CF-LNOB - Feb & March 2020\6

$CF-LNOB - Feb & March 2020\6$

Purnima: UK Support to Post- Earthquake Recovery in Nepal

Mott MacDonald Sanepa Lalitpur Nepal

mottmac.com

Purnima: UK Support to Post- Earthquake Recovery in Nepal

Proof of Concept and Expansion Readiness Review of Challenge Fund-LNOB

DFID

389785 OA4-TOR6 A D:\Kiran\MM\4. Proof of Concept Review of CF-LNOB - Feb & March 2020\6. PoC Review Final report\POC Report-FINALLY REVISED-25042020 sw.docx Mott MacDonald

April 2020

Mott MacDonald Ltd, Nepal Branch, Post Box No. 3761, Kathmandu, Nepal. Registered no. 176230/074/075.

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description April SRI Helen SEH 2020 Wedgwood

Kiran Wagle

Document reference: 389785 | OA4-TOR6 | Assessment

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This R eport has been prepar ed sol ely for use by the party w hich commissi oned it (the 'Client') in connection wi th the capti oned pr oject. It shoul d not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party w ho has expr essly agreed terms of reli ance with us (the 'Recipi ent(s)') may r ely on the content, information or any views expr essed in the R eport. T his R eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual pr operty and we accept no duty of car e, r esponsibility or li ability to any other recipi ent of this R eport. N o repr esentati on, w arranty or undertaki ng, express or im plied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Reci pient(s), as to the accuracy or com pleteness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this R eport. F or the avoi dance of doubt thi s Report does not i n any w ay pur port to i nclude any legal, insurance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclaim all and any liability w hether arising i n tort, contr act or otherwise w hich we might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in respect of this Report, or any inform ation contained in it. W e accept no responsi bility for any error or omissi on in the Report w hich is due to an error or omissi on in data, i nformation or statements supplie d to us by other parti es i ncludi ng the Cli ent (the 'Data'). We have not independently verified the D ata or otherwise exami ned i t to determi ne the accuracy, com pleteness, sufficiency for any purpose or feasi bility for any particular outcome incl uding fi nanci al.

Forecasts presented i n this docum ent w ere pr epared usi ng the Data and the Repor t is dependent or based on the D ata. Inevitably, som e of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances m ay occur. C onsequently, we do not guarantee or w arrant the conclusions contained in the R eport as ther e are likely to be differences betw een the forecasts and the actual results and those differ ences may be m aterial. While we consi der that the information and opini ons given in this R eport are sound all parti es m ust rely on their ow n skill and judgem ent when m aking use of it.

Information and opi nions ar e current only as of the date of the Report and w e accept no responsi bility for updati ng such information or opi nion. It shoul d, therefor e, not be assum ed that any such inform ati on or opi nion conti nues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. U nder no circum stances m ay this Report or any extract or summ ary thereof be used i n connecti on with any public or private securities offeri ng incl udi ng any related m emor andum or pr ospectus for any securiti es offering or stock exchange listi ng or announcem ent. By acceptance of this Repor t you agree to be bound by this disclaim er. T his disclaim er and any issues, disputes or cl aims arising out of or in connection wi th it (whether contractual or non-contractual i n natur e such as cl aims i n tort, from br each of statute or regul ati on or otherwise) shall be governed by, and constr ued i n accordance with, the law s of Engl and and W ales to the exclusion of all conflict of l aws principles and r ules. All disputes or claims arising out of or r elati ng to this discl aimer shall be subject to the excl usive jurisdicti on of the English and Welsh courts to w hich the parties irrevocably su bmit.

Disclaimer: Purnima commissioned a Review on Proof of Concept and Readiness Assessment of Partner Organisations to understand the effectiveness of CF-LNOB approach in order to expand it in 2nd phase of Palikas. This report is the product of that assessment / study, which was carried out by a group of independent consultants, managed by Sustainable and Resilient Ideas Pvt. Ltd. (SRI). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the Researchers. They do not, in any way, reflect the opinions or views of DFID or Mott MacDonald or Purnima.

Proof of Concept and Expansion Readiness Review of Purnima Challenge Fund for Leave No One Behind (CF-LNOB)

Assessment Conducted By: Sustainable and Resilient Ideas Pvt. Ltd. (SRI), Mahalaxmi Municipality-5, Lalitpur, Nepal, Email: [email protected]

Assessment Team: Krishna Gyawali, Study Team Lead Nahakul K.C. Dr. Devendra P. Shrestha Dr. Tek Gurung Ramu Joshi

Table of Contents

Table of Contents iii

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

List of Abbreviations vii

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Rationale of the Study 3 1.3 Objectives of the Study 4

2 Methodology 6 1.4 Proof of Concept 7 1.4.1 Documentation of records and assessment of progress 7 1.4.2 Assessment of validity and utility of diagnostic phase of POs 8 1.4.3 Assessment of POs’ management arrangements 9 1.4.4 Assessment of the Purnima CF Management System 9 1.4.5 Assessment of risks and assumptions in the original CF ToR 10 1.5 POs’ Specific Readiness Assessment 10 1.5.1 Appropriacy of staffing and management structures and skills sets 11 1.5.2 Stakeholder relationships management 11 1.5.3 Monitoring System 11 1.5.4 Pace of implementation against plan 11 1.5.5 Evidence of impact 11 1.5.6 Due diligence 12 1.5.7 SWOT analysis 12

3 Findings and discussions 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Assessment of the validity of the CF-LNOB overall concept 13 3.2.1 POs’ understanding of the fundamentals of CF/LNOB 14 3.2.2 PO management arrangements, approaches and strategies 16 3.2.3 Assessment of Targets vs Achievements 27 3.2.4 Appropriacy, Effectiveness, Viability and Sustainability 36 3.2.5 Palikas’ perceptions and insights on Purnima programmes 39 3.2.6 Role of Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s Oversight Arrangements 40 3.2.7 Overall Remarks on the Validity of CF/LNOB 41 3.3 Assessment of PO Readiness 44 3.3.1 Assessment of PO willingness to participate in the expansion 44 3.3.2 Assessment of PO Capacity Including Due Diligence 46

iii

4 Conclusions and recommendations 49 4.1 Introduction 49 4.2 Overall Approach and its Validity 49 4.2.1 Understand for Action 50 4.2.2 Empower for Change 51 4.2.3 Economic Inclusion 51 4.2.4 Safe Shelter 52 4.3 Palika capacity development and sustainability 52 4.4 PO Expansion Readiness and Institutional Competency 53

References 55

Annex I: Terms of Reference 57

Annex II: Interview Checklists with Partner Organisation 58

Annex III.a: Interaction Checklist for Ward/Palika & Other Line Agencies 61

Annex III.b: Capacity and Readiness of POs 63

Annex IV: Achievements against targets of POs by domain 64

Annex V: Risks, assumptions, descriptions and suggested mitigation 72

Annex VI: Due Diligence 73

Annex VII: Further Information collected from POs 76

Annex VIII: Detail SWOT Matrix as provided by POs 101

List of Figures

Figure 1: CF/LNOB Theory of Change (Source: Purnima/MM) 2 Figure 2: LNOB Result-area, Impact pathway and Levels of ambitions, under Output 4 2 Figure 3: Guiding principles for CF/LNOB (adapted from the ToR) 6 Figure 4: Understanding of Assignment (adapted from ToR) 7 Figure 5: Understanding of POs’ readiness assessment (adapted from ToR) 10 Figure 6: Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of CDC consortium 18 Figure 7: Budget structure of CDC (Data source: CDC) 19 Figure 8:Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of DCA consortium 20 Figure 9: Budget structure of DCA (Data source: DCA) 20 Figure 10: Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of PHASE 22 Figure 11: Budget Structure of PHASE (Data source: PHASE) 22 Figure 12: Management Arrangement and Field Level Staff of SAPPROS Consortium 23 Figure 13: Budget Structure of SAPPROS (Data source: SAPPROS) 24

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of Gaunpalikas by PO 3 Table 2: Summary of field visit 8 Table 3: Proportional analysis of coverage and expenditure 26 Table 4: Target Vs Achievement by Domain and POs 28 Table 5: Physical Target Vs Achievement by POs 31 Table 7: POC LogFrame Indicators and Present Status by POs 33 Table 8: Evidences of impacts on different domains 34 Table 9: ‘Appropriacy’ ranking of ‘Livelihood activities’ and ‘Support received’ 37 Table 10: ‘Viability’ ranking of ‘Livelihood activities’ and ‘Support provided’ 38 Table 11: Summary SWOT analysis table of all POs 45

List of Abbreviations

CARDSN Community & Rural Development Society Nepal CDC Community Development Centre CDF Community Development Facilitator CF Challenge Fund DCA DanChurch Aid DFID Department for International Development EIB European Investment Bank FGD Focus Group Discussion GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit HQ Headquarters IDPs Internally Displaced Persons KII Key Informant Interview JT Junior Technician JTA Junior Technical Assistant LNOB Leave No-One Behind MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability & Learning MIS Management Information System NEPAN Nepal Participatory Action Network NPR Nepalese Rupees NRA National Reconstruction Authority PAF Poverty Alleviation Fund PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment PDRF Post Disaster Recovery Framework POs Partner Organizations PWD Persons Living with Disabilities QPR Quarterly Progress Report UP Ultra-Poor UPHHs Extremely poor and food insecure people especially from remote areas USAID United States Agency for International Development SSA Social Security Allowance SRI Sustainable and Resilient Ideas Pvt. Ltd SW Vulnerable Single Women SWOT Strength Weakness Opportunities Threat ToC Theory of Change VA Vulnerability Assessment VAR Vulnerability Assessment Report VFM Value for Money VGs Vulnerable Groups WFP World Food Programme

vii

1 Introduction

1.1 Background In 2015, Nepal witnessed two major earthquakes and several aftershocks. According to the Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) report prepared by the Government of Nepal (GoN), approximately 9,000 people lost their lives, more than 22,000 people were injured, and more than half a million houses collapsed or were damaged in the 14 ‘worst-affected’ districts1 and other 18 affected districts2.

While a wide variety of actors (national and international agencies, civils societies, the private sector and individuals) provided immediate rescue and relief supports, the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) of GoN released a five-year Post Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF 2016-2020) in May 2016. This is the Framework document for guiding the cooperation of all national and international agencies and civil societies in the reconstruction and recovery efforts. Accordingly, many development partners/agencies are still working on the recovery today.

Against this backdrop, Purnima, a five-year programme funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and managed by Mott MacDonald, was launched in 2017 and will run until September 2022. The overall objective of the programme is to seek long-term positive changes in the lives of the people in earthquake-affected regions of Nepal, and it is being implemented in four of the worst-affected districts, namely, Gorkha, Dhading, Nuwakot, and Rasuwa through five Output Areas (ref: ToR as Annex I):

● Support and capacity building to Government at federal, provincial and local level reconstruction planning and implementation. ● Reconstruction of rural infrastructure, including water supply, foot trails, bridges, and schools. ● Interventions to address constraints to the private sector in relation to construction, including access to finance, innovation and skills. ● Managing a Challenge Fund (CF) for tailored support to the most vulnerable, to leave no-one behind (LNOB) in the reconstruction effort, to restore livelihoods and access to services. ● Monitoring, evaluation and learning. The present assignment is related to Output 4 of the programme which aims at managing the Challenge Fund in reconstruction and restoration of livelihood activities and access to essential services for the most Vulnerable Groups (VGs). The Challenge Fund uses the concept and approach of Leave No One Behind (LNOB) and is based on the Theory of Change (ToC) shown in Figure 1. This has its conceptual and methodological foundation in DFID’s strategic approaches to social and economic inclusion.

1 Gorkha, Kavrepalanchok, Dhading, Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Sindupalchok, Dolakha, Ramechhap, Okhaldunga, Makwanpur, Sindhuli, Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur. 2 Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Dhankuta, Solukhumbu, Chitwan, Tanahun, Lamjung, Kaski, Parbat, Baglung, Myagdi, Syanghja, Palpa, Gulmi, Arghakhanchi, and Nawalparasi.

Figure 1: CF/LNOB Theory of Change (Source: Purnima/MM)

Under Output 4, Purnima has set up a Challenge Fund that provides grants to ensure that VGs are not left behind during the post-earthquake reconstruction and recovery. The Fund targets the most vulnerable groups or community members of four programme districts that were severely affected by the 2015 earthquakes. In line with the approach adopted by the NRA, the VGs are defined as: (i) persons with disability (PWDs), (ii) elderly (Eld), (iii) single women (SW), (iv) internally displaced persons (IDPs), and (v) extremely/Ultra poor households and food insecure people or People with Food Insufficiency (UPH/PFI).

Originally, Output 4 of the programme had identified three domains to operationalise the fund: (i) Understanding for action, (ii) Empower for change, and (iii) Economic Inclusion for Livelihood Recovery. However, considering the context, Safe Shelter/housing reconstruction was also included as another specific domain. The CF/LNOB result areas, impact pathways and levels of ambition have been reflected in Figure 2 as shown below.

Figure 2: LNOB Result-area, Impact pathway and Levels of ambitions, under Output 4

The Challenge Fund started in January 2019 with the competitively selected partner organizations (POs) as implementation partners in 12 Palikas of the four districts (see Table 1). The first three months of implementation were a ‘diagnostic phase’ when POs produced household-specific and community-validated vulnerability assessment reports (VARs). At the same time, the POs held dialogues with the local governments and other stakeholders for ensuring their support and cooperation for the smooth implementation of the programme activities as demanded by VGs or target groups. In that context, this study may be regarded as an early mid-term exercise to conduct an independent or third-party assessment and verification of the underlying concept of CF/LNOB, by examining as closely and objectively as possible whether this concept and approach has been rightly implemented on the ground or there is a need for some adjustment in its method, approach, scope or concept before expanding it to thirteen additional Palikas. In other words, this study is intended to examine the validity of the concept and approach of CF/LNOB against the above-mentioned background and also affirm the willingness and readiness of the POs, based on their proven capability, evidence-based performance and credible potential, for continuing with the programme even after its expected expansion into thirteen additional Palikas. The subsequent sub-sections will elaborate the objectives and rationale of the study.

Table 1: Distribution of Gaunpalikas by PO POs District Gaunpalikas Covered CDC Rasuwa Uttargaya, Naukunda DCA Dhading Khaniyabas, Gangajamuna, Gajuri PHASE Gorkha ChumNubri, Dharche, Ajirkot, Gandaki SAPPROS Nuwakot Dupcheshwar, Tadi, Shivapuri

1.2 Rationale of the Study The rationale for this assignment emerged following the monitoring and review report of Purnima/Mott MacDonald released in the third quarter of 2019. That reportedon the overall progress achieved in the CF/LNOB's operation in the first nine months. Given the imminent expansion of CF/LNOB, it is now an opportune time to review the approach. . Using an independent study team will provide a ‘third eye’ point of view in assessing the overall concept of CF/LNOB or the “Proof of Concept”, lessons learnt and how to replicate it to more Palikas areas with any necessary adjustments.

The implementation of CF-LNOB by POs can be divided into two phases – evidence collection or ‘VAR’ (Vulnerability Assessment Report) phase and activity/support implementation phase. As reported, POs and Palika authorities now possess a household-specific and community-validated dataset as per VARs, and the POs have been able to establish good working relationships during the first three months. It is mentioned that POs are working with Palikas with a further aim at institutionalising vulnerability data to strengthen its use in local planning and building inclusive institutions. This raises the following questions: how effective is the “two-phased” approach? How effective is the utilisation of data to understand action, empower for change and ensure economic inclusion?

It is reported that targeted VGs have been identified along with their types of vulnerability and their intersectional vulnerabilities (or multiple vulnerabilities within a single person or a family). Simultaneously, it is said that their family and social situation, housing and livelihood status, as well as coping strategies were identified. Moreover, the documents suggest that demands of VGs were identified (supporting demand-driven approach) and prioritised as well to design POs’ implementation plans and actions. It has been suggested that these demands were ‘context-specific, tailor-made and flexible”. But how well these reported conditions tally with the field situation constitute an important aspect of assessment for future strategy.

