NEPAL FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM (NFRP) EVALUATION REPORT April 22, 2011 EVALUATION REPORT April 22, 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Er. Shuva Kantha Sharma (Team Leader), Ms. Sangeeta Shrestha, Er. Rupesh Dev and Ms. Ansu Tumbahangfe of Scott Wilson Nepal Pvt. Ltd. NEPAL FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT April 22, 2011 DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………......... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………......... 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………......... 6 1.2 Program phases, activities and cost ………………………………………….. 6 1.3 The evaluation exercise…………………………………………………............ 8 1.4 Limitations of the evaluation study………………………………………......... 8 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY USED AND AREAS VISITED 2.1 Selection of visit sites and beneficiary groups………………………….......... 10 2.2 Field visit activities…………………………………………………………......... 11 2.3 Methodology of Evaluation………………………………………………........... 11 2.4 Response to Guiding Questions in the SOW................................................ 12 CHAPTER 3: LIVELIHOODS AND INCOME GENERATION (LIG) 3.1 Component activities………………………………………………………......... 14 3.2 Evaluation activity …………………………………………………………......... 14 3.3 Key findings…………………………………………………………………........ 14 3.4 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….......... 17 3.5 SWOT Analysis…………………………………………………………….......... 18 CHAPTER 4: PRODUCTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 4.1 Component activities………………………………………………………......... 20 4.2 Evaluation activity …………………………………………………………......... 20 4.3 Key findings…………………………………………………………………........ 20 4.4 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………....... 22 4.5 SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………....... 23 CHAPTER 5: STRENGTHENING OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 5.1 Component activities………………………………………………………......... 26 5.2 Evaluation activity …………………………………………………………......... 26 5.3 Key findings…………………………………………………………………........ 26 5.4 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………........ 27 5.5 SWOT Analysis……………………………………………………………......... 28 CHAPTER 6: SANITATION, HEALTH AND NUTRITION 6.1 Component activities………………………………………………………........ 29 6.2 Evaluation activities……………………………………………………….......... 29 6.3 Key findings…………………………………………………………………....... 29 6.4 Key outcomes …………………………………………………………….......... 30 6.5 SWOT Analysis…………………………………………………………….......... 31 CHAPTER 7: PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN (PWC) 7.1 Component activities………………………………………………………......... 32 7.2 Evaluation activity …………………………………………………………......... 32 7.3 Key findings…………………………………………………………...... .............. 32 7.4 Outcomes……………………………………………………………………........ 33 7.5 SWOT Analysis…………………………………………………………….......... 34 CHAPTER 8: CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 8.1 Reaching out to the poor and marginalized…………………………….......... 35 8.2 Integrated approach………………………………………………………......... 35 8.3 Unintended consequences ………………………………………………......... 36 8.4 Strengthening ties with different stakeholders …………………………........ 36 CHAPTER 9: LESSONS LEARNT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Lessons learnt................................................................................................. 37 9.2 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………... 37 9.3 Recommendations………………………………………………………….......... 39 BIBILOGRAPHY..................................................................................................... 42 ANNEXES Annex 1: Statement of Work.................................................................................. 1 Annex 2: Travel Itinerary...................................................................................... 7 Annex 3: List of People and Organizations Visited............................................... 10 Annex 4: List of Program Beneficiaries and Non-targeted Community Interviewed........................................................................................... 15 Annex 5: Voices from Partner Organizations....................................................... 28 Annex 6: Case Studies......................................................................................... 30 Annex 7: Photographs.......................................................................................... 33 Annex 8: Checklist for LIG Beneficiaries.............................................................. 49 Annex 9: Checklist for SLO.................................................................................. 52 Annex 10: Checklist for KG.................................................................................. 54 Annex 11: Checklist for ICS.................................................................................. 56 Annex 12: Checklist for Latrines........................................................................... 58 Annex 13: Checklist for BLOP.............................................................................. 61 Annex 14: Checklist for Infrastructure.................................................................. 63 Annex 15: References to Guiding Questions....................................................... 66 Annex 16: Fintrac Response to USAID-NFRP Evaluation Report………………. 69 USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 1 Scott Wilson Nepal ABBREVIATIONS ADRA Adventist Development & Relief Agency AIC Agricultural Inputs Company BASE Backward Society Education BLOP Better Life Option Program CBO Community Based Organization CCS Creation of Creative Society CDO Chief District Officer DADO District Agriculture Development Office DDC District Development Committee DDRC District Disaster Relief Committee DHO District Health Office DoLIDAR Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads DMPC Disaster Management and Preparedness Committee DTO District Technical Office DYC Divya Yuva Club ECDC Environment & Child Development Council FGD Focus Group Discussion FORWARD Forum for Rural Welfare & Agricultural Reform F.T. Field Technician G.I. Galvanized Iron GWP Ground Water Project Ha Hectare HH Household ILO International Labor Organization INGO International Non-Government Organization IPM Integrated Pest Management IRDC Integrated Rural Development Center JTA Junior Technical Assistant KG Kitchen Garden KII Key Informant Interview USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 2 Scott Wilson Nepal LDO Local Development Officer LIG Livelihood & Income Generation MADE Multi-dimensional Agriculture for Development MD Managing Director NGO Non-Government Organization NFRP Nepal Flood Recovery Program PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal STW Shallow Tube Well RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete PCC Plain Cement Concrete PWC Protection of Women & Children RMSC Rural Management & Consultancy RRAFDC Rural Region and Agro Forestry Development Center RRT Rapid Response Team RUSEPS Rural Service Promotion Society SI Social Inclusion SHN Sanitation Health & Nutrition SLO Strengthening of Local Organization SWOT Strength Weakness Opportunity & Threat UNICEF United Nation International Children’s Emergency Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee WFP World Food Programme YC Youth Club CONVERSION 1 Bigha = 20 Kattha 1 Kattha = 338.63 sqm (square metres) 1 Hectare = 10000 sqm 1 Man = 40 Kg USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 3 Scott Wilson Nepal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USAID/Nepal Flood Recovery Program (USAID-NFRP) is a three-year initiative of the United States Agency for International Development to support flood affected districts of Nepal that were considerably affected and lives and properties lost due to the floods in 2007 and 2008. This support programme was designed to help the flood affected people in livelihoods recovery, health needs, and reconstruction of damaged infrastructure in a way that make the communities less vulnerable to future floods. The program was also expected to provide an opportunity to strengthen the ties between local government, community groups and populace. The long-term goal for USAID-NFRP activities is to help communities to not only be more resilient in the face of future floods but also have a solid platform for sustained growth and development. USAID has assigned Fintrac Inc to implement the program which does so in local association with METCON consultants of Nepal. The first phase of activities commenced in May 2008 and the current Phase II activities ended in March 2011. The program implementation covered a total of 8 Terai districts (Banke, Bardia, Kailali, Bara, Parsa and Rautahat, Kanchanpur, Kailali and Sunsari, covering 76 VDCs) of western, mid and eastern Terai. The program covered a range of activities aimed at enabling rapid and durable recovery of the flood affected population. The support activities included rehabilitation and rebuilding of productive infrastructures, provision of income generation activities, improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition, strengthening of local organisations and protection of women and children. The evaluation exercise is carried out by a 4-member team from Scott Wilson Nepal, a Nepali consultancy organisation, to examine the effectiveness of the program interventions, investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program and document lessons learned that can be shared throughout the USAID in order to contribute to improved development learning and future programming. The evaluation team extensively visited the infrastructure sites, farms, kitchen gardens, ICS etc, and deeply interacted with the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries, DDC and VDC representatives, DADO authorities as well as the organisations such as CBO, Youth Clubs (YC) and Disaster Management and Preparedness Committees (DMPC) supported by NFRP. Detailed review of the existing literature, including baseline and progress reports from Fintrac, were studied and consulted in the process in order to acquire as much information as possible to inform the evaluation process. The findings are wide-ranging and comprehensive. The outputs delivered by the program in a limited timeframe and in areas characterised by often difficult working/security environment have been highly appreciated by the targeted communities. The program outputs are visible, tangible and clearly beneficial to the communities. The evaluation process have also noted areas where significant improvements could be made to make recovery process for the flood victims more effective, durable and encompass more vulnerable segments of the communities. The findings USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 4 Scott Wilson Nepal also indicate the need to incorporate additional sensitivity in quality issues and sustainability measures through closer linkages with local government bodies. Briefly, the following conclusions and the recommendations are made reflecting the findings from the evaluation process: I. Conclusions • PRAs were an appropriate and useful tool to ensure that communities self-identified needs at the onset. • 100% of survey respondents participating in the LIG component (agriculture) reported varying level of additional income from vegetable production. • Small growers used increased income to pay household loans, put their children in school, and access family healthcare. • Placement of agronomists in local communities helps farmers to receive regular support for quick results. This becomes more sustainable with the engagement of government agency (DADO) staff from time to time. • Provision of basic technologies improves yields (i.e. improved seeds, IPM, composting, etc.) • Project-developed water user groups were successful conduits for diffusion of basic farming technologies to the larger community. • Quick and tangible impact including access to markets was achieved by the rapid delivery of small-scale infrastructure. • Retaining walls and river training reduced soil cut by floods, and saved lands and houses in subsequent flooding. • Short and mid-term employment, and skills transfer, resulted from using local labor on infrastructure activities. • Utilization of local resources (i.e. bricks, bamboo, gravel, etc.) for infrastructure activities helped villagers generate additional income. • Low-cost technologies were adapted by NGOs and government agencies in other regions. • 85% of families introduced to improved cooking stoves (ICSs) continue to use them. • Women and girls participation increased in LIG activities, and in CBOs and YCs, as a result of focused leadership training. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 5 Scott Wilson Nepal • Improvements were made in community and family hygiene, from hand-washing to latrine use. II. Recommendations More concerted focus and methodological sensitivity to the marginalized and disenfranchised is warranted; for example, the 0.2 hectare cut-off for LIG training should have resulted in group formation for farmers with less land (as per one NFRP model group). Better coordination with local governments and NGOs needs to be strengthened to improve sustainability of extension services, and to maintain infrastructure post-project. This should encompass consistent and increased level of information-sharing, and a concerted effort to strengthen working relationships. More follow-up monitoring is necessary for infrastructures, and more checks and balance mechanism incorporated into the process covering design through implementation and maintenance of the developed infrastructures Existing practices for infrastructure procurement have limited transparency, and this should be improved in the future. Maintenance programs including formal maintenance trainings should be incorporated into all NFRP activities, and should be integrated into the design of any future “build back better” programs to ensure sustainability beyond initial flood relief for a range of equipment and technologies, including irrigation pumps and ICSs. Dissemination of market prices should be improved (i.e. NFRP evening radio spots had limited effectiveness due to timing), as should market linkages and logistics support to the farmer groups. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 6 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background USAID/Nepal Flood Recovery Program (USAID-NFRP) is a three-year initiative of the United States Agency for International Development to support flood affected districts of Nepal that were considerably affected and whose lives and properties were lost due to the floods in 2007 and 2008. This support programme was designed to help the flood affected people in recovering their livelihoods, meeting basic health needs, and in reconstruction of damaged infrastructure in a way that made the communities less vulnerable to future floods. The program was also expected to provide an opportunity to strengthen the ties between local government, community groups and the local populace. The long-term goal for USAID-NFRP activities is to help communities be more resilient in the face of future floods and to support the development of a solid platform for sustained growth and development. 1.2 Program phases, activities and cost The program started from May 2008. The program was eventually implemented in two phases as follows: Phase Dates Areas covered Phase I May 2008 to June 2010 Banke, Bardia, Kailali, Bara, Parsa and Rautahat (60 VDCs) Phase II October 2009 to March 2011 Kanchanpur, Kailali and Sunsari (16 VDCs) An US Agribusiness consultancy, Fintrac Inc., implements the program with sub-consultancy support from a Nepali firm, METCON Pvt Ltd. It was a key priority for the program to respond quickly to meet the needs of the flood affected people and to implement as quickly as possible the field activities designed to recover lost livelihoods. The program activities included rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure; income generation with agricultural options; awareness generation in sanitation, hygiene and nutrition; and protection of women and children, and capacity building of local groups. Through this program, USAID/Nepal is working with community groups and local governments to deliver goods and services to marginalized communities in the Terai region where only limited services are available through Government of Nepal (GON) or other donor programs due to USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 7 Scott Wilson Nepal prevailing environment of insecurity. The project activities were grouped in the following five clusters of activities: 1. Rehabilitation and rebuilding of productive infrastructures 2. Provision of income generation activities 3. Improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition 4 Strengthening of local organisations 5. Protection of women and children The project cost has reflected the priorities within the clusters and has been as follows: Phase and activity components Total Cost (USD) excluding Contractor’s Personal cost, fees and overhead Remarks Phase - I 2,650,000 1) Rehabilitation and rebuilding of productive infrastructures 1,800,000 2) Provision of income generation activities 450,000 3) Improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition 150,000 4) Strengthening of local organisations 150,000 5) Protection of women and children 50,000 6) Windows of Opportunity. This component was later not utilized and hence fund was diverted to other components. 50,000 The USAID SOW for Contractor, Page 5 indicates 50000, however, the addendum to the SOW, page 2 mentions 30,000. Phase - II 1,525,000 1) Rehabilitation and rebuilding of productive infrastructures 850,000 2) Provision of income generation activities 450,000 3) Improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition 100,000 4) Strengthening of local organisations 60,000 5) Protection of women and children 50,000 6) Windows of Opportunity 15,000 This component was not utilized and hence diverted to other component. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 8 Scott Wilson Nepal Some of the operating parameters, as outlined in the program documents, for implementing this program are as follows: • The project to review the geographic areas and communities affected by flood during 2007 and 2008 and identify prioritized list of communities, Village Development Committees and Districts among the flood affected regions of Nepal for implementation of this activity. • Community participation in project identification, planning, and monitoring of infrastructure projects activities was required for continued operation and maintenance. • The project was expected to work to the maximum extent possible with and through local firms and non-governmental organizations, and private voluntary organizations. • USAID also expected the project to ensure maximum synergy with ongoing USAID/Nepal activities and those implemented by other donors. The Phase II of the program has concluded as of 31st March 2011 and Phase III activities are scheduled to commence soon after. 1.3 The evaluation exercise This objective of independent external evaluation process, supported by the USAID, is to examine the effectiveness of the program interventions, investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program and document lessons learned that can be shared throughout USAID to contribute to improved development learning and future programming. The evaluation seeks to assess how well the program has addressed the needs of the different flood affected families with particular focus on the most vulnerable segments of the communities. Accordingly, the evaluation exercise commenced from 18th February 2011 with field visits that started from 28th February and concluded on 20th March. The evaluation process completes in the second week of April with the submission of the Final Report. The details of the field visits, and the persons met during the course of the evaluation exercise are provided in Annex 2, 3 and 4. The evaluation process has taken into consideration, while evaluating the program deliverables, the project implementation approach which can be defined as direct-funding modality as well as the volatile external political and social environment in Terai where security lapses and threats are considered to be widespread. 1.4 Limitations of the evaluation study For a program such as NFRP, whose activities span 76 VDCs in 8 districts over its two phases of activities, it is not possible for the evaluation team to visit all the activity sites and beneficiary communities as one would prefer. It is therefore reasonable that the team has visited only limited number of the works, interacted with randomly selected communities and become aware of only a portion of the larger sphere of outcomes and benefits actually delivered by the program. However, USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 9 Scott Wilson Nepal the evaluation team is satisfied that the range of visits made and interactions carried out were very productive and informative. Similarly, there is always a language and security barrier while working in an area like the Terai which is culturally and ethnically diverse and is known to have security issues due to operation of armed groups. While we have built our evaluation team to address some of the language barriers, we cannot rule out that some key messages of the beneficiaries as well the subtle issues relating to implementing environment may be missing from our report. It is often difficult to get desired level data from families on family incomes. This is something common to all of us. We felt the same when we were asking about the earning levels from the LIG participants, for example, and we perfectly understood when people gave only qualitative aspect of earnings, using proxy indicators such as loan repayment, upgrading of children schools etc. Nonetheless, the evaluation team has made its best effort, and the program implementation team provided effective support to the evaluation team, in ensuring that the evaluation process is carried out in a free, fair and independent manner. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 10 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY USED AND AREAS VISITED 2.1 Selection of visit sites and beneficiary groups During the planning stage, it was agreed that visiting six of the eight program districts would enable the evaluation team to have an adequate level of exposure for evaluation purposes. Accordingly, the districts and VDCs along with list of infrastructures, programs and beneficiary groups were identified. In the identification process, the following broad level criteria were used: • VDCs from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 • Diversity of Infrastructure (flood relief, social support, access) • Areas of exemplary outcomes/ success. • Evident diffusion effect • Critical/ difficult areas Figure 1: Districts and VDCs visited by the team USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 11 Scott Wilson Nepal The outputs, places and groups that were selected for evaluation purposes were independently identified by the evaluation team during the planning phase. Only a limited number of projects were added at the time of site visit on the request of the Fintrac team to cover some exceptional examples of success or difficulty in implementation. 2.2 Field visit activities The evaluation team visited 6 out of the 8 program districts and carried out extensive level of interactions and on-site inspections of the infrastructures. The tables (Fig 1 above and Fig 2 below) summarize the areas visited and the extent of the interactions and visits made by the evaluation team. The details of the community representatives, NGOs, CBOs, line agencies and local government agencies etc visited are provided in Annex 2. Figure 2: Summary table of field visit activities. 2.3 Methodology of Evaluation The evaluation team carried out the evaluation process in three parts: a. Literature review and central level consultations The team met key implementing agency partners, including repetitive visits, to gain deeper insights into the implementation issues and progress levels. The team met Fintrac and METCON program staff, WFP staff, Chemonics staff from other USAID program, authorities that worked in GoN/ADB funded Groundwater Project and other relevant partners. The team also extensively reviewed the progress reports, baseline information and other reports and background information available to the team from Fintrac on the areas of the NFRP implementation. LIG Infrastructure SLO SHN PWC • FGD: with 15 LIG groups (134 farmers) • FGD with 28 non-targeted participants • KII with 5 agro￾vets • KII carried at 4 DADO offices • KII with 4 implementing partner organizations • 26 different structures assessed • FGD with 18 beneficiary groups • KII with 4 DDC • KII with 5 VDC • KII with 8 implementing partner organizations • FGD with 10 CBOs (112 members) • FGD with 7 YCs (85 members) • FGD with 4 DMPC (26 members) • KII with 4 implementing partner organizations • Site observation of 9 ICS sites • Site observation at 3 latrine sites • FGDs with 5 KG groups (52 participants) • KII carried with 4 implementing partner organizations • FGD with 6 BLOP groups (72 participants) USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 12 Scott Wilson Nepal b. Field work: Field visits to LIG farms, infrastructure, ICS and latrine sites It was a priority for the team to visit the actual infrastructure sites as much as possible, and to observe the quality and appropriateness of the infrastructures provided. The visits were made to observe wide ranging types of infrastructures supported by NFRP. Interactions with the contractors/builders and beneficiary communities were made at the site itself. Similarly, the team also visited the households that obtained support in improved cooking stoves (ICS) and latrines in order to appreciate the extent of their use and resulting outcomes. c. Interactions with stakeholders/beneficiary and non-beneficiary communities This was an important tool for the evaluation team. The team has looked deeply into the qualitative aspect of the interactions with the communities in order to gain as much insight as possible into the community perceptions of the program and the support they have received in flood recovery process and to assess the level of preparedness for future flood incidents. The evaluation team made it a priority to interact with the beneficiaries, drop outs and non￾targeted beneficiaries of the NFRP program. During this process, the implementing team from Fintrac provided effective support in get together of the groups. The Fintrac team were not however part of the interaction process which was carried out in an independent manner. The evaluation team contacted and met the non-targeted community members identifying them during the field visits and made ad-hoc interactions. In carrying out the interactions, the following tools were extensively used: • Focus Group Discussions (FGD) • Key information interviews (KII) • Formal meetings • Informal/casual interactions • Site based inspections These interactions were primarily conducted around the program components, which included locals from diverse ethnic groups as well as landholding sizes. During these sessions, the evaluation team ensured that ample time was provided to each meeting session to deeply engage with the key informants and FGD participants. Where necessary, separate sessions were held with women and participants from minority groups to receive their perspectives. 2.4 Response to Guiding Questions in the SOW The Evaluation Study has been designed to respond to the guiding questions included in the SOW, but it is not limited to solely responding them. The program is very diverse and emphasis made in the guiding questions on some approach (such as linkages with government institutions, sustainability of program outputs etc) is not shared fully shared by the implementing teams (including USAID Management). As a result, some questions have not been fully evaluated while USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 13 Scott Wilson Nepal some additional areas (such as reaching out to more vulnerable groups) have been emphasised in the report. The references and response to the Guiding Questions are separately summarised in a table in Annex 15. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 14 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 3: LIVELIHOODS AND INCOME GENERATION (LIG) 3.1 Component activities The objective of LIG component is to improve livelihoods of the flood affected farmers by increasing productivity and living standards through agricultural based income-generating activities. NFRP seeks to do so by enhancing the production of high value crops through the promotion of improved skills and technologies. To enable this, NFRP supports the farmers with field trainings, provide cost sharing (at different levels) support for irrigation sets, seeds and other inputs (except fertilizers). The program engages 20 farmers for above support activities with the assumption that this group of farmers will share the knowledge, irrigated water and skills to other members of the community and achieve a multiplier effect for wider gain in the community. 3.2 Evaluation activity During the evaluation process, the evaluation team extensively engaged with the participating beneficiary groups, associated institutions and organisations as follows: • FGD carried out with 15 LIG groups (134 farmers) • FGD carried out with 28 non-targeted participants • KII carried out with 5 agro-vets • KII carried at 3 DADO offices • KII with two partner organizations (MADE and FORWARD) 3.3 Key findings a. Participating farmers have increased their production level resulting in increased household incomes • All of the respondents interviewed felt that they had additional income from vegetable farming. LIG farmer at Piplad, Kanchanpur USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 15 Scott Wilson Nepal • 70.5% (44 out of 62 farmers1 respondents who represent those that either maintained the same level or increased their land area under cultivation in Phase I) felt that their incomes were attractive enough to sustain or increase the level of their investment in LIG activities after project interventions were complete. • Income data recorded by Fintrac through their monitoring process is extensive and detailed2 . However, we consider that the approach of calculating total household incomes needs to be made more robust by addressing the following gaps: (i) total income calculated is based on the targeted farm-gate price3 , which our study shows is not always the case. It should be more based on the actual earnings by the individual farmers (ii) total income is calculated by including sales volume as well as the amount consumed by the household. Our observations are that, based on indicators such as hiring of external labour, expansion of business etc, the level of income actually earned may be different if other income monitoring approaches are used. b. The poor and weak segment of the community, the most vulnerable to the flood incidents, have been left out of the LIG activities • Due to the inflexible nature of LIG design4 , the landless and smallholder farmers, who most needed the support for their recovery, were largely left out (see Annex 6, Box 4) • 26% (35 out of 134 farmers) participating in the LIG program were existing vegetable growers. • Majority of the marketing decisions were made by men while women shouldered major share of the field based work load. Women were involved in harvesting and cleaning/packaging activities and in some cases, procurement of inputs. c. The gains made by the LIG groups are not yet stable and significant enough to enable wider diffusion and attract use of external labour. It is also too early for these impacts to be visible. • Out of 8 LIG groups5 (having total 62 farmers) interviewed from Phase I: 22.5% (14 out of 62) have increased the amount of land and 48% (30 out of 62) have maintained the same amount of land, with which they started and 29.5% (18 out of 62) have decreased the amount of land that they cultivated. 1 A total of 134 FGD were carried out with LIG beneficiaries (62 farmers of Phase I and 72 farmers of Phase II) 2 Data for each cycle has been collected for production, household consumption, local market prices and sales for a various vegetables. 3 During the evaluation, farmers in 7 of the visited sites reported market access problems resulting in many of the vegetables not getting markets, with many being sold for as less as NRs 3 or even rotting away 4 Farmers require 0.2-0.4 ha of land, in a clustered area, to be eligible for participating in the LIG program. This approach was taken to ensure that there is higher level of returns from project investments into the farmers with more assured level of technology uptake. 5 Phase I LIG groups included: Dumariya, Laxmaniya, Barniya, Hariharpur, Bagehi, Lalbhoji, Joshipur, Pathariya USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 16 Scott Wilson Nepal • 53% (9 out of 15 LIG groups) reported the lack of markets or have access problems and adverse influence from Indian products (particularly in the west). • The farmers are currently using internally available labour at family level to cultivate their farms. Only 3 families out of 134 farmers interviewed said that they were using external hired labour. • The farmers expressed that the income level they realised from LIG activities was able to repay their loans, pay for the family expenses in education and health as well as better living. No amount in numbers/figures was available. • The continuation and expansion of vegetable cultivation was closely found to be linked with market access and well functioning of the small irrigation systems d. Some of the program facilities and tools are not robust enough for farmers to feel confident for sustained investment • Issues regarding the durability of the motorized pumps were raised by 27% (4 out of 15) LIG groups. The majority of those pumps that did not work were mostly found to be in the central and eastern (where supplied by NFRP) region districts. • The main reasons cited by the beneficiaries for the dysfunctional pumps were: (i) frequent break downs (ii) pump parts made up of inferior non-genuine parts6 , (iii) spare parts not readily available. The implementing partner, Fintrac, however, noted that the breakdown of the pumps were mainly due to: (i) the continuous running of the pumps beyond its capacity i.e. overuse (ii) renting out of pumps outside the LIG groups resulting in careless use (iii) lack of timely servicing of the pumps by the farmers. They also informed that the choice of the particular pump was made as some known brands of Indian pumps were not available in the required number in the local markets at the time of purchase. • Radio FM market updates supported by FINTRAC, were not found to be effective due to the timing of the programs in the evening. None of the farmers interviewed were found to have listened to the programs, primarily because of the evening timings and the lack of time. e. Diffusion effects are slowly emerging and need sustained monitoring and support for realization of full impact. • Of the 15 LIG groups met, around 25% (farmers belonging to 4 out of 15 groups) reported that they were sharing irrigation water to additional non-targeted members for irrigation purposes while the rest felt water constraints to share with others. • The drop out from the LIG programme was around 8% (11 out of 134 farmers interviewed). The reasons for farmers dropping out of the program were cited to be: (i) no back up support available to the LIG participants after the completion of the program (ii) 6 In the Far-West, it was reported that when the pumps broke down and were taken for repairs, the original parts did not fit; while the non-genuine parts did. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 17 Scott Wilson Nepal market access including poor rates for the produce (iii) family based labour either no longer available or became inadequate (iv) higher labor and input costs required for the hybrid seeds (v) lack of desired level of knowledge on commercial scale of vegetable farming. f. A weaker institutional linkage has meant that the long-term support provisions are not in place. • DADO has not been adequately consulted or involved in the selection and monitoring of key LIG activities. Though efforts have been started to link farmer groups, through registration, after the completion of the program. These efforts are however in the process and have not been widely carried out. • DDC has minimal information on the component activities. • There was poor maintenance arrangements for quick and affordable repair of pumps supplied to the LIG groups. • Beneficial linkages with other district based institutions (such as non-contracted NGOs) have been inadequate for sharing of local information and experience from other programs. 3.4 Conclusions a. Increased level of family income has enabled quality investment in children education and family health. The study noted that 100% of the respondents felt that they had additional income due to LIG activities and that they were spending the surplus money to pay household loans, put their children in better school and better access health facilities. While the exact level of income was not possible for evaluation team to derive, the study noted that 70.5% of the respondents (44 out of 62 farmers interviewed) felt that the income was attractive enough to either maintain the same level or increase their land area under cultivation in Phase I. This clearly indicated some notable level of additional income for LIG farmers from renewed farming activities. b. Isolated but significant empowerment of women entrepreneurs has been achieved. The evaluation team noted with few (4 women LIG farmers out of 62 farmers interviewed) women farmers, were leading the farming the activities within the household as well as the community. Women such as Sarita Chaudhary (See Box 4, Annex 6) were confidently leading the horticulture production in their own lands and demonstrating an example that commitment and skills when "I would not have been able to start the commercial vegetable farming on my own. With the support of USAID, my life has changed a lot " - Sarita Chaudary, Kanchanpur USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 18 Scott Wilson Nepal combined can result in significant financial income at the family level. The women are more confident of their ability to identify quality of inputs and purchase them as well in marketing of their produce. This is very likely to have wider positive impact for other women to learn and replicate. c. LIG activities have contributed to the recovery process and preparedness for future incidents. The evaluation team has observed the overall positive outlook among the beneficiary communities on the results of LIG activities. However, due to the limited diffusion effect and engagement of most vulnerable segment of the community, the recovery and preparedness level is yet to be significant to realize notable impacts. 3.5 SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • Enhancement of farmers’ technical knowledge through trainings and the assistance provided on site by field technicians (FT). • Presence of FT in the local communities has ensured that farmers are readily able to seek direct support. • Selection of those who were already involved in commercial vegetable farming has allowed the participants to pick up the farming techniques faster. • Small farmers group managed irrigation systems has helped address water scarcity and made farmers less dependant on rainwater cultivation • Provision of hybrid seeds, through the cost sharing scheme with the LIG participants, has introduced farmers to greater yielding variety of seeds. • An IPM system has introduced environment friendly and sustainable pest management practices. • Farmers trained on compost and • Exclusion of the landless and smallholder farmers (less than 0.2 ha) leading to further marginalization. • Need of rapid selection of participants allowed limited time for screening. This resulted in capture of resources by elites. • Insufficient follow-up by field technicians in some communities has resulted in confusion and misuse of pesticides (eg. Jhalari). • Wider coverage area per FT meant that the quality of services provided to farmers was limited (eg Jhalari) • Poor planning and coordination among farmers led to cultivating same crops by entire LIG group resulting in low market prices (eg. Jhalari where brinjal were not even bought at NRs 5/ kg). • Boring of STWs during the rainy season as well as wells not dug up to at least 40 feet has resulted in the holes drying up during the dry seasons (eg. Lauki) thereby affecting year round water USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 19 Scott Wilson Nepal organic fertilizers (eg. collection of urine from livestock) • Diffusion effect taking place in limited communities through the transfer of technical skills and the sharing of water with non-targeted neighbouring villagers. supply and vegetable farming. • Disuse of pumps supplied by NFRP owing to absence of readily and affordable maintenance was raised by 4 out 12 LIG groups. • Absence of support for market linkages meant that farmers were not receiving fair prices. • Airing of prices using FM was ineffective. Opportunities Threats • The LIG group members are now visible and are more likely to attract traders, vendors and further support from program working in the area. • Coordination with other stakeholders in the provision of inputs (pumps, seeds, trainings etc), similar to the support provided by the Ground Water Project in the distribution of pumps and boring wells in Sunsari, can be explored. • Linking farmer groups with DADO to access support from the government and other NGOs. • Exclusion of the marginalized has widened the gap between the most vulnerable and the well-off with possible consequences of internal conflict. • Extensive use of externally supplied hybrid seeds exposes the farmers to possible exploitation by Agro-vets. • Monopoly of AIC in chemical fertilizers often leads to shortages of fertilizers in the districts affecting production. • Cheaper vegetables imported from India, often discourages farmers from vegetable farming USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 20 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 4: PRODUCTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 4.1 Component activities NFRP has supported rehabilitation, new construction or upgrading of 115 infrastructures of which 86 structure were in phase I and 29 structures were in phase II. Different types of infrastructure were constructed such as River Training Works, Slab Culverts, Pipe Culverts, Vented Causeway, Bridge, Road Improvement, School Building, Sub-Health Post building, Roadside Drain, Market Shed. Each VDC was allocated an average budget of Rs. 2.5 to 3.0 million, with exceptions. The average completion time of 61% (16 out of 26) of visited structures was 2-3 months while time for other infrastructures varied widely depending on the type of infrastructure. 4.2 Evaluation activity The evaluation team carried out the site visits to the following infrastructures and met the contractors, local beneficiary communities and other stakeholders at the site. • 26 different structures were visited. (4 RCC Slab Culvert, 5 Pipe Culvert, 4 bamboo Piling, 3 Gabion spurs, 2 Embankment, 1 Gabion retaining structure, 1 School Building, 2 Bridge, 1 Vented Causeway, 1 river Channelization, 2 Road upgrading) • FGD carried out with 18 beneficiaries groups • KII carried at 4 DDC • KII carried at 5 VDC • KII carried with 8 partner organizations involved in implementing infrastructure component. 4.3 Key findings a. All of the infrastructures were found to be useful and reflected the community needs. • 50% (13 out of 26 visited) infrastructures served to provide improved access to markets as well as in flood conditions and in some cases increased level of security by allowing police patrol effectively. Pipe Culvert at Lauki, Sunsari USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 21 Scott Wilson Nepal b. A number of selected infrastructures were not directly linked to flood recovery or preparedness for future incidents • Out of 26 visited Infrastructure, School Building (the school in Hariharpur, Bara) served as a social development in areas with low level of flood risk. c. The infrastructures were rapidly delivered providing positive lessons, awareness and illustration to the communities on effective service delivery to the people. • More than 60% (16 out of 26) structures were delivered within 2-3 months period. • The short completion time has been appreciated by community as well as other agencies (DDC, local NGOs). This has resulted a very positive thinking towards the program. d. Low cost technology (Bamboo Piling) was upgraded and transferred to Western region. • Other agencies such as Save the Children, Soil Conservation Department also implemented the same techniques after its success. e. Quality issues were noted reflecting poor supervision and requiring higher maintenance costs • Out of 26 structures visited, two flood management structures were washed out (1 Bamboo Piling, 1 River Chanelization). One structure was partially functional (Spur). • 8 out of 26 structures (30%) had quality issue such as breaking of PCC Slab, settlement of structure & Cracks at wing walls. f. Some infrastructures selected did not reflect sufficient prior planning and complementary support from other agencies to make them effective. • In Jaymangalpur VDC of Parsa district, the vented causeway costing Rs. 8 million has enabled access to public commuting to market but its usefulness in flood conditions is limited due to lack of similar structures required at 2 additional point on the way to market. • River protection works need detail survey, study, planning and bigger budget. Rapid response towards it may not work. (Bamboo Piling at Lalbojhi VDC of Kailali district, River Chanelization at Laxmania VDC of Rautahat district & Water diverting embankment at Dumariya VDC of Rautahat district). • Duplication of structure at 1 place (Suda VDC of Kanchanpur district). The RCC Slab Culvert was already estimated by Irrigation Department and was on their TO-DO list. • Limited synergy with other agencies (WFP, ADRA) was observed at 4 structural components (Gabion Spur, Bamboo Piling at Lalbojhi VDC, Bamboo Piling & Embankment at Joshipur VDC of Kailali District). WFP contributed labor cost. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 22 Scott Wilson Nepal g. Impact of developed infrastructure on existing water flow, river and flood has been largely helpful • Any of the infrastructures that were developed on water course have not obstructed the flow of water. Furthermore they have provided more space for water course. (e.g. more elevated and wider Slab Culvert at Geta VDC of Kailali) • Two flood control structures were completely washed out by the flood but have not been detrimental in their impacts. Gabion Spurs built are still functional and helpful in their intended functions. 4.4 Conclusions a. Infrastructure support component is hugely popular and has offered quick and tangible impact on the beneficiary communities. • The infrastructures developed reflect popular demand of the communities. • The infrastructures are widely used and are linked to support the communities at the time of flood incidents • The developed infrastructures (e.g. culverts, roads etc) support the LIG outputs by providing improved and assured access to markets for the farmers to market their produce. • Retaining and river training work has reduced soil cut by flood and thus saved land and house of farmer. b. Existing practices of infrastructure development does not allow a transparent and competitive arrangement impacting the quality and value for money. • Quality issues were observed in 30% (8 out of 26) infrastructures visited. The PCC Slab (of Pipe Culvert) was completely broken at laxmania VDC of Rautahat district. The RCC Pipe was dislocated and quality of plaster work was very poor at Lauki VDC of Sunsari. Settlement of wing wall resulting in cracks at the joints (allowing greater seepage detrimental to the structure). Gabion mattress was poor (feeble tying of gabion wire and fully corroded wires) at RCC Slab culvert at Haripur VDC of Sunsari. Cracks and peeling off of Plaster at School Building at Hariharpur VDC of Bara were visible. Poorly filled boulder and tying of Gabion wire at Lalbojhi VDC of Kailali were noted. • There was vocal resistance from some community members (at least one) on the issue of absence of competitiveness and transparency in awarding infrastructure contracts. • The check and balance mechanism is evidently weak in existing arrangements owing to same partner carrying out design, costing, implementation work with limited supervision capability of the NFRP team. Slab Culvert at Geta, Kailali USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 23 Scott Wilson Nepal c. Ownership of the developed infrastructures and subsequent maintenance provisions are weak impacting the sustainability of USAID supported infrastructures. • Developed infrastructures are not handed over to the VDCs. • Maintenance committees are not in place for the sustainability of structure. • Transparency and trust building with the community through Public/ social audit is not adequately practiced. • Local technicians are not developed or put in place for maintenance. d. Some indirect positive impacts from infrastructures have been observed from the development of infrastructures • Investment in school infrastructures attracted other educational investments (e.g. learning tools from UNICEF) leading to increased enrolment of children (including girl child and dalits). • The School building has not only provided secure space for education but also could be used for community shelter during high flood. School enrolment has increased. • Retaining and river training work has reduced soil cut by flood and thus saved land and house of farmer 4.5 SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • Selection of Infrastructure was based on detailed consultation with local community (PRA) reflecting the need of flood affected community. • Local labors were widely used (in the west and central districts) in the construction activities. This resulted in employment generation (short term to mid term) • Local resources such as bamboo, gravel, brick were widely used which helped villagers generate extra • Some structure did not actually serve the flood affected group but served as social component (such as school building especially in Central region). • Duplication of structure. Lack of co-ordination with Line Agencies. In Suda VDC of Kanchanpur district, the RCC Slab Culvert was already estimated by Irrigation Department and was on their TO-DO list. • Inadequate supervision of construction from NFRP team resulting in poor quality of works USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 24 Scott Wilson Nepal income. • Direct implementation of program with less paperwork & quick decision has resulted in faster and smoother work. Average completion time of more than 60% (16 out of 26) of structure was 2- 3 months. • Technology transferred. E.g.. Bamboo piling in far western region. (appreciated by DDC as well) • Skills transferred (mostly in far west and central). Unskilled labor trained to perform skill work and thus had the opportunity of better pay in next assignment. with greater burden for maintenance • Two out of 26 structures failed to meet the specific purpose. (Eg: The Bamboo piling work in Lalboji did not withstand the flood, river channelization at Bakaiya River failed to channelize the river in Rautahat District). • Absence of proper planning and coordination with other agencies resulted in reduced effectiveness of s tructures ((Eg: Vented Causeway in Jaymangalpur VDC of Parsa district). • Maintenance arrangements has not institutionalised as a result of which sustainability of use cannot be achieved. • The use of heavy equipment has resulted in less no. of employment that could have been generated without the use. • Transparency arrangements were largely missing. In Eastern region, public were not provided with information on the infrastructures. Opportunities Threats • Skills and technology was transferred to local entrepreneurs (consultants, NGOs etc) giving them wider exposure on works. • Provision of infrastructures in short period allowed the communities to experience of rapid delivery of services. • Linking of the structure with DoLIDAR/ DTO/DDC would help these agencies put those structures in their program of yearly maintenance schedule. • The skills learned by local labor could be used in further future project in and • Most of the structures were designed for rural places where heavy vehicle movement was not anticipated. However heavy vehicle movement has already started. This increases the risk of collapse of those structures. (Eg: Pipe Culvert at Laxmania VDC of Rautahat.) • Lack of maintenance plan reduces the longevity of the structures. • Lack of institutional linkages from planning stage to implementation, limits support from Line agencies for sustaining existing structures as well as the implementation of future similar projects. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 25 Scott Wilson Nepal around the district. It could also open the door for abroad opportunity • Sharing information while during planning & implementation with Line agencies help these institutes more accountable to those structures and moreover they could also share their skills and technical knowledge with implementing partners. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 26 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 5: STRENGTHENING OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 5.1 Component activities 72 Community Based Organizations (CBO), 72 Youth Clubs (YC) were provided with a 14-day training. The participants were taught a range of skills such as leadership roles, networking and collaboration, organizational planning, advocacy and participation in local decision-making processes. These skills were designed to build up their confidence and capacity that would prepare them for leadership roles in their communities. In addition to this, material support, in the form of office furniture and supplies were also provided to the organizations. YCs were further eligible and had received seed money of NRs 10,000 for a community project of their choice. 72 Disaster Management and Preparedness Committees (DMPC) were also organised and were provided with a 4-day training along with flood rescue support materials such as life jackets, ropes, loud speakers etc. 5.2 Evaluation activity The evaluation team carried out Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with a range of CBO and YC members as follows: • 10 CBOs (112 members) • 7 YCs (85 members) • 4 DMPC (26 members) 5.3 Key findings a. Nearly half of all the CBOs and YCs continue to provide community services while struggling to engage inactive members or address high drop out rate. • Only 43% (4 out of 10) CBOs and 57%) (4 out of 7) YCs have been involved in community development activities such as tree plantations, roads repair; install pumps, building shelters etc. Jan Jagaran CBO at Dumariya , Rautahat USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 27 Scott Wilson Nepal • 57% (6 out of 10) CBOs and again 57% (4 out of 7) YCs have a high dropout rate of the members who had taken part in the training sessions. b. Local organizations supported by NFRP have weak institutional linkages with the local government bodies impacting their long term viability. • Only 14% (2 out of 10) CBO have been formally registered with local bodies. • No YCs have been registered • DMPCs have not been linked with the District Disaster Relief Committees c. Suchana Toleys (early flood warning groups) were found to be effective in creating early flood warnings. However, their ability to impact at the time of flood incidents will be handicapped with limited skills and materials that they possess. • In the case of Lalbhoji, the SuchanaToley was found to have been effective in early warnings of a flood in October 2009. • All the DMPC mentioned that the provision of limited (2) sets of life jackets and tubes were not adequate for flood conditions where people are likely to require rescue support. 5.4 Conclusions a. There is duplication of efforts and membership with creation of three separate institutions (CBO, YC and DMPC) in a community. • Significant numbers of members are shared by all three organizations. • The function of DMPC could easily be undertaken by either the CBO or YC. • The skill training and financial support could be more streamlined and additional resources provided for each organization. b. The weak linkage of the NFRP supported institutions with the relevant VDC and DDC level body (District Disaster Relief Committee, or DDRC) has disallowed effective strengthening, mobilization and coordination of these organizations for flood incidents (preparedness and rescue). • CBOs have initiated and applied for VDC funding for various community projects. However, for those 80% (8 out of 10) CBO) that have not been formally registered they are not eligible to neither tap into government funds nor formally participate in local planning and decision-making processes. The reasons for not registering the organizations included: (i) difficulties in the writing of the constitution and (ii) no knowledge about the procedures that need to be adhered to in order to register with local bodies. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 28 Scott Wilson Nepal 5.5 SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • Young girls and women have been included in executive bodies of CBOs and YCs for greater leadership roles and engagement in development activities. • Establishment of Suchana Toleys (flood warning and rescue groups) through trainings and material support have been introduced to the communities with knowledge and skills to safely manage water and flood related incidents • The YCs and CBOs have been empowered and strengthened with material support to organise and work together. • Duplication of members in CBOs and YCs adversely impacting their availability and active roles. • Trainings not tailored to meet the specific needs of CBOs and YCs. • Some YCs (eg.Rautahat and Bara districts) were established by misinforming members that they would be provided with employment enhancing skills. • SuchahaToleys members in some communities (eg Pathariya) are solely comprised of the elderly. • Lack of funding sources affecting the sustainability of the organizations. • No active mechanisms to link the SuchanaToleys with the District Level Disaster Preparedness Committee for mobilization and rescue during floods. Opportunities Threats • Establishment of formal linkages between DMPC and the District Disaster Relief Committees, can help to ensure additional capacity building, immediate and efficient mobilization and coordination during floods • Lack of local employment could take away the youths from the locality, impacting YC/CBO memberships. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 29 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 6: SANITATION, HEALTH AND NUTRITION 6.1 Component activities This component included activities to promote sanitation, improved hygiene and nutrition among the flood affected population. This was particularly targeted at non-LIG participants. The activities supported under this component were: a. Health and hygiene awareness: ToT organized for the partner NGOs. Issues related to promotion of improved hand-washing and food preparation, disease prevention, drinking water treatment, wastewater management, solid waste management, kitchen gardening and improved cooking stoves. b. Kitchen Garden (KG): 20 participants from each VDC were provided with orientation and demonstration trainings on land preparation, seed distribution and nursery establishment. A subsidy in the provision of seeds was also provided. c. Improved cooking stoves (ICS): 3-days training on the usage and maintenance of ICSs. Construction of 20 ICSs in each VDC. d. Latrines: subsidy of material support required for the construction, excluding the upper super structure. 6.2 Evaluation activities During the evaluation process, the evaluation team extensively visited the households, engaged with the participating beneficiary groups, associated institutions and organisations as follows: • Site observation of 9 sites where ICSs have been installed • Site observation at 3 sites where latrine construction have been supported • FGDs with 5 KG groups (52 participants) 6.3 Key findings a. Kitchen garden and ICS support activities were resulting in wider use of healthier and nutritional practices with good level of diffusion effect (for kitchen garden). Latrine at Pipladi , Kanchanpur Kitchen garden at Pipladi, Kanchanpur USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 30 Scott Wilson Nepal • All the KG participants applied vegetable farming for household use, with 60% (31 out of 52) farmers using hybrid seeds • At 40% (2 out of 5) sites visited, non-participant households were also found to have started cultivating vegetables for household consumption by learning from their neighbors • 85 % (8 out of 9) households visited were using the ICSs. b. Poor technical support and sensitivity for poorer segments of the community disallowed the use of the program facilities • At 2 sites (Laxmaniya and Jhalari) poor technical support by the partner NGO has resulted in disuse of the stoves, they emit more smoke and actually require much more firewood. • Cost sharing for the construction of latrines, equivalent to NRs 3,000 was found to have excluded poor households from being a part of the latrine distribution. c. There was weak monitoring of the outputs and their performance which meant that the community feedback on the facilities supported by NFRP was not obtained. • Non performing ICS should have been detected and replaced by the program. • The household whose toilets could not be built (e.g. Parashan, Kanchanpur) due to the rings being broken while transporting them were deprived of the facility. 6.4 Conclusions a. There is wider use of healthy and hygienic practices among the households. • Villagers noticeably aware of the nutritional benefits of vegetables leading to sustained KG and other dietary changes. • Hygienic behaviour amongst locals changing leading to healthy practices among adults and children. • ICSs were found to have reduced indoor smoke, saved cooking time and reduced the amount of firewood required for cooking. • There have been changes with regards to the hygienic behavior amongst locals though the use of latrines and other hygienic practices such as washing their hands before meals. b. The poor quality of technical support in delivery of tools has limited the families from taking full benefits of the facilities. • At 2 sites (Laxmaniya and Jhalari) poor technical support by the partner NGO has resulted in disuse of the stoves, they emit more smoke and actually require much more firewood. • Cost sharing for the construction of latrines, equivalent to NRs 3,000 was found to have excluded poor households from being a part of the latrine distribution. ICS (on left) disused at Laxmaniya, Rautahat USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 31 Scott Wilson Nepal 6.5 SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • Field based trainings provided to KG participants were effective in helping the participants internalize new knowledge. • Provision of hybrid seeds to the participants was useful in attracting the participants and increasing their yield • Trainings provided for the construction and maintenance of ICSs has enabled Hh, primarily women, to carry out day-to￾day maintenance and repair of the stoves. • Landless were excluded from KG. • Cost sharing required for the construction of latrines, equivalent to NRs 3,000 for the upper structure, resulted in exclusion of poor households. • Poor monitoring of the materials provided for latrine construction, resulted in Hhs unable to construct the latrines. • Poor technical quality of ICSs (in Laxmania in Rautahat and Jhallari in Kanchanpur) resulted in the stoves consuming more firewood and emitting greater smoke. Opportunities Threats • Trainings and knowledge gained from the KG can be built upon and expanded for commercial vegetable farming. • Linkages and coordination amongst like minded organizations which are working in SHN can occur to seek support • Prolonged use of hybrid seeds can cause loss of local varieties of seeds and increased dependency on unreliable markets. • Floods were found to have destroyed latrines and ICSs supported NFRP but these were not rebuilt. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 32 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 7: PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN (PWC) 7.1 Component activities Protections of women and children component activities included Better Life Options (BLOP), and REFLECT classes (in Phase I). BLOP entailed identification and subsequent 7-9 days trainings to community facilitators. The training emphasized the promotion of gender rights and equality, and the prevention and control of human trafficking and socially discriminatory practices towards youth, women and vulnerable castes and ethnic groups7 . Once trained, the facilitators were required undertake classes for BLOP participants in their communities. Primarily, this included classes occurring 3 times a week for one hour, over 6 months period. REFLECT classes also included the training of community facilitators and classes for men and women. 7.2 Evaluation activity During the evaluation process, the evaluation team extensively engaged with the participating beneficiary groups, associated institutions and organisations as follows: • FGD with 6 BLOP groups (72 participants) • FGD with 2 RELFECT groups (4 participants) • Discussions with 4 implementing agencies8 7.3 Key findings a. BLOP groups contributed to better social practices supporting young girls and building their confidence levels. • 33% (2 out of 6) BLOP groups were found to have mobilized themselves and others in their community to become active in creating awareness of sending girl children to school along with health and sanitation issues (See Annex 6, Box-2). 7 USAID/NFRP Quarterly Performance Report no. 5, October 2009-December 2009 8 BASE, Sahakarya, IRDC and DYC BLOP participants at Jhalari,Kanchanpur USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 33 Scott Wilson Nepal b. Community facilitators providing the classes did not have the required level of capacity to address sensitive issues such as reproductive health, domestic violence, girl trafficking. • Insufficient back-support for the community facilitators for the BLOP had in a few cases resulted in further misunderstandings while dealing with sensitive topics such as reproductive health. This ultimately led to complaints from parents and the closure of the BLOP classes. • High dropout rates of REFLECT participants owing to poor facilitating skills of the facilitator resulting in confusions and incomplete sessions. c. The design of the class participants and their selection was not sensitive to the actual needs or purpose of the classes. • BLOP trainings were only provided to adolescent girls, leaving out boys who also needed to be informed. • In one case (out of 6 groups visited), participants were found to be much younger than the targeted age group. 7.4 Conclusions a. Increased awareness of reproductive health and social roles among girls had contributed to better health and social practices. • One of the BLOP participants reported the postponement of her marriages till the completion of her education. b. BLOP classes had helped build confidence of the participants. • Many reported that they were able to interact with their parents more openly about issues that affect their lives. • Increased confidence among adolescent girls. • Better planning capacity and rejoining of schools noted. • Able to finalize their goal for further life. • Increased role of young women in the community activities. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 34 Scott Wilson Nepal 7.5 SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • The content of the trainings are well￾conceptualized and focus on relevant issues. • The selection of adolescent girls who were interested in BLOP resulted in easy implementation. • Training provided to community facilitator and BLOP classes to the participants enhanced ttheir capacity and confidence. • BLOP Trainings were only restricted to girl children. • Insufficient back-up support for the community facilitators for the BLOP had in few cases resulted in further misunderstandings while dealing with sensitive topics such as reproductive health. This ultimately led to complaints from parents and the closure of the BLOP classes. • BLOP classes were conducted without the usage of important teaching materials/aids Opportunities Threats • BLOP trainings can also be provided to adolescent boys. • Coordination with similar program (such as BLOP/REFLECT provided by the PLAN International) can be explored for mutual benefit. • Insufficient awareness and information sharing about the BLOP trainings can lead to misunderstandings amongst parents and this may lead to closure of the classes. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 35 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 8: CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 8.1 Reaching out to the poor and marginalized a) Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA) was conducted in selected VDCs to collect household level information and the needs of the local communities9 . This exercise has been particularly useful and appropriate for the selection of infrastructural projects (eg. culverts, river protection measures, roads, etc) as per the need of the local villagers. b) However, efforts to address the needs of the marginalized, such as women, the landless and poor, with marginal land holdings were found to be inadequate. In the case of the LIG program, the design of the component, which requires farmers to have land between 0.2- 0.4 ha, has inherently set restrictions that exclude those with marginalized land or the landless. In a handful of cases, farmers who did not have the required amount of land were found to have collectively organized themselves, as a group, to be eligible. These cases were however few and far in between. Furthermore, no efforts were made by the program to seek ways through which the landless could be incorporated. c) The assumption, that the landless will be hired as wage laborers to work on the commercial vegetable plots was also not yet found to be realized. During the field visits, the study team met with only three farmers who were hiring external help. The majority, were still using household labor. According to USAID/NFRP reports, the average area of land per farmer is 0.22 ha10. Based upon this data and discussions with the farmers, one can infer that in the majority of cases, the commercial scale of the cultivation has not yet reached a scale that requires external labor. d) In the case of latrine support, the cost sharing mechanism, equivalent to approximately NRs 3,000, has also excluded poor households who are unable or unwilling to spend such a large sum on toilet facilities. 8.2 Integrated approach a) Linkages between the LIG and infrastructure projects, especially in the Phase 211 which focused on productive assets such as culverts, roads and bridges, has worked to ensure year round mobility and access to markets. b) Similarly, assistance provided in kitchen gardening, improved cooking stoves and latrines was an approach to address issues not covered by the agriculture component as well as to engage the households who were not eligible in the LIG component. 9 Discussions with USAID/NFRP partner NGOs, USAID/Nepal (2010) 10 USAID/NFRP (2010) 11 Discussions with Fintrac staff pointed out that during Phase 1, the infrastructure component was mostly focused on flood protection measures USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 36 Scott Wilson Nepal 8.3 Unintended consequences a) Poor technical quality and the lack of monitoring during the construction of ICSs in Laxmaniyapur VDC in Rautahat and Jhallari in Kanchanpur resulted in stoves which, according to the users, required more firewood and emit more smoke. Understandably, these stoves have become useless. In addition, the whole community is now skeptical regarding the technology and its potential application. b) Insufficient back-up support for the community facilitators for the BLOP/REFLECT classes had in a few cases resulted in further confusion and misunderstandings while dealing with sensitive topics such as reproductive health. This ultimately led to complaints from parents and the closure of the BLOP classes. 8.4 Strengthening ties with different stakeholders a) Institutional ties with line agencies and government bodies 12 was found to be weak. Only selected personnel in the DDC, DADO were aware, more through the informal channel, about the various flood recovery programs being implemented. The officials in local bodies expected to be informed and included in the monitoring of NFRP projects. b) In the case of LIG, efforts were being made to link farmers with DADO, through the registration of farmer groups. This according to the implementing agency would enable the groups to access technical support and seeds when available. These efforts to register the farmers are however still underway and have not been widely carried out across all the regions13. 12 KII were conducted wit 2CDOs, 2 Asst. CDOs, 2 LDOs, 4 VDC secretaries, 3 DADO officials and 3DHOs 13 Discussions with implementing organization and DADO officials. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 37 Scott Wilson Nepal CHAPTER 9: LESSONS LEARNT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Lessons learnt Some important lessons have been learnt from the implementation of the NFRP program. These can be outlined as follows: • Spill-over effect of non – targeted neighboring farmers learning new skills from LIG participants and sharing irrigations systems does not happen within a short period (e.g. less than 3-4 years) of time. • Farmers who are already involved in vegetable farming are quick learners, adopters of new technologies and skills and are able to sustain the benefits. • Market linkages are the most important factors impacting the sustainability of the farmers. • Short term planning and limited budget can not help to mitigate high floods caused by large rivers • Programs should be designed to ensure that cost-sharing mechanisms are affordable for the poor • Regular monitoring of the implementing partner NGOs and their outputs is needed to ensure that the services are of desired quality and are useful to the beneficiaries. • In order to sustain CBOs/YCs, one-time training without follow-up is not enough • BLOP facilitators need to be well trained, provided back support to be able to handle sensitive issues. Consent and clear understanding about the BLOP program with the parents is also required to ensure smooth functioning of the trainings • It is often very difficult to engage the poorest of the poor members of the community in program activities. Concerted and very focused effort and resources must be put into program design and implementation for these people to benefit. 9.2 Conclusions a. LIG participating farmers have increased their production level resulting in increased household incomes. However, the poor and the weak segments of the community, the most vulnerable to the flood incidents, have been left out in the process. • The study noted that 100% of the respondents felt that they had additional income due to LIG activities that they were spending the surplus money to pay off loans, put their children in better school and better access health facilities. • While the exact level of income was not available, the study noted that 70.5% of the respondents (44 out of 62 farmers who represent those that either maintained the same level or increased their land area under cultivation in Phase I) felt the income was attractive enough to sustain or increase the level of their investment in LIG activities. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 38 Scott Wilson Nepal • Due to the inflexible nature of LIG design, the landless and smallholder farmers, who most needed the support for their recovery, were largely left out. (See Annex 6, Box 4). • 26% (4 out of 15 groups) of LIG farmers were existing vegetable growers. b. Sustainability measures to ensure continuity of LIG initiatives are not incorporated in the program activities. • Support for marketing linkages are not strong enough to sustain the momentum and/or achieve the expansion of commercial vegetable farming after the phasing out of the program • Pump maintenance arrangements are not in place for LIG groups to access affordable maintenance services. • A necessary linkage with DADO and DDC for their ownership of the farmers and their outputs is weak to receive their support after the phasing out of the program. c. Infrastructure support component is hugely popular and has offered quick and tangible impact on the beneficiary communities. • The infrastructures developed reflect popular demand of the communities. • The infrastructures are widely used and are linked to support the communities at the time of flood incidence. • The developed infrastructures (e.g. culverts, roads etc) support the LIG outputs by providing improved and assured access to markets for the farmers to market their produce. d. Existing practices of infrastructure development does not allow a transparent and competitive arrangement impacting the quality and value for money. • Quality issues were observed in 30% (8 out of 26) of infrastructures visited. • There was vocal resistance from community members on the issue of absence of competitiveness and transparency in awarding infrastructure contracts. • The check and balance mechanism is evidently weak in existing arrangements owing to same partner carrying out design, costing, implementation work with limited supervision capability of the Fintrac team. e. Ownership of the developed infrastructures and subsequent maintenance provisions are weak impacting the sustainability of USAID supported infrastructures. • Developed infrastructures are not handed over to the VDCs. • Maintenance committees are not in place for the sustainability of structure. • Transparency and trust building with the community through Public/ social audit is not adequately practiced. • Local technicians are not developed or put in place for maintenance. f. Design of training courses, provision of support measures and the subsequent follow up on support activities for CBOs and YC are not sensitive enough to ensure sustained engagement of the participants. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 39 Scott Wilson Nepal • Trainings for the CBOs and YCs were standard and general and did not reflect the specific needs of each group. • Trainings on practical areas for organizational development such as proposal writing, fund raising and NGO management are not sufficiently organized for the sustainability and growth of their institutions. • There is absence of regular follow up of the CBOs and YCs after the trainings, at least for 6 months, in order to provide back of support in the functioning and registration of the organizations • Useful employment generation course / skill development training are not included in the program design to sustain the Clubs/ CBOs. • Formal linkages are not in place between local bodies and the organizations in order to draw resources and engage youth in development and community service activities g. The program has generated wider interest and scope for more flood related awareness, rescue tools (i.e. hardware provisions) and disaster management skills which the program can further support. • Formal linkages are absent between the Suchana Toleys and the District Disaster Relief Committees, so as to ensure immediate and efficient mobilization and coordination during floods. • The CDO is the chairperson of the disaster management committee- which meets every month- therefore regular linkage with government bodies that is important is missing. • The government has not provided any training related to flood preparedness. NFRP can play a greater role to provide training for youths from flood affected areas and government can use the resources whenever needed. h. Some of the best practices derived from program experience are simple yet effective approaches and tools that are replicable and appreciated by the communities. • Rapid delivery of the infrastructures has been widely appreciated by the community as well as a few line agencies • Water sharing amongst the LIG participants has allowed resource poor farmers to be able to have access to small scale irrigation systems • Low cost bamboo piling experience dissemination to other regions within the country was appreciated and effective. 9.3 Recommendations a. The program needs to engage the landless, women-headed families and marginalized people in economically productive activities, through an additional component, in order to support their rapid recovery and enhance preparedness for future flood incidents. • Activities such as livestock rearing, farming on leased lands etc., for which successful practices exist, could be incorporated into the component. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 40 Scott Wilson Nepal b. Preparatory studies need to be carried out prior to the implementation of the program, taking into account existing experiences (e.g. for pumps, ICS and some other approaches, tools etc.) through consultations with stakeholders such as farmers, DADO officials and other implementing organizations. • Technical personnel should be engaged in the periodic assessment of the tools (e.g. pumps, ICS etc) and the market study for the most appropriate pumps. This includes assessing whether the spare parts are easily available or not. • Formalized repair trainings should be organized for at least one individual for a cluster of LIG groups so that he/she can be readily contacted and act as a service provider for the community. c. Better quality of work and value for money in Infrastructure support should be achieved by engaging separate design and supervision consultants • Current practice of single entity of consultant carrying out design, cost estimates and construction does not allow cross checking of the work carried out. • Quality of work is often compromised due to insufficient monitoring from the program technicians. • Implementing partner’s role in technical areas can be that of an internal quality control and monitoring while external supervision and monitoring process will take responsibility for quality issues. d. Increased level of coordination with communities/line agencies/local government agencies can be realized by engaging them in planning and monitoring of NFRP activities without impacting the overall implementation timeframe. • Local government offices (VDC, DDCs etc) are not adequately consulted and engaged in the planning and monitoring of works. • There is lack of desired level of awareness among key local partners, including line agencies such as DADO, in program activities. • Absence of ownership of NFRP deliverables, including the infrastructures, by local institutions will mean lack of post-project support to program participants as well as maintenance of the outputs/infrastructures. e. Periodic external independent monitoring and feedback mechanism needs to be incorporated in the program design for robust outcomes from program interventions • Poverty sensitivity and willingness to reach to the poorer and more vulnerable segments of the community was weak in program design and implementation. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 41 Scott Wilson Nepal • Quality monitoring was limited resulting in small scale but notable lapses in quality in the services (such as ICS) and tools (such as irrigation pumps) supported by the program. USAID /NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 42 Scott Wilson Nepal BIBILOGRAPHY CEDPA (2007): Better Life Option, Resource Book for Participatory Learning Activity USAID (2010): Performance Monitoring & Evaluation TIPS constructing an evaluation report – 1st Edition, 2010 USAID/ NFRP: Statement of work USAID/NFRP (2008): Monthly update – August – September 2008, USAID/Nepal Flood Recovery Program (USAID/NFRP) USAID/NFRP (2009a): Quarterly Performance Report # 3 – January – March 2009 USAID/NFRP (2009b): Quarterly Performance Report # 4 – April – June 2009 USAID/NFRP (2009c): Production Manual, Factors Affecting Plant Growth, May 2009 USAID/NFRP (2009d): Annual Performance Report; October 2008 – September 2009 (FY09) USAID/NFRP (2010a): Annual Performance Report; October 2009 – September 2010 (FY10) USAID/NFRP (2010b): Agriculture Development & Food Security in Nepal: Experience from the USAID/Nepal Flood Recovery Program, September 2010 USAID/NFRP (2010c): Monthly update – February 2010, USAID/Nepal Flood Recovery Program (USAID/NFRP) USAID/NFRP (2010d): Photo Album: Infrastructure USAID/NFRP (2010e): Output and Impact of social Inclusion Component, November 10, 2010 USAID/ NFRP (2010f): Build Back Better, leaflet March 2010 USAID/NFRP (2010g): Youth Initiation for Peace and development, Resource Book for Facilitator published by ANNEXES USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 1 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 1: Statement of Work USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 2 Scott Wilson Nepal 1. The Evaluation: Purpose, Audience & Use: The purpose of the evaluation is two-fold. The evaluation should first assess how well the program has met the needs of the different flood affected people (men, women, youth, children and marginalized groups) to build back their livelihoods in a better way. Secondly, the evaluation should examine the intended and unintended consequences of the program and document lessons learnt that can be shared throughout the Agency to improve development learning and future programming. With both of these purposes in mind, the evaluation team should tailor recommendations so that they improve the development learning and future programming for the Agency. The evaluation will provide direction that should improve achievement of results and also reduce the risk of unintended consequences. The evaluation team will also need to consider the external environment, project methodology and the escalation of activities when assessing opportunities and threats. Focus of the evaluation is defined by the evaluation questions in the next section. 2. Evaluation Questions: The evaluation should be framed in order to answer the key evaluation questions listed below. 1. How well did the approach of the program actually ‘Build Back’ the livelihoods of flood affected people of the Terai? 2. Were there any unintended affects (positive or negative) due to integrated nature of this program? 3. Is there any evidence that shows the program was able to strengthen ties between local population, community groups and local government? 4. How did the program approach identifying and addressing needs of women, youth, Dalits and marginalized groups? 5. Assess the sustainability of the change created through program interventions (including technical and financial appropriateness). Following is a checklist of key points to consider for the analysis needed to respond to above questions: 1. How well did the approach of the program actually ‘Build Back’ the livelihoods of flood affected people of the Terai? a. integration of different components (infrastructure, income generation, sanitation, hygiene, & nutrition, protection of women, strengthening local organization) b. Gaps in support c. Any duplication or unnecessary activities 2. Were there any unintended affects (positive or negative) due to integrated nature of this program? (addresses unexpected impact) a. environmental b. Community capacity building c. Infrastructure 3. Is there any evidence that shows the program was able to strengthen ties between local population, community groups and local government? a. Look at any critical approaches used to work in this area considering political and security context b. Community capacity building USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 3 Scott Wilson Nepal 4. How did the program approach identifying and addressing needs of women, youth, Dalits and marginalized groups? a. General levels of participation at different stages of planning and implementation b. Specific approaches to ensure inclusion c. Levels or types of participation of previously excluded groups d. Approaches to increase participation of previously excluded groups 5. Assess the sustainability of the change created through program interventions (including technical and financial appropriateness). a. Appropriateness of agriculture technology introduced b. Financial impact – type of financial benefits c. Possibility farmers can expand from program achievements d. Possibility program achievements extend to neighboring farmers e. Replicability of model 3. Evaluation Method: This evaluation will be a rapid appraisal and evaluators should employ a participatory approach when possible. The methodology must provide sufficient information to complete a vigorous Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis. Information can be collected through a review and analysis of secondary information paired with collection and analysis of primary information. Triangulation of findings will be required to address inherent bias. This was a unique project with a wide range of activities and implementing partners. In order to be effectively engaged during the fieldwork, the evaluation team will need to collect and review secondary data early in the process. A desk review must include design and project documents (e.g. planning, baseline and performance reports). The core indicators, targets and achievements identified in the PMP will provide limited information on project outputs and progress. Evaluators should specifically look for additional results-oriented information. Collection of primary data must emphasize a participatory approach with stakeholders and beneficiaries. Semi-structured interviews with focus groups and key informants can be interspersed for flexibility and efficiency. Round tables and short workshops might also be appropriate for assessment and learning with implementing partners, USAID staff and relevant donors. Evaluators should rely on a number of sources and techniques to answer the evaluation questions. See Annex 1 for additional guidance. 