to gain control of and improve the status of their communities. Key Findings The use of an integrated approach was considered the best way to tackle a host of problems faced by the population including vulnerability due to traditional discrimination (Kamaiyas, Tharus, Dalits, scheduled castes); vulnerability due to natural disasters (flooding); vulnerability due to the conflict, vulnerability due to lack of public services (health, education, transportation) and vulnerability due to lack of access to information. The integrated approach has led to increased inclusion and participation of people who have been traditionally marginalised in remote and disenfranchised areas. The tangible positive impacts resulting from the project have also had a positive impact on the perceptions the broader community has of disenfranchised individuals and about the potential of collective community driven action. Material support in the form of essential non-foods items that IRC provided through the project has served both to meet the immediate needs of vulnerable communities and enabled access for the IRC into the community. Subsequently, IRC’s delivery of aid and relationship building with the affected populations and communities helped the organization gain trust and cooperation. The extent to which there is an enabling environment to support the new skills, awareness, motivation and demand of the community is extremely doubtful because of lack of government capacity and political will. Working with government at any level is difficult, particularly when it involves tackling issues that it does not want to acknowledge. This bad situation is made worse by the lack of an established and stable central government and weak local government structures in Nepal. But without addressing the capacity and commitment of the government, all other interventions will be limited in their potential impact in terms of durable and comprehensive solutions. Recommendations • Continue to build capacity and facilitate the development of Community Working Groups • Incorporate livelihoods activities into future programmes • Where needed and where possible respond to disaster and emergencies to ensure the immediate safety and security of the beneficiaries • Link with government at all levels and continue to advocate for their fullest engagement and support on IDP issues 12 3.4 Sustainability Analysis IRC has entered an arena where few, if any INGOs have ventured. Not only is the organisation tackling direct conflict related problems (IDPs/Returnees) but it is doing so in geographical areas prone to natural disasters (flooding, such as Bardiya), where no other INGOs are working, and which has, in addition to being home to traditional discriminations, contains a large camp of ex-Kamayias, who are among the most vulnerable of the vulnerable communities. Taking an integrated approach, IRC is also tackling some of the very root causes of insecurity and vulnerability – education, health, and lack of access and capability. Durable return and recovery are long term outcomes and require continued support through the period it takes to put sustainable structures in place and to build the capacity of relevant stakeholders. Protection programming needs to address immediate needs but must also address long term structural issues. Linkages between communities and district line agencies are important. Linkages and referral systems were set in place. There needs to be a formal mechanism for monitoring the outcomes of referrals, which is so far not in place. Capacity building through trainings can only be achieved if those trainings are properly thought through and long enough. The best trainings are conducted by professional trainers who specialise in the topics being presented. The cost of such expertise coupled with the barrier of distance/cost of transport meant that this expertise was not utilised. However, costs should be assessed in relation to the benefits of having better quality training. When IRC began its integrated program no other agencies were working through such a methodology. Particularly in terms of its interventions with IDPs, this has been a model that other agencies have started to look towards replicating. IRC has succeeded in completing activities and achieving planned results. They need to focus on strengthening, capacity building and relationship development of staff, partners, civil society, community groups and government in order to make what they have done so far genuinely sustainable. Such investments often require small monetary inputs but often yield the most significant and most durable outcomes. Key Conclusions The issues that IRC is addressing are vast and complex and it is perhaps not realistic that an agency like IRC Nepal could intervene effectively across all the sectors that impact on vulnerability. In terms of a strong and consolidated approach to protecting and enabling 13 the realisation of the rights of vulnerable Nepalese living in the target areas, IRC could adopt a strategy that focuses more on strengthening local organisations to carry out integrated programs, or build the capacity of organisations across sectors. Identifying and strengthening on-the-ground expertise in key areas will be an effective way of maximising the results IRC can achieve as a part of an integrated approach to protection would be more sustainable and more cost effective in the long term. This should include advocacy, livelihoods, capacity building of government as well as community based development and the kinds of protection programming IRC has been doing like information gathering and dissemination. Strengthening civil society, CBOs and community working groups to work towards solutions to issues and to strive for an enabling environment through advocacy and other initiatives would be an effective and sustainable role for an agency such as IRC. Recommendations • Establish links with local development actors who can provide long-term support and influence community development processes; • For future projects, re-evaluate how to undertake the integrated approached based on time and money available; • Re-evaluate trainings including their content relevance in the local context; and • Put monitoring and evaluation systems in place 3.5 Partnerships Analysis As per