Moreover, the reports that refer to all the activities the POs have been doing in the field, such as, “...applying multiple approaches, such as, (1) diversification of income sources through on- off- and non-farm engagement, (2) enterprise support, and (3) knowledge and skills development, etc. ”

(Purnima 2019:4), “POs are transferring knowledge and technology to vulnerable people” (Purnima 2019:4), and “POs are also collaborating with the efforts of the Output Area 1 of Purnima to achieve the intended policy outcomes at Palika level” (Purnima 2019:4). Now, it is appropriate to assess progress to justify their continuing along the same lines after the extension.

It has been seen that VARs have proven useful not only for the design and implementation of CF activities, but also for periodic and annual planning processes to be followed by local governments (or Palikas). Moreover, the POs have facilitated the Palikas for adapting the elements of the VAR into their planning system and mechanism. It is mentioned in the report that the support to housing reconstruction for vulnerable people has been one of the important impact-pathways of Purnima’s CF/LNOB and POs are providing socio-technical assistance (STA)in the process (such as through providing information on grant instalments or tranches, linking with engineers for verification, linking with NRA and Palikas’ relevant services, etc.). In this process, POs are supporting vulnerable people to access the statutory entitlements and earthquake-specific reconstruction services and benefits through helping them in grievance registration, VG card distribution and organising orientation programmes. Further, it is indicated that “the CF is currently designing further specific housing reconstruction support to ensure gaps are filled so that no vulnerable HH in the CF’s operational areas is left without safe living environment.” In the light of all this, it is important to know how Palikas and VGs view the support, and what lessons are emerging for further consideration.

Additionally, as mentioned in the ToR, a range of livelihood recovery support activities for selected individuals has begun to be aligned to their specific vulnerabilities, capabilities and contexts for which POs were advised, alongside these immediate activities, to undertake further analysis of the economic and market context and opportunities for the target groups, to deepen their understanding and further develop their strategies, associated plans and feasible targets, considering the short two- year timeframe under the CF/LNOB framework. As stated, this work by PO’s is underway to varying extents, with assessment and additional support planned in the near future.How they are doing in this regard is also an important aspect of review.

Notwithstanding the progress made, the PO's diagnostics, planning and monitoring reports underline the scale of the constraints and challenges that are still facing the most vulnerable people (both within and beyond the 12 Palikas covered so far by the CF/LNOB) to rebuild their homes and recover their livelihoods after the earthquake. These are compounded by the rapidly changing wider social, economic and political contexts characterized, inter alia, by:

● Family and asset losses and household economy upheaval, ● Increasing urbanization and out-migration with associated reduction in family labour capacity and isolation of remaining vulnerable HH members, ● Greater reliance on intermittent remittances and/or loans, and ● Increased road access rapidly altering local land, transport, labour and traditional rural market systems. After the completion of little over one year, the project is at an important juncture with expansion planned to 13 Palikas for 2020. Against this backdrop, it has been felt essential to take stock of the strategic approaches and also the progress made to date, consider the lessons learned so far, and identify any necessary adjustments to PO's strategies and plans to ensure they are consistent with the best practices to achieve the intended impact.

1.3 Objectives of the Study The overall objective of the study is to conduct a Proof of Concept review and POs’ readiness for expansion to provide confidence to Purnima/Mott MacDonald for making any necessary adjustments to deliver the CF/LNOB’s intended outcomes.

Specifically, the assignment objectives are:

● To assess the validity of the CF/LNOB’s overall conceptual framing, its overall and PO-specific approaches and strategies, based on a systematic review of the evidence for the appropriateness, effectiveness, viability and sustainability of associated activities, taking into account targeted vulnerable group capabilities, community and institutional contexts; ● To analyse and assess the capacity and readiness of POs, considering their institutional performance to date in the field for implementation of CF/LNOB; and ● Based on the findings and discussions with CF management, to recommend any adjustments and/or new elements in concept, organizational configuration/resourcing, strategy and activities to provide confidence in the future operations of the CF to achieve intended outcomes.

2 Methodology

The methodology for this assignment is fully congruent with the provisions in the ToR (Ref: Annex I), as guidance (para 2.3) and required deliverables (para 2.4).

Accordingly, the present study comprises of two components:

● Proof of Concept: The Study Team understands that Purnima/Mott MacDonald has put the CF/LNOB concept under assessment for its operationality in Nepal’s post-earthquake context in terms of its current approach, strategies and activities across the four POs. The Study Team realises that based on its findings; Purnima/Mott MacDonald will consider identifying any adjustments that may be required to achieve intended impact pathways will also be. ● Readiness for Expansion: The Study Team also understands that Purnima/Mott MacDonald, in the context of expansion, wants to be sure about the POs’ capacity and readiness to expanding CF/LNOB activities in additional Palikas if they were to be selected or assigned further for extended duty for a period from 2020 to the end of the Purnima/Mott MacDonald programme. Moreover, on top of concepts, such as, ToC and impact pathways, the ToR also includes the CF/LNOB guiding principles that need to be put in perspective for this assignment which can be presented as in Figure 3 (below).

Figure 3: Guiding principles for CF/LNOB (adapted from the ToR)

In order to accomplish the assignment, two fundamental methodological processes were adopted: i) desk reviews; and ii) field visit. The details about these methods and tools surrounding the above two components are discussed in the following sub-sections.

1.4 Proof of Concept In this part of the study, the sub-section 2.3 of the ToR provides seven crucial elements as to what needs to be done at a minimum. Those can be analysed and grouped in such a way that first five points include the tasks that need to be performed for various parameters, and the last two points are the evidence-based analytical products, and can be presented as in Figure 4 (below) like a pathway of tasks leading to analytical products.

Figure 4: Understanding of Assignment (adapted from ToR) As reflected in Figure 4, it is quite comprehensive and clear that the tasks are the key focal areas. The ultimate goal here is to have an assessment of current approach, strategies and activities across the four POs, and identify any adjustment that may be required to achieve intended impact pathways of CF. Accordingly, they have been constituted as the required headings under this methodological sub-section, and corresponding relevant approaches and tools for information collection and analyses are described hereunder.

1.4.1 Documentation of records and assessment of progress This part of the exercise involved (i) systematic extraction/documentation of information by undertaking desk reviews of available relevant documents, and (ii) analyses of information and insights provided by stakeholders during the field visit. These helped make assessment of progress against diagnostics and plans of challenge fund.

Further to the ToR, key documents collected and reviewed for the assessment of progress in CF implementation against diagnostics and plans of the CF primarily include (and all are listed under reference section):

● Documents held by POs - three quarterly progress reports (QPRs), work plans (WPs), vulnerability assessment reports (VARs, also referred to as diagnostic phase report), and narrative proposals (or project proposal which is otherwise referred to as ToRs for the POs); ● Documents held by Purnima/Mott MacDonald: Information flyer about Purnima as UK support to post-earthquake recovery in Nepal, monitoring reports of Purnima/Mott Macdonald and Power Point Presentation about Purnima dated September 2019. The Study Team through desk reviews noted the POs’ claims as they reported in terms of what they achieved or made progress about as well as Purnima/Mott Macdonald’s remarks in their monitoring reports on progress. Study Team understood that the POs have reckoned their engagement with Purnima/Mott MacDonald in two phases: ‘diagnostic phase’ and ‘implementation phase’. It is clear that

the POs undertook exercises for VARs for the first three months which have also been referred to as ‘diagnostics’ on the basis of which POs planned activities and supports targeted to VGs. The outcome of the desk reviews formed a basis to verify the documentary information and statements in the field to be able to verify and assess the progress made against ‘diagnostics’ and implementation plans of the challenge fund.

Accordingly, the key tools applied during the field visit included (i) interaction meetings with POs staff members, Palika dignitaries and officials and out-posted Purnima/Mott MacDonald staff members; (ii) Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) with VGs or beneficiaries; and (iii) Key Information Interviews (KIIs) with selected individuals. Further, the Study Team undertook direct site observations (SOs) to the places where various ‘types of livelihood activities’ have been carried out at VGs’ farm or homes or shops, etc. Table 2 (below) provides the summary of field visit activities carried out in 10 of 12 Palikas and Annex II and Annex III provide details about FGDs and KIIs.

Table 2: Summary of field visit NUWAKOT RASUWA DHADING (DCA) GORKHA (PHASE)

(SAPPROS) (CDC)

S.N

Tadi

Gajuri

Arjikot

Gandaki

Dharche

Shivapuri

Uttargaya

Chumnubri

Navakunda

Khaniyabas

Dupcheshwor Gangajamuna

FGD 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KII 2 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 - - 1 - SO 2 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 3 Total 5 3 4 3 2 3 1 2 3 4

(Source: Field Work 2020)

Since proof of concept is directly related to assessing the approach, strategies and activities under CF/LNOB, it demanded a critical review of impact pathways and levels of ambition with respect to varied level of capacities of the VGs and local contexts. Therefore, the Team critically examined the Theory of Change (ToC) and impact pathways explained in the TOR while carrying out the review of the proof of concept. The focus of examination was to find out if the project LogFrame is fully aligned with specific elements of the ToC. This was supplemented by the thorough review of available reports and documents held by POs. Furthermore, it has been felt important to examine if the ToC has also been adequately harmonised and contextualised with the set of interventions designed and implemented through POs. More recent evidence has been generated and used to verify pragmatic pathways and suggest any revision if required in the ToC.

1.4.2 Assessment of validity and utility of diagnostic phase of POs As mentioned earlier, it was understood that the CF/LNOB implementation by POs have been divided into ‘evidence/diagnostic phase; and ‘implementation phase’. So, there the assessment of diagnostic phase relates to its ‘validity’ and ‘utility’, and in the context of expansion, how relevant would it be is the key question here. Accordingly, the Team reviewed progress reports of POs in the light of the VARs and acknowledged their assertions that the VARs during diagnostic phase were the fundamental bases for designing and implementing the CF activities with making sure that the risk of inclusion/exclusion is judicially addressed. These were then verified during the field visit through FGDs, KIIs and site observations, and then the analysis was made as to how the stakeholders see the validity and utility of such division of phase with special emphasis on the usefulness of such diagnostics.

A simple measurement of the ‘validity of VARs’ was done by considering closely whether or not POs involved the stakeholders in the process of preparing VARs and also whether the scientific methods

and tools were applied for this exercise. This would suggest the ownership of VARs and technical soundness of the exercise.

Likewise, a simple measurement of the ‘utility of VARs’ was made by examining whether or not the ‘types of activities and supports’ provided by the POs to VGs were consistent with the claims made by the POs in their progress reports and also whether or not respective Palikas have realised the relevance and importance of such report and incorporated it in their local government planning processes.

These analyses have clearly provided a ground for encouraging ‘deeper understanding of vulnerability’ to the stakeholders as well as the strategic dimension of CF/LNOB. All this has been discussed under ‘Findings and discussions’ section keeping the ‘expansion’ in perspective.

1.4.3 Assessment of POs’ management arrangements Under this part, the Study Team’s focus was to find out as to how POs’ management arrangements have been made in terms of implementation of CF/LNOB activities. This is based on the recognition of the fact that the POs are independent entities and eligible to work with so many other development partners and/or donors. The question, therefore, considered by the Study Team was about is the specific management arrangement directly related to the Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s CF/LNOB grant- supported activities. Assessments comprised of looking at specific structures of the POs, the modality of allocating resources and the guidance and support mechanism of POs. This has been assessed with the view that the ‘assigned’ management arrangement by POs would ensure that the ‘activities and support’ are of desired quality and accomplished in timely manner, as demanded by the VGs. In other words, it will be examined through the assessments that whether or not the management arrangement allows various compromises for the quality of service.

Moreover, the Study Team recognised, through review of literature (such as narrative proposals and progress reports), introductory meetings with representatives of POs and Purnima/Mott MacDonald, that except for PHASE Nepal in Gorkha, other POs are run as consortia. This would logically lead the Team to question whether a single PO would be appropriate for the implementation of such programme or the consortia would be more efficient. In this context it became important to analyse the pros and cons of adopting the consortium-based approach as well as the work dynamics of consortium partners and their ‘image projection’ as a single solid team that brings different strengths without being seen as fragmented.

As a process to assess all these considerations, the Study Team carried out a process of verification by indirectly asking the VGs and Palika officials as well as conducted direct observation of field conditions, with a view to making suggestions or recommendations in the face of the programme expansion.

1.4.4 Assessment of the Purnima CF Management System Purnima/CF is a multi-sectoral programme and CF/LNOB is one of the important components of its overall portfolio. While there has been an agreement with the POs for the implementation of Output 4, i.e. CF/LNOB, it is understandable that this component alone cannot just be left independent. In this context, the specific task as stated in the ToR includes:

“Assess the appropriacy of the structural elements (Purnima CF management systems, guidance, governance) and resources (human and financial) in place to ensure CF delivers its objectives.” (Point iv of Part-A on page 8 of ToR)

To address this task, the Study Team took a two-pronged strategy: it consulted with representatives of Purnima/Mott MacDonald about the existing oversight mechanism or arrangement and activities undertaken by them to provide direction and guidance to POs; and it also interacted with POs in the field as to how they thought about as well as felt benefitted out of the oversight mechanism.

1.4.5 Assessment of risks and assumptions in the original CF ToR A review was made of the original CF ToR or “Call for Proposal” of Purnima/Mott MacDonald for inviting various NGOs or consortia for the implementation of CF/LNOB activities. Although the statement of assumptions and risks have not been explicitly elaborated in the CF ToR, the review has revealed six key areas of risks of which three relate specifically to three areas of intervention and rest of others relate to operational matters such as selection of VGs and coordination with Palikas and other output areas of Purnima (see Annex V). To be noted here is a fact that at the stage of Call for Proposal, the potential POs were referred to as Grant Recipients (GR).

In the context of proofing the concept of CF/LNOB, this assessment was taken into consideration and taken to the field for verification, to see if appropriate mitigation measures have been taken or if the level of risks has been minimized or addressed.

1.5 POs’ Specific Readiness Assessment This part of assessment will make an evidence-based judgement of the POs’ readiness in the context of the expansion of CF/LNOB activities in additional Palikas. It is to be understood that readiness can only be judged looking into the capacity of PO(s) in question. According to the ToR (para 2.3), there are six comprehensive elements as presented in Figure 5 against which the readiness of each PO needed to be assessed.

In terms of methodological approach, the Study Team adopted the following:

● Review of available documents held by POs, such as the narrative proposals submitted by each PO to Purnima/Mott MacDonald, all progress reports, budget and work plans; ● Consultative meetings jointly held with the representative of POs and Purnima/Mott MacDonald; and ● Field verifications through FGDs, KIIs with Palika officials, site observations and interactions with staff members of POs and Purnima/Mott MacDonald. Specific to each of the elements, relevant method of analysis can be briefly described as follows:

Figure 5: Understanding of POs’ readiness assessment (adapted from ToR)

1.5.1 Appropriacy of staffing and management structures and skills sets A review of narrative proposals and the budget and work plans of each PO was done to get the overall idea of their staffing structures and confirmed by the PO staffs or representatives. Then in keeping with that overall idea, more focused discussion was held during the field visit including through FGDs and KIIs with Palika officials and out-posted staff members of Purnima/Mott MacDonald. In the light of insights shared by stakeholders and the outcome of the desk review, the Study Team made a judgement for the appropriacy of the staffing and management structures of POs.

1.5.2 Stakeholder relationships management Since the implementation of programme activities is basically grounded on local level for all POs, for the purpose of this assignment, the stakeholder relationships have particularly focused on local level actors including Palikas and other development workers in those Palikas. In addition, in the case of consortium arrangements, it was also considered as one of the guiding perspectives for analysing stakeholder management as described in 2.1.3 (above).

The efforts made by POs for engaging Palikas and ensuring their participation in meetings of Palikas have been considered as a major indicator of their relationship with local government entities. The indicators considered to this criterion were: (i) meeting records of POs participating in Palika meetings, (ii) records of POs’ facilitation for VGs’ engagement with Palikas, (iii) records of CF/LNOB activities reflected (as a proxy) in Palikas’ planning documents; and (iv) the perceptions of stakeholders about POs.

Likewise, the POs’ and Palika officials’ practices were assessed as to how they have been able to manage avoiding duplication of supports in the same area for the same group of people as proxy to POs’ stakeholder relationship management.

It may also be noted that for the purpose of judging the POs’ capacities, their deeper understanding of CF/LNOB and the concept and context of vulnerabilities existing at different levels of their structures that would shape their behaviour, discourses and negotiations for local level activities were also assessed.