4. Performance Information Sources: Documents for desk review • Statement of Work, Project PMP and Work plan • Annual report, quarterly reports, monthly reports, accrual reports • Baseline Studies • Success stories Stakeholders including implementers as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries • Beneficiaries • Participants of training activities, specifically farmer group members, men and women • Project Management Committee of infrastructure • VDC Secretaries of selected VDCs • Local Development Office (LDO), LDO planning officer USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 4 Scott Wilson Nepal • Implementing Sub-contractors • USAID-NFRP Contractor Staff from Fintrac and METCON Other Stakeholders • District Officers of related line agencies (e.g. District Agricultural Office, District Development Committee, District Health Office) • Staff of selected other donor staff (e.g., WFP, ADRA, etc.) • USAID GDO team 5. Timeline & Deliverables: Timeline The timeline for this PO/SOW is February 18, 2011 – April 9, 2011. Given the 33-day period for the consultancy and additional 18 days include some flexibility for unexpected interruptions or non-working days if needed. A six-day workweek is authorized. The team leader and consultants may allocate work time as necessary over the 51-day period. Estimated days Activities 1-4 Documentation review, planning, and initial Kathmandu-based interviews 5-20 Field work (including travel to and from field sites) 21-27 Internal team review of findings and debriefing; prepare and deliver a separate presentation, as scheduled by USAID, to outline major findings / recommendations 28-33 Finalization of draft report The evaluation timeline provided above is a guide that will need to be refined. Submission of the final draft report will be made no later than 20 days after field work is completed. USAID/Nepal will provide comments within 7 working days of the submission of the draft report. A revised final draft will be submitted within 7 working days after receipt of comments from USAID/Nepal. The evaluation report will be final only after it is cleared in writing by USAID/Nepal. Deliverables To make the field time as efficient as possible, preparation must include completing a majority of the documentation review, establishing interview guides, developing team protocol and responsibilities, and establishing the evaluation schedule. Deliverables include a presentation and a final evaluation report with recommendations, as outlined below. 1. Power Point Presentation on important findings & recommendations. 2. Two hard copies of evaluation report, 20-30 pages, not including graphs, diagrams, tables, annexes, cover pages, and table of contents, with good quality spiral binding. 3. A soft copy of evaluation report, in MS word. The evaluation report should demonstrate a clear line of analysis between findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report must be in concise and clear English with visual summaries such as graphics, charts and summary data tables. The Team Leader has the final responsibility for prioritizing which conclusions and recommendations are highlighted in the report. If there are additional recommendations or alternatives in addition to those highlighted, they can be included in an annex. Different perspectives or subject matter expertise within an evaluation team will sometimes lead to a different interpretation of facts. Footnotes may be used to draw attention to USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 5 Scott Wilson Nepal different interpretations of findings. The evaluation team must refer to USAID TIPS on ‘CONSTRUCTING AN EVALUATION REPORT’, NUMBER 17, 1ST EDITION, 2010, for organization of this evaluation report.14 A draft outline must be submitted to USAID/Nepal at the end of Week 1. Figure 1 demonstrates the links that USAID/Nepal expects to see between findings, conclusions and recommendations. 6. Terms and Conditions of the Consultancy: The four consultants of Scott Wilson Nepal Pvt. Ltd. have signed the non-disclosure agreement and have submitted to USAID/Nepal on 11 February 2011. 7. Composition of the Evaluation: The evaluation team is made up of 4 non-USAID development professionals with expertise in infrastructure, agriculture, social inclusion, and community development. The team has a civil engineer, community development specialist, gender and social inclusion and rural infrastructure specialist and expert in project evaluation. The team is familiar with the Nepal context since 1997. The team members have good spoken Nepali skills with one member of the team functionally fluent in spoken Hindi or Maithali. There are two males and two female members in the evaluation team. Scott Wilson Nepal Pvt. Ltd. is not receiving funds from USAID-NFRP and the evaluation team members are not employees of any of the organizations that are receiving funds from USAID-NFRP. Logistics The evaluation team is responsible for managing all logistics required for completing the evaluation. This includes but is not limited to arranging for transportation, meeting venues and appointments for meetings. Consultant’s group personal accident insurance coverage is added to the total cost of the PO. USAID will provide at least one copy of USAID-NFRP planning and reporting documents and may provide other reference material as well. USAID Participation A member of the USAID/Nepal General Development Office Support Team or USAID’s RDMA Bangkok may participate as a an additional member of the team during primary data collection, specifically during SSI with focus groups, key informants, implementing partners. The USAID team participant will manage his/her own logistics through close coordination with the Team Leader. To ensure against bias or conflict of interest, the USAID team member’s role will be limited to participating in the fact-finding phase, and contributing to the analysis. The final responsibility for analysis, conclusions and recommendations will rest with the independent members and Team Leader. 8. Reporting & Dissemination: The evaluation team must provide USAID/Nepal with at least two original hard copies in good quality spiral-bound documents and one electronic version of the presentation and the final report. The electronic version of the final report should be provided in MS Word. The final report may also be provided in PDF format. The final, approved report must be entered in the Development Experience Clearinghouse database (DEC). The evaluation team leader is responsible for submitting the final, 14 Available from: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/evalweb/documents/TIPS-ConstructinganEvaluationReport.pdf USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 6 Scott Wilson Nepal branded and approved report into the DEC. See website for instructions on how to submit reports into the DEC database. 9. Contact Person/Technical Directions: USAID/Nepal Director of General Development Office (GDO) and/or his designee (Shanker Khagi) at skhagi@usaid.gov will act as the COTR or as the in-country point of contact (POC) for this SOW/PO. 10. Period of Performance: The anticipated date of this PO is to begin on 18 February 2011 and to end by 9 April 2011. The period of performance includes some flexibility for unforeseen circumstances such as bandh, strikes. It also includes non-working days. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 7 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 2: Travel Itinerary USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 8 Scott Wilson Nepal Date District VDC Activity 28-2-2011 Kailali Geta • Site assessment of RCC Slab Culvert w/ road upgrading, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with KG participants 1-3-2011 Kanchanpur Pipladi • FGD with LIG farmers • Observation of latrines, ICS • FGD with YC 2-3-2011 Kanchanpur Jhalari • Site assessment of RCC Slab culvert, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • KII with local agrovet • Observation of ICSs • FGD with DPMC 3-3-2011 Kanchanpur Parasa n • Site assessment of Pipe Culvert • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers • Observation of KG • KII with BASE 4-3-2011 Kailali Lalbhoji • Site assessment of Gabion spur, River training/embankment bamboo pilling, FGD with beneficiaries, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • Observation of latrines 5-3-2011 Kailali Joshipu r • Site assessment of Gabion spur, River training/embankment bamboo pilling, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • Observation of latrines • KII with community health worker 6-3-2011 Kailali Pathariy a • Site assessment of 60m bank protection w/gabion, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers • Observation of ICSs • FGD with CBOs 11-3-2011 Bara Birgunj • KII with FORWARD 12-3-2011 Bara Harihar pur • Site assessment of school, KII with teachers • FGD with LIG farmers • Observation of latrine 13-3-2011 Parsa Bagahi • Site assessment of bridge, FGD with USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 9 Scott Wilson Nepal beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers • FDG with DMPC 14-3-2011 Bara Barniya • Site assessment of river training/embankment and RCC culvert, FGD with beneficiaries • Observation of KG • FGD with BLOP participants 15-3-2011 Rautahat Laxman iyapur • Site assessment of Pipe culvert and river channelization work, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • Observation of ICSs • FGD with CBOs 16-3-2011 Rautahat Dumari ya • Site assessment of Gabion spur, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers • KII with agro-vets • Observation of Latrines • FGD of DMPC 17-3-2011 Sunsari Lauki • Site assessment of Pipe Culvert, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers 18-3-2011 Sunsari Sripur • Meeting with Field Technicians at Fintrac Sunsari office • Site assessment of Pipe Culvert and Road upgrading, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers 19-3-2011 Sunsari Haripur • Site assessment of Slab Culvert and Road upgrading, FGD with beneficiaries • FGD with LIG farmers • FGD with LIG non-targeted farmers USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 10 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 3: List of People and Organizations Visited USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 11 Scott Wilson Nepal Date Organization Location Individuals Designation 2011-02- 28 Fintrac Kailali, Dhangadhi Shiva Narayan Tharu Regional coordinator Sarita Thapa Procurement/Administration officer Krishna Pandeya Field economist/Infrastructure officer Menu Shrestha Agriculture technician Mohan Shrestha Engineering Specialist 2011-03- 03 DDC Kanchanpur, Mahendrana gar Keshav Dutta Joshi Assistant CDO 2011-03- 03 DADO Kanchanpur, Mahendrana gar Dharmananda Lekhak Account Officer 2011-03- 03 VDC Kanchanpur, Mahendrana gar Dharmananda Bhatt VDC Secretary 2011-03- 06 BASE Kailali, Dhangadhi Laxman Chaudhary District Coordinator Asha Ram Chaudhary Program Coordinator Lok Jan Chaudhary District Coordinator Yagya Raj Chaudhary Vice Chair Person Reban Chaudhary District Chair Person 2011-03- 06 CCS Kailali, Dhangadhi Prakash Bista Member Nabin Kant Pant Member Dinesh Ras Bhandari Member Karan Ras Pandeya Account Assistant 2011-03- 07 DADO Kailali, Dhangadhi Ram Naresh Sharma Senior Agriculture Development Officer 2011-03- 07 District Administration Office Kailali, Dhangadhi Narayan Prasad Bidari CDO 2011-03- 07 DDC Kailali, Dhangadhi Gokarna Prasad Sharma LDO 2011-03- 07 DPHO Kailali, Dhangadhi Harish Chandra PHO 2011-03- 07 Shree Krishna Agrovet Kailali, Dhangadhi Krishna Sharma Agrovet 2011-03- 11 Forward Bara Bhuvan Chapagain Field Officer NFRP Ram Prasad Dhungana LIG,Regional Officer Sahakarya Pradeep Kumar Secretary USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 12 Scott Wilson Nepal Nepal Thakur Sahakarya Nepal Mukesh Chandra Kushawaha Program Executive Fintrac Omprakash Prasad Jayswal Sub-Engineer RUSEPS-Nepal Firoj Thapa Member RUSEPS-Nepal Dhan Kumar Rai Chair Person IRDC-Nepal Pramod Chaudhary Chair Person Jyoti Consult Dipak Prasad Kanu Director RRAFDC Akabal Miya Chair Person RRAFDC Hari Narayan Shah Executive Director South Consult Er. Baidyanath Kouri Managing Director ECDC Rautahat Dharmendra Paswan Chair Person DYC Parsa Hareram Thakur Accountant 2011-03- 12 Sri Nera Primary School, Hariharpur, Ganga nagar Bara, Hariharpur Makhan Pandit Science Teacher Ram Narayan Ram Nepali Teacher Rajesh Prasad Yadav Teacher of all Subjects Sundaram Sah Teacher of all Subjects Umakanta Prasad Nepali & Science Teacher Rakesh Prasad Mathematics Teacher Naresh Prasad Social Science & Mathematics Teacher Jatanlal Gupta English & Nepali Teacher 2011-03- 13 VDC Meeting Parsa, Bagahi Rajeshwor Prasad Teli VDC Secretary 2011-03- 13 DPHC Parsa Dhowa Raj Prasad Yadav Chair Person Saroj Kumar Kurmi Member Lal Yadav Member Kuber Kumar Dube Member Krishna Patel Member Shanti devi Paswar Member Raj Kumari Paswar Member Ram Devi Kurmi Member Priyanka Kumari Upadhaya Member Lalan Patel Member 2011-03- 13 DADO Parsa Janardan Prasad Mandal Planning Officer 2011-03- 13 District Administration Office Parsa Mr. Nagendra Jha CDO USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 13 Scott Wilson Nepal 2011-03- 14 Patel Store Bara Devendra Kumar Patel Agrovet 2011-03- 14 Krishna Milan Kendra Bara Ramesh Prasad Teli Agrovet 2011-03- 14 DDC Parsa Ramdin Yadav LDO 2011-03- 14 Sahakarya Nepal Parsa Abhisekh Mehata Financial Coordinator Amit Kumar Byahut Fintrac Coordinator Rabindra Kumar Thakur Mam Pradip Kumar Thakur Secretary 2011-03- 15 ECDC Rautahat Ram Suresh Thakur DPC Apindra Kumar Pasawan S.M. Saroj Kumar Jha DPC Sonelal Pasawan Law Officer 2011-03- 15 District Administration Office Rautahat Gajendra Thakur Assistant CDO 2011-03- 15 DDC Rautahat Bishnu Lamichhane LDO 2011-03- 15 DPHO Rautahat Dr. Ram Shankar Thakur PHO Jeevan Kumar Malla Public Health Administration 2011-03- 15 Family Planning Office Rautahat Ramadhar Chaudhary Family Planning Officer Deepak Chaudhary Family Planning Officer 2011-03- 15 IRDC-Nepal Rautahat Pramod Chaudhary Chair Person Narmada Chaudhary Social Mobilizer Ram Babu Chaudhary Program Coordinator 2011-03- 16 DYC Parsa Ram Kanta Patel Program Chief Devendra Thapa Chair Person Sudip Gautam PAF Coordinator Khaniya Prasad Singh Treasure 2011-03- 16 Chaudhary Agrovet Rautahat Ram Sukh Chaudhary Agrovet 2011-03- 16 VDC Meeting Rautahat Ram Brish Chaudhary VDC Secretary Binod Ghimire Community Mobilizer Sanjaya Kumar Chaudhary Program Assistant 2011-03- NFRP Sunsari Ram Prasad JTA, Field Technician USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 14 Scott Wilson Nepal 18 Mandal Ram Babu Shah JTA, Field Technician Chandra Kumari Rai JTA, Field Technician Sabita Bishwas JTA, Field Technician Jhapta Bahadur Basnet JTA, Field Technician Ganga Lal Sah JTA, Field Technician Chhotelal Sah Field Technician Kishor Luitel Field Technician Raj Kumar Dhaulakoti Field Technician Anjan Pathak Field Technician Kartik Lal Chaudhary Field Technician Binod Kumar Mehata Field Technician Sanjay Kumar Mahato Field Technician Rabindra Prasad Yadav Field Technician Mahanthi Yadav Field Technician Gopi Yadav Field Technician Khadga Bahadur Kathwal Field Technician Jagdish Mandal Field Technician 2011-03- 18 VDC Meeting Sunsari Chudamani Guragain VDC Secretary Shambhu Kumar Yadav Forum Lok Tantrik Member Chet Narayan Yadav Lok Tantrik Member Dev Narayan Lahutiya VDC Clerk 2011-03- 30 GWRD Kathmandu Pratp Singh Tater Former Project manager of Ground Water Resource Development Project USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 15 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 4: List of Program Beneficiaries and Non-targeted Community Interviewed USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 16 Scott Wilson Nepal Date VDC s Ward District Compon ents S.No. Participants Designation 2011 -02- 28 Geta 7 Kailali LIG 1 Bujhauni Chaudhary Member 2 Hira Devi Chaudhary Member 3 Bandhu Ram Chaudhary Member 4 Khem Lal Chaudhary Member 2011 -03- 01 Geta 2 Kailali LIG 5 Kebal Singh Chaudhary Field Technician 6 Basanti Chaudhary Member 7 Sita Chaudhary Member 8 Pardeshni Chaudhary Member 9 Jaya Kumar Chaudhary Member Geta 2 Kailali Kitchen Garden 10 Ameli Chaudhary Member 11 Phul Kuimari Rana Member 12 Santara Rana Member 13 Phula Rana Member 14 Dukha Rana Member 15 Premmati Rana Member 16 Nandarani Rana Member 17 Mantora Rana Member 18 Shivrani Rana Member 19 Shanti Chaudhary Member 20 Ramita Chaudhary Member 21 Bindra Rana Member 22 Sabita Rana Member 23 Sundarvati Rana Member 24 Man Bahadur Chaudhary Member 25 Rampyari Chaudhary Member 26 Jugmaya Chaudhary Member 27 Ramdhaniya Chaudhary Member 28 Januka Devi Chaudhary Member 29 Mayabati Chaudhary Member 30 Saguni Rana Member Pipla di 5 Kanchanpur LIG 31 Ram Bahadur Chaudhary Field Technician 32 Hari Prasad Bhatt Chair Person 33 Subdar Lal Chaudhary Member 34 Pardeshu Chaudhary member 35 Rup Singh Chaudhary Member 36 Gahanu Chaudhary Member 37 Punam Chaudhary Member 38 Manika Chaudhary Member 39 Ujyali Chaudhary Member 40 Pashupati Chaudhary Member 41 Jugridevi Chaudhary Member 42 Sudami Chaudhary Member 43 Basudevi Chaudhary Member Pipla di 7 Kanchanpur CBOs 44 Laxman Chaudhary District Coordinator(B ASE) 45 Rajendra Prasad Paneru District reporter 46 Birendra Bam Member 47 Shankar Datta Joshi Member 48 Deepak Raj Bhatt Community Trainer USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 17 Scott Wilson Nepal 49 Prem Bahadur Chand PCO Member 50 Hem Raj Joshi PCO Member 51 Prem Bahadur Pal PCO Member 52 Hari Prasad Bhatt PCO Member 53 Laxmi Rana Member 2011 -03- 02 Pipla di 8 Kanchanpur Youth Club 54 Sona Rana Member 55 Kalabati rana Member 56 Narendra Rana Chair Person 57 Prithivi Raj Pant Joint Secretary 58 Mamta Rana Member Pipla di 8 Kanchanpur LIG 59 Lilabati Rana Member Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur Non Participan ts 60 Dur Khatri Villager 61 Manmati Khatri Villager 62 Kausal Dhami Villager 63 Radhika Khatri Villager 64 Narma Dhami Villager 65 Parvati Dhami Villager Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur LIG 66 Shankar Datta Bhatt JTA 67 Maya Chaudhary Member 68 Kamala Chaudhary Member 69 Sushila Kumari Chaudhary Member 70 Rekha Kumari Chaudhary Member 71 Anita Chaudhary Member 72 Lakshmi Chaudhary Member 73 Gita Chaudhary Member 74 Sangeeta Chaudhary Secretary 75 Kalavati Chaudhary Member 76 Basanti Chaudhary Member 77 Gauri Chaudhary Member 78 Tara Chaudhary Member Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur Kitchen Garden 79 Dropati Chaudhary Member 80 Gita Chaudhary Member 81 Dili Chaudhary Member 82 Suknidevi Chaudhary Member 83 Pashupati Chaudhary Member 84 Janaki Chaudhary Member 85 Rama Chaudhary Member 86 Rima Chaudhary Member 87 Laxmi Chaudhary Member 88 Bhaunidevi Chaudhary Member 89 Kamala Devi Chaudhary Member 90 Jokhidevi Chaudhary Member 91 Dewarniya Chaudhary Member 92 Tripali Chaudhary Member 93 Nima Chaudhary Member 94 Menuka Chaudhary Member 95 Kalawati Devi Chaudhary Member 96 Bhagwati Chaudhary Member Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur Infrastruct ure 97 Jogi Raj Aiyar Villager Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur SHN 98 Batuwa Devi Rana Member Jhala 4 Kanchanpur BLOP 99 Bina Chaudhary Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 18 Scott Wilson Nepal ri 100 Ram Dulari Chaudhary Member 101 Sunat Kumar Chaudhary Member 102 Parvati Kumari Chaudhary Member 103 Basanti Kumari Chaudhary Member 104 Parvati Chaudhary Member 105 Shabitri Chaudhary Member 106 Sita Chaudhary Member Jhala ri 4 Kanchanpur Youth Club 107 Dal Bahadur Chaudhary Member 108 Dushant Chaudhary Member 109 Varthari Chaudhary Member 110 Harilal Chaudhary Member 111 Dilli Chaudhary Chai Person 112 Mani Ram Chaudhary Member 113 Kali Chaudhary Member 114 Reban Chaudhary District Chair Person 115 Hawaldar Chaudhary Community Trainer 116 Krishna Chaudhary Member 2011 -03- 03 Para san 2 Kanchanpur BLOP 117 Dibya Rana Member 118 Rasmi Rana Member 119 Raj Kumari Rana Member 120 Suntali Rana Member 121 Pushpa Rana Member 122 Sanita Rana Member 123 Manisha Rana Member 124 Rajmati Rana Member 125 Sapana Rana Member 126 Punam Rana Member 127 Sapana Rana Member 128 Rebati Rana Member 129 Sarita Rana Member 130 Usha Rana Member 131 Sontara Rana Member Para san 2 Kanchanpur Kitchen Garden 132 Janamati Rana Member 133 Ashiya Rana Member 134 Dropati Rana Member Para san 2 Kanchanpur Non Participan ts 135 Narayan Rana Villager 136 Ramkali Rana Villager Para san 2 Kanchanpur YC+CBO s 137 Hawaldar Tharu Field Coordinator 138 Karan Bedi Rana Trainer 139 Nirdeshika Rana Member 140 Nagina Rana Member 141 Reshma Rana Member 142 Kanhaiya Rana Chair Person 143 Rajendra Rana Treasurer 144 Raj Kumar Member 145 Bal Krishna Rana Member 2011 -03- 04 Thap apur Kailali DPMC 146 Rekha Chaudhary Field Trainer 147 Manoj Chaudhary Chair Person 148 Runchi Devi Chaudhary Member 149 Manturiya Chaudhary Vice Chair USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 19 Scott Wilson Nepal Person 150 Jyoti Devi Chaudhary Member 151 Mina Chaudhary Member 152 Rejina Chaudhary Member 153 Raj Kumar Chaudhary Member 154 Shankar Chaudhary Member 155 Subharu Chaudhary Member 156 Nar Bahadur Chaudhary Member 157 Kharak Bahadur Chaudhary Member 158 Raj Kumar Chaudhary Member 159 Bahadur Dangaura Member 160 Bir Bahadur Chaudhary Member 161 Hari Bahadur Chaudhary Member 162 Dekhuwa Chaudhary Member 163 Ramu Chaudhary Member Lalbo jhi 6 Kailali LIG 164 Bahadur Dangaura Member 165 Ramu Chaudhary Member 166 Hari Bahadur Chaudhary Member Lalbo jhi 5 Kailali BLOP 167 Rita Chaudhary Member 168 Roma Chaudhary Member 169 Bipana Chaudhary Member 170 Goma Chaudhary Member 171 Rabina Chaudhary Member 172 Sushila Chaudhary Member 173 Rina Chaudhary Member 174 Rabina Chaudhary Member 175 Yashoda Chaudhary Member 176 Ayushma Chaudhary Member 177 Bishnu Chaudhary Member 178 Bina Chaudhary Member 179 Sunita Chaudhary Member 180 Gita Chaudhary Member Lalbo jhi 4 Kailali CBOs 181 Shankar Bahadur Thapa Secretary 182 Ganga Devi Chaudhary Chair Person 183 Lakshman Chaudhary Member 184 Dhan Bahadur Chaudhary Member 185 Hari Ram Chaudhary Member 186 Bir Bahadur Chaudhary Member 187 Padam Bahadur Raji Member 188 Bahadur Ram Chaudhary Member 189 Tika Devi Chaudhary Treasurer 190 Thagrani Chaudhary Member 191 Rampati Devi Chaudhary Member 192 Navakrishna Devi Chaudhary Member 193 Manisha Devi Chaudhary Member 194 Khajrani Devi Chaudhary Member 195 Shobha Devi Dangaura Member 196 Phul Kumari Chaudhary Member 197 Ram Krishna Chaudhary Member 198 Jogini Biswakarma