Nepal Government guidelines, IRC is working with NGOs and government partners. IRC partnered with FORWARD (Forum for Rural Welfare and Agricultural Reform for Development), an NGO working to improve livelihoods of under privileged rural communities using the principles of self help, and INSEC (Informal Sector Service Centre), a human rights NGO focussed towards working with disadvantaged groups. These are the leading local NGOs in their respective fields. Their expertise, linkages with the community and experience in similar activities added considerable value to the project. The protection related programme activities, such as awareness, human rights, non food items (NFIs), were conducted through INSEC, while FORWARD implemented conflict resolution activities (CRAs) and conflict resolution training. IRC has been part of a Contact Group with OCHA, other UN agencies and INGOs since 2006. The main aim of this group is to discuss and assess emergency humanitarian needs. 14 Programmatically, IRC worked on close collaboration with Caritas Nepal and the Norwegian Refugee Council and Nepal Red Cross Society on an integrated approach to return as well as on a multi-agency referral mechanism for IDP support. A Project Advisory Committee, comprising representatives from the DDC and VDC meet regularly to inform and assess the implementation process. Key Conclusions Partnerships are one of the key factors to the success of a project. Considerable research is therefore required to ensure the selection of the best possible partners. The two local NGO partners selected by IRC were not fully aware of the activities being carried out as a whole, but rather knew well the part of the project with which they were tasked. It would have been better had the partners been aware of and even engaged in all facets of the integrated program. Partners need to be willing and able to go beyond simply carrying out a series of activities in a sector in which they already have expertise; they should be open to active involvement and engagement in processes that reach beyond limited operational functions. Given the time and resource constraints that many NGOs face, this needs to be fostered through an understanding and a desire by the NGO that they should gain in the long term through partnerships that have a focus on institutional strengthening. To have a lasting and sustainable impact, IRC should aim to work more closely with local development actors and possibly the business community as well as government to implement programs in the short term, and put in place enabling structures and mechanisms in the long term. IRC should evaluate how to better partner with government. This is discussed further under the programme objectives. Recommendations • Work more closely with partners to cultivate a ‘genuine partnership’ through a model that enables ownership of projects and strengthens institutional capacity and commitment to protection • Provide ongoing training and have regular dialogues between IRC and partner staff who are implementing the project • Make partners aware of projects in their entirety and enable participation in projects as a whole. Avoid compartmentalisation. 15 3.6 Programme Objectives 3.6.1 Objective 1: To strengthen protection services for IDPs and other vulnerable groups, and promote safe and durable return, through information, advice, advocacy, and conflict resolution activities. Analysis At the outset of the project and to date there is a major gap of protection mechanisms for IDPs and returnees. There are no provisions for people who for whatever reason cannot return to their place of origin. The assistance provided for registered returns by NGOs and the Government has been inadequate and inconsistent. IRC proposed to work towards filling these protection gaps by implementing an IDP/returnee protection project to identify, document, and address the needs of IDPs and by creating an enabling environment with host communities in areas of return through Conflict Resolution Activities (CRAs). In addition, IRC is a member of the IDP Working Group, led by UNHCR and OHCHR. As a member, IRC has been able to share IDP and returnee information with the national working group and contribute to the national implementation plan for an integrated approach to IDP return. Family information forms were compiled by the protection officers on families who had been displaced during the conflict or returned to their original places or severely affected by the conflict. The family information forms were designed to obtain key data on IDP/returnee/OCA, nature of victim, family composition, address, assistance required, assistance got, extent of shelter damage, injuries, caste, employment status, adult to child ratio, etc.) of the victims of conflict. The lists for the IDPs/ Returnees and Other Conflict Affected People have been collected from different organizations in the project districts. Village assessment forms were designed to gather information regarding communication, sanitation, safe drinking water, local bodies, health, irrigation and other facilities available at VDC level. From this information, IRC started a database of the all the collected information, documented in the IRC Office, Surkhet. In addition to this, every two months protection officers provided an update of the security and human rights status in each district. Informally, data was shared between agencies, particularly through Contact group meetings and through the multi-agency referral system described previously. 