1.5.3 Monitoring System The Study Team has tried to demonstrate the fact that the monitoring system implies here as a system that is in-built and internal to the POs concerned in order to continuously guide themselves towards duly implementing the targeted activities and achieving them in time with a needed quality.

The desk review provided the basic information about the monitoring mechanism of respective POs which was taken to the field and discussed with POs as well as assessed for its functionality and effectiveness.

1.5.4 Pace of implementation against plan For this, review of all the budget, work plans and progress reports were done first to assess the POs planning approaches and strategies and their status of implementation as reported. These were then analysed along with (i) insights of Study Team collected through direct field observation, and (ii) the collected insights and perceptions of VGs and Palika dignitaries through FGDs and KIIs to determine the pace of implementation as against plan. These have been discussed as a part of assessment of the achievement vs targets sets by the POs for all components.

1.5.5 Evidence of impact From the overall concept of CF/LNOB, evidences of impacts were assessed, albeit preliminary, on all four components along impact pathways. For component 1, the key issue has been to look into whether the POs and Palikas have made their understanding and action beyond just establishment of database, or they have begun to utilise the data and understanding in order to take a direction

towards “Bold evidence to identify what works for whom in different contexts”. For component 2, the issue has been to see whether VGs have shown some indications as an increase of voices, agency and control towards reaching towards “strengthened community networks, representations and inclusive institutions”. For component 3, whether VGs are having or going to have access to safe and resilient housing has been the key question. And finally, for component 4, the directions that would lead to economic recovery and/or growth to a certain extent would cover the other key area of concern. These have been discussed in the ‘Findings and discussions’ section based on some evidences suggested in progress reports, and on field observations as well as perceptions/insights received from VGs and Palika dignitaries.

1.5.6 Due diligence Due diligence is a management tool generally defined as a detailed investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is expected to undertake before entering into an agreement or contract with another party, or an act with a certain standard of care. Application of due diligence may or may not be obligatory depending on the criticality of agencies. It was noted that Purnima/Mott MacDonald has made due diligence obligatory and has already enforced it for the POs before they entered into agreement. Accordingly, they have their own template. For this assignment, the already existing template was adapted considering 11 important elements which would provide a valid ground for understanding and judgement from management perspective in the context of expansion (see Annex V for the duly filled in forms).

1.5.7 SWOT analysis In addition to the above-discussed elements of assessing POs’ expansion readiness, SWOT analysis was undertaken to supplement the validity of assessing POs’ readiness backed by their institutional strength and capacity which has been discussed in detail in the sub-section 3.2.1.

3 Findings and discussions

There are two areas from which to draw evidence-based recommendations in view of the project’s proposed expansion into new Palikas:

● The validity of the project’s concept and approach based on its successful application substantiated by the field visit assessment and relevant data analysis; ● POs’ readiness to expand into the additional Palikas backed by their institutional strength and proven performance record. It is anticipated that the study would give confidence to an informed opinion on the CF/LNOB modality for bringing a difference on the ground, and on the need and rationale for expanding the project with the existing partners.

3.1 Introduction The findings and discussions have been framed within these two areas as follows:

Pertaining to validity:

● Assessment of the validity of CF/LNOB’s overall concept ● Assessment of POs’ specific approaches and strategies Pertaining to POs’ readiness:

● Assessment of POs’ willingness to participate in the expansion ● Assessment of POs’ capacity including due diligence The methodological outcomes have furnished the evidences, insights and perceptions for making valid assessments which have been incorporated in this section wherever deemed as relevant to back up the analyses. It is also to be mentioned at the outset that, although the methodology has made two distinct sub-sections (with their smaller detailed components), the emerged evidences, insights and perceptions might be referred to in a number of places and might cross-cut both the main areas of analyses.

3.2 Assessment of the validity of the CF-LNOB overall concept As articulated in the ToR and in the background section of this report, the focus of this sub-section is in assessing how the Output 4 of Purnima/Mott MacDonald has been conceptually framed and how the concept has been translated into action in the field by POs, and for all this, what evidences could be furnished through the methodological actions as described in Section 2.

The ToC and impact pathways presented as Figure 1 and 2 in the introductory section and the guiding principles presented as Figure 3 in methodological section of this report are the fundamentals of CF/LNOB. The assessment in question, therefore, is how these fundamentals can be seen as CF/LNOB framework or operational modality in the post-earthquake reconstruction and recovery context. For this to emerge systematically, the relevant evidences, insights and perceptions that came out from the methodology as discussed in sub-section 2.1 have been presented in the following pathways of argumentation:

● POs’ understanding of the fundamentals of CF-LNOB ● POs’ management arrangements, approaches and strategies in implementation of programme activities ● Assessment of targets vs. achievements ● VGs’ assessments on appropriacy, effectiveness, viability and sustainability of the type of activities launched and supports they received

● Palikas’ perceptions and insights on Purnima programmes ● Role and impact of Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s oversight arrangements ● Overall remarks on the validity of CF/LNOB

3.2.1 POs’ understanding of the fundamentals of CF/LNOB The assessment of understanding of POs is pivotal because their understanding really lays the foundation of the CF/LNOB concept of Purnima/Mott MacDonald for its applicability on the ground. The assessment here is primarily on the basis of the review of their ‘narrative proposals’ and subsequent discussions held during the field visit. Moreover, some interpretations are informed also by introductory meetings with the representatives of POs along with the representatives of Purnima/Mott MacDonald. Additionally, some further consultations were done with the officials of POs/consortia and Purnima/Mott MacDonald.

Assessments have been made by considering the following as elements:

● How was the spirit of the CF/LNOB fundamentals incorporated into their ‘narrative proposals’? ● How those fundamentals are reflected in their progress reports? ● How did the representatives of the POs both at the management and field level present their understandings and show their future prospects? Highlights from narrative proposals on the CF/LNOB framework In terms of POs’ initial understanding, the incorporation of the spirit of the CF/LNOB could be extracted from their ‘narrative proposals’ as follows:

“The project will be based on the overarching theory of change of the reconstruction support project ‘Purnima’, and will follow innovative approach to reach the unreached ensuring that no- one feels left behind (a foundational element of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The target beneficiaries of this project are elderly, single women, persons with disability, poor and food insecure, and the people internally displaced due to resettlement/earthquake impact.” (CDC 2018:2). “The project … will contribute towards enhancing the quality of life of five most vulnerable categories of disaster-affected communities through mainstreaming them into the Reconstruction efforts. The expected outcome of the project is that the Vulnerable disaster- affected communities … have improved and sustainable livelihood options and the Local Governments (LGs) demonstrate enhanced commitment towards increased access to resources and services for vulnerable groups. For this to achieve, the project proposes to promote “Evidence-based Inclusive Livelihood Enhancement Approach”, which … includes a complete cycle of five major components which are mutually reinforcing each other: (i) ICT based vulnerability data collection and vulnerability factor analysis, (ii) Increased access to information and services, (iii) Enterprises development, (iv) Access to Finance for all, and (v) Constructive engagement with the government.” (DCA 2018:5) “The exact activities … will be confirmed and refined once information from the baseline assessment ... direct beneficiaries will be selected with close involvement of the community, and will be supported through individually tailored activities ... Vulnerable groups and individuals in the target communities will benefit from the programme on four levels: i) Higher awareness of the individual and their family of services and support available; 2) Facilitated access to services and direct support to increase mobility and independence for those who are in need of this support; 3) Improved livelihood opportunities for vulnerable individuals and families; and 4) Higher awareness of vulnerability issues in the community and local government and higher capacity of local government to respond to and mitigate vulnerabilities. An additional benefit of the project will be the evidences collected throughout the programme, which will be shared widely, to inform other organisations’ work on addressing vulnerabilities.” (PHASE 2018:2). “Sambodhan is a two-year innovative project … to achieve the output 4 of Purnima project through three pillars of the Challenge Fund targeting to reduce extreme poverty, enhance social inclusion and resilience of vulnerable people through a) improved visibility and deeper

understanding of vulnerability and vulnerable people/groups at the community and Palika levels b) enhanced social inclusion through strengthened community social networks, more effective representation and access to services c) improved food security and higher income for the most vulnerable households d) safe shelter for the most vulnerable groups giving dignity and enable them to pursue livelihoods. To achieve these outcomes, Sambodhan has outlined tailored made approaches for five categories of vulnerable people.” (SAPPROS 2018:i) Although the above statements of the POs are composed in different narratives, they have essentially captured the spirit of the CF/LNOB including their wider awareness of SDGs, past experiences and practices. These were to respond to the ‘call for proposal’ from Purnima/Mott MacDonald in 2018. These, however, formed like their ‘signature’ statements in order to guide them during implementation, and can be considered very much positive about their initial understanding.

Highlights from progress reports In reference to POs’ progress reports, it can be broadly said that the first quarterly reports have represented ‘the evidence phase’ or ‘diagnostics’ and reports after that reflect the ‘implementation phase’ as referred to in the ToR and other documents.

In the first quarterly reports of all POs, the areas covered are setting-up of the operational modalities (such as consortium arrangements, steering committee formation, job descriptions, etc.), approaching to the local level (such as meeting with local government bodies, carrying reconnaissance, etc.), setting-up operational structure and staffing, and frequent meetings with Purnima/Mott MacDonald. All these reflect systematic efforts that were put to kick-start the programme activities and, as reported, the POs did try to express their initial learning (albeit trivial).

One major undertaking of the first quarter was the vulnerability assessment of target Palikas. In order to come up with vulnerability assessment reports (VARs) within a limited span, assuring cooperation and collaboration during the process, and building ownership in the end by local governments seems a commendable job carried out by the POs. VARs then appear to have clearly established a sound foundation on which the POs made their plan of actions. This is evident by the fact that quarterly reports from second quarter onwards are very much aligned to thematic areas or group of interventions as per the ‘tailor made’ approach to cater to the demands of the VGs.

In the light of above discussions (although very abstract), it can be inferred that the POs had always been on the move of tackling the challenge of understanding the LNOB framework, and the role of Purnima/Mott MacDonald has been covered little later.

Highlights of POs understanding through interactions and consultations The discussions with central and mid-level managers of POs reveal that they have internalised CF/LNOB principles. They are aware of the ToC, impact pathways and guiding principles. Therefore, the reflections of the spirit of LNOB in their narrative proposals followed by progress reports are evidences of their understanding. They have shown reasonable competence in handling and managing the level of ambitions which have links to underlying risks and assumptions (which they appear to be aware of). The POs have also shown their vigilance on the associated risks perceived in Purnima-supported activities, such as carefulness in identification and targeting of VGs to avoid conflict, carefulness in avoiding duplication of works (instead of making efforts to find synergy and complementarity of different actors), and ensuring visibility of LNOB approach and interventions of Purnima programme activities.

The higher level understanding and the documentary evidences (emerged from ‘narrative proposals’ and ‘quarterly reports’) were tested with the field level staff to know if POs have made efforts to inculcate the CF/LNOB among the field staff and thereby tried to understand their actions on the ground for translating principles in ground practices.

In the field, it was found that the staff members of POs have different backgrounds and qualifications. Some are mid-managerial level to many grassroots level workers. Naturally, this was one of the factors behind the different levels of understanding of CF/LNOB concept that was found among staff

members. However, one thing was clearly observed in the field that staff members of the POs were having a clear understanding about what they were supposed to do through efficient line of command to make sure implementation and/or translation of conceptual materialises into the practice. The Study Team’s understanding was furnished by asking a few questions. When the staffs were asked about the process of identifying the right target beneficiaries, then even staff members of lowest rung - the Community Development Facilitators (CDF) – also rightly answered that they would go to refer VAR and coordinate with local government dignitaries such as ward chairperson or other Palika officials. Similarly, when the same groups were asked about why they were delivering certain livelihood activity or support to a certain VG (e.g. goat or chicken, etc.), then they were clear in their answers as those were demanded, tailor-made, and so on. These kinds of responses were important evidences that the POs have been putting efforts to inculcate the LNOB principles among their staff. Although it cannot be ignored that some of these CDF have longer experiences of having worked elsewhere, yet aligning their experience to current job is certainly a positively contributing factor.

In terms of technical staff members of the POs, such as, Junior Technician/Junior Technical Assistants (JT/JTAs), overseers, engineers or agriculturalists, they are trying to utilise their expertise on the basis of their academic background to deliver services aligned to CF/LNOB principles. As mentioned earlier, the mid-level managers/coordinators in the field have clearly shown their competence in handling the CF/LNOB activities at higher conceptual level, have learned lessons and demonstrated their innovativeness to spearhead in leveraging resources through partnership with other actors as well as with Palikas. Most important perhaps is that they have been able to influence Palikas’ planning processes on the basis of sound VARs and initial results of programme activities. All POs invariably reported their success in registering the Purnima activities in the planning documents of Palikas, even some Palikas like Dupcheshwor in Nuwakot clearly acknowledged the Purnima support in their document.

On the whole it can be said that the POs have been steadily applying the CF/LNOB at all levels (top to bottom) of their organisational hierarchies. This is, on one hand, a practical application of the concept in the field, and on the other hand, the internalisation of the concept of CF/LNOB by the POs will lead to their capacity-building phenomenon which in itself is a matter of conceptual validity at large because those staff who worked for POs’ of Purnima/Mott MacDonald are likely to carry the learning with them even after the programme is over.

3.2.2 PO management arrangements, approaches and strategies All POs as independent entities or consortia have their own broad frameworks and operational modalities. However, the implementation of CF/LNOB programme activities is a ‘challenge’ to set reasonable targets and achieve them. The targets set by POs vs achievement has been addressed in the next sub-section 3.1.3. The focus of this assessment is to understand how the POs have set-up the management arrangements, approaches and strategies, and whether they are appropriate or sufficient under the current level of operations or whether there are shortcomings existing. Further, the question as to what adjustment should be made in the context of expansion to new Palikas and if adjustments are required, why and how that could be addressed are also to be addressed from this assessment.

In order to understand such dynamic factors and make assessment, inquiries were made through the review of the documents held by POs, consultations and discussions were made with officials of POs both at the centre and the local level during field visits, consultations with Purnima/Mott MacDonald were also made and the request for information from POs was sent in written forms. Keeping the expansion in perspective, the areas of inquiry included the organisational structures of POs specifically focused to implementing CF/LNOB along with their technical/appropriate capacities or skills, their stakeholder relationship handling approaches, methods and tools used, their monitoring and evaluations systems, and also if they have any other special arrangement.

Review of literature and written responses from POs reveal that they have some degree of differences in their approaches and strategies, and have accordingly tried to establish their management

arrangements. It was also found that such differences perhaps emanated right from the time of ‘call for proposal’ which had allowed them to come up with their own innovative ways.

Three POs out of four are operating in consortium arrangements of non-governmental organisations and one NGO is operating solely. They are as follows:

● CDC-led consortium with the involvement of Community & Rural Development Society Nepal (CARDSN). ● DCA led consortium with the involvement of Resource Identification and Management Society Nepal (RIMS Nepal), Nepal Society for Disabled (NSD) and Good Governance (GOGO) Foundation. ● SAPPROS-led consortium with the involvement of Nepal Participatory Action Network (NEPAN), CBM (the Overseas Disability Charity), and CODEC Nuwakot. ● PHASE Nepal. In terms of entering into agreement with Purnima/Mott MacDonald, while the PHASE Nepal as a sole PO has signed the agreement as the single grant recipient, the lead partner represented the consortia members for signing and the lead partners of consortia subsequently entered into subsidiary agreements with the member partners.

An interesting feature to note here is that PHASE Nepal as a sole PO has apparently approached the field implementation as “Purnima: CF/LNOB” while all others have gone with their special project names. The CDC-led consortium calls their partnership project as ‘Helping People Overcome Earthquake Impact - HOPE’ (CDC 2018:2). The DCA led consortium calls it as “BIHANI -Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal” (DCA 2018:5). The SAPPROS-led consortium names their partnership as “Sambodhan” (SAPPRO 2018:i). These different names of consortia or their partnership projects seem to be their ‘brand name’ identities, and interestingly, all field workers who belong to their different agencies/NGOs have seamlessly projected their jointly created ‘identities’ (i.e. HOPE, BIHANI and Sambodhan) to implement Purnima: CF/LNOB. This unified projection of their images despite having come from different agencies is a good indicator and a strategy for strong partnership which is well-recognised by local government bodies also. In the context of Nepal, this kind of partnership modalities could be regarded as a good concept and example in terms of facilitating the local NGOs to widen their reach to the vast developmental arena. It can be argued that small local level NGO may not meet capacities and strength to access such bigger mechanism like that of Mott MacDonald, but such partnership arrangement has made it possible to link them into a combined entity with the same mission, and in turn, contributed to facilitating a capacity building mechanism for institutional development in the long run.