Member 199 Maya Devi Chaudhary Member 200 Sulochana Devi Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 20 Scott Wilson Nepal Chaudhary 201 Chanmati Devi Chaudhary Member 202 Kamala Devi Chaudhary Member Lalbo jhi 5 Kailali Youth Club 203 Bir Bahadur Hamal Ex-Chair Person of VDC 204 Nabina Kumari Chaudhary Member 205 Menuka Chaudhary Member 206 Jayanti Chaudhary Member 207 Lauki Chaudhary Member 208 Putali Chaudhary Member 209 Pooja Chaudhary Member 210 Suresh Himal Chair Person 211 Suresh Chaudhary Secretary 212 Moti Ram Chaudhary Vice Chair Person 213 Naresh Yadav Joint Secretary 214 Binod Chaudhary Member 215 Koj Raj Chaudhary Advisory Member Lalbo jhi 6 Kailali Infrastruct ure 216 Desh Raj Tharu Community Leader 217 Tej Rani Devi Community Member 218 Pushpa Chaudhary Member Lalbo jhi 5 Kailali Youth Club 219 Yagya Raj Chaudhary Member 220 Bidar Chaudhary Member 221 Rabin Kumar Chaudhary Member 222 Menuka Chaudhary Member 223 Jyanti Chaudhary Member 224 Nauthi Chaudhary Member 225 Pooja Chaudhary Member 226 Pushpa Kumari Chaudhary Member 2011 -03- 05 Joshi pur 3 Kailali Infrastruct ure 227 Mahesh Regmi VDC Secretary 228 Yam Bahadur Sarki Villager 229 Dambar Bahadur Budha Villager 230 Ganga Devi Chaudhary Villager 231 Sita Devi Chaudhary Villager 232 Sima Devi Chaudhary Villager 233 Basanti Devi Chaudhary Villager 234 Bhagi Ram Dangaura Villager 235 Bishnu Das Chaudhary Villager 236 Ram Dulari Villager 237 Rani Chaudhary Villager 238 Thagani Devi Chaudhary Villager 239 Mina Chaudhary Villager Joshi pur 3 Kailali CBOs 240 Babu Ram Tharu Member 241 Dhani Ram Chaudhary Member 242 Ayodhya Tharu Chair Person 243 Tinkan Das Chaudhary Secretary 244 Sugmani Devi Chaudhary Member 245 Kummati Chaudhary Member Joshi 5 Kailali Non 246 Sobha Chaudhary Villager USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 21 Scott Wilson Nepal pur Participan ts 247 Matirani Chaudhary Villager 248 Group Das Chaudhary Villager 249 Budhram Chaudhary Villager 250 Man Bahadur Chaudhary Villager 251 Ram Bahadur Chaudhary Villager 252 Bhiku Das Chaudhary Villager Joshi pur 5 Kailali Youth Club 253 Rima Mahara Member 254 Pabitra Kathayat Secretary 255 Sundar Chaudhary Member 256 Nain Bahadur Chaudhary Secretary General 257 Padam Chaudhary Chair Person 258 Bhim Bahadur Chaudhary Member 259 Sher Singh Chaudhary Member 260 Kali Charan Chaudhary Vice Chair Person 261 Prakash Pariyar Member 262 Surendra Mahara Member 263 Yagya Pariyar Member 264 Shankar Chaudhary Member 265 Govinda Pariyar Member 266 Prakash Kathayat Member 267 Sabita Chaudhary Member Joshi pur 5 Kailali BLOP 268 Pooja Chaudhary Member 269 Kumari Chaudhary Member 270 Kajal Chaudhary Member 271 Shila Chaudhary Member 272 Asha Chaudhary Member 273 Karishma Chaudhary Member 274 Sunita Chaudhary Member 275 Maya Chaudhary Member 276 Anita Chaudhary Member 277 Sima Chaudhary Member 278 Pramila Chaudhary Member 279 Manisha Chaudhary Member Joshi pur 5 Kailali DPMC 280 Ganesh Prasad Chaudhary Chai Person 281 Balkisun Chaudhary Secretary 282 Shri Krishna Chaudhary Member 283 Bimala Devi Chaudhary Member 284 Desh Rani Devi Chaudhary Member 285 Gurahi Devi Chaudhary Member 286 Dhanmaya Chaudhary Member 287 Shanta Devi Chaudhary Member Joshi pur 5 Kailali CBOs 288 Ayodhya Prasad Chaudhary Chair Person 289 Dhani Ram Chaudhary Member 290 Shugmani Devi Chaudhary Member 291 Phulmati Devi Chaudhary Member 292 Chinkandas Chaudhary Secretary Joshi pur 5 Kailali LIG 293 Kalicharan Chaudhary Member 294 Chinkandas Chaudhary Member 295 Ram Bahadur Chaudhary Member 296 Phansiram Kathayat Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 22 Scott Wilson Nepal 297 Tulsiram Chaudhary Member 298 Dhanmaya Chaudhary Member 299 Deshrani Chaudhary Member 300 Shanta Devi Chaudhary Member 301 Ram Dalari Chaudhary Member 302 Narendra Bahadur Chaudhary Member 303 Tejman Dangaura Member 2011 -03- 06 Pathr aiya 4 Kailali Youth Club 304 Khusi Ram Chaudhary Chair Person 305 Gita Chaudhary Vice Chair Person 306 Khusi Ram Chaudhary Secretar 307 Basant Chand Joint Secretary 308 Dil Kumari Chaudhary Treasurer 309 Samiksha Chaudhary Member 310 Pushpa Chaudhary Member 311 Rajendra Chaudhary Member 312 Dinesh Chaudhary Member 313 Subash Chaudhary Member 314 Ramita Chaudhary Member 315 Ramlal Chaudhary Member 316 Samjhana Chaudhary Member 317 Phul Kumari Chaudhary Member 318 Phul Kumari Chaudhary Member 319 Ganga Chaudhary Member 320 Krishna Chaudhary Member 321 Nirmala Chaudhary Member 322 Jagatram Chaudhary Member 323 Raj Kumari Chaudhary Member 324 Mahima Chaudhary Member 325 Binika Chaudhary Member 326 Pushpa Chaudhary Member Pathr aiya 4 Kailali BLOP 327 Pushpa Chaudhary Member 328 Phul Kumari Chaudhary Member 329 Phul Kumari Chaudhary Member 330 Samiksha Chaudhary Member 331 Pushpa Chaudhary Member 332 Ganga Chaudhary Member 333 Samjhana Chaudhary Member 334 Raj Kumari Chaudhary Member 335 Rabina Chaudhary Member 336 Sushila Khati Member Pathr aiya 4 Kailali Race Nagarik Samuha 337 Guleli Devi Chaudhary Chair Person 338 Anug Chaudhary Vice Chair Person 339 Dil Kumari Chaudhary Secretary 340 Gopi Chaudhary Joint Secretary 341 Sabali Devi Chaudhary Treasurer 342 Gita Chaudhary Member 343 Mina Chaudhary Member 344 Kalpana Chaudhary Member 345 Nisha Chaudhary Member 346 Jugari Chaudhary Member 347 Premi Chaudhary Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 23 Scott Wilson Nepal 348 Janaki Chadhary Member 349 Ram Dulari Chaudhary Member 350 Sunkeshari Chaudhary Member 351 Krishna Chaudhary Member 352 Mushya Chaudhary Member 353 Parvati Chaudhary Member 354 Lakshmi Ram Chaudhary Member 355 Karishma Chaudhary Member 356 Dhruba Chaudary Member 357 Chunna Devi Chaudhary Member 358 Sukhli Chaudhary Member Pathr aiya 4 Kailali Shiva Samuha 359 Mangu Chaudhary Member 360 Reshma Chaudhary Member 361 Jungri Chaudhary Member 362 Keshu Chaudhary Member 363 Parvati Chaudhary Member 364 Shanti Chaudhary Member 365 Asha Chaudhary Member 366 Mukhali Chaudhary Member 367 Ramdayal Chaudhary Member 368 Shukanidevi Chaudhary Member 369 Shobha Chaudhary Member 370 Tesh Devi Chaudhary Member 371 Maya Chaudhary Member Pathr aiya 4 Kailali Infrastruct ure 372 Janak Bahadur Ale Magar Villager 373 Chandra Devi Sijamati Magar Villager 374 Lalita Devi Ale Magar Villager 375 Durga Devi Ale Magar Villager 376 Tulsi Gharta Magar Villager 377 Kamala Salami Magar Villager 378 Pabitra Rana Magar Villager 379 Bishnu Rawal Villager 380 Nabaraj Salami Magar Villager 381 Krishna Sijapati Magar Villager 382 Tulsi Rana Magar Villager 383 Lalsari Salami Magar Villager 384 Kalawati Ale Magar Villager 385 Ganga Ale Magar Villager 386 Bishnu Sijawati Magar Villager 387 Maishara Ale Magar Villager 388 Man Bahadur Salami Magar Villager 389 Man Kala Salami Magar Villager 390 Chakra Bahadur Shahi Villager 391 Dhan Bahadur Ale magar Villager 2011 -03- 12 Harih arpur Bara Non Participan ts 392 Nagindar ram Villager 393 Inus Ansari Villager 394 Jametra Kumar Yadav Villager 395 Sat Narayan Pandit Villager 396 Ajaya Kumar Yadav Villager 397 Hari Chandra Shah Villager 398 Jagadish Pandit Villager USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 24 Scott Wilson Nepal Harih arpur 1,2,3 Bara LIG 399 Mohan Kumar Yadav Member 400 Laku Pandit Member 401 Jumai Ansari Member 402 Girish Ansari Member 403 Jhaharu Ansari Member 404 Shyambu Lal Yadav Member 405 Gauri Shambu Yadav Member 406 Bhupendra Prasad Yadav Member 407 Bikram Pandit Member 408 Rajesh Shah Member 409 Kashi Raj Yadav Member 410 Sita Devi Yadav Member 411 Rita Devi Member 412 Ram Shravan Yadav Member 413 Satnarayan Yadav Member 414 Akshya Lal Shah Member 415 Biju Nath Shah Member Kitchen Garden 416 Manakiya Devi Member 417 Phul Kumari Ram Member 418 Shardha Devi Ram Member 419 Mushlima Khatun Member 420 Shanti Ram Member 421 Phul Jhari Devi Ram Member 422 Bedabi Ram Member 423 Koshila Devi Ram Member 424 Mana Shikshya Devi Ram Member 425 Rita Devi Ram Member 2011 -03- 13 Baga hi Parsa LIG 426 Ram Kantha Raut Member 427 Nagendra Rai Member 428 Shambu Rai Member 429 Nag Narayan Prasad Raut Member 430 Arjun Thakur Member 431 Pramod Prasad Member 432 Shiv Shankar Shah Member 433 Ambika Thakur Member 434 Bhagwati Shah Member 435 Ram Nath Raut Member 2011 -03- 14 Barni ya 5 Bara LIG 436 Umesh Kumar Shah Member 437 Kamundra Muniya Member 438 Ram Naresh Pandit Member 439 Ram Babu Shah Member 440 Sushil Kumar Member 441 Aload Kishor Kushwaha Member 442 Jyoti Devi Member 443 Rabijan Khatun Member BLOP 444 Neelam Kumari Shah Member 445 Umrawati Shah Member 446 Umrawati Kumari Pandit Member 447 Poonam Kumari Pandit Member 448 Pratima Kumari Pandit Member 449 Rinku Kumari Mahato Member 450 Neelam Kumari Pandit Member 451 Meena Kumari Pandit Member 452 Roshani Kumari Sharma Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 25 Scott Wilson Nepal 453 Tetra Kumari Pandit Member 454 Meena Kumari Baetha Member 455 Sir Kumari Pandit Member 456 Arati Kumari Pandit Member 2011 -03- 15 Laxm ania 4 Rautahat LIG 457 Dev Chandra Chaudhary Member 458 Suresh Chaudhary Member 459 Upendra Chaudhary Member 460 Durga Chaudhary Member 461 Damanti Chaudhary Member 462 Parvati Chaudhary Member 463 Suryawati Chaudhary Member 464 Dev Kumari Member 465 Kismati Devi Thakur Member 466 Birendra Chaudhary Member CBO 467 Chandrika Prasad Chaudhary Chair Person 468 Hari Narayan Chaudhary Secretary 469 Parash Sah Member 470 Nanda Lal Giri Member 471 Achaya Lal Chaudhary Member Non Participan ts 472 Ram Prasad Chaudhary Villager 473 Hem Pukar Chaudhary Villager 474 Dwarika Chaudhary Villager 475 Damodar Prasad Chaudhary Villager 2011 -03- 16 Paur ahi Rautahat Infrastruct ure 476 Ram Lal Chaudhary Villager 477 Chhabi Lala Chaudhary Villager 478 Sikhnandan Sadhwi Villager 479 Rajendra Chaudhary Villager 480 Pikau Dhami Villager 481 Madhav Prasad Chaudhary Villager Dum ariya Rautahat Infrastruct ure 482 Ram Brish Bogati Villager Dum ariya Rautahat Youth Club 483 Mandip Chaudhary Member 484 Ram Biswash Kumar Sah Member 485 Durga Kumar Chaudhary Joint Secretary 486 Sharmila Chaudhary Member 487 Ramita Chaudhary Member 488 Mayawati Kumari Chaudhary Member 489 Dharmendra Ram Yadav Chair Person 490 Jitendra Thakur Treasure 491 Parvati Sah Vice Chair Person 492 Satrudhin Karna Secretary Dum ariya Rautahat CBO 493 Amar Kumar Chaudhary Chair Person 494 Lakshmi Narayan Chaudhary Secretary 495 Asmita Chaudhary Member 496 Sabita Chaudhary Member 497 Sushil Kumar Chaudhary Member 498 Mina Kumari Chaudhary Member 499 Sarita Kumari Chaudhary Member 500 Maya Kuamri Chaudhary Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 26 Scott Wilson Nepal 501 Manisha Kuamri Chaudhary Member 502 Sunita Kumari Chaudhary Member 503 Shriya Shrestha Member Dum ariya Rautahat LIG 504 Raj Kumar Mahato Member 505 Joharu Mahato Member 506 Ram Prasad Patel Member 507 Chanauthi Mahato Member 508 Abadh Patel Member 509 Ram Prasad Mahato Member 510 Nathini Das Member 511 Binod Mahato Member 512 Jaya Lal Mahato Member Dum ariya Rautahat CBO 513 Lakshmi Narayan Chaudhary Member 514 Amar Chaudhary Member 515 Sushil Kumar Yadav Member 516 Meena Yadav Member 517 Champa KC Member 518 Shanta Adhikary Member 519 Maya Kuamri Chaudhary Member 520 Manisha Kuamri Chaudhary Member 521 Sabita Kumari Chaudhary Member 2011 -03- 17 Lauki Sunsari LIG 522 Rup Narayan Shah Member 523 Ram Prasad Yadav Member 524 Kapileshwor Yadav Member 525 Bindeshwor Yadav Member 526 Jyoti lal Yadav Member 527 Shaini Das Uraon Member 528 Manoj Kumar Mandal Member 529 Ridaya Narayan Yadav Member 530 Ram Babu Shah Field Technician Sunsari Non Participan t 531 Bal Bhadra Mandal Villager 2011 -03- 18 Sripu r Sunsari Communi ty Users 532 Ajaya Kumar Kusiyait Member 533 Upendra Sada Villager 534 Subhad Lal Sada Villager 535 Lakhichun Sada Villager 536 Pramod Kumar Ram Villager 537 Rameswor Ram Villager 538 Dharmender Sharma Villager 539 Arjun Sada Villager 540 Gulab Chand Sada Villager 541 Bishun Dev Sharma Villager 542 Supan Sada Villager 543 Arjun Kumar Yadav Villager 544 Arbinda Yadav Villager 545 Krish Lal Sada Villager 546 Rajendra Khadga Villager 547 Manoj Yadav Villager 548 Chalitur Sada Villager 549 Mohan Sada Villager 550 Shyam Sada Villager USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 27 Scott Wilson Nepal 551 Lalchan Sada Villager 552 Gokai Sada Villager 553 Mangal Sharma Villager 554 Kantlal Sada Villager 555 Dinesh Sharma Villager 556 Guletan Sada Villager 557 Lalwati Ram Villager 558 Murti Devi Ram Villager 559 Chini Lal Sada Villager Sripu r Sunsari LIG 560 Krishna Yadav Member 561 Ram Yadav Member 562 Bhabneshwor Yadav Member 563 Ram Kishan Yadav Member 564 Indra Das Yadav Member 565 Jay Narayan yadav Member 566 Rajesh Yadav Member 567 Saratan yadav Member 568 Dev Kushi Yadav Member 2011 -03- 19 Harip ur 6 Sunsari LIG 569 Ratru Devi Member 570 Anita Devi Member 571 Mala Member 572 Birendra Yadav Member 573 Dinesh Yadav Member 574 Umesh Tadav Member 575 Bal Krishna Meheta Member 576 Bhomreshwor Yadav Member 577 Ram Chandra Yadav Member 578 Hari Lal Yadav Member 579 Bal Krishna Yadav Member 580 Mahadev Yadav Member 581 Shakumti Devi Yadav Member USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 28 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 5: Voices from Partner Organizations USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 29 Scott Wilson Nepal Pramod Chaudhary, Chairperson of Integrated Rural Development Centre (IRDC), Rautahat, points out that river training measures have provided safety for the villagers (eg. Dumariaya), culverts have allowed students to go to School as well as ensured villagers have year round access to sell their vegetables at local markets. He however also points out that with regards to the CBOs, there have been organizations that have been involved in their creation. But, only a few have gone on to actually function properly and get involved in community activities. According to him, this is primarily due to the short duration of the trainings and the lack of follow-up support. Dharmendra Paswan, Chairperson of Environment and Children Development Council (ECDC), Rautahat. ECDC was involved for both KG and the installation of ICS program. In Laxmaniya, he accepts that poor technical support provided for the ICS have resulted in its disuse. While, with regards to the KG program, he finds that many villagers face irrigation problems. Baidyanath Koiri ,Managing Director of South Consult, Parsa, is very happy working with Fintrac. Especially, now they have been able to build up their profile and have gotten other projects. He appreciated the action orientated modality, less paper work requirements and the prompt decisions. The biggest challenge for them was however the VAT reimbursements, which took over 8 months. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 30 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 6: Case Studies USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 31 Scott Wilson Nepal Box 1: LIG empowers Sarita Chaudhary "I would not be able to start the commercial vegetable farming on my own, without the support of USAID. Life has changed a lot for me" Sarita Chaudary Sarita Chaudhary, 35 yrs, of Beldanda in Jhalari VDC has recently started farming vegetables commercially. On her farm, she grows a variety of vegetables such as tomato, cucumber, pumpkins, and bitter gourd. As a part of the USAID/NFRP program she was provided with training as well as supported with seeds and a group irrigation system through the provision of a STW and motorized water pump. According to Sarita, life has changed for the better. She recounts that though her workload has increased, her earnings are comparatively higher than before. She points out, “I have a gross profit of NRs 18,000 to NRs 20,000 per season. Out of that, I have started saving Rs. 100 to Rs. 150 on the monthly basis through our Mothers’ Saving Group.” She further adds, "Since, my husband is primarily busy working as an electrician, the responsibility of farming falls on me. As a result, I have to manage the vegetables as well as the expenses and incomes. I am happy doing both”. Box 2: Strengthening Confidence Suntali Chaudhary is a BLOP participant, who dreams of becoming an army officer. She says that the trainings, has helped her to build her confidence and has motivated her to continue following her dreams. According to her one of the greatest change, which she attributes to the BLOP classes, has been the discussions she held with her mother over her menstruation cycle and being allowed to enter the kitchen. She says that it was not easy, but the BLOP classes and discussions with her fellow participants gave her the confidence and backup to take up the issue. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 32 Scott Wilson Nepal Box 3: Leasing out land to be a part of LIG group “I leased 6 kattha of land from a landlord in Sripur, to become a part of the LIG program. I have to pay 15 mann of rice or NRs 6,000 annually. But, at the same time I made over NRs 40,000 during the last season” Bal K. Mahato Bal Krishna Mahato, Haripur VDC (Sunsari), made approximately NRs 40,000 during the 2nd crop cycle by selling his vegetables. He recounts that this is much more that what he was earning as a wage labourer in Punjab (India), where he used to go annually in search of work. According to Mr Mahato, when he first heard about the LIG program and the provision of inputs, he desperately wanted to become a part of the scheme. But, was told he did not have enough land. Seeking a way in, he along with 7 other farmers, managed to lease out 45 kattha of land and convince the USAID/NFRP to let them join the program. Presently, he is cultivating vegetables on 6 khttha of land and is paying a yearly amount of 15 mann of rice or its equivalent of NRs 6,000 for the lease. He says, he is much happier now than when he was working as a labourer in India. Not, only is he making more money, but is more significantly, able to be with his family. Box 4: Failing to reach out to the Poor “I wanted to be a part of the LIG group. But, I was told that I did not have enough land. Seeing the benefits that the others are gaining.” Tiliya Devi Thakur and her family of Hariharpur VDC (Sunsari) were severely affected by the floods that occurred in 2008. It damaged her home and swept away most of her belongings. Her family was provided cash, amounting to NRs 50,000, by the government. But, according to Tiliya Devi, she used the money to marry off her eldest daughter instead. Her daughter was 14 yrs of age, which according to Tillya Devi, is a good age for marrying as they did not have to provide much dowry. She does however state that she wanted to participate in the LIG program, as it offered an opportunity to gain new skills and earn income. But, she points out that she could not, as she did not have enough land (at least 0.2 ha ~ 5 katthas). She only has 2 katthas. Presently, her family is barely able to make ends meet. Tiliya Devi is working as a wage laborer for NRs 80 per day, while her husband is a rickshaw driver in Dharan. She states that even her eldest son, 12 yrs, has gone to Punjab (India) to work in a Jute mill. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 33 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 7: Photographs USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 34 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 35 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 36 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 37 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 38 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 39 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 40 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 41 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 42 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 43 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 44 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 45 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 46 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 47 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 48 Scott Wilson Nepal USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 49 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 8: Checklist for LIG Beneficiaries USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 50 Scott Wilson Nepal Need identification 1 Was a PRA carried out in the VDC to understand the needs of the local community? If so, When was it carried out after the floods? What was identified by the community as being priorities? 2 How did the project staff match the needs of the community with project objectives? Selection of Farmers Groups 1 How did the farmers come to know about the LIG component of the project? 2 What did the project staff tell you about the criteria of becoming involved in the project activities? - Mechanisms? 3 Were there any specific approaches applied by the project to include women and different marginalized groups? 4 Are the farmers aware of others who wanted to be a part of the project but were not included? Why? What reasons did the project staff provide? Involvement in the project 1 How was the location of the STWs decided? - By whom? – How? 2 Was there any conflict in deciding the location of the STWs? If so, how was the issue addressed? 3 What types of cost sharing mechanisms were implemented? ‐ Total cost of pumps? ‐ Funds provided by the farmer groups? 4 What types of input support were provided by the project? a. Trainings – Were the trainers knowledgeable? - Did you understand what was being taught? b. HVC Seeds – How were the seeds distributed? Costs? c. Fertilizers – What type of fertilizers do the farmers use? Chemical? Organic? Why? d. Pesticide control – How do the farmers e. Marketing – What type of support did the project provide? 5 Did all the farmers plant the HVCs that were advised by the project? If yes, a. What type of crops did the farmers plan? b. Why did the farmers not plant these crops before the project? Reasons? If not, a. Why did the farmers not follow the advice of the project? Reasons? Production 1 By how much has the production from the lands changed after the project? 2 By how much has the cost of the inputs changed? -Seeds-Fertilizers-Pesticides-Labour 3 Credit? ‐ Do you have any sources of credit? ‐ Have any Saving and Credit groups been established? ‐ If so, then what is the interest rate of loans? Marketing 1 Where do you sell your produce? - Have there been any changes in the location/method of selling the produce? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 51 Scott Wilson Nepal -How far do you have to travel? (in hrs/kms) 2 Are the farmers aware of the prices that are being provided? 3 How has the project supported farmers in marketing activities? 