16 Key Conclusions Protection There is always a question of how much data to collect, what data to gather and how to best use it. IRC should re-assess the data that it has gathered, the information it continues to gather and plan a strategy on how to use it to ensure that the information gathering process which has such potential in a context riddled with information gaps has real results for the beneficiaries. All of the beneficiaries the evaluator spoke to had been given information about their rights. They were able when asked to give comprehensive lists of key rights and who was responsible for them. Some of the beneficiaries interviewed had gained the confidence to approach service providers like the VDC and other INGOs and NGOs. But these successes were not necessarily among those who were the most vulnerable or those who needed assistance most. In Surkhet, the evaluator spoke with a number of beneficiaries who knew the government is responsible for their rights but see no use in trying to approach the government for any kind of support. Some simply cannot because they lack the relevant documentation. Simply knowing what their rights are and the appropriate channels to claim them is not enough for people who have been affected deeply by conflict, discrimination and long term poverty and disenfranchisement. Some individuals are too deeply disenfranchised. There is also the danger that for whatever reason the relevant government service providers will not be responsive. Facilitating face to face linkages between committed government officers and IDPs could be an option. This will involve engaging closely with relevant government actors firstly, then providing a forum for IDPS and government to connect. Government agencies need to be willing and able to respond to the needs of the people. This is a more long term, complex and challenging process, but one that the IRC should not overlook if it is trying to ensure access to rights, as has been mentioned already. IRC provided 34,332 information packs on rights of IDPs/ returnees and how to obtain services. The recipients included women, conflict affected individuals, IDPs, ex￾Kamaiyas and other marginalised groups. IRC’s aim of informing its beneficiaries of their rights and how to claim them was consistent with reports received by the evaluator in the communities. In terms of referrals and information sharing on the ground, IRC did well. IRC utilized well the existing networks to disseminate information and refer clients.Information was shared with NRC, Caritas and other agencies on who was vulnerable, where they were and what they needed, and this resulted in genuine coordination on provision of material support, assistance for return and access to services. It was reported that a number of individuals were referred through the Community Information Centre and there are also 17 reports that others used the information to try to access services from the CDO office, VDC and other agencies. There is a danger that the demand being created through the information campaigns could hit a brick wall in terms of the capacity and political will of the government to provide services, particularly to IDPs and ex-Kamaiya’s. The CDO in Bardiya told the evaluator that there are no IDPs in Nepal any more and that the ex-kamaiya displacement was ‘not a matter to be talked about’. The information campaigns would have been more effective if government representatives/the CDOs and VDCs had been more actively engaged. One of the problems that Nepal faces is the lack of capacity among its district administration who are under-resourced and often poorly equipped in terms of power and knowledge to be effective and meet the community’s needs, as has been mentioned previously. IRC conducted training for government officials but this was limited. IRC should not be creating expectations among vulnerable communities without also working to ensure that these expectations can be met.To ward against this risk, project staff should describe the practical limitations inherent in societies that lack strong service provision. IRC has a relationship with CDOs and at DDC and VDC level in the project locations. Through PAC meetings, IRC meets regularly with government and keeps them informed of the work they are doing. In Bardiya, the CDO stated that IRC is one of the few agencies that does this well. However, usually, the linkages with government are limited to one or two officers/individuals, with little institutional knowledge or awareness. Because IRC is based in the region with frequent travel to project sites they maintain well their linkages with the beneficiaries. In this way, monitoring is ongoing in an informal way. The evaluator saw in Surkhet during interviews with IDP families one IRC staff member following-up with a sixteen year old girl who wanted training in sewing. This kind of continual engagement, rapport and support is very strongly evident in this program and is an important achievement that needs to be maintained over the long term. IRC regularly monitors beneficiaries and updates family information in its database. Community Working Groups and Conflict Resolution Activities The project engaged in 24 conflict resolution activities across six project districts i.e. Jumla, Mugu, Jajarkot, Dailkeh, Surkhet and Bardiya districts. Where possible, IRC worked with existing groups. Where there were no such groups, a new community working group (CWG) was formed in each VDC. The Community Working Groups each had 20-22 community members ensuring the equal inclusion of 50% of women and IDPs/ returnees, conflict affected people. IRC’s CRA Specialist, Protection Officers and partner staff facilitated the process of formation of conflict resolution committee members, and the design of the CRAs which provided a forum for bringing together various elements in 18 the target communities to plan for and manage small scale improvements to community infrastructure and livelihoods development. Most people in the CWGs noted a positive change in their own lives and in the way they related to the community and other community members. They saw benefits from working together rather than solely for personal gain. Women said that they had gained confidence through an understanding of their rights and their role in society. Most of the women in the CWGs were extremely vocal and played an active part in the decision making/management of the CWGs. Local community resources were highly mobilized during the implementation phase of the integrated assistance project. CWGs were obliged to share/raise some of the cost of their projects either in-kind or by raising funds on their own. Allocated and utilized resources were basically seen in terms of sand, wood and concrete works and semi￾skilled labour, but community members also sought funds from other sources after being trained in project proposal development and writing. This methodology worked well and seems to have heightened the sense of achievement and confidence that these communities have. The CRAs have shown the community that they have the capacity