Moreover, reportedly, the consortia mechanism has been created on the basis of respective partners’ strengths which they can bring in to the team with clear outline of their roles and responsibilities under an overall framework of their agreements. As stated earlier, their unified field level operation is a good sign though it appears to vary among the POs owing to their internal dynamics. For example, to curb all possibilities of coordination problems that may arise, SAPPROS has managed to share its office premises with concerned representatives of CBM and NEPAN, and likewise, CDC and CARDSN also have a joint office in Bidur. However, the DCA-led consortium members are located separately in their own premises, and when need arises for joint action, they come forward to coordinate. Although the central level DCA officials mentioned that they have a smooth coordination among partners to achieve desired results, the Study Team sensed that there could still be some rooms for improvement. A detailed analysis of internal dynamics of the consortia partners was obviously out of scope for this study, but this can probably be safely concluded that this ‘sensitive matter’ may warrant further investigation and analysis with a separate mandate and scope in the context of expansion.

The organograms of POs and their distribution of field level staff are presented in Figures 6, 8, 10 and 12.

CDC: The CDC is a PO based in Bidur of Nuwakot District and its working areas are relatively closer to the adjoining district of Rasuwa. Therefore, in their ‘narrative proposal’, CDC has claimed that HOPE is a project to achieve the value for money having “locally owned the implementation and closely collaborated with government agencies” (CDC 2019:2) and drawing experience and expertise of leveraging resources. They have instituted a Project Steering Committee under the Chairpersonship of the CDC involving CARDSN, and defined its clear role and responsibilities. As reported, thematic leadership roles have been assigned to the consortium partners on the basis of respective partner’s thematic experiences and expertise, and the additional expertise seems needed to be hired through out-sourcing. In terms of management and mobilization of the staff for implementation, there is a Project Manager in command under the direction of the Executive Director, whereas there are a number of positions in place such as MEAL Manager, Livelihood Coordinator, Field Coordinator and Admin Finance Coordinator to ensure smooth operations in Palikas. At the grassroots level, the Field Coordinator and Livelihood Coordinators have been made responsible in each of the Palikas to provide close oversight and direction to the staffs like JTAs, Social Mobilisers and Interns. On the top of this already field-based NGO consortium, the CDC has also placed a fairly good amount of staffs as a back up to deliver programme activities at the VG level. Their budget structure (see Figure 8) suggests that their total programme activities comprise of 44 percent of the total budget whereas the total project staff cost inclusive of fringe benefits constitute 39 percent. It is to be noted, however, that quite a significant proportion of support staff and operation costs have been borne by the CDC.

Figure 6: Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of CDC consortium (Source: Annex VII.a) In response to a stakeholder management question (see Annex VII for details), one of the key points CDC has reported was that they have a three-tier strategy “to reach the unreached”. The elements of their strategies are basically around the principle of CF/LNOB following the overall pattern of jointly finding the VGs who were at the verge of being left out, identifying needs of those VGs, and planning jointly and monitoring the field regularly. The Social Mobilisers and JTA Coordinates are the frontline actors mostly engaged with ward offices, communities and individual VGs for which the Field Coordinators and Livelihood Coordinators have been constantly backstopping as well as building close coordination with Palikas and ward offices. On a regular basis, the Steering Committee members coordinate with other projects and other stakeholders including Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s field office. There are some references made in their progress reports about organizing quarterly

meetings with district-level stakeholders to inform about HOPE as well as to find out possibilities of partnership and collaboration.

In this scenario, it can be suggested that CDC has struck a reasonably good balance of their management arrangements to deliver the results and handle coordination at the district level to benefit the targeted VGs.

Figure 7: Budget structure of CDC (Data source: CDC) DCA: With regard to DCA consortium, their approach also seems to conform to the CF/LNOB principle as their narrative proposal states, “…approach includes a complete cycle of five major components which are mutually reinforcing each other: (i) ICT-based vulnerability data collection and vulnerability factor analysis, (ii) Increased access to information and services, (iii) Enterprises development, (iv) Access to Finance for all, and (v) Constructive engagement with the government.” (DCA 2018:5). In order to implement this approach, their management arrangements are shown in Figure 8 which reveals their presence both at the centre and district. They have a Project Steering Committee as the top body consisting of the heads of respective consortia member organizations and heads of programmes and finances as well as the programme manager who guides the Project Management Committee headed by Project Manager. Interestingly, DCA has placed the Project Manager in Dhading under whom there are Inclusion Expert, Project Coordinator/Livelihood Expert and Governance Expert respectively from NSD, RIMS and GoGo Foundation. While NSD and GoGo Foundation are partners apparently for expert advices in their field of expertise, RIMS has been dealing with Palika level project coordination with its expertise in the area of livelihood restoration and also administering the mobilization of two Field Facilitators and one JTA in each Palika. It is to be noted that the MEAL aspect is directly handled from DCA Centre.

The implementation structure of the project in Dhading suggests that DCA is necessarily backing up the mid-level staffs of its respective partners located in Dhading from its Kathmandu’s central office while there is less support and back up to the field workers, who are already in a limited number, to deliver the programme activities at the VGs level. As shown in Figure 8, it may be considered to float a thought that the Project Manager based in Dhading from DCA could perhaps relieve some of his burdens given from the top and may turn to be more Palikas-focused. The budget structure of DCA (Figure 9) also suggests that their total programme activities comprise 38 per cent of the total budget whereas the total project staff cost inclusive of fringe benefits constitute 38 per cent. Likewise, the travel component constitutes 11 per cent and capital development/equipment constitutes 7 per cent of the total budget. The budget for staffs and travel and capital/equipment components combined also suggests somewhat top-heavy arrangement vis-à-vis amount of programme activities. However, as

reported and reflected in Figure 10, the 15.5 per cent of the entire cost is shared by the POs although available documents did not clearly reveal partner-wise cost sharing contribution.

Figure 8:Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of DCA consortium (Source: Annex VII.b)

Figure 9: Budget structure of DCA (Data source: DCA) In regards to their strategy in managing stakeholder coordination (see Annex VII.b for details), DCA has reported that they have taken multi-stakeholder platform approach to ensure ownership of the local government, private sector and other relevant stakeholders for tailor-made income generation activities for the VGs. In order to operationalise the mechanism, they have reported that they have been organising coordination meetings with a wide range of stakeholders at different levels (meeting minutes included under Annex VII.b), developing linkage with local level networks and alliances, participating in activities of stakeholders including Palikas and so on. It is also reported that as a part

of relationship building, the POs have been closely working with the local government to strengthen good governance parameters and organising social audits. Apparently, there has always been a look out for opportunities to build collaborative actions with Palikas and other development partners such as planning process meetings and facilitations both at formal and informal level. DCA has reported (Annex VII.b) that they have been engaging in various meetings (as shown by example minutes) with many different stakeholders which has resulted in leveraging resources from other stakeholders in favour of VGs. In terms of M&E matters, DCA also revealed their own framework which seems to be reinforcing the implementation of programme activities funded by Purnima/Mott MacDonald. Hence, it can be said that DCA is apparently trying to make every effort to cash the opportunities available in terms of management arrangements to deliver the results for the benefit of the targeted VGs despite their somewhat apparent top-heavy structure.

PHASE: With regard to PHASE, it is the only sole operator among the four POs of Purnima/Mott MacDonald and as their ‘narrative proposal’ mentions, this has always adopted “an integrated programme approach that addresses multifaceted problems of poverty and exclusion in a multi- sectoral approach. PHASE’s particular strength is the community embeddedness of its work, as highlighted by a recent external evaluation.” (PHASE 2018:2). Thus, going by what they have described in the narrative proposal as well as their progress reports and also the Study Team’s field observations, their approach and modality of working seem to be in line with the CF/LNOB framework. Likewise, they also seem to be having a heavy presence in the field which is reflected in their management arrangements as shown in Figure 10.

For the management of Purnima/Mott MacDonald activities, PHASE has assigned a Project Manager under the direct supervision of PHASE Programme Manager and overall direction of the Executive Director. They do not have district level coordination mechanism, rather they directly work at Palika level with quite a heavy presence of their two field coordinators in each of the four Palikas who handle five or seven or even eight social mobilisers and five or seven JTAs corresponding to the placement made in their respective Palikas. If counted, a total of 61 staff members of PHASE are present in Gorkha district on top of concerned Project Manager and other consultants or experts who do the backstopping jobs from the Centre. According to the budget structure of PHASE (Figure 12), their total programme activities comprise of 39 per cent of the total budget whereas the total project staff cost inclusive of very small fringe benefits constitute 43 per cent. As can be seen from Figure 11, they have also been sharing cost for staffing (8.2% of total amount under this heading), travel (9.7%), programme activities (10.12%), capital goods (6.7%) and other operation costs (5%).

In this way, it can be said that perhaps they have at the bottom a very heavy staff arrangement which correlates with the higher proportion of staffing cost. At present, it appears that heavy staff presence in Palikas perhaps reflects the fact that the PHASE Centre has now been focusing more on meeting the implementation deadlines of what has been assigned by the Purnima/Mott MacDonald, whereas the capacity of the local coordinators based in Palikas is not sound enough for meaningful coordination as well as leveraging of resources at the local level, and this scenario will not change unless any proactive interventions are made from the Centre. This situation may warrant urgent attention in the context of planned programme expansion, and it will be appropriate to reduce the number of Palika level coordinators and increase the some of the district level coordinator and experts who could help find out innovative solutions as well as create better leveraging potentials.

Figure 10: Management arrangement and field level staff distribution of PHASE

Figure 11: Budget Structure of PHASE (Data source: PHASE)

SAPPROS: In the case of SAPPROS-led consortium, the approach they have adopted is also in line with the CF/LNOB. With regard to their management arrangements (see Figure 12) specific to Sambodhan, they have Consortium Steering Committee at the central level that provides overall guidance for the implementation of programme activities, appoints the Team Leader who is supported by technical experts like M&E Officer, GESI officer, Capacity Development Officer and Admin/Finance Officer (on part-time basis). At the district level, they have assigned a Project Coordinator who is supported by Enterprise Development Officer, Livelihood Coordinator and Technical Officer. Then, to serve more than one Palikas, they also have two Livelihood Officers and one Admin/Finance Officer,

and finally for three Palikas, they have 12 social mobilisers. In this way, it looks that SAPPROS is rightly balancing the staff management structure so as to coordinate with the centre as well as capture maximum opportunities to learn from the field while delivering the programme activities to the targeted VGs.

Figure 12: Management Arrangement and Field Level Staff of SAPPROS Consortium

Taking reference from Annex VII.d and on the basis of field observation, it is seen that the SAPPROS’ approach to handling stakeholders in the field appears quite efficient in that they continuously remain in coordination with different officials of concerned Palikas as well as various other development partners and stakeholders in the district. As a result, the PO has been able to reflect Purnima- supported activities not just in essence but also in terms of the direct reflection of their identity in the periodic and annual planning documents of the Palikas.

In terms of monitoring, they have a permanent monitoring structure at the centre which makes regular field visits to assess the field situation as well as provides proper backstopping support.

When looked from budgetary structure perspective (see Figure 13), their total programme cost is 45 per cent with the project staff cost of 36% and quite low level of travel and other costs.

In this way, it can be said that given the consortium dynamics appearing as cordial as it was observed in the field, the SAPPROS-led consortium perhaps offers one of the most appropriate arrangements in terms of its continued engagement with the programme even after its planned expansion.

Figure 13: Budget Structure of SAPPROS (Data source: SAPPROS)

Overall impression across all POs:

In the light of above discussions with respect to POs’ management arrangements, approaches and strategies to implement the programme activities, it can be said that the POs’ operations are generally in line with the CF/LNOB fundamentals of ToC, impact pathways and guiding principles. Although there may appear some variations among POs in terms of their being compatible to the CF/LNOB’s core principles, their ultimate targets and overall strategy show that the variations are not substantial rather contextual. No matter whether the POs are operating as consortia or as a sole operator, the operational costs remain high for all of them. In terms of the programme budget, SAPPROS’ stands highest (45%) followed by CDC (44%), PHASE (39%) and DCA (38%). But from the cost sharing perspective, the budget shows that DCA stands at the top (15.5%). In terms of staff structure to cater the services, PHASE appears bottom-heavy with much less capacity to coordinate, learn and leverage resources and thereby lead towards sustainability, whereas DCA consortium appears relatively top-heavy and somewhat less coordinated among the partners. The CDC is basically a field- based local NGO in the consortium structure and is trying to make all sorts of efforts to prove its credibility; however, it still needs some areas to improve particularly in terms of capturing lessons and heading towards sustainability. For the moment, SAPPROS appears to possess the most appreciable balance of programmatic vision and practices, and better budgetary provisions.

To complement the cross-POs analysis Table 3 (below) have been presented which shows a proportional analysis of coverage and expenditures on the basis of POs’ budget and expenditure reports as of December 2019. Of the total VGs targeted, CDC has covered 2,764 out of 3,177, and DCA has covered 1,369 out of 8,897. However, PHASE and SAPPPROS have reached more number of VGs than targeted. In terms of total expenditure against total budget, 39.4 per cent, 38.4 per cent, 37.7 per cent and 48.3 per cent have been spent respectively by CDC, DCA, PHASE and SAPPROS. The data have suggested that the per capita expenditure made by DCA is highest (NPR 19,895 or US$ 174.8) followed by CDC (NPR 6,424 or US$ 56.4), SAPPROS (NPR 4,534 or US$ 39.8) and PHASE (NPR 4,434 or US$ 39). However, from Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s perspective the overall average per capita comes to about NPR 5,814 or US$ 51 which is, more or less, equivalent to the provision of Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF) of NPR 5,000 provided to individual beneficiaries. If the expenditure figures of respective POs are separated as programme expenditure and operation expenditure, it can be said that all POs have been delivering very low programmatic

expenditures. The DCA spends among all the highest, but only US$ 49 out of US$ 174 in programme and rest in their operational expenditures. In case of CDC, PHASE and SAPPROS programme expenditures are respectively US$ 26.6 out of US$ 56.4, US$ 12.6 out of US$ 39, and 18.1 out of US$ 39.8. If we look at the proportion of expenditures between programme activities and operation & maintenance, CDC and SAPPROS show better performance compared to DCA and PHASE. This shows that DCA and PHASE have heavy recurrent costs which are also evident from rows 10 and 11 of the Table 3. Particularly, in reference to row 11 of Table 3, the expenditure ratios show that all POs have higher operational expenditure over programme expenditure. Proportionally, DCA has only 28 per cent programme expenditure vs 72 per cent operational expenditure; PHASE has 32 per cent programme vs. 68 per cent operational expenditure; SAPPROS has 45 per cent programme vs 55 per cent operational expenditure; and CDC has 47 per cent programme vs. 53 per cent operational expenditure. However, if the salaries and fringe benefits of project staff are considered as being programme cost, then the proportions roughly get reversed. Nevertheless, it can be said that none of the POs have confirmed 80:20: Programme: Operation costs in terms of expenditure as of December 2019.3

3 The classification of programme expenditure has always remained elusive and debateable. If staff salary and fringe benefits are added in the program activities-related expenditure which is often the case, then the share of program expenditure becomes 87% for CDC; 84% for DCA; 85% for PHASE Nepal and 93% for SAPPROS.