4 How do the farmers become aware of the prices? ‐ Do they listen to the FM updates? ‐ Are the updates reliable? ‐ How do the farmers make use of the FM up dates? ‐ If they do not listen to the up dates, then why not? 5 What prices are the farmers receiving for their produce? Do any farmers have any type of contracts with “thekedars” (middle men)? If so, how did they establish the contracts? Outcomes 1 By what percentage has the monthly/annual income changed as a result of the project? ‐ Before how much were your annual earnings? ‐ What was the cost of the inputs? ‐ After the implementation of the project, how much is your earnings? ‐ What is the cost of the inputs? 2 Present Household expenditure? (In %) ‐ Food ‐ Education ‐ Health ‐ Agriculture inputs ‐ House improvement ‐ Entertainment 3 How have you utilizing the extra money that you have earned? ‐ Food ‐ Education ‐ Health ‐ Agriculture inputs ‐ House improvement Entertainment 4 Have any if the farmers bought land? If their incomes have increased? -If so, how may ha? Sustainability 1 STWs ‐ Are all the pumps operating? ‐ Are the materials required for maintenance available locally? 2 HVC Seeds ‐ Are the HVC seeds available from the local markets? Were there any shortages? ‐ Where/from whom do the farmers buy the seeds? ‐ How much are the seeds? ‐ Has the price of the seeds increased since the start of the project? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 52 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 9: Checklist for SLO USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 53 Scott Wilson Nepal A. Implementing partner NGOs Selection of the organization members 1 How many members were trained? ‐ Men? ‐ Women? ‐ Socially marginalized? 2 How were the participants selected for the training? Trainings/Support 3 What types of trainings were provided to the participants? 4 How did the capacity building trainings identify the areas to strengthen? 5 Besides the trainings, what other types of support were provided? If seed money was provided, ‐ How much? ‐ What was the intention behind the provision of seed money? Other types of support? ‐ What? ‐ How is the support being used? 6 After the completion of the trainings, what outcomes do you find from the participants? 7 Are there any means through which the Youth groups have been able to form linkages with local governments? B. Youth Groups Strengthening local organizations: 1 Did the capacity building trainings address what you expected from such a program? 2 Did the program support your organization to meet the organizations objectives? 3 Besides the trainings, what other types of support was provided to the organization? ‐ Seed money? ‐ Furniture? 4 What are the strengths of the trainings? 5 What were some of the weakness of the trainings? 6 Would you recommend others to participate in the training? Outcomes 1 After the trainings, what activities have the organization initiated/implemented? ‐ No. of programs? ‐ Types of programs? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 54 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 10: Checklist for Kitchen Garden USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 55 Scott Wilson Nepal A. NGOs Selection of the Hhs 1 How many Hhs were supported/trained in Kitchen garden? 2 How were the Hhs selected for the support? - Criteria 3 Were Hhs which are also a part of the LIG component selected? 4 Total number of Hhs supported? 5 Total number of Hhs belonging to socially disadvantaged groups? - Female headed households? Support/Trainings 1 What was the main objective of the kitchen gardens? 2 What types of trainings were provided to the Hhs? 3 Were the Hhs supported through the provision of inputs? -Seeds- Fertilizers-Pesticides Outcomes 1 What are the main outcomes from the kitchen gardens? 2 Has there been a change in the diet of the Hhs? Evaluation 1 What are the strengths of this component? 2 What challenges did the project face? B. Households Selection of the Hhs 1 How did you come to know about the kitchen garden? 2 How was your Hh selected? 3 Did all the Hhs in your ward get selected? Support 1 What type of support was provided for the improvement of the kitchen gardens? ‐ Trainings ‐ Seeds ‐ Fertilizers ‐ Pest control 2 How has the crop pattern changed after the kitchen garden trainings? Outcomes 1 What have been the main changes after the kitchen garden trainings? 2 Have there been any changes in the diet of the Hhs? 3 Would you recommend others to be involved in the kitchen garden trainings? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 56 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 11: Checklist for ICS USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 57 Scott Wilson Nepal A. NGOs Selection of the Hhs 1 How many ICS were constructed in the VDC? 2 How were the Hhs selected for the support? 3 Total number of Hhs supported? 4 Total number of Hhs belonging to socially disadvantaged groups? Support 1 How much does it cost to construct the ICS? ‐ What type of support was provided by the project? ‐ What type of contribution did the Hhs provide? 2 Do you observe the construction of latrines in neighboring Hhs, which were not supported by the project? If yes, ‐ How many? How did they construct the latrines? Utilization 1 Are the Hhs using the ICS? If no, What are the reasons for the latrines not being used? 2 Do you observe a changes in ‐ Usage of fuel used for cooking? Outcomes 1 What % decrease of smoke has taken place after the construction of the ICS? 2 How has it affected the health of the Hh memebers? Evaluation 1 What are the strengths of this component? 2 What challenges did the project face? B. Households Selection of the Hhs 1 How did you come to know about the latrine construction project? 2 How was your Hh selected? 3 Did all the Hhs in your ward get selected? Cost 1 How much did the ICS cost to construct? ‐ Total cost? ‐ Support provided by the project? ‐ Contribution of the Hh? Utilization 1 Do you and your family members use the ICS? If no, - What are the reasons for not using the ICS? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 58 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex12: Checklist for Latrines USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 59 Scott Wilson Nepal A. NGOs Selection of the Hhs 1 How many latrines were constructed in the VDC? - Permanent or Temporary? 2 How were the Hhs selected for the support? 3 Total number of Hhs supported? 4 Total number of Hhs belonging to socially disadvantaged groups? Support 1 How much does it cost to construct the latrines? ‐ What type of support was provided by the project? ‐ What type of contribution did the Hhs provide? Utilization 1 Are the Hhs using the latrines? If no, What are the reasons for the latrines not being used? 2 Do you observe a change in the hygiene of the VDC inhabitants? If yes, What type of changes? 3 Do you observe the construction of latrines in neighboring Hhs, which were not supported by the project? If yes, ‐ How many? ‐ How did they construct the latrines? Awareness 1 Were any health and sanitation awareness programs conducted? If yes, ‐ What type of trainings? ‐ How many programs? Evaluation 1 What are the strengths of this component? 2 What challenges did the project face? B. Households Selection of the Hhs 1 Do you have a latrine? If yes, What type: permanent or temporary? 2 How did you come to know about the latrine construction project? 3 How was your Hh selected? 4 Did all the Hhs in your ward get selected? Cost 1 How much did the latrine cost to construct? ‐ Total cost? ‐ Support provided by the project? ‐ Contribution of the Hh? Utilization 1 Do you and your family members use the latrines? If no, - What are the reasons for not using the latrines? 2 Do you have a source of water to keep the latrines clean? Awareness USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 60 Scott Wilson Nepal 1 Have any health and sanitation awareness programs been conducted? If so, ‐ Who/which organizations? ‐ What type of programs? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 61 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 13: Checklist for BLOP USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 62 Scott Wilson Nepal A. NGOs Issues 1 What are the main women and children issues in the community? 2 Is there a history of domestic violence against women? If yes, ‐ What type? ‐ Incidences? 3 Have there been reports of women being accused of being “witches”? If yes, ‐ When? ‐ Details of the case(s) 4 Have there been reports of women trafficking? If yes, ‐ When? ‐ Details of the case Trainings 1 How many girls were trained in BLOP? 2 How were they selected? 3 Were there any incentives provided to ensure the girls participation? 4 What are the main objectives of the trainings? Evaluation 1 What difficulties were encountered by the project? 2 What are the main strengths of the project? B. Girl participants Selection of the participants 1 How did you come to know about the BLOP trainings? 2 How were you selected? 3 Did all the girls in your ward get selected? Trainings 1 What are the five main important learnings form the training? 2 What did you not like about the trainings? 3 Did you think that the trainers were competent and capable? Outcomes 1 How have you been able to utilize your learnings? 2 Have there been any negative consequences as a result of the trainings? 3 Would you recommend the trainings for others? USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 63 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 14: Checklist for Infrastructure USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 64 Scott Wilson Nepal Project Overview: Identification of infrastructures 1 How was the structure/ component identified? • Feasibility Survey report. • Community Participation in selection of component. If yes mention the total no. of people surveyed. • Were VDC/DDC consulted in selecting the component? 2 Did implementing partners propose the infrastructure? 3 Are there any other donor agencies working in the vicinity for the similar type of projects? Implementation of infrastructure 4 How was the sub-contractor/ NGO selected for implementing the structure? 5 What was the design basis/ criteria for the structure? • Did sub-contractor proposed the design? • Was there any data available pertaining to design, such as hydrological data which helped in design? • Any input/ suggestion from local community in design finalization? • Any alteration in the original design due to public pressure or actual ground condition? 6 7 How was the component monitored in the execution phase? Utilization of local labor/ resources. • Was preference given to hiring of local labor? Any gender based preference? • How well the locally available resources utilized? • Was there any contribution from local community in terms of labor? 8 Aid from governing bodies? • Did DDC/VDC contributed in monetarily or with any other means in the project execution? Use of Structure 9 Are all the community members using the structure for whom it was targeted? If not, what is the reason for not being used? 10 How well has the structure facilitated the community in making their life easier in post flood situation? • Has it reduced the commuting time? • Has the structure linked different areas such as markets, neighboring community with the existing community and thus provided extra opportunity? • Does community feel safe and assured from the future flood because of the rehabilitated and permanent structure? Name of District: Name of VDC: Type of Structure: Dimension of Structure: Number of Household benefitted: Name of Implementing Sub-contractor/NGO: USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 65 Scott Wilson Nepal Consequences of the Program 11 Was the component effective in addressing the flood recovery issue at community level? Any example which shows the effectiveness. 12 What was the targeted population intend to use the structure? Has the target been achieved? If not what was the reason? 13 Has the component able to serve as the role model for future as an effective flood recovery tool that may be guide for other implementing partners/ donors? 14 How well the structure did changed the socio-economic aspect of local community? • Generation of short/long term employment. How many person/ person day? • Reduction in seasonal migration of local community. State percentage in reduction. • Linkage with different bodies such as DDC, VDC. 15 Was there any conflict between beneficiaries during selection, implementation and post implementation phase? • Pertaining to location of structure • Pertaining to selection of structure 16 Was there any considerable environmental impact? 17 Will the component be able to serve/ withstand future flood? If yes then up to what magnitude? 18 Are there any further structure that could address the flood situation both technically and financially? Maintenance of Structure 19 Is maintenance plan developed? Mention brief description of the plan. 20 How is the fund managed for the maintenance? 21 Has there been a committee to look after the maintenance? 22 Is the maintenance team linked with DDC & VDC? 23 Has any local person technically upgraded to carry out / report maintenance when required? Lessons Learnt 24 What were the success/ failures behind the component? • Quick decision • Participatory approach in selection • No objection/ clearance from governing bodies. • Allocation of the fund in quick manner. 25 What were the hindrances observed in the execution of component? • Issue related to local labor, commission, clearance from governing bodies, selection of sub-contractors. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 66 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 15: References to Guiding Questions USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 67 Scott Wilson Nepal S.N. Evaluation question(s) Study Findings Related Section in the Report 6. How well did the approach of the program actually ‘Build Back’ the livelihoods of flood affected people of the Terai? a Integration of different components (infrastructure, income generation, sanitation, hygiene, & nutrition, protection of women, strengthening local organization) • Integration exists only between LIG and infrastructure. Primarily, during Phase II, whereby roads, bridges, culverts have been constructed or repaired to provide easy access and mobility. Section 8.2 b Gaps in support • No back-up support provided after the completion of the LIG program. resulting in decrease in cultivation • Lack of monitoring during the construction of ICSs has resulted in stoves which are not used. • Insufficient back support for community facilitators of the BLOP classes resulting in confusion. • No back up support provided after the training to CBOs/YC resulting in dropout of some members. Section 3.3.e Section 6.3.b Section 7.3.b Section 5.3.a c Any duplication or unnecessary activities • Lack of coordination with government agencies, resulting in the implementing partner constructing a RCC slab culvert which had already been planned to be built. Section 4.3.f Were there any unintended affects (positive or negative) due to integrated nature of this program? (addresses unexpected impact) a Environmental • Nothing significant. Chapter 8.3 b Community capacity building • Trend of high drop out rates of CBO and YC members. Section 5.3.a and b c Infrastructure • The example of the bridge in Jaymangalpur VDC which requires the construction of a further three cause ways to ensure year round mobility points towards the need of additional structures. Section 4.3.f Is there any evidence that shows the program was able to strengthen ties between local population, community groups and local government? a Look at any critical approaches used to work in this area considering political and security context • Hiring of local staff has facilitated easier entry and working environment in the local communities. • Transparent and open working Section 9.2 and 9.3 USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 68 Scott Wilson Nepal approach is recommended. b Community capacity building • Weak institutional linkages between the all the program components and local governments. Section 3.3.f; 4.3.f; 5.3.b How did the program approach identifying and addressing needs of women, youth, Dalits and marginalized groups? a General levels of participation at different stages of planning and implementation • PRA were carried out to collect the needs of the communities for the required infrastructure. • LIG component has a built-in cost￾sharing system for hybrid seeds. Section8.1. a Section 3 b Specific approaches to ensure inclusion • No specific approaches to include women or minority groups • Land size criteria, further excludes the poor and landless. • Establishment of CBOs and YCs have sought to mobilize youth. Section 8.1.b Section 3.3.b Section 5 c Levels or types of participation of previously excluded groups • Poor levels of participation from excluded groups d Approaches to increase participation of previously excluded groups • This needs to be significantly improved. Section 3.3, 9.2 and 9.3 Assess the sustainability of the change created through program interventions (including technical and financial appropriateness). a Appropriateness of agriculture technology introduced • All the LIG respondents were appreciative of the new skills and technologies learnt Section 9.2 and 9.3 b Financial impact – type of financial benefits • Additional incomes have been earned through vegetable farming. • Incomes earned have been used for ensuring food security, educating children and accessing health care. Section 3.3 Section 3.4.a c Possibility farmers can expand from program achievements • 22.5 % of LIG farmers belonging to Phase I have expanded their cultivation area. Section 3.3.c d Possibility program achievements extend to neighboring farmers • Spill over effects of neighbors cultivating commercial vegetable farming taking place in 4 LIG sites (25%). Section 3.3.e e Replicability of model • LIG model could be replicated with some modifications (as provided in the recommendation chapter). • Low cost technology (eg. Bamboo Piling) was upgraded and transferred to Western region. Section 3.3.a,b,c,d, e,f Section 4.3.d USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 69 Scott Wilson Nepal Annex 16: Fintrac Response To USAID-NFRP Evaluation Report USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 70 Scott Wilson Nepal Fintrac Response To USAID-NFRP Evaluation Report There is useful information contained within this report, per highlights and lessons learned in the Executive Summary, but due to limited sampling size, averages and percentages provided are not a valid statistical representation of NFRP operations across the eight districts of Phases I and II. This is particularly problematic in the case of certain conclusions being drawn that additional data proves erroneous. These are flagged below, with clarifications provided, so USAID and other readers can reach a fuller understanding of NFRP methodologies and impact. Note that responses are pegged to report chapters and sections for reference ease. Chapter 3: Livelihoods and Income Generation 3.3, a, bullet 2 A sample size of 62 farmers (out of 4,400 farmers) is not high enough (10% sampling is standard, not 1.4%) to develop a percentage (70.5%) that represents how many farmers, on average, will sustain high value crop (HVC) production. 3.3, a, bullet 3 “Income data” should be changed to “net sales value data”. Total net sales are not calculated based on “targeted farm-gate prices”. Net sales are based on each farmer’s reported production of each crop multiplied by the actual market prices at the time of harvest, less the average cost of production for each crop. This is not income, but rather the full monetary value (after deducting costs) of farmer’s production. Some of this production may of course be consumed or bartered, but that naturally replaces needs that were previously provided through other sources of income or production. The monetized value of this production is then compared to the monetized value of baseline levels of production (i.e. before NFRP support) to understand the increases achieved in the economic productivity of farmers’ land. That percentage increase in land productivity is not equivalent to the increase in household incomes as there are multiple family members engaged in a range of non-farm economic activities, all of which contribute to the household’s income, not simply farming. However, Phase I results show that a 686% increase in the economic productivity of farmers’ land (on average) resulted in a 320% increase in annual household incomes. 3.3, b, bullet 1 LIG typically required farmers to contribute between 0.2-0.4 hectares of land to the demonstration farming and improved skills and technologies training program. This was based on our analysis that less than 0.2 Ha is not sufficient to promote and sustain commercial HVC production, and more than 0.4 Ha indicates farmers that have more land than average and are comparatively in less need of assistance. After final selection of participant farmers for Phases I and II, the average plot size per farmer (out of 4,400) came to 0.23 Ha. This is, by definition, a small landholding. In addition, a total 1,146 farmers with landholdings between 0.05-0.17 Ha were incorporated into the LIG program and comprise 26% of all LIG participants. Many of these farmers from the USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 71 Scott Wilson Nepal mid-to-far western Terai districts are freed bonded laborers who were recently allocated a fixed landholding of 0.16 Ha as compensation from the government. Importantly, NFRP did not exclude the landless from LIG. Indeed, at least 5% of all participants were technically landless but had long-term leasing arrangements in their communities. After completing the program, most of these beneficiaries have reported that, thanks to the high incomes achieved by LIG in the first and second crop cycles, they were able to finally buy the land that they had been leasing for years. This will also dramatically reduce their annual costs of production. However, the vast majority of landless villagers are daily wage laborers that work for local landowners. Non-farm livelihoods assistance (such as cottage industries or vocational training) would certainly provide positive impacts for the landless, but the investment cost per beneficiary is too high and generates only modest returns to the local economy. However, by dramatically improving local farmers’ agricultural productivity, LIG was able to significantly increase the demand for surplus on-farm labor (76,781 person-days generated for local landless villagers in Phase I). NFRP’s investment cost per farmer, including training, logistics and cost-shared inputs, comes to only $165 per farmer for the entire 18-month program. 