to change bad situations and solve problems. They have improved health services, established a range of income generating activities, and, among many other initiatives, provided toilets to schools. Disenfranchised groups, such as Ex-Kamaiyas in Rajapur have become leaders, though they need more training to fully realise this role and exercise this strength appropriately. The composition of groups was inclusive. One group in Surkhet, when asked about issues of social cohesion said that everyone is equally poor in their community and therefore equal. A CWG in Rajapur visited by the evaluator consists of a vibrant mix of elders, youth, women and men. This CWG has built a community centre which now hosts both community meetings and training programs by various agencies. As well as meeting material needs of their community, they have intervened collectively to deal with cases of domestic violence and other social issues. Another group in the same district had worked to have electricity supplied to a school with a student population of over 2,000. School attendance has reportedly increased, and aside from the obvious benefits of having electricity, students have been able to see the results of collective community driven action which may motivate them to replicate such initiatives themselves. Groups have come together linked by a common purpose despite some considerable differences in their backgrounds. This cohesion has sent positive messages to the broader community by showing diverse groups working together and achieving positive outcomes. The community looks to the CWG for advice and to help solve problems such as problems in the home and conflicts between neighbours. In Bardiya, the Community Working Groups visited embraced this role, not only because they were able to support the community to overcome challenges and issues, but because of the sense of purpose and respect that this gave them – i.e., respect from others as well as self respect. 19 All of the CWGs met said that proposal development and writing was extremely valuable and have already started to apply these skills to try to raise funds. In the case of CWGs that had existed prior to IRCs project, they said that these practical skills complemented the training they had received from other agencies and supported their pre-existing goals. In Babiyachaur VDC, one CWG expressed the sense that only through becoming registered and getting project funds can they have any power to change their circumstances. This highlights the double-edged sword that this kind of approach can be and needs to be balanced with a sense of community driven action/empowerment that is not contingent solely on money. It is very positive that CWGs have skills to prepare project proposals and are motivated to do so. But there is a danger that if they can’t raise funds they will lose that motivation and not be able to see any alternative to drive their reconstruction process forward. The need to keep working with the CWGs to enhance their capacity and strengthen their awareness of their rights and role as citizens cannot be emphasised enough. For example, when asked how they might address a case of GBV in the community the response of this CWG was to ‘prepare a project proposal’ for ‘an activity’. When it was suggested that collective action can be a powerful force and change agent, most of the CWG members could not see how this was possible. This is not the sense the evaluator got from another CWG in Rajapur, which was more proactive in the community to deal with social issues. This group is also extremely active in trying to raise funds at the moment and are in the process of becoming registered. Objectives Met All quantitative objectives were met. To-date everything is operating well and there is positive feedback from the CWGs. The Community Information Centres are open, information disseminated and trainings conducted. Indicators Protection and human rights training S.N District No. of training M F B/C Dalit JJ Total Increased Knowledge (average) 1 Jumla 4 52 35 72 15 0 87 60% 2. Jajarakot 5 79 73 71 53 28 152 58.14 % 3. Mugu 12 157 135 - 24 - 292 42.48% 4. Dailekh 5 78 41 - - - 119 23% 5. Surkhet 4 47 40 87 28.34% 6. Bardiya 22 400 218 202 31 399 629 46% Total 52 813 542 1386 20 District Level Trainings for Government and other stakeholders S.N District M F B/C Dalit JJ Total Increased Knowledge 1 Jumla 17 4 16 2 3 21 16% 2. Jajarakot 32 4 26 1 9 36 66.7 % 3. Mugu 21 9 - 2 - 92 46.66% 4. Dailekh 16 4 20 20 % 5. Surkhet 11 5 16 30% 6. Bardiya 22 3 15 4 6 25 66% Total 119 29 210 Number of community based trainings S.N District No. of training M F B/C Dalit JJ Total 1 Jumla 14 333 135 468 2. Jajarakot 26 343 432 775 3. Mugu 89 275 89 364 4. Dailekh 9 115 57 87 11 53 170 5. Surkhet 28 662 383 1048 6. Bardiya 38 617 270 887 21 Coverage of Conflict Resolution Activity S.N VDCs HHs Population Male Female Students Boys Girls 1 Birat 630 4200 2050 2150 2 Kanakasundari 421 3000 1400 1600 3 Tatopani 417 129 288 4 Hanku 357 1999 1034 965 5 Khamale 266 8720 3720 4100 6 Srikot 356 267 99 7 Gamtha 391 2737 1334 1403 8 Seri 360 2190 1090 1100 9 Salleri 675 5002 2435 2567 10 Kalika 422 2786 1404 1382 11 Naumule 300 1900 912 988 12 Kashikandh 732 5198 2565 2633 13 Khalanga 1842 9804 4893 4911 14 Punma 1133 5665 2314 3351 15 Laha 162 92 70 16 Jhapra 660 368 292 17 Hariharpur 810 4271 2171 2100 18 Babiyachaur 1459 7173 3479 3694 19 Kunathari 1250 692 558 20 Ghumkahare 590 318 272 21 Khairichandanpur 1330 6744 3454 3290 22 Manau 1452 8599 4310 4289 23 Manpur Tapra 1249 9519 4809 4710 24 Suryapatwa 1216 595 621 Total 13829 89507 43374 45233 4742 2457 2285 22 Number of public information (PI) materials distributed S.N. Districts No. of Public Information Types of information materials 1. Jajarkot 1278 community information books￾77, IRC calendar 15 and leaflets-1186 2. Mugu 2128 CIC leaflets-175, leaflets-1902, training materials- 30, IRC calendars. 