Table 3: Proportional analysis of coverage and expenditure S.N. Analytical parameters CDC DCA PHASE SAPPROS Overall

1 Total Budget of POs (NPR)* 45,025,277 71,000,000 107,248,497 61,382,450 284,656,224 Budget Per capita VG (NPR)** (budged 2 N=3177 14,172.3 N=8897 7,980.2 N=7684 13,957.4 N=8434 7,278.0 N=28,192 10,097.1 divided by N) Total expenditure for Staff salary, fringe 3 benefits, travel, etc. (NPR) as of Dec 2019 7,054,852 15,113,545 21,238,637 14,189,200 57,596,234 as reported by POs Total expenditure programme activities as 4 8,375,934 7,661,072 13,064,685 13,459,336 42,561,027 of Dec 2019 (NPR) as reported by POs Capital goods, operation and overhead 5 2,323,831 4,462,040 6,145,408 1,989,197 14,920,476 (NPR) as reported by POs Total expenditure as Dec 2019 (NPR) 6 17,754,617 27,236,657 40,448,730 29,637,733 115,077,737 as reported by POs Expenditure as of Dec 2019 as %age of 7 39.4 38.4 37.7 48.3 40.4 total budget (%) N=2764 6,423.5 N=1369 19,895.3 N=9123 4,433.7 N=6537 4,533.8 N=19,753 5,814.1 8 Per capita expenditure (NPR) 1 US$ = $ 56.4 $174.8 $ 39.0 $ 39.8 51.1 NPR 113.81 N=2764 3,030.4 N=1369 5,596.1 N=9123 1,432.1 N=6537 2,058.9 N=19,753 2,150.3 Per capita programme expenditure as of 9 1 US$ = Dec 2019 (NPR & US$)*** $ 26.6 $ 49.2 $ 12.6 $ 18.1 18.9 NPR 113.81 N=2764 3,393.2 N=1369 14,299.2 N=9123 3,001.6 N=6537 2,474.9 N=19,753 3,663.8 Per capita O&M expenditure as Dec 2019 10 1 US$ = (NPR) $ 29.8 $ 125.6 $ 26.4 $ 21.7 32.2 NPR 113.81 Programme : Operations costs ratio in 11 47:53 28:72 32:68 45:55 37:63 expenditure**** Notes: * Taken from POs' budgets. ** Ns are total numbers of VGs to be covered by respective POs according to Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s records. *** Here Ns are number of VGs covered as of Dec 2019 as reported in Table 5 (below). The exchange rate used is as of 31 December 2019. **** Operations costs include sum rows of 3 and 5. If rows 3 and 4 are considered as programme cost (that include salaries, etc.) then ratio of row 11 will become as CDC (53:47), DCA (68:32), PHASE (55:45) and SPPROS (63:37).

3.2.3 Assessment of Targets vs Achievements The CF/LNOB programme related POs activities are organised around four interlinked domains in two phases: ‘vulnerability assessment’ and ‘implementation phase’. The domain of vulnerability assessment/learning represents the first phase and remaining three domains of empower for change; economic/livelihood recovery and inclusion; and housing reconstruction support represents the implementation phase. The first domain (i.e. vulnerability assessment) builds evidence, through household specific data collection, to identify who is being left behind/excluded, where and why and also to understand context specific and appropriate interventions/activities for vulnerable groups. Following the context specific evidence collection, the second domain (i.e. empower for change) under implementation phase envisages to supporting vulnerable and excluded individuals’ access to established government entitlements and social services, working closely with local ward and Gaunpalika authorities, increases voices of vulnerable groups for access to services and strengthen community networks. The third domain of economic/livelihood recovery and inclusion in the impact pathways include designing and implementing interventions context favoured best suited for employment creation for improved livelihood, food security and overall, wellbeing through vocational and skill-based training, technical and business skills development and other support services. The fourth domain is housing reconstruction support, which envisages to provide socio technical support and facilitation for accessing the NRA’s housing construction grants and services and also provide top-up support to complete safe shelter.

In this section, we present a quantitative progress (updated data) of each POs in the four domains. Purnima’s ninth quarterly report (10 December 2019) reports that POs have reached a total of 12,670 people through one or more of these pillars, against a target of 10,539. From this data, the progress of POs looks quite impressive. Before we present quantitative progress in terms of domain specific activities it will be appropriate to have reference to the size of vulnerable group identified by type as ascertained during the VA phase. The vulnerability context is quite complex, and a vulnerable person may fall in more than one category of VG. Summary Report of the Vulnerability Assessment of 12 Palikas identified a total of 27,409 vulnerabilities (SW-4,295 ELD-10,026, PWD-3,115, IDPs- 1,536 and UPHHs-8,437), partly based on a census and partly on a sample survey. Allowing for intersectionality, a total of 21,815 of households was identified at this stage. The final target individuals and numbers were then selected and agreed with gaunpalikas, totalling 28,192 in all 12 Palikas (including some from outside the originally identified vulnerable groups). This also includes the beneficiaries of the fourth pillar (socio-technical assistance and grievance registration support for housing tranche / reconstruction) as well as those identified for social and economic empowerment pillars. By district the totals are:

● Rasuwa (CDC) 3,177; ● Dhading (DCA) 8,897; ● Gorkha (PHASE) 7,684; and ● Nuwakot (SAPPROS) 8,434. Domain wise target and achievement as of December 2019 (30% into the implementation phase) for each POs are summarized in Table 5. On the whole the programme has been able to achieve 110% of its target which appears quite impressive. If we analyse the achievement data by domain economic/livelihood recovery and safe and resilient living arrangement have achieved their target (overachieved) while domain two of ‘empower for change’ has achieved only 91% of its target. This is due to the ambitious social empowerment target set by PHASE and only achieving 55% of this. Overall achievement data by POs reveal that CDC, DCA and SAPPROS have achieved their target while PHASE reached 89 % of its target. Detailed domain specific and POs specific interventions are presented in Annex IV.

Table 4: Target Vs Achievement by Domain and POs SAPPROS CDC Rasuwa DCA Dhading PHASE Gorkha Total Domain\POs Nuwakot Target Achv. Target Achv. Target Achv. Target Achv. Target Achv. A. Empower 1,045 1,348 201 201 2,200 1,217 349 681 3,795 3,447 for Change % Achieved 129% 100% 55% 195% 91% B. Economic/ Livelihood 921 916 1,141 1,143 1,076 1,316 3,231 3,939 6,369 7,314 Recovery & Inclusion. % Achieved 146% 100% 122% 122% 115% C. Safe and Resilient 101 500 25 25 600 907 1,913 1,917 2,639 3,349 Living Arrangement % Achieved 495% 100% 151% 100% 127% D. Total 2,067 2,764 1,367 1,369 3,876 3,440 5,493 6,537 12,803 14,110 % Achieved 134% 100% 89% 119% 110% (Source: Progress Reports of POs)

Though the support of the POs revolve around four domains, some of the activities are common across POs while some are bit different. To make the analysis simple and presentable we have considered only those activities which are more or less common across POs. In a summary Table 6 we present the targets vs achievement of the POs by domain specific interventions. Progress reported by the POs up to the end of December 2019 (for CDC Rasuwa end of Jan 2020) as presented in the table showed evidence of quantitative progress.4 Since interventions are not exhaustive caution has to be exercised while interpreting the result.

A. Vulnerability Assessment

In this diagnostic phase for the Purnima LNOB Challenge Fund, all POs aimed to collect accurate, comprehensive and reliable data on vulnerability in the target Palikas. All the POs have reportedly accomplished successfully the vulnerability assessment using mixed method approach. Group discussions/ community consensus at settlement level were found to have been used to prepare a list of households having at least one vulnerable member in the household for detailed face to face interview with the vulnerable individual. Since it was not a complete enumeration there could be possibilities of leaving behind from all the programme palikas some households with vulnerable population. An essential part of the beneficiary selection process was the data validation by the communities and local stakeholders. In most of the programme palikas this process has been found completed with few exceptions. Notwithstanding, the assessment has been found very helpful to all POs in identifying the vulnerable household/types following standard definitions of vulnerability of specific type and to implement demand-based interventions for their livelihood.

Evidence gathered during the field work through KII amply demonstrates that POs have identified the most vulnerable individuals, types of vulnerability, family and social situations, housing and livelihood status and coping strategies. It may be noted that the project has made significant achievements in institutionalizing the practices of using the vulnerability assessment data not only during the project implementation phase but also in Palika's period and annual planning process. Tadi Palika in Nuwakot in its annual plan has categorically stated the support they have received from CF/LNOB

4 Data presented in Table 6 may not strictly tally with Table 5 as we have considered only common activities for comparison across POs in Table 6. Further, the data presented in the Table may underrepresent the actual beneficiaries served by the programme as few small activities related to specific POs have not been captured in the table. Domain-specific interventions by POs are presented in Annex IV.

project. Deputy Mayor of Dupcheshwor Palika appreciated the support received from the project. They have been using the vulnerability mapping data in their annual plan to design interventions for the identified VGs. They have used the data in its periodic plan preparation. This diagnostic phase should be taken as unique for the success of the programme implementation.

B. Empower for Change

Diagnostic phase was followed by programme implementation phase having three domains and the first one was the “empower to change”. Under this domain the major activities which were common to all POs included; orientation on social security entitlement process, support to vulnerable people to obtain ID card and distribution of assistive devices to PWD. Data showed that overall, 85% of the physical targets have been met. Achievement data however vary significantly across POs. The consolidated quarterly progress data on the whole revealed satisfactory performance. While CDC and SAPPROS have overachieved as compared to their target, PHASE has lagged behind and DCA has just achieved its target. It may be noted that since many beneficiaries receive support under more than one pillar, there are high chances of double counting. The data presented in the table by domain specific activities indicated this possibility. This must be cross verified.

Three-pronged strategy; individual, community and institutional level have been found quite effective for social empowerment. Individual level intervention has helped to access services while community level network building has helped the vulnerable people to collectively raise their voice for their due rights. At the institutional level intervention, a very sound relationship with Palikas has helped to mainstreaming social protection issues of VGs into the policies, plan, and programme and budget allocation of Palikas. Many Palikas have used the VA data in their annual plan for specific intervention to address the need of VGs.

C. Economic/Livelihood Recovery and Inclusion

During the evidence building phase all POs solicited kind of income earning activities implemented for their sustained livelihood/economic recovery. Guided by the collected evidence all PO applied multiple approaches to implement demand driven livelihood support activities for the targeted vulnerable households. The intervention included on, off and non-farm engagement, skill development training and enterprise support. The specific intervention, however, differed by POs. However, we have considered most common activities to all PO to document the progress made (Table 6). The progress data by type of VGs is presented in Annex IV. Most common interventions included support to high value fruits and vegetable farming (achievement 67 to 100%), training on off-season vegetable framing (overachieved) vocational non-farm training (more than 50%), post-harvest loss management training and support (more than 50%). Other intervention includes construction /rehabilitation of irrigation canal (CDC Rasuwa), construction /rehabilitation of agro-products collection centre (CDC and SAPPROS) and start and improve your business (SIYB) and business plan development training (CDC/SAPPROS/PHASE).

The economic/livelihood recovery supports have contributed to diversify and increase income sources for the targeted vulnerable groups. The success of livelihood-related activities and earnings helped them to start paying back their housing reconstruction as well as other debts. They have also been able to operate the activities at much larger scale by borrowing from the fund created from Self-help group. Beneficiaries attending the FGDs unanimously appreciated the support they received from the project.

D. Safe and Resilient Living Arrangement (Housing Reconstruction)

Most of the earthquake victims who were experiencing different types of vulnerability seem unaware of the specific support for which they are entitled. Under this domain all the POs have been supporting the VGs to access their statutory entitlement and earthquake specific reconstruction services and benefit. Major activities carried out include awareness campaign for the reconstruction grants (2177 beneficiaries), support for grievances registration (1277) who did not receive any support from NRA, facilitation in tranche release (210) and construction material, labour and transportation support for vulnerable HHs (30) (CDC only). In many activities the targets have been overachieved by

all POs. Grievances registration for house reconstruction seems an unfinished agenda even after 4 years of earthquake.

E: Overall Assessment

Target and achievement data presented in Annex IV revealed that all types of VGs except IDPs are duly represented in all the three domain related activities (ref to Annex IV).

In reference to Table 3 (above) the overall expenditure is 40% against the total budget of all POs.

Review of the Purnima LogFrame indicated that there are a set of 11 indicators representing 4 outcomes specific to Output 4. The programme performance has been assessed considering the LogFrame indicators. While assessing the POs’ progress records, it has been carefully examined if the activities carried out by POs fully align to generate the output indicators identified to measure the impact pathways. The review of the indicators revealed that they are not well defined. Numerator and denominators are not well defined. Indicators 4, 8 and 11 need each to be split into two to make them more meaningful. The assessment of the current status of the LogFrame’s indicators by POs has been presented in Table 7.

Data presented in the table on the whole demonstrate that the activities carried out by POs are aligned to generate the output indicators identified to measure the impact pathways. But it is interesting to note that none of POs were found using this LogFrame indicator to report their status in their quarterly progress reports.

Comparing with the vulnerable population identified during the vulnerability assessment phase (27,409), on the whole by the end of December 2019 only 19,793 vulnerable populations have been served which accounts to 72.2 per cent. However, the achievements vary significantly across POs and the intersectionality adjusted VG number even comes down to 21,815 and against that the achievement percentage goes up to 90.7 per cent. If we consider the number of potential beneficiaries recommended for immediate and long-term support which is estimated at 17,5975 the achievement rate goes above 100 per cent. This suggests the need for careful scrutiny of achievement data.

It should be noted here that caution should be exercised in drawing any conclusions from the target and achievement data. As noted, data has different units. So, bringing them all in the common denominator could have resulted in reporting problems. In any case from the target and achievement data presented in Tables 5 and 6 it can be inferred that target are not properly set and beneficiaries are double-counted or non-targeted beneficiaries are also included in few specific activities. Therefore, there is a need for careful scrutiny of target and achievements data across all POs.

With regards to impacts, although it would be too early to expect concrete figures and examples, however, the immediate outcome generated through domain specific activities by PO collected during the field visit and also from the quarterly progress reports of POs are summarized in a matrix form as presented in Table 8.

5 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT EVIDENCE PHASE, DFID, PURNIMA, MOTT MACDONALD.

Table 5: Physical Target Vs Achievement by POs DCA Nepal: PHASE: Gorkha SAPPROS: CDC: Dhading Dhading Nuwakot Domains Achieve Achieve Achieve Achieve Target Target Target Target ment ment ment ment 1.Vulnerability Assessment-Diagnostic phase • Mapping and deeper understanding of vulnerability VA VA Yes Yes VA Yes VA Yes 2. Empower for Change • Orientation on social security services/ entitlement process of GoN 125 175 80 80 3,645 2,059 306 634 • Support to VGs of programme palikas to Obtain ID card for Elderly, PWD and SW for SSA 81 302 80 80 3,000 939 306 634 • Distribute Assistive Devices to PWD (Wheelchair, white stick, hearing aid, glass) 20 40 44 44 400 278 43 47 • Orientation on the local level seven-step planning process 1. 2. 77 77 Total for Component 2 227 519 281 281 3,400 1,171 655 1,315 3. Economic/Livelihood Recovery and Inclusion • Support to establish multi-purpose nursery with improved farming technologies 11 11 158 104

• Post-harvest loss management training and support with seed bin 220 220 415 212 • Home garden training and establishment of support to farmers with high value fruits and vegetables/ Composite package of 10 types of vegetable 220 221 218 218 825 731 1890 1,271 seeds(DCA) • Construction /rehabilitation of irrigation canal - 4 schemes 50 134 • Construction /rehabilitation of Agro-products collection centre (2 collection centres *15 vulnerable group beneficiaries)/support on promotion of 2 nos Started 600 283 agribusiness through collection centre establishment (SAPPROS) • Start and improve your business (SIYB) training, help them identify profitable business and start up support/business plan development 80 89 100 6 300 107 • Iron/Plastic tunnel/ Plastic pond/ Drip irrigation, etc. support to vulnerable individuals 20 20 11 11 • Skilled based training on off-season Vegetable framing, use of organic manure, and preparation and use of bio-pesticide (on-farm)/ kitchen garden 220 221 218 218 825 1,058 20 44 training

• Training and poultry chick distribution/ skilled based training on goat/poultry/vegetable and soft toy 29 29 625 479

• Training on bee keeping 50 60 • Vocational/ Non-farm Trainings (Hair cutting, mobile repair, village animal health worker, house wiring, tailoring, plumbing, blacksmith, carpentry, 168 99 50 27 automobile, ladies trekking guide)

• Mushroom spawn (parale/Kanye) to start up mushroom farming 90 90 • Support to: Petty Shop, Sewing Machine, Iron Smith Support and Carpentry Support 20 20

Total of Component 3 501 586 218 218 3,434 1,141 3,063 1,870 4. Safe and Resilient Living Arrangement (Housing Reconstruction) • Orientation to raise awareness on reconstruction grant process 125 175 25 25 1,913 1,917 • Support to register grievances for housing reconstruction 81 302 250 550 541 541 • Construction material, labour and transportation support for vulnerable HHs 20 30

• Facilitate in release of tranches 25 25 600 357 • Collect and compile constraints faced by vulnerable groups in rebuilding of their houses 800 797

Total for Component 4 226 507 50 50 850 619 2,454 2,458

Grand Total 954 1,612 549 549 7,684 2,931 6,172 5,643

(Source: CDC, DCA, PHASE and SAPPROS)

Note: Except for CDC whose achievement data covers end of Jan 2020 all other three covers end of December 2019. VA= Vulnerability Assessment; SSA= Social Security Allowance Blank cell refers either activity not appropriate to specific PO or data not available.