3.3, b, bullet 2 134 farmers is not an adequate sample to conclude that 26% of all LIG farmers were vegetable producers prior to the program. Given that the sampling was not randomized, there is a high likelihood that the farmers interviewed were the ones that are generally most accessible and vocal. This could have created an involuntary bias toward farmers that have been in historically better conditions than the average LIG participant. This statistic also does not distinguish whether these farmers were full-time vegetable producers on all of their land, or small scale kitchen gardeners in addition to their primary production of staple crops. NFRP’s baseline data, taken on all 4,400 farmers, reports that only 1.4% of LIG participants were previously full-time vegetable producers. It also reports that 19.8% of all participants previously had kitchen gardens and, of them, only 10.8% marketed any of their surplus production. 3.3, c, bullet 1 Inadequate sample size. NFRP has reported an almost 60% diffusion effect (283 Ha in addition to the original 480 Ha of demonstration plots) in Phase I of the program and has records to demonstrate this outcome. 3.3., c, bullet 1 This contradicts NFRP’s reported numbers on surplus on-farm employment, as indicated above. An internal NFRP study conducted in November 2010 by Edwin DeKorte reported that 88 participant households in three VDCs of Kailali district had generated 167 person-days of surplus labor in just the first crop cycle. This sample is much too small to use as an average across the 2,200 participant farmers in Phase II, but if it were, by the end of the third crop cycle, at least 12,525 person-days of surplus on-farm employment would be generated by the LIG farmers. 3.3, f, bullet 1 USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 72 Scott Wilson Nepal All relevant local government agencies, CDO and LDO offices and DDCs were engaged to the greatest extent possible by the NFRP team. However, it should be understood that establishing linkages with DADOs and DDCs was not mandated in the task order with USAID. It should also be understood that, as a quick impact flood recovery program, NFRP would not have been able to implement its program and achieve its targets within the given timeframe if its operations depended intrinsically on the guidance and decision-making processes of local governments. DADO offices were heavily involved in our program’s start-up activities, especially in selecting worksites and designing specific interventions. Representatives from DADOs also provided a number of the ToT trainings to NFRP field technicians throughout the life of the program. Later, as farmers became successful HVC producers and organized into larger farmer production groups, NFRP supported their formal registration with local DADO offices. 3.3., f, bullet 2 DDCs have been engaged since program inception. Most DDCs are resource poor and showed little interest in the program as it was not designed to directly assist their interests or proposed projects. Personnel turnover in the DDCs is also very high and thus makes it difficult to maintain regular coordination. DDCs’ minimal information is a result of their limited interest in NFRP, not of NFRP’s lack of trying. Many DDCs have also delivered letters of appreciation for the work NFRP has done in their districts. Clearly they have appreciated the work, even if they are reporting that they do not know many details about the program. A key issue that was not noted in the evaluation report was the significant pressure that NFRP has experienced from the local government offices or individuals to manipulate the program’s resources. This pressure varied from district to district and VDC to VDC, but since the beginning there have always been outside interests, either from the government or civil society, to benefit financially and/or politically from NFRP investments in local development. There are many other donor-funded programs that operated in NFRP’s districts that were never able to implement at the speed with which they were designed. The NFRP team is a group of experienced rural development professionals who know the realities in these districts very well. Our assessment was to coordinate with government agencies to the greatest extent possible, but if we had to hold up our programs because the government was responsible for key decision-making or was not providing the counterpart resources it had promised (very common), then our intended efforts would not be possible within the very short program timeframe. Under a longer term program (3-5 years), coordination with the government would certainly have to be more advanced and, in fact, NFRP is making those changes in Phase III. But our approach in Phases I and II, as described above, is a key reason for NFRP’s fast progress, high impacts and widespread approval and satisfaction from communities, civil society and local governments. Chapter 4: Productive Infrastructure Support 4.3, b NFRP’s infrastructure component was based on a bottom-up, participatory process, wherein target communities prioritized their infrastructural needs and selected the projects they considered the most important. NFRP then studied the project to determine if it was technically and financially feasible. As a result of this process, many communities did not select flood￾related infrastructures such as gabion walls or diversion channels. Instead, they preferred transport infrastructure (mainly culverts and bridges) as well as some social infrastructures (mainly schools). This is a good example of how flood recovery means different things to USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 73 Scott Wilson Nepal different people and different communities. NFRP was aware of this from the start, and knew that grassroots empowerment by allowing communities to lead the process of project selection and implementation would have a much greater impact on rural development than employing a top-down process where NFRP decided what was best for every community. It should be noted that most communities perceive schools as relevant to floods. Schools are generally the largest and most durable infrastructures in their communities, and are often the place where villagers go when their homes are flooded during the monsoons. Thus, the 14 schools constructed by NFRP also serve as community refuges during floods, and communities explicitly requested the schools for that purpose. Most of our 14 schools are also on the grounds of previous school buildings that were damaged by the flooding in 2007 and are, therefore, in direct response to the flood recovery requirements/demands of those communities. 4.3, e Of the 119 projects completed by NFRP, 28 were flood control structures such as gabion walls, diversion channels and bamboo protections. All of these projects were implemented under Phase I. By Phase II, NFRP decided to no longer support flood controls and social infrastructures and to focus its support exclusively on productive infrastructure such as roads, bridges and irrigation systems. This was based on the clear observation that productive infrastructures have a much greater impact on the long-term economic development of the region. It was also based on our past experience with flood controls which demonstrated that NFRP did not have adequate financial resources to effectively address the entire needs of Terai communities. All of our projects were effective, but their impacts were not enough (compared to cost) for NFRP to consider them financially feasible for continuation. The report indicates that 30% of the structures had “quality issues such as breaking of PCC slab, settlement of structure and cracks at wing walls”. These three examples are very minor quality issues that are common for infrastructures in environments such as the Terai. They can be described as “cosmetic” and all projects are designed so that their occurrence does not compromise the viability of the structure. The report fails to mention whether the eight infrastructures that had these deficiencies are inoperable or in any way compromised. It also fails to note if they were below standard and comparatively lower in quality to other infrastructures commonly built by the government or other donor-funded programs. 4.3, f By the end of Phase II, NFRP had achieved a total of $370,394 in counterpart resources from outside sources to support the implementation of dozens of its infrastructure activities in all eight districts. Contributors included WFP, UNDP, ADB, ADRA, VDC and DDC offices, the Groundwater Irrigation offices and DADOs. This counterpart investment is equivalent to an addition of 5.6% to the total value of the NFRP task order ($6.5 million). 4.3, f, bullet 3 This particular community had already experienced long delays by the Irrigation dept. in getting its project started, and opted for NFRP to take responsibility. 4.3, f, bullet 4 USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 74 Scott Wilson Nepal It should be clarified that NFRP coordinated with WFP/ADRA on a total of 12 projects in the district. 4.4 Conclusions 4.4, b, bullet 1 The quality issues listed consider only eight out of 119 infrastructure projects, and those eight remain fully functional and have not been detrimentally affected by the minor deteriorations that were noted. These projects, as mentioned above, are well above the standards of similar infrastructures in their areas and communities have expressed great satisfaction with them. 4.4, b, bullet3 Our design, construction and supervision process was fully in line with USAID rules and regulations as well as Nepali law: Once an infrastructure project was identified and selected by a community, NFRP would assign it to one of our pre-selected (shortlisted) construction organizations (subcontractors). Technicians from the organization would then visit the site, accompanied by NFRP field engineers, in order to prepare a design. After a few days, the subcontractor would present the design to NFRP for approval. The design would include all technical specs, materials and final budget. Based on an arrangement required by NFRP, subcontractors were not allowed to apply normal government rates to the unit costs for construction. This is because most rates are inflated by more than 20% and provide an easy “cushion” for bribes to take place between contractors and funders. Instead, NFRP engineers conducted local market surveys with the subcontractors to set real prices for all the potential items that may appear in a construction project’s budget. Upon receiving the proposed design from the subcontractor, NFRP engineers thoroughly reviewed every aspect of the project, from the structural design, to the types, quantities and quality of materials proposed for construction. If the NFRP engineer had concerns or found discrepancies, the design would be sent back to the subcontractor for revision with specific changes requested. It is only after this process has been completed that a project design can be considered final. By this point, it has been verified multiple times by the NFRP engineer to ensure that there is no potential for the subcontractor to save time or money by taking advantage of irregularities in the design, such as inflated volumes or costs per unit. It now becomes a design owned and authorized by NFRP. External supervisors were not required by NFRP because our field engineers were effective in balancing their workload over the three years. Consider that 86 projects were completed in 60 VDCs over the course of 18 months by NFRP in Phase I. With two field-level engineers and an average project duration of 4 months, that comes to an average of nine projects per engineer at any given time. Considering most projects were not complicated or highly technical, nine projects at a time is a fair workload for the engineer and would therefore not require additional human resources to cover NFRP’s responsibilities in monitoring its construction operations. Finally, one great advantage to the process described above is its cost effectiveness. The streamlined procurement process allowed for NFRP to not pay for the designs; instead they were completed pro bono by the subcontractors. External supervisors were also not required. Generally design architects plus external supervision would account for 30% of the entire project cost. By not requiring (and incurring) these expenditures, plus using the reduced market USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 75 Scott Wilson Nepal rates described above, NFRP was able to direct all of its infrastructure money to on-the￾ground construction costs only and redistribute the savings to additional projects that would not have been possible otherwise. 4.4, c This statement is unsubstantiated and not supported with data or evidence. All developed infrastructures have indeed been formally handed over to the VDCs. NFRP has a Letter of Conformity from all 76 VDCs for all 119 projects that it completed to demonstrate this. Chapter 5: Strengthening Local Organizations 5.1 The following activities should be added to the component description:  Seven-day ToT for 72 community-based trainers  Seven 3-day district-level workshops with 144 representatives of 72 CBOs and YCs  Three 3-day regional workshops for YCs  72 DPMCs formally linked to their respective DDRCs in seven districts 5.3, a The primary objectives of the Community Development and Youth Leadership training programs were to enhance the capacity of community leaders and socially active individuals (both youths and adults) so they have the skills, knowledge and confidence to better advocate and support the long-term development efforts of their communities. A required outcome was not the sustainability of the organizations. Rather, the YCs and CBOs were used as vehicles to deliver a packaged training program to a fixed number of beneficiaries (10 men and 10 women from each organization in each VDC worksite). Naturally, fully sustainable organizations would be ideal, but NFRP was well aware of the high turnover in such groups in the Terai and 14 months is not sufficient time to ensure the sustainability of the YCs and CBOs. Instead, the key outcome was 1,458 adults and 1,458 youths, trained in intensive skills enhancement programs, now have the tools and greater access to resources to further the development objectives of their communities. 5.3, b Bullet 3 is incorrect. All 72 DPMCs have been formally linked to their respective DDRCs and CDOs in the eight districts. 5.3, c, bullet 2 The disaster preparedness and management activity was very limited in scope, budget and duration relative to the community development and youth leadership activities. Provision of equipment was not intended to cover the entire needs of targeted communities, and NFRP understood that it did not have nearly the resources required for such a large donation. The purpose of the equipment was to provide some basic supplies (first-aid kits, life vests and tubes for search and rescue, stretchers, lanterns, etc.) for the DPMCs to respond, however limited, to future floods and other disasters in their communities. The evaluation report notes that DPMCs “were found to be effective” and these supplies helped support that accomplishment. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 76 Scott Wilson Nepal 5.4 Conclusions 5.4, a There is no duplication between members of the CBOs and YCs. Many of the DPMC members came from both the YCs and CBOs as these are the most active people within their communities. DPMCs were formed separately from CBOs because their organizational sustainability was more critical to the expected outcomes of that training activity. CBOs are often so general about their purpose and responsibilities that members regularly come and go, and little gets done. Villagers, however, are not inclined to lose interest in issues that are critical to their livelihoods and survival, such as floods. 5.4, b This is a repetition of the mistaken finding that DPMCs have not become formally linked to their respective DDRCs, which they have. In all seven districts, the CDOs also distributed the DPM materials to each DPMC in the presence of representatives from the Nepal Red Cross Society, DDCs and DDRCs. All DPMCs are registered in the CDO offices. This includes a complete list of the members, their roles and contact information. DPMCs were not only trained for floods, but also in mapping, early warning, rescue and relief for all potential disasters. 5.5 SWOT Analysis The first bullet under “Strengths” is too significant to only be included in the SWOT analysis: “young girls and women have been included in executive bodies of CBOs and YCs for greater leadership roles and engagement in development activities”. Bullets 1-4 and bullet 6 under “Weaknesses” are incorrect. Bullet 3, in particular, essentially implies that unethical practices were conducted by either NFRP or its subcontractor, but offers no supporting information on which to base that claim. Chapter 6: Sanitation, Hygiene and Nutrition 6.3, a, bullet 1 Incorrect. The kitchen gardening (KG) program did not use hybrid seeds for any of the products that were promoted, with the exception of cabbage. 6.3, b This statement seems to apply to the entire program but the supporting evidence is limited to only two cases out of a total of 1,715 improved cooking stoves (ICS) that were installed by NFRP. The problems mentioned for those ICSs (more smoke and less efficient) are not indicators of a technical failure. Most likely the stoves require maintenance, usually cleaning the flume. Bullet 2 indicates confusion on the counterpart requirements for latrines. It was NFRP (not beneficiaries) that paid the Rs. 3,000 per latrine. This covered the cost of the ring, cover, pan and connecting pipes. Beneficiaries were responsible for placing a structure (roof and walls) on top of the latrine. That structure could either be brick or thatch; it was the beneficiaries’ decision. Clearly the cost for such a minor construction would not prohibit the poor from USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 77 Scott Wilson Nepal participating and benefitting. 6.3, c Again, this comment seems to indicate that the entire program had these weaknesses when it only references three unique cases out of 2,258 kitchen gardens, 1,715 ICSs and 240 latrines. 6.4 Conclusions 6.4, b, bullet 2 As described above, this is an incorrect understanding of the cost-sharing requirements NFRP had for latrines installment. 6.5 SWOT Analysis Bullet 1 under “Weakness” is illogical. How could the landless participate in a kitchen gardening activity if they, by definition, do not have land? Bullet 2 is another repetition of an incorrect understanding on the cost-sharing requirements for latrines. Bullet 3 implies that our target of 240 latrine installations was not achieved, which it was. Bullet 4 generalizes by referring to only two out of 1,715 cases. Chapter 7: Protection of Women and Children 7.3, b This finding, supported only by “a few cases” cannot be applied to the entire 72 community trainers of the PWC component. 7.3, c “Not sensitive to the actual needs or purpose of the classes” should be supported with further evidence. The BLOP program, implemented under the PWC component, was based on a proven methodology by CEDPA developed in rural communities of India that are in similar conditions to those of the Terai. The trainings were also delivered by seven district-based NGOs in the seven districts that had this program, all firmly established in these communities and sensitive to local realities. The PWC component was extremely limited in funding. NFRP decided that the greatest impact it could have would be though focusing on women. It would be ideal to include young men as well, given their relevance to these issues, but the resources were not available and their reprogramming would have weakened the overall outcomes. Chapter 9: Lessons Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Lessons Learned Bullet 1 is incorrect based on empirical data collected by NFRP in both Phases I and II. This states that the spill-over effect “does not happen within a short period of time (less than 3-4 USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 78 Scott Wilson Nepal years)”. There is no evidence provided in the report to support this. As mentioned above, in Phase I alone NFRP observed a nearly 60% diffusion effect in commercial HVC production as a result of the LIG program, meaning from 480 Ha to 763 Ha, and more than one thousand new farmers, in 18 months. 9.2 Conclusions 9.2, b This statement may apply to a few isolated cases, but it is entirely inaccurate when referring to the full LIG program. 9.2, d Bullet 2 continues to use the phrasing “vocal resistance from community members” when it stated in a previous section that this was just “one person”. 9.2, e All developed infrastructures are handed over to the VDCs, and NFRP has received Letters of Conformity from each VDC office. Bullets 3 and 4 are subjective statements that do not consider whether the absence of these elements caused deficiencies in the work and its impact. It did not, and the utility of NFRP’s approach should have been better understood and analyzed further. 9.2, f This statement is inaccurate per prior responses in this document. "I would no farming on has c NEP PRO ot be able to start my own, without changed a lot for m PAL OGR t the commercial t the support of U me" Sarita Chau L FL RAM vegetable USAID. Life udary LOO M (N Sarita Chaudha commercially. O pumpkins, and As a part of th with seeds and water pump. According to S has increased, gross profit of 100 to Rs. 150 "Since, my husb falls on me. As I am happy doin OD R NFR ary, 35 yrs, of B On her farm, s bitter gourd. he USAID/NFRP d a group irriga Sarita, life has ch her earnings are NRs 18,000 to on the monthly band is primaril a result, I have ng both”. REC P) eldanda in Jhala she grows a var P program she w ation system thr hanged for the b e comparatively NRs 20,000 per y basis through o y busy working to manage the v OVE ri VDC has rec riety of vegetab was provided wit rough the provi better. She reco y higher than be r season. Out o our Mothers’ Sa g as an electricia vegetables as we ERY ently started far bles such as tom th training as w ision of a STW ounts that thoug efore. She point of that, I have st aving Group.” S an, the responsi ell as the expens Y rming vegetables mato, cucumber well as supported W and motorized gh her workload ts out, “I have a tarted saving Rs She further adds ibility of farming ses and incomes s r, d d d a s. s, g s. USAID/NFRP EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2011 80 Scott Wilson Nepal U.S. Agency for International Development US Embassy, Maharajgunj, G.P.O. Box # 295 Kathmandu, Nepal Tel: (977-1- ) 400-7200 Fax: (977-1- ) 4007285 http://nepal.usaid.gov