3. Dailekh 678 IRC booklets-75, leaflets-150, CRA training materials- 175 and human rights training materials- 278 4. Jumla: 933 Leaflets-563, booklets-100, training materials-270 5. Surkhet 2820 community information booklets-1300, program leaflets-1100, IRC calendar-10, and others 6. Bardiya 1115 CIC Booklets with protection and human rights information and 654 training handouts Total 34,332 Referrals to other agencies/government S.N. Districts No. of Referrals Referred to Purpose of Referral 1 Surkhet 32 NRC, INSEC legal, relief, rehabilitation, livelihood opportunities, skills development trainings 2 Jajarkot 30 District Bar Association, VDC, CDO, DEO Legal support, education support, NFI support, citizenships and birth certificate, 3 Jumla 17 NRCS, WFP and ADO food, rehabilitation and house maintenance 4. Mugu None 5. Dailekh 15 NRCS house maintenances, 4 families received supports from NRCS 6. Bardiya 29 Area Administration Office, NRC and NHRC Citizenship-12, birth certificate-13, 2 torture case- NHRC, 2 legal remedy case- NRC Total 393 23 Recommendations • More guidance may be needed on the best use of funds. In particular, it is important to help groups think through the practicality and feasibility of options. For example one group has proposed a library on agriculture, but most farmers in the area are illiterate • Be careful not to raise expectations too high when providing training or discussing things such as proposal writing; • Post project monitoring and evaluation systems should be addressed in future programming • Engage with the government • The timing of trainings should take into account the agricultural season so time constraints are not placed on attendees. • Identify and implement a better way to use the information that is being gathered. 3.6.2 Objective 2: To support durable return through ensuring that returnees have access to vital Non-Food Items for the purpose of re-establishing themselves in their pre￾conflict communities. Analysis Some IDPs in Nepal are from relatively affluent families and were able to integrate into host communities, find jobs, transfer their businesses, and enroll their children in schools. These more affluent IDPs were among the first populations to be displaced. A number of studies, including the Inter-Agency Mission in May 2006, discovered that subsequent waves of displacement included more and more vulnerable families who lost everything they had during flight and found it difficult to manage in host communities that are overpopulated, under-resourced and poor. These vulnerable IDPs lack basic supplies for immediate survival and for reintegration into their old communities. IRC, together with its partners developed an IDP assessment tool to ensure that specific needs were identified and prioritized. To address the immediate and potentially long term hardships faced by return, vulnerable families were selected for provision of immediate and reintegration assistance using a vulnerability checklist. Initially, IRC and partners conducted a vulnerability assessment to determine the priority needs of the IDPs in the target areas in coordination with various agencies. Through this process IRC contributed to the development of common, inter-agency policy and guidelines on provision of standard assistance (based on SPHERE Standards) to returnees, ensuring that the final individual assistance package adopted by the inter￾24 agency working group was fully informed by field practice and experience. In addition, IRC conducted an assessment to identify the types of NFIs used locally and where possible purchased the NFIs locally. The vulnerability assessment informed the kind of NFIs and other reintegration assistance required up to a total of $120 USD per family. Based on experience from a previous NFI distribution conducted by IRC with the ex-Kamaiya in Rajapur, Bardiya in January 2006, IRC developed basic NFI package that included the kitchen sets, jerry cans, plastic sheeting, soap, and clothing material. Every family whose family information was given was thoroughly checked to avoid fraud. Key Conclusions Provision of NFIs was relevant and the operation was carried out efficiently and effectively. All of the IDPs the evaluator spoke to said that the NFIs had been useful and appropriate, although it was noted that there was a real need for tarpaulins in Surkhet to protect the IDP’s houses from rain. The evaluator observed the continued use of items IRC had provided beneficiaries, such as blankets, cooking utensils, pots, clothes and bedding. The value of the NFIs was clearly seen to be to enable IDPs to have the basic items in order to live some semblance of normal life, whether they were reintegrating or remaining in host communities. Care needs to be taken when preparing NFI kits. Some items in the kits were of poor quality, perhaps due to buying items in bulk and aiming to maximise the amount of items given the budget constraints. Quality of the items is important and should be checked carefully before passing on to vulnerable communities, not least to preserve their dignity and trust. The IDPs the evaluator spoke to were generally not willing to return to their homes. Most of the IDPS in Surkhet had been displaced from Dailekh. Most had been farmers and had lost their land since being displaced. Those who did have access to their land said they did not want to return because they were afraid and traumatised. They face tremendous challenges in resettlement. Many have lived in the same hand-to-mouth manner for multiple years and have no immediate prospects to improve their status, apart from one family the evaluator met, who were in the process of rebuilding their lives in Surkhet as the father had gained skills as a mason. None of the IDPs met had received any support from the government and did not expect to receive any in the future. A number of the individuals had been farmers but without land had resorted to day labour to make a living. 