Table 6: POC LogFrame Indicators and Present Status by POs CDC: Rasuwa DCA: Dhading PHASE: Gorkha SAPPROS:Nuwakot S.N. Indicators Target Ach. Target Ach. Target Ach. Target Ach. Yes Ganga- Naukunda Yes Ajirkot Yes Tadi Yes (2076/77) jamuna Number of gaupalika that have vulnerability and inclusive 1 Uttargaya No Khaniyabas Yes Dharche Yes Dupcheshwor Yes policy/plan Gajuri Yes Gandaki No Shivapuri Yes Chumnubri NK 4 Number of sharing meetings on the findings of 21 2 0 0 1 (from 4 21 vulnerability mapping at ward and Palika level (all wards) palika) Number of elderly, PWD, IDP , ultra-poor and SW who 3 4,622 1,794 14,626 2,516 are included in government list or have cards Increased access to support services and participation in 4 decision making of vulnerable people Number of vulnerable people has access to social 5 1300 549 939 681 services Number of vulnerable people are represented / engaged 6 0 0 978 849 in social networks Increased number of vulnerable HHs engaged in 7 825 884 597 2,438 economic, livelihood and income generating activities Number of people engaged in enterprises and increased 8 746 597 1,696 122 income after receiving vocational training* Number of vulnerable people engaged in on farm 9 662 320 1,058 0 0 enterprises after receiving skill based training Number of vulnerable people engaged in off farm related 10 enterprises 1,347(griev Number of vulnerable HHs will have access to NRA 2,385 ance) 11 reconstruction grants and top-up grant to complete 302 (grievance 1,917 357(receive housing reconstruction registered) tranches) Source: Various quarterly reports of POs Only Vulnerable people engaged in enterprise considered. Income data was not available.

Table 7: Evidences of impacts on different domains

Domain\POs CDC: Rasuwa DCA Dhading PHASE Gorkha SAPPROS Nuwakot

Vulnerability VA data used in preparing Gaupalika used data in Gaupalika used data in preparing Palika has addressed the Assessment strategic planning and preparing strategic planning strategic planning and budgeting vulnerability issues in their annual budgeting as well as annual and budgeting as well as as well as annual work plan. plan and policy work plan. Used to prepare the annual work plan. Gandaki RM has allocated budget detail implementation plan for People with disability and (DIP) single women

Empower for Change 1300 Vulnerable people DCA in coordination with *Elderly, single women and *253 persons with disability who received ID cards which helped Palika organised a mobile people with disability after having have red (70) card and blue (183) them to receive SSA. Camp where total 800 person access to beneficiary cards card are enrolled in government received social security card through the project in social security allowances in three which eventually helped them collaboration with RM are now Gaunpalika. They are receiving in receiving SSA. receiving social security 3,000 and 1,600 allowance per allowance from the government; month in regular basis. which has immensely helped in their *Support for PwDs with assistive livelihood. devices has increased mobility of persons who were confined within * Assistive devices has increased the small room of the house. the mobility of persons with Rabina, from Keraunja now has disability and their participation on started to attend school; Income Generating activities. Case of Kanchhi Maya Tamang. She is handling her business after having assistive devices.

Domain\POs CDC: Rasuwa DCA Dhading PHASE Gorkha SAPPROS Nuwakot

Economic/Livelihood *Construction /rehabilitation of Economic support to the VG Earnings of NPR. 3000-4000 from *Evidence of rise in annual Recovery and irrigation canal benefitted 75 that support them to pay their single chick (Giriraj) has aid on income to the tune of NPR 31,321 Inclusion HHs in increasing their agri debt which was taken for the the smooth living of vulnerable from plastic tunnel after the income through productivity house reconstruction. Case of individuals. Sunmaya Gurung of programme intervention, Case of increase due to irrigation Phulmaya Tamang, Single Dharche is an example; Kanchha Tamang, Ram Krishna facilities. women who lost her husband Tamang, family member of PwDs in EQ. She received Bal Bahadur Gurung of at Shivapuri earned 64,000 *SIYB training and start up government support to rebuilt Tsumnubri-3, started saloon in his rupees from his poultry business support helped to initiate their her house, in addition to this own locality after hair cutting from first lot and now he has own business. This has been she also take loan around training and is earning around continued his business from his very instrumental in income NPR 100,000 that was repaid NPR 15,000-20,000 per month. own initiation linking with local increase through independent after she operate petty shop Gopal Adhikari of Ajirkot-3 after Dangol agro-vet” business that was supported by receiving livestock training from programme. She is earning programme started providing in around NPR 20,000 per month the same locality and adjoining person with disability and elderly that make possible to repay locality for the treatment of people are making good income her debt livestock Training helped to ease from low cost agriculture his livelihood through increased technology income.

Safe and Resilient 302 VG been able to enrolled 4,103 VG been able to Reconstruction of earthquake Living Arrangement in the grievance registration in enrolled in the grievance damaged 1128 vulnerable NRA for house reconstruction registration in NRA for house households have been completed support, reconstruction support, with the technical support from programme 10 Households received material and labour support to reconstruct their houses.

3.2.4 Appropriacy, Effectiveness, Viability and Sustainability In this section attempt has been made to assess the programme considering appropriacy, effectiveness, viability and sustainability issue. These elements are separately dealt.

A. Appropriacy

The programme appropriateness has been examined from two perspectives. One is design perspective and another one is programme perspective. As we know the current approach of CF has two phases. One is diagnostic phase and another one is implementation phase. The diagnostic phase is for gathering accurate, comprehensive and reliable data on vulnerability in the target area of different types including people’s perception about the kind of intervention they demand for their livelihood support.

The need for a reliable data not to leave behind anyone is justified from the findings of a previous study done after 2015 earthquake in Gorkha district. Lam and Kuipers (2018) observed that “the entire Nepal reconstruction process was characterized as one of the low levels of community participation and vulnerable groups were excluded” (Adapted from PHASE 2019:12). This amply illustrates the need for a comprehensive and reliable and accurate data. Such approach justifies the appropriacy of the programme design as it makes the programme a great success by leaving no one behind.

Appropriacy has also been defined at two levels. At activity level, it relates to how suitable/accessible the provided interventions are to the needs and constraints of the target population by 5 type/s of vulnerability and their intersectionality, and at strategy level, it relates to how well the PO has considered and responded to the needs and opportunities of the target groups identified by the diagnostic. Having defined that for the sake of measurement of appropriacy we have considered following parameters:

1. Are the interventions/support aligns with the possible activities listed in the TOR?

The careful scrutiny of the interventions/support (Refer to Annex IV) illustrates that they fully align with few model activities listed in the TOR. POs interventions/activities have supported selected vulnerable households to obtain better access to reconstruction-related services such as orientation to raise awareness on reconstruction grant process (176), facilitation for grievances registration (1,572), facilitation in housing grants trance release (55 ) and social and technical assistance (2,226),

2. Has “Evidence-based Inclusive Livelihood Enhancement Approach” been adopted?

Appropriacy can also be justified by assessing if evidence based inclusive livelihood enhancement approach has been followed. During the VA phase all POs solicited information from the most vulnerable people about the type of interventions and support they wish to have. Some of the important activities they demanded were skill development training, support for vegetable farming, poultry and goat farming and non-farm activities (Refer to Annex IV). Careful review of the interventions reveals that POs implemented demand driven prioritized schemes. From the implementation point of view tailored made programme interventions have been found implemented.

3. Are the interventions/support appropriate for labour-poor vulnerable groups?

Earthquake affected most vulnerable group tends to be labour poor. So interventions would bring desired result only if this factor is considered. They also tend to have very limited land. Vegetable framing, tunnel farming of tomato, poultry and goat farming are some appropriate example of interventions for labour poor vulnerable people. Income-generating activities through agriculture, horticulture and livestock, and non-construction-related off-farm activities are quite notable.

4. Are the productions generated market-assessed and linked?

All on farm and off farm related interventions/support were found market assessed and linked. There has been support from CDC for the construction of two vegetable collection centres and farmers are also linked to farm cooperatives for the sale of their agri-products.

5. Are the interventions/ activities helpful for quick return to former livelihood and pay back debt?

One of the major objectives of the CF programme is the livelihood recovery of earthquake affected vulnerable people through quick return oriented intervention measures. Skill development training and top-up support to start training related enterprise/small business have been launched by all POs. These are quick yielding interventions which has not only helped for livelihood recovery but also helped some to pay back debt. The case of single women from Dhading Phulmaya Tamang, is illustrative of debt repayment. She was able to payback her loan from the petty shop initiated through the programs support. Now she is able to earn Rs 20000 per month. Support for locally-appropriate agro-enterprise development and other micro-enterprises are some other initiatives.

Further, the appropriacy has also been assessed from beneficiary’s perspective. The framework used was a four-point measurement scale to rank the “livelihood activities” and “supports received” ranging from “High” (4) to “Poor” 1. The ranking that has emerged from 10 FGD and 13 KIIs is presented in Table 9.

Table 8: ‘Appropriacy’ ranking of ‘Livelihood activities’ and ‘Support received’ S.N. VG type Livelihood activities Supports provided 1 Single women H H 2 Elderly peoples S H 3 Persons with disabilities S H 4 Internally Displaced People MS MS 5 Ultra-poor H H

Note: H = High, S= Satisfactory, MS = Moderately Satisfactory, & P = Poor.

As the results shown in the Table except few IDPs all other VGs types were highly satisfied from the supports provided to them. Their satisfaction level was however little lower for the livelihood activities implemented. On the whole the results support the appropriacy hypothesis. Further to this the Purnima programme could reach to most vulnerable community of the Palikas in spite of its remoteness and scattered settlement in Rasuwa and Gorkha district. Even the NRA has difficulties in reaching such settlement due to remoteness and difficult terrain.

Some other important features to justify appropriacy are:

● Result oriented milestone make the POs act more strategically. This ensures in obtaining intended outcome in the given timeframe. ● Prioritized Demand driven programme interventions ● Interventions are evidence based B. Effectiveness

Effectiveness is widely understood as measuring if the intended results are obtained from the program interventions/support. In many cases across all four districts the program interventions/support has obtained a desired result as per the results reported by POs. These PO reports, and some field verifications during this assessment have confirmed that the awareness and mobile camps launched in coordination with Palikas was instrumental in enabling those elderly, single women and PWD to register and obtain the SSA from the government. 1,300 vulnerable people from Rasuwa, 1,800 from Dhading and 253 PWD have received their ID cards and allowances from the government which have been widely appreciated by the beneficiaries. Likewise, distribution of

assistive devices has increased mobility of persons with disabilities who were confined within a small room of the house, e.g. Rabina, from Keraunja of Gorkha, a beneficiary of assistive device, now has started to attend school and very positive about her future. Another example relevant to all the four districts is the ownership of VA data and its use in Palika level annual planning and implementation. This has been confirmed during KII and consultations with Palika Authorities during this assessment.

POs report and field observations suggested that many innovations in the programme activities have been noted to claim programme effectiveness. Such innovation has helped to reduce social stigma associated with certain type of jobs done. For example, SAPPROS in Nuwakot and PHASE in Gorkha have initiated an innovative approach of providing hair cutting training to women. In Nuwakot, these skilled women have been linked with the schools in the community while in Gorkha, one woman has begun hair cutting saloon for men and women. The beneficiaries have been able to diversify and increase their income. These activities did not only support the beneficiaries in economic terms, but also helped to address deep rooted social stigma prevailing in the society.

C. Viability

For the purpose of this study, to measure “programme viability” a simple definition has been adopted as the “quality and quantity of ‘livelihood activities’ and ‘types of support’ provided to the VGs to survive or live successfully”. This also relates to the fundamental departure as to how much of the support of various programme percolate down to the individual beneficiary level that would lead to the viable living of the targeted group. All this makes the viability ranking a challenging process because we still do not have enough quantitative financial data because of time factor and other reasons. Recognising such limitations, efforts have been made to assess viability in a more qualitative manner.

After completion of 10 FGDs, overall rankings emerged as shown in Table 10. These were also triangulated by gathering perceptions through KIIs with 13 different individuals. As mentioned earlier, the assessment was tough and the level of satisfaction when it boils deep down to the issue then viability ranking goes generally low compared to what the beneficiaries reported for them appropriate and effective. In a way, this is also a real test of VGs’ and stakeholders’ feelings and perceptions that show the differences between their enthusiasms in reporting what they received and how much with what quality they received (Table 7).

Table 9: ‘Viability’ ranking of ‘Livelihood activities’ and ‘Support provided’

S.N. VG type Livelihood activities Support provided 1 Single women S S 2 Elderly peoples P S 3 Persons with disabilities S S 4 Internally Displaced People P P 5 Ultra-poor S S

Note: H = High, S= Satisfactory, MS = Moderately Satisfactory, & P = Poor.

D. Sustainability

Although definition may be contextual, for the present study, it has been considered as the likelihood of the continuity the business as usual after programme is over as well as indications of direction and confidence towards upgrading from subsistence level to certain higher level.

However, the sustainability of the programme could be better assessed from these evidences generated from the interaction meetings with POs. The POs were found adopting different strategies to make the programme sustainable. Some notable strategies are listed below.

● As a result of varieties of awareness programmes VGs are now socially empowered. Now the women are aware of their rights and are more vocal in demanding targeted programmes for their

livelihood. This process is expected to help in making the programme sustainable as local government will be forced to meet their demand. ● Formation of group network has helped to raise their voice more effectively making it more sustainable. In one of the mixed FGD in Dupcheswor palika all participants stated that they feel more empowered to raise their voices with the officials. They are now confident to face Palika officials for their demand. ● To make the CF/LNOB programme sustainable POs are working towards building closer ties with Palikas. The strategy is to make Palika officials engaged in any decision-making activities. This strategy in the near future will help to own the programme by Palikas and a regular programme and budget allocation for VGs will be ensured. ● The skill development training imparted to VGs will be instrumental in getting them employment within or outside the Palikas or starting their own business. ● The on farm / off –farm training and other input support has helped the VGs to make them self- reliant by selling the products in local market and in capital Kathmandu as well. ● The VGs are linked with saving and credit cooperatives. These linkages will go a long way in making the programme sustainable. ● Furthermore, access to finance has also been made easier yet another sustainable strategy. ● Subsistence or small farmers achieving a gradual increase in on-farm production from agriculture or livestock which could have sustainable impact, and ● Vulnerable households are greatly benefiting from skills and employment which will make them sustainable, ● Results have revealed that vulnerable people are engaged in enterprise, off-farm livelihoods which have resulted to a rise in income which is expected to have a sustainable impact. The analysis presented above on the whole justifies that the PURNIMA programme has been appropriate, effective, viable and sustainable.

3.2.5 Palikas’ perceptions and insights on Purnima programmes Nepal is at the initial stage of implementing federal structure and is changing rapidly. According to the new political structure of the country, the elected leaders are heading Palikas and wards thereof with clearer job descriptions, with quite substantial authority, power and access to resources. Study Team reckoned a high degree of enthusiasm and commitment among the dignitaries of Palikas and Wards in leveraging resources and delivering project results. All seem to be conversant about the Local Government Operation Act (2017) and as per that they have passed necessary bi-laws and have implemented the ‘seven-step annual planning process’. In most of the cases, they have already developed their policy documents, slogans and periodic plans based on which activities are being undertaken. Because of the early stage of their tenure it appears invariably that they encouraged almost all kinds of development workers to support and get integrated into Palikas’ planning purview. Currently, some Palika dignitaries have also begun to reflect on their achievement and some categorical assessments of field level programme activities which is a positive indication of their pragmatism.

Efforts were made to capture insights and views of ten Palika dignitaries (Chairpersons, Vice- Chairpersons and Ward Chairpersons) from Nuwakot (2), Rasuwa (2), Dhading (3) and Gorkha (3) districts. Regarding Purnima programme activities, the Palika dignitaries were very frank to express their opinions. Almost all said that they had some degree of scepticism in the beginning. The reasons were three-fold. First, they themselves were quite new to be on their respective seats, second, they wanted to understand the probable conditions that like any other programmes, and third, they had seen many programmes of development partners had disappear as soon as programmes had wrapped-up. The third reason precisely relates to the risk that the original CF ‘call for proposal’ has recognised as “many livelihoods interventions in Nepal in the past have under-performed, particularly in terms of reaching the most vulnerable, who have the greatest difficulty in benefiting from market-led

agricultural programmes and who may not have access to the labour needed.” (Mott MacDonald 2018:3).

However, as the POs approached to them with their programme activities with clear focus on VGs and LNOB perspectives, they said they were impressed. Moreover, they also did not miss to say that the amount of fund was generally small, but appreciated the flexibility to develop tailor made activities for the VGs. But, most importantly they categorically expressed that inclusion of the ‘diagnostic phase’ was particularly impressive during which VARs were prepared which became the basis for their planning process. Some of the Palikas such as Gandaki (Gorkha) even said that they became partner to undertake the vulnerability assessment and prepared a complete census of their Palika for the preparation of Palika profile. For this process, there were 25 enumerators from Purnima side and Gandaki Palika supported the cost of 10 enumerators.

Currently, all the Palika dignitaries are quite happy about the presence of Purnima in their area. They are extending cooperation, inviting in various meetings at Palika level in order to plan and conduct collaborative activities (see also Annex VIII for some examples), and incorporating Purnima activities in their annual and periodic plans. The place of Purnima concept to certain degree in the local planning and reflection of activities are certainly very important matter from Purnima’s perspective for validity and utility of CF/LNOB concept as well as leading towards sustainability. They expressed that the pathways followed by Purnima are making sense to them and has helped for them to perform their conducts, particular to manage a stream of numerous demands put on to them from people. For future, one of the most important points commonly raised was that gradually the vulnerable context will be over, then the future programmes should contain activities with more development perspective and the volume of operations should be enlarged. Particular example they invariably cited was about the amount of fund allocated for goat farming which was small.

On the backdrop of all this, it can be said the local level political authorities have started to realise the importance of Purnima CF/LNOB frameworks and have seen the potential for them too.

3.2.6 Role of Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s Oversight Arrangements The CF/LNOB oversight arrangements were understood by consulting with Purnima/Mott MacDonald officials. The key point here is the assessment of existing mechanism as to whether that is sufficient or not in producing intended results. The results could be in terms of tangible benefits that VGs received, change of their conditions (or the direction towards better condition), policy change, integration of programme activities in local planning, etc., or intangible changes, such as, behaviour or lessons learning and so on.

On the basis of discussions, it was found that, at the central office of Purnima/Mott MacDonald, the management system or functions include overall team management, CF management and oversight, and financial due diligence oversight. At the field level, there are CF field officers who are based at Bidur (Nuwakot) for the service of two districts (Nuwakot and Rasuwa), at Dhading and at Gorkha.

The duty of Purnima/Mott MacDonald has been in providing the umbrella concept for programme activities of CF/LNOB and then the POs are to come up with various types of activities that are based on the local contexts and demands of VGs (tailor made approach). Basic frameworks of support for field level programme activities are the ToC and impact pathways. Additionally, the guiding principles as referred earlier (Figure 3) are also equally important to ensure that the field implementations are in right direction. Within such frameworks and guidelines, the POs have been left to optimise their flexibilities to be contextual, demand driven and innovative. As reflected in progress reports of POs, Purnima/Mott MacDonald has also been organising orientation workshops from time to time to enhance POs capacities and understanding of CF/LNOB further against field level lesson learnings.

Obviously, the concern of Purnima/Mott MacDonald is always there whether the concepts, particularly in the context of recovery and reconstruction, sufficiently permeate down to the field level in practices to result into the benefits for VGs. Therefore, in terms of practice of assurance, the field-based CF officers constantly monitor POs activities and report to centre regularly on real time basis, whereas the Centre undertakes field verification visits every quarter to Palikas to confirm the quarterly reports

of POs. Such quarterly visits are mostly substantive to verify whether the social, economic and housing recovery supports are happening as planned or not. The verification report then becomes the basis for releasing payment to POs on quarterly basis. If necessity arises to troubleshoot, the Centre may also visit more frequently.

Generally, it was reported that the field verification visits were seamless and congenial with the exception of one or two instance where payment had to be delayed as well as some strong recommendations were made to adjust the field level staffing structure to cater better services to VGs. Likewise, on the basis of due diligence exercise and recommendation of Centre’s field verification, management responses have been sought from concerned POs to make sure that activities or supports are delivered as planned or as per set of milestones.

As reported, Purnima/Mott MacDonald had initially instituted Excel-based formal Management Information System (MIS) for feeding in updated information on regular basis. But recently they have rolled out online MIS portal for Purnima programme activities. POs and Purnima/Mott MacDonald enter and update both quantitative and qualitative information on real time basis. It is possible to be up to date about beneficiaries of single or multiple vulnerabilities and the type of support they are receiving.

When POs were asked with a question as “Besides Financial aid, what are the other types of supports you received from Mott MacDonald/Purnima” (see Annex VII), the responses were tallying what was reported by Purnima/Mott MacDonald officials. Coordination meetings, technical backstopping, feedback sessions, and regular field visits have been important highlights and appreciated areas of Purnima/Mott MacDonald by POs in delivering their tasks.

On the basis of above descriptions, it is possible to infer that the Purnima/Mott MacDonald has established very strong MIS system, field level staffing for real time observation and monitoring of POs’ activities, and reinforced centre-based mechanism and functions to provide substantive and operational backstopping. From the discussion, it can also be derived that Purnima/Mott MacDonald is trying not letting go anything out of the way and, at the same time, trying to optimise all possibilities of lessons from the field. The mechanism is therefore rigorous and important for achieving expected results from POs which, however, should not imply that some data gaps with some POs and differences should not have happened at all. There could be some differences because of the background of POs in terms of their levels (e.g. local or national or international), experiences, affiliations/associations with bigger actors/agencies, and human resources, etc. as reflected in sub- section 3.1.2.

3.2.7 Overall Remarks on the Validity of CF/LNOB The concept of Challenge Fund in the development paradigm is relatively new, at least in the context of development partnership with Nepal. Based on the observations and reflections of the Study Team, this concept entails couple of critical ideas to be followed while maximizing its intended impact:

(1) Specific Purpose: The fund basket that will be created should aim to address specific problems or purposes which might pose as a ‘challenge’. The purpose or the challenge could range from addressing poverty among a targeted vulnerable community, increasing financial access services for the unserved or ‘left behind’ groups and exploring and identifying solutions to a specific health problem in a developing country to enhancing women entrepreneurship in the targeted vulnerable community through the provision of credit, skills, incubation and market, etc. Seen against this element, the CF/LNOB being implemented by Mott MacDonald in Nepal does carry a specific purpose in terms of clearly determining the “impact pathways’ with well-articulated four “domains” of evidence-based vulnerability assessment and planning, effective representation and access to social services, access to safe and resilient housing and inclusive growth, institutions and services (see Figure 1 in Section 1). (2) Competition: The partners, shareholders or the stakeholders joining or contributing to the fund will have to be selected based on competition, which will be guided by a number of

eligibility and qualifying criteria such as the institutional strength, managerial efficiency, staff competence and delivery, relationship cultivation and management, image projection and credibility and actual results produced in the field, etc. The CF/LNOB seems to have adopted this strategy in choosing its partners, and even this study of POC justifies this, as one of its objectives is to examine if the existing partners are competitively qualified with the required motivation and willingness to continue in the expanded phase of the project. (3) Leveraging: Challenge Fund invites for leveraging funds from the interested, eligible, qualified and committed partners especially the private sector organizations and, in Nepal’s context, Cooperatives as well because they are also one of the most influential fund mobilizing entities in Nepal. This might be called ‘co-financing’ and ‘cost-sharing’ as well. This is probably an area which the CF/LNOB should focus more in its post-expansion phase as this seems to be necessarily lacking in the project’s field activities at present. (4) Innovation: The fund’s basic premise is to encourage and work on innovation, meaning that the departure from the conventional modalities of thinking and working has to be encouraged as much as possible. This would refer to becoming necessarily creative in problem-solving, finding solutions through consultative and collaborative process, field-testing the methods and approaches for generating evidences, designing policies that use such evidences for producing results, finding an implementation modality that is flexible and adaptive to the changing needs and demands of the stakeholders, and taking great care of political economy factors while implementing the programmes and projects in the field, etc. The CF/LNOB programme is doing quite good in this domain as seen in the field reports, but the POs need to be putting more efforts in this. (5) Results Framework: The Challenge Fund concept principally agrees that unless there is a chain of outputs, outcomes and impacts that can be clearly visible and verifiable in place, only the technical and financial performance indicators would be of no sense to meet the objective. This line of thinking is largely supported by the Theory of Change (ToC) which in itself is a new theoretical construct to guide the development partnership these days, and which rests on the premise of Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) process going through the route of developing a Problem Tree (a methodology that de-constructs a given problem and digs into its interrelated roots and ramifications in a systemic and objective manner). The CF/LNOB has put this concept into its central focus, as can be seen by its narration of the impact pathways and levels of ambition as suggested in Section 1. (6) MEAL Mechanism: Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning are the key crosscutting components that are supplementary to each other for bringing out the chain of outputs, outcomes and impacts through the rigorous use of corresponding indicators both for performance and achievement. The Challenge Fund concept embraces this mechanism as its built-in subsystem into its operational modality. This is another area with which the POs need to be familiarized more vigorously, and encouraged to put it into their management operation. (7) Inclusion and LNOB (Leave No One Behind): One of the basic precepts of Challenge Fund, especially in a developing country context like that of Nepal, is to ensure there is no one left behind or excluded, especially the ones who have been discriminated out of the national development mainstream based on socio-cultural and ethnical (caste, creed, colour, religious faith and gender), economic (deprived and marginalized, hardcore poor, vulnerable) and political (dissenting political ideology, critical views against the ruling party or the government) considerations, among others. The concept of inclusion closely relates to the concept of equity, which is more mindful of the special needs and abilities of the minorities than a much-hyped political slogan of “equality”. LNOB remains at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) and has been espoused as one of the most important guiding principles by the development partners these days. The LNOB would include not only the economic and social inclusion in its conceptual fold but also stretch out to capture the phenomenon of political inclusion and empowerment (through judicious representation and participation of the most excluded and disadvantaged communities with appropriate roles and responsibilities in the state system and structure, share in decision making by the state authorities, choice and voice reflected in the governance process, etc.).

The CF/LNOB has made this concept its flagship focus, and embraced its essential elements in its impact pathways and their implementation strategies. (8) Decentralization and devolution: In a newly emerged federal country like Nepal, this is evidently important. No Challenge Fund can work in an impactful way without actually going to the ground zero. Centrally located swollen office mechanism with excessive paperwork and wasteful meetings leading endless discussion would need to give the ways to field-based offices and staffs who need to be sufficiently mandated, knowledge-and skills-empowered, resource-equipped and made accountable to the local stakeholders (esp. the targeted vulnerable communities) for their performances and outcomes. The CF/LNOB seems necessarily aware of this phenomenon and has therefore arranged its project paraphernalia accordingly in its programme districts and Palikas. (9) Value for Money (VFM): According to the UK Finance Department, “best value for money is defined as the most advantageous combination of cost, quality and sustainability to meet customer requirements.” (https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/articles/definition-best-value-money). This captures the basic elements of VFM such as cost-effectiveness, quality of the outcome that is externally visible and internally realizable to the “customers” (targeted beneficiaries, in our context) and the sustainability of outcome (sustained continuity of the uplifted status of the beneficiaries even after the intervention such as that of Challenge Fund is over). This aspect of challenge fund is perpetually important for all similar interventions particularly for a resource-scarce country like Nepal, and the CF/LNOB is well aware of this reality. (10) Governance and Political Economy: No Challenge Fund can perform effectively if there is no good governance (transparency, accountability, rule of law, result-orientation and so on) in place both at the central level (among the federal government agencies) and the field (among local governments). Also, the political economy factors which are closely related to governance (such as the prevailing political system, socio-cultural dynamics, the state’s development vision and strategy, people’s work ethics and integrity, robust and accountable state institutions, vigilant civil society, corruption and impunity, cultural values and norms and so on) deeply impact the functioning of the mechanisms such as Challenge Fund especially in a development-deficit country like Nepal. The CF/LNOB programme in operation in Nepal needs constant vigilance and adaptive strategies to address and manage any such intermittent ramifications of Nepal’s political economy and governance factors both at micro (sub-national) and macro (national/federal) levels. As elaborated, for example, in sub-sections 3.1.1-3.1.6, the POs have a fairly good understanding of the fundamentals of CF/LNOB as described above in this sub-section 3.1.7, and they also have put a functional management arrangements in place and adopted approaches and strategies for the implementation of the programme and activities commensurate with the underlying premises of CF/LNOB. POs have been gradually aligning to these premises in their organizational structures from top to the bottom, their operations largely fall in line with the CF/LNOB precepts derived from ToC’s impact pathways and guiding principles.

It is not that all POs are equally proportionately complying with such principles and pathways, but their respectively defined targets and strategy show that the variation is not substantial rather contextual. Likewise, when we compare their performance against a benchmark of targets vis-à-vis achievements, the data presented in subsection 3.1.3 above shows that the activities carried out by POs are satisfactorily aligned to generate the output indicators identified to measure the impact pathways, though as stated above, it is noteworthy that none of POs were found using this log frame indicators to report their status in their quarterly progress reports.

In the similar vein, when assessing the Purnima programme implementation in the four currently operating districts as a whole on the parameters of appropriateness, effectiveness, viability and sustainability, we can safely state, as shown in sub-section 3.1.4 above based on the analysis relevant data presented in the corresponding tables, that the programme’s performance and outcomes can largely be interpreted as being appropriate, effective, viable and sustainable (see the referred sub-section for the detailed analysis before reaching such conclusion). On a different but equally important note, the perception of local governments (Palikas) toward the Purnima programme

has not been found negative at all, rather they have increasingly realized its utility and relevance of some of its approaches and methodologies (such as the activities followed during the diagnostic phase or the preparations of VAR) to their planning process and service delivery mechanism (see 3.1.5 for details). The fact that the Purnima/Mott Macdonald programme team’s oversight and monitoring interventions and operational backstopping from the centre have also been extremely supportive and contributed significantly to the implementation process and the mechanism of the POs in the field has also substantiated the positive impact that has been created by the programme team from the centre.

In summary, as we will also be reiterating this in the final section of Conclusion and Recommendations, the CF/LNOB both as a concept and approach is overall valid, workable and necessary to implement a multi-sector programme like Purnima in the selected districts. This fits well with the local political economy context in the federal Nepal. But it is also important to consider that the programme needs to be further contextualized with some necessary modifications, which, though sporadically stated in the individual sections and sub-sections above, will be specifically mentioned with specific examples where applicable in the upcoming sections.

3.3 Assessment of PO Readiness As mentioned in the beginning of the Section 3, the assessment of POs’ readiness is the second fundamental aspect of this assignment. It was also touched that readiness need to be backed by their institutional strength and proven performance record capacities. It is obvious that POs would show their desire or wiliness or wish, but assessment would need to look much beyond and objectively. In previous sub-section 3.1 matters related to their approaches, organisational structures, and strategies have been already discussed in order to achieve whatever they have achieved so far.

Moreover, it is felt appropriate to mention here that it could have been easier to discuss along the simple line of thought as outlined under sub-section 2.1, however, a different approach has been taken by the Study Team to analyse POs’ readiness aspects. This approach became necessary for three reasons: first, discussions in that simple linear model would give a feeling of repetitiveness of headings which is appropriate to minimise, second, a number of POs organisational factors have been already discussed in sub-section 3.1 which needed to be captured in this sub-section, and third, to apply SWOT tools to gauge the POs desire. It is also important to note here that six points as reflected in Figure 5 have also been considered in this part of assessment.