25 The families living by the river in Surkhet fall sick frequently due to poor hygiene conditions and lack of ready access to potable water. Falling sick is one of the greatest fears of parents, as it would threaten their ability to earn money for food for their children. In general, the distribution of NFIs was beneficial, but the demand far exceeded IRC’s capacity to provide. What was distributed was given to those most vulnerable according to the IRC’s vulnerability criteria, which was designed by IRC, partners and other stakeholders. To this extent, distribution was equitable and even, and there was no evidence of discrimination or favour in the distribution process. However, it should be noted that it is extremely difficult to limit assistance to the ‘most vulnerable’ where there are such large numbers of people who are all so vulnerable in different ways. Objectives Met NFI’s were distributed to 735 families in 6 districts. All planned activities were carried out. IRC assisted in the return of 237 IDPs by providing transport for these individuals to return in conjunction with support they were receiving from Caritas Nepal and Norwegian Refugee Council. Indicators Family Assessment/NFI Distribution S.N Districts Filled the family assessment form NFI kits distributed No. of vulnerable families No of NFI monitoring form filled 1. Surkhet 356 125 166 125 2. Bardiya 300 185 275 185 3. Mugu 425 100 176 100 4. Jajarkot 386 100 188 100 5. Jumla 210 100 210 100 6. Dailekh 293 125 160 125 Total 1970 735 1175 735 26 Ethnicity / caste wise distribution of NFI package District Brahamin Chettri Dalit Janajati Tharu Total 1. Bardiya 7 12 1 1 164 185 2. Dailekh 52 37 36 125 3. Jajarkot 62 26 11 1 100 4. Jumla 33 52 15 100 5. Mugu 5 82 13 100 6. Surkhet 20 44 47 12 2 125 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Bardiya Dailekh Jajarkot Jumla Mugu Surkhet Brahamin Chettri Dalit Janajati Tharu List of returnee families S.N. Districts Date No. of families Number of returnees 1 Dailekh 12 September 2007 26 143 2 Jajarkot 12 September 2007 3 11 3 Jumla 12 September 2007 1 3 4 Kalikot 12 September 2007 2 9 5 Surkhet (Gadhi, Hariharpur & Jarbuta VDCs) 12 September 2007 3 15 6 Jumla August 2007 17 56 Total 52 237 . 27 Recommendations • Link with other agencies for NFI support to enable a greater reach for beneficiaries and/or a wider selection of items (e.g. shelter, food items) • Work to ensure consistency and coordination and work towards enabling the development of district disaster preparedness/response and prevention plans. • Make sure that NFIs are quality checked 3.6.3 Cross Cutting Themes Gender IRC has been able to enable robust participation of women particularly through the Community Working Group structure. There is at least 50% women in the CWGs, in some cases more, and women play an active role in the management and decision making processes of the groups. All of the groups met noted a positive change in their perceptions of women’s role in the community and their capacity. This attitudinal shift was expressed by both men and women. Some women said that they had a say and were empowered in the group but not in the home and that the CWG had worked to address the attitudes of the husbands of CWG members, with a degree of success noted. Two of the CWGs said that they were actively involved in promoting women’s participation in community development as well as tackling issues of domestic violence and perceptions of women in their areas. The women in the CWGs are active and confident, many attributing this confidence to their participation in the CWGs, through the skills development and training on women’s rights. One woman has recently run for the Constituent Assembly and is actively involved in social change initiatives. IRC should look carefully at how to support women in positions of extreme vulnerability. In particular, female headed households and women who are victims of gender based violence. Unless action is taken to enable them to transform their situations, through immediate protection strategies, through addressing issues of violence against women and through comprehensive livelihood support and skills development packages, these women will have no means by which to escape the traps of poverty and violence. Conflict IRC addressed conflict in two major ways. The first was by promoting social cohesion through activity based interventions that brought divergent groups together for a common purpose. Secondly, it gave skills to the community groups to resolve and mitigate conflicts in their communities. During the evaluation, CWGs gave examples of how they had resolved conflicts between neighbours and family members through mediation, and 28 where that didn’t work through contacting relevant authorities, such as the police in extreme cases. The training of mediation and conflict transformation was not extensive – it was limited to a single session in the initial 5-day training. However, the communities have applied mediation skills and are actively involved in conflict resolution in their VDCs. IRC should aim to work with these community leaders to give more comprehensive mediation training than has been provided, particularly as they are becoming recognised for and being utilised for this function in their communities. 4. Lessons Learned • Better use should be made of NGO/ civil society partnerships. • There is little interest/knowledge/commitment among senior government officials in the districts on addressing IDP issue/ex-Kamaiya issue • It was found the community as a whole was very receptive to IRC staff • There is a need for both livelihood training and non-formal education • Food security is emerging as one of the most urgent issues in western Nepal for vulnerable communities • Information gathered on IDPs is not being used effectively • Types of NFIs need to be thought through carefully based on the context and modified accordingly • IRC needs to ensure its staff are supported and enabled sufficiently • Access to education due to lack of uniforms is an issue for internally displaced children 29 Annexe 1 IRC Vulnerability Guidelines Description of Vulnerability Indicator of the Vulnerability A death in the family (due to the conflict) Number of family members killed An injury to a family member (due to the conflict) Number of family members injured Hospital treatment needed for a member of the family (due to the conflict) Number of family members Displacement (movement from traditional residence out of fear or by force) If the family is or has been displaced The type of head of household If the family is headed by a Single Female, Minor and Elderly Caste On the basis that the lower caste have always traditionally been exploited or had less opportunities than the higher castes. Displacement status (if they have returned or are currently still displaced) The conditions under which the family are living should be considered; note the conditions may be poor in a situation of displacement and return Extent of damage to their shelter The degree to which their shelter was damaged (if returned) as well as the conditions in which they are currently living (if IDP). The number of components, i.e. roof, walls, windows/doors, foundation that need to be fixed/replaced Employment status The number of people within the household currently holding a job that produces an income – this could be related to farming or labour -- and whether they are able to save money from doing this activity. Adult to child ratio in the household Calculate the adult to child ratio within the household from Top three concerns Consider the choices and the ranking given by the households as an indication of their vulnerability. 30 Annexe 2 Terms of Reference for Evaluation TERMS OF REFERENCE Title: External Evaluator Areas of Operation: Offices: Surkhet field office with travel to selected project districts (Bardiya, Dailekh, Jajarkot, Jumla, Mugu) Background: Throughout the past year, IRC conducted an integrated assistance project in six remote districts in Mid-West Nepal. The project aims to assist returnees and conflict-affected households by providing targeted assistance and monitoring the return processes to ensure that people’s rights are respected and any needs identified. As part of this monitoring process, the information collected is used toward addressing the "data gap" on IDP return by feeding information into the international community, Nepalese authorities and other stakeholders. The project’s main components involved the dissemination of information, and distribution of assistance packages, while also focusing on fostering improved relationships between returnees and communities through Conflict Resolution Activities. See below specific Objectives and Indicators of the project. Sector 1: Protection Objective 1: To strengthen protection services for IDPs and other vulnerable groups, and promote safe and durable return, through information, advice, advocacy, and conflict resolution activities. Dollar Amount: $ 283,261 Number of Beneficiaries (Individuals): 61,000 (50% of estimated population of 24 VDCs across the six districts) Number of IDP Beneficiaries (Individuals): 19,940 through information campaigns – total registered IDPs in six target districts (this will include IDP and community participants in the Conflict Resolution Activities: 480 people directly involved and 30,000 directly and indirectly benefiting). Geographic Areas: Bardiya, Jumla, Surkhet, Mugu, Dailekh, and Jajarkot Sub-Sector: Coordination, Personnel, and Advocacy Indicator A (APDR standard indicator): Number of protection officers provided. Target: 6 Indicator B (IRC impact indicator): % of targeted IDPs / returnees demonstrating adequate understanding of key protection concepts. Target: 80% Indicator C (IRC impact indicator): % of target population receives information support for return and information regarding the rights of IDPs. Target: 80% Sector 2: Logistics Relief and Commodities Objective 2: To support durable return through ensuring that returnees have access to vital Non-Food Items for the purpose of re-establishing themselves in their pre-conflict communities. Dollar Amount: $ 308,711 31 Number of IDP Beneficiaries (Individuals): 600 families, approximately 3,600 people Geographic Areas: Bardiya, Jumla, Surkhet, Mugu, Dailekh, and Jajarkot Sub-Sector: Non Food Items Indicator A (APDR standard indicator): Number of beneficiaries receiving tailored NFIs. Target: 600 families / 3,600 people2 Indicator B (IRC impact indicator): % of NFIs that directly improve vulnerable families’ ability to reintegrate. Target: 100% To ascertain the relevance and effectiveness of the program as well as note lessons learned and recommendations for future programming, it is important that the project is evaluated. As part of the evaluation process, the project design, implementation methodologies, outputs and outcomes need to be reviewed. The evaluation findings will be shared with OFDA and other national and international stakeholders in order to ensure that assistance and monitoring is relevant, appropriate and effective in contributing to sustainable return, reintegration and development. Specific duties: - Design and undertake an evaluation based on proven methodology that is appropriate for this particular project. - Review design component with technical team in advance of actual evaluation including survey content and approach. - The evaluation process should include a means to measure outputs, outcomes and effects of the various components of the project (including information and assistance package distribution, Conflict Resolution activities and contribution to the various stakeholders) and distinguish these from the influence of other, external factors. Expected outcomes: - Draft report submitted to technical team in field and HQ for review (week 4 of consultancy). Final evaluation submitted to Country Director. The report should reflect the following (but not limited to): o Project relevance and in line with local needs and priorities o Coverage of project (appropriate and adequate) o Appropriateness and efficiency of project design and management (efficiency of outputs) o Overall project effectiveness comparable to goal, objectives and indicators o Lessons learned o Recommendations for future programming Time frame: The evaluation is expected to take 4 weeks: 3 weeks traveling within the field sites, and 1 week preparation/reporting. Management: The evaluator will report directly to the Country Director. While in the field, the evaluator will follow instructions given by the field Head of Office. 2 This is a conservative estimate of 6 people per family, although the numbers are larger in the Terai where the average family size is 7.8. 32 Qualifications: • Degree in economics, social sciences, international relations preferably in Technical related field, Master’s Degree preferred; • Demonstrated monitoring and evaluation experience; familiarity with DAC criteria or other internationally recognized M&E approaches • Community mobilization and participatory planning experience. • At least 3 years program management experience in a development or relief capacity; Asia experience preferred. • Competent in Windows, MS office programs, email and databases. • Fluency in English, spoken and written. Nepalese language skills a plus. • Excellent writing skills. • Experience working in insecure and difficult locations. • As the position will require field work in remote areas, some of which can only be accessed by foot, the candidate should be in good health/physical fitness. Logistics/working conditions: IRC logistics will organize all transportation requirements. This position requires work in extremely remote areas requiring several days of walking within hill and mountain districts with only extremely basic accommodation available during field work. 33 Annexe 3 List of Key Questions Asked (not definitive) Key Informant Interviews IRC Program Staff What were some of the main outcomes of the project? Were all the planned activities carried out? If not, why not? What were the biggest constraints? Were there any unforeseen outcomes/challenges? Was the project well accepted/relevant? Were you involved in the project design? How were manuals designed? Who prepared them and how were they disseminated? To whom? Do you think you reached the most needy people? Explain the process of information gathering. Describe date collection tools and methods? How was the information on IDPs used? Has it been made widely available to other agencies? Government? What training was given to data collectors? How were the CRA’s implemented? Who was involved? Were all groups represented? Explain how the project improved relationships in the communities. Describe how gender relations were improved Did you have any opportunities to share challenges/experiences with the management? Were your concerns taken into consideration? Did you receive adequate technical training/inputs?Some of the staff. Did you work with all stakeholders in project implementation? List them and explain how they were involved. Partner Organisations Can you explain a little about the project?What were the aims and objectives? Describe the main activities? Did the project address the needs of the communities? How? What was your role in implementation? Was it clear? Were you involved in designing the project? What were the main benefits of the project? Were there any constraints? If so, what Explain your partnership with IRC? Did you receive training from IRC? Was it easy to communicate issues and solve problems with IRC? Did the project address the needs of the communities? How? What has your organization gained through the partnership/project? 34 How was gender addressed in the project? Can you explain how the project took a rights based approach? How were conflict transformation activities carried out? Describe the process of selecting beneficiaries in this project. DDCs/ VDCs Can you describe how you see your role in the community? What is the role of the DDC/VDC in return and resettlement of IDPs? What do you see as your role in terms of human rights protection and promotion? What constraints do you face in dealing with issues/problems in the community? What has IRC and its partners been doing in this district? Has it benefited the community? Is there work similar or different to the work of other organizations working in the district? Is the project in line with District Development Plans? Has the project brought anything that can be used by you in the future? Has the project helped you in any way in your role? Did you participate in any training programs of this project? What was the training about? How often do you have discussions with IRC/partners? Can you describe the role of the P.A.C.? How often were P.A.C. meetings held? Was the project relevant? Did it meet the needs of the selected groups? What do you see as the greatest benefit resulting from the project? Other NGOs/ stakeholders What do you know about this project? Did you participate in any other the project activities? Explain something of your role/work in the community What are some of the key issues you see in this community that need to be addressed (For NGOs) : Were you provided any data on IDPs by the IRC? IDPs Did you get information about your rights as an IDP from IRC? Was the information relevant to you? Was it easy to understand the information? Have you approached the government or any other agency for assistance to help you to resettle? Describe this process/or why not? Did you receive any non – food items from IRC? What did you recieve. In what ways were you able to use the items. After receiving the NFI’s was there any contact with the IRC? Did you participate in training? What did you learn from this training? What is the main problem you and your family face today? Has the work of the IRC helped your life? Explain how. 35 Questions for Focus Group Discussions (CWGs) How long have you been formed? How were you formed? What training have you had/what information have you been given? After giving training/information, what steps did IRC/partners take to assist you? Has that been useful? How? What are some of the biggest achievements of this group? Do you feel confident that as a group you can improve the way of life in your community? Solve problems? Has the project brought people in the community closer together despite their differences? Who do you see as responsible for your rights? Who is responsible for the rights of IDPs? Does the community play a role in protecting human rights? In resolving conflict? Describe this role. Has working together changed the way you think of the role women? What ideas do you have about this group in the future? What are your plans? Individually, write down on a sheet of paper what explain what has been the most important result of taking part in this project to you. Community Leaders What do you know about this project? Did you participate in any of the project activities? Did the project improve the relationship between groups in the community? Between community and government? If so how? Of not, why not? Did you participate in conflict resolution training? What skills do you feel you gained from that training. Can you explain the relevance of the Conflict Resolution Activities? Have you seen any change in the attitudes of community members? How do you see your role in ensuring social cohesion? Were there issues that this project did not address that need to be addressed? Has this project benefited the community? What needs to be done to make this type of project sustainable? 36 37