Hence, in these backdrop, POs’ readiness in the context of CF/LNOB expansion have been assessed in terms of their willingness to participate in the expansion and if their capacity matches with respect to various technical and managerial parameters.

3.3.1 Assessment of PO willingness to participate in the expansion It is noted that all POs have been fully aware of Purnima/Mott MacDonald’s strategy and intention of expanding CF/LNOB activities in more Palikas. This is already an indicator that all POs representatives expressed their keen interest to participate in the expansion without asking by the Study Team. They also expressed that they have been performing their duties duly and have benefited from oversight functions of Purnima/Mott MacDonald both from centre as well as local/regional level. Moreover, they extended necessary cooperation and coordination in the process of this study. These are all obvious subjective elements showing POs desire or inclination as willingness leading towards readiness.

In order to gauge their willingness more prudently, the SWOT analysis (Strength Weakness Opportunity and Threat) was organised. From this study point of view, this was an indirect approach to understand their zeal as to how did they highlight their strengths; how realistically did they recognise their weaknesses or try to hide; what opportunities did they see; and how conscious were they in terms of potential threats. The POs happily participated and collaborated in the SWOT exercise, and a summary is presented as Table 11 and the detail is presented as Annex VIII.

Table 10: Summary SWOT analysis table of all POs POs Parameters CDC DCA PHASE SAPPROS Strengths • Staff and • Policies, management, • A sound pool of multi- • Staff competency Organization’s code of the organization competency advisors and including deeper competency/expertise • Separate communication multidisciplinary staff understanding of in multiple fields and branding team members plus regular staff vulnerability and • Reach & relations with • Financial and development community needs community & local procurement system • Long standing • Functional government • MEAL framework organisational experience relationship with • Guidelines for operation (Monitoring, Evaluation, of working in very remote local government • Resourceful and Accountability & areas with strong • Standard welcoming for Learning) well adopted international backing by operating partnership • Human resources, skills, PHASE Worldwide and guidelines with programmes expertise PHASE Australia. GESI sensitivity • MEAL well adopted • Robust financial system and track records of compliance vetted by DFID, ADA, USAID, etc. • Strong local community footing Weakness • Multiple engagements • Limited guidance to • Own but inadequate • Limited resources causing time constraint implementing partners infrastructure to multi- • Lack of basic • Limited visibility at district dimensional infrastructure (own and central levels needs of VGs. building), and high-tech • Limited staff amenities number to reach • Limited staff capacity, far-flung VGs. encouragement and skills Opportunitie • Cooperation/partnershi • DANIDA framework • Collaboration with more • Resource s p with Govt, semi-govt supplement and number of larger scale mobilisation for and other compliment the partners wanting to upscale collaboration actors/partners in programme their successful projects in • Inclusion of VG in reaching the unreached • Quality assurance and needy areas. reconstruction • Coordination and thematic support from • Expertise enhancement for • Support VGs for collaboration in policy HQ its Board and staff dignified life and legal formulations • Bottom-up approach to members together with govt. VG and influence • Utilising existing resources financial, industrial and stakeholders for policy and partners for better business sectors formulation results • More interaction with • Expansion of district level VGs coordination office • Partnership with government agencies Threats • Communities’ • Underdeveloped • Natural disasters • Unpredictable perception towards governance mechanism • Interference and influence climatic/weather organisations/agencies and accountability at the of politics in management conditions • Coordination & funding local level matters hampering to /financial environment • Limited policy • Absence of government reach VGs. with other frameworks at local level staff in remote areas • Difficult agencies/policies (prioritisation issues affecting delivery of geography • Lack of organization’s against social activities and coordination impeding VGs regular source of component) at local level. access to income • VGs scattered causing services difficulty in reaching them & follow-ups. In reference to the above Table 8, the Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats of POs can be described as follows mainly to reflect their willingness and to identify some areas of readiness (A deeper analysis of ‘readiness’ has been done in 3.2.2):

Strengths: It has been noted that all the POs have highlighted their organisational capacity and experience of implementing various projects covering multiple sectors. The physical presence of POs and consortium members in the project districts with good understanding of the socio-economic conditions of people and geo-physical structures of the locations has added advantages in effective implementation. The POs and consortium members have good prior experiences of working with community and local governments; the successful implementation of prior projects has drawn positive perception towards the organisation. Despite this, the assessment has identified that POs has been

following various policies to enhance good governance and accountability. At the local level POs has been observed as being highly capable of partnering with Palika in relation to implementation of projects, and generating matching fund for some of the components of the projects.

Weakness: There are also a number of areas of weaknesses. Almost all of the POs indicated they suffer from the absence or inadequacy of resources both physical (building and other infrastructure) and human (coupled with skills, expertise and motivation). CDC has been facing challenges due to its multiple engagements in projects with limited human resource and low skills. It has been noted that DCA has been providing limited guidance to consortium members for the implementation of the project. PHASE has inadequate infrastructure, and has a limited visibility at district and central levels. Regarding the weakness of SAPPROS, it has been observed that limited number of staff has hindered to reach the VGs located in the remote locations of the project. Similarly, SAPPROS has been facing difficulties to address the multi-dimensional needs of VGs in the project locations.

Opportunities: Based on the consultations and analysis, the POs seem to be well aware of many aspects of opportunities including their committed to transforming their challenges into opportunities. They clearly see encouraging opportunities for collaboration or resource sharing with local government and other development partners for the implementation of various projects. Based on the vulnerability assessment reports, which is owned by the municipal office, POs have capitalised opportunities to work with local government for formulation of various policies and laws at local level to address the prevalent issues, demands and needs of VGs. There are also plenty of opportunities for deeper understanding, lessons learning, and bringing good practices from others (e.g. DANIDA framework) for multi-sectoral collective interventions for long-term visible impacts.

Threats: The POs have highlighted that they have also a number of threats. CDC has seen the threats more from their credibility perspectives, such as, negative community perception (if they would not meet the community’s expectations as deliveries of services could be affected by remoteness), and problems of coordination and harmonization with other partners and stakeholders, whereas DCA seems more concerned about its relationship and coordination regarding local governance and policy matters. Because PHASE is working in very remote locations like TsumNubri and Dharche, they are seeing the possible natural disaster and absence of official of local government as main sources of difficulties in programme deliveries, and some political interference could also happen in some places. SAPPROS has seen unpredictable climatic conditions as one of the key threats imposing a mounting challenge to reach out to the remotest areas. While mitigation of some of these threats would largely depend on how efficiently the POs can perform their functions improving their management approach and strategies with guiding support from the Purnima team at the centre (by adopting measures such as more interaction with the local community in general and VGs in particular, smooth coordination and good rapport with the local government, sufficient staff availability and retention in the field, and rigours monitoring and accountability tools put in place, such as MEAL), others appear to be needing more robust adapting and flexing skills to cope with the adversities of climate, remoteness of the target areas to be served and out-of-control political economy and governance-related challenges, among others.

3.3.2 Assessment of PO Capacity Including Due Diligence The assessment of POs’ capacities to measure their readiness would need a comprehensive approach to be taken, in terms of judging their understanding of the CF/LNOB concept and assessing the results against the targets they had set before beginning actual implementation. The assessment could also comprise of looking into their approaches and strategies (including plan of action), and the level of resources invested (including human and other resources) to achieve the target results. Moreover, assessment could make judgement into their institutional outlooks towards future on the basis of on-going practice of learning lessons from the works done. The Study Team has made efforts to deliberate into all these analytical perspectives on the basis of findings gathered from reviews, consultations both at the centre and in the field, and capturing viewpoints of stakeholders (mainly from the Palika dignitaries).

The assessments here have been presented in brief and will have been referred to foregone discussions in sub-section 3.1 and compared with the framework presented in Figure 5 with respect to the elements of analyses discussed in sub-section 2.2. In addition, assessments will have referred to some key aspects as presented in SWOT analysis and the adapted due diligence analysis as presented as Annex VI. For some elements, the statement of assessment have been common to all POs as they apparently demonstrate same features while for others PO specific analyses have been made.

POs understanding of CF/LNOB framework can be considered as one of the fundamental yard stick to judge their readiness because unless they understand and adopt into their behaviour and practices it would not be possible to produce higher level results. As discussed earlier in sub-section 3.1.1 and 3.1.7, all POs have shown their keen interest and attempted to understand right from the proposal stage, and gradually and steadily have been maintaining their pace to keep on deeper understanding of principles and practices. On one hand, they have been translating the principles into practices, on the other hand, they have been benefitted from regular oversight functions of Purnima/Mott MacDonald. This is a crucial element that POs can be acknowledged for from their CF/LNOB understanding perspectives.

With regard to their organisational structures, while it appears that they are capable organisations or consortia given the fact that they have prior experiences and they are always striving. However, if comparison is an option, then the structure of SAPPROS appears number one among the four which shows balance between policy and learning capacities, and field level implementation as discussed in sub-section 3.1.2. It appears that CDC structure is very much field based, but their capacity at higher policy and lesson-learning level perhaps needs some improvement. In case of DCA, with the new addition of JTAs, the overall structure is tending towards a balance, but still is quite good at higher level compared to its local service delivery level which apparently needs enhancement. 6 The PHASE’s current structure, however, is very much densely grounded directly at the Palika level with lower capacity for learning more at the institutional level and leveraging resources at local or district level. Therefore, in the context of expansion, it might be appropriate for it to make necessary adjustment in order to make it more capable to coordinate, learn and leverage at the district level. All these also relate to the factors, such as handling stakeholder relationships, pace of implementation against plan and effective monitoring of activities in the field.

The top-heavy or ground-heavy features have been reflected earlier by their budget structures (Figures 8, 10, 12 and 14) and associated discussions in sub-section 3.1.2, as well as their write-ups as presented in Annex VII as to how they have narrated their focus of impacts they consider they have achieved so far. Interestingly, CDC and PHASE are stating their main focus of impacts on the ground level matters, such as, “Housing reconstruction of HOPE project has become a model...” (CDC, see Annex VII.a), and “…support for PwDs with assistive devices have increased mobility of persons who were confined…” (PHASE see Annex VII.c). However, DCA in addition to some field- level matters they could pick interesting points like helping “to develop guidelines of Public hearing, multi-stakeholders’ platform and grievance handling” (see Annex VII.b) and have supported to develop Palika-level slogans. These are higher-level thinking widely influencing the matters at their impact points. Perhaps smartly enough, SAPPROS have organised their impact points according to the intervention domains of CF/LNOB and substantiated (see Annex VII.d). This has helped them to coherently explain why and how some of the activities under each domain have taken directions

6 During our field visit and conversation with the programme Palika representatives in Dhading district, we found that RIMS Nepal enjoys good working relations with the local government as well as with the communities. RIMS staffs seem smart and management team looks visionary as well as able to produce results in given time. However, as a lead organization, DCA management and its staffs related to BIHANI were not found capable enough to catch the speed and thrust of the programme as well as lead the team in the field. We were told that, oftentimes, decisions were less sensitive to the field realities, and they were not also made in time. RIMS Nepal, against these observations, could be given more authority in the day-to-day field activities remaining under the overall budgetary framework and annual plan. We found that DCA had more ability to manage the fund, monitor the program and report to the donor, whereas RIMS Nepal was seen capable to manage the field activities. Operationally speaking, for example, we could arrange that RIMS Nepal could directly approach the Mott for field operations by putting DCA and other partners in the loop of communication rather than wait for approval from DCA itself.

towards achieving impacts. This is in a way a balancing approach taken for their staff distribution in field, district and centre.

Looking from responses of POs on the due diligence (see Annex VI) questions, all have shown they are legally and financially sound. Yet, DCA responded negatively about (i) sufficiency of board meetings to allow oversight for various institutional issues, and (ii) regular and effective reporting to the audit committee and the governing body. Perhaps this is an area of improvement, although it seems easily manageable. However, SAPPROS appears needing improvement on matters relating to staff insurance, staff safety and safeguard in order to retain and/or attract good staff. Only DCA have shown increasing financial turnover, and only SAPPROS have shown they are donor dependant. So, these areas may need to be considered, too.

On the whole, with regard to structures and functions, it appears that CDC needs to enhance higher level skills, DCA and PHASE have to eliminate the sense of “disjoint phenomenon” between centre and field, and SAPPROS currently possesses fairly right balance and should replicate in the same fashion. SWOT analysis also offers similar sense. In addition, the district level coordination and learning structure for PHASE is advisable.

4 Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Introduction Implementing a multi-component, field-centric, impact-oriented programme targeting the selected marginalized, vulnerable communities in a diverse and exclusionary socio-cultural set-up of the four selected earthquake-hit districts of newly emerged federal Nepal is indeed a challenge for any development partner. The challenge is further intensified when the implementation approach and modality entails an innovative concept of a Challenge Fund (CF) implemented by multi-specialised local, national and international partners. Purnima/Mott Mac Donald has taken up this challenge with an efficient project implementation modality and commensurate institutional mechanisms in place.

A Study Team was formed by SRI in response to the Call for proposal from Purnima/Mott MacDonald and to reviewing the Challenge Fund/Leave No One Behind (CF/LNOB). This include a Proof of Concept (PoC) review of the validity of the concept and approaches taken by the CF, and an assessment of the capacity and readiness of the Partner Organizations (POs) to extend the programme to additional Palikas. The study required suggestions for any adjustments for improving the implementation approach and modalities.

The Study Team conducted a series of interactions including conference calls with the stakeholders both in Kathmandu and the districts besides reviewing the relevant literature through desk studies within the constraints of limited time and circumstances (including caused by the Covid-19-generated Work from Home). The field visit comprised KIIs and FGDs as well as direct observations and reflections on field activities.

This study was undertaken before the COVID-19 pandemic had spread widely; the impact of both the pandemic itself and the indirect effects such as through the lockdown, the return of migrants, emergence of new vulnerabilities was not explored in the fieldwork. The impact has subsequently become very apparent, and although the original priorities remain important (and indeed have become more important) there are also new vulnerable groups, and possibly new opportunities.

Based on our study and analysis of the evidences (facts and data) and statements and reflections (opinions and narrations of stories from the stakeholders and beneficiaries) conducted under the circumstances, we have hereby drawn the following conclusions and recommendations.

4.2 Overall Approach and its Validity We reaffirm the validity of the concept and approach of CF/LNOB for the intended expansion of the programme.

The concept and approach for Leave No One Behind currently being applied by Purnima programme through the Challenge Fund in the four districts is valid and needs no substantial revision. However, the approach should be further refined to incorporate the following elements:

● an increased focus on leveraging funding/cost sharing from palikas and the private sector to improve sustainability; ● even rigorous process of evidence collection, verification and consolidation, to ensure that all genuinely marginalized households are included and that double counting of multiply-vulnerable households is avoided ● encouraging innovation and creativity in exploring entrepreneurship development and links to markets for livelihood restoration; ● emphasizing the sustainability of the impacts in a more vigorous and coordinated manner. ● a more systematic approach to recording any risks and assumptions that may evolve during implementation;

● Strengthen the MEAL system/logframe to include measurement of genuine outcomes and outputs rather than just recording the number of activities undertaken Sustainability of the interventions depends on strong attention both from the Purnima management and the POs. Harmonization among all four components of the Purnima programme is essential at Palika level. The outcomes of the intervention should be sustained through measures including MEAL, instituting a learning sharing mechanism at the community level (by forming an association of informal or, if possible, formal nature), and formalizing the collaboration with the Palikas through arrangement such as MoUs with committees representing the local government, community organizations and the VGs, etc.

4.2.1 Understand for Action ● The diagnostic phase to understand the data, context and evidence for achieving the core of the CF/LNOB has been effective. The process as well as the outcome of the evidence collection phase has been accepted both by Palikas and the community at large and it was agreed that vulnerability assessment was fairly effective in identification of those people who were hard to reach otherwise. ● Community mobilisation during data collection was lacking, meaning that more community groups and sub-groups could have been covered in order to fully ensure that no one was left out. Of the initial assessment ● Since it was also not a complete enumeration, data validation by communities was important to ensure that no households having vulnerable people were excluded. A complete enumeration would have serious cost and time implications, and thus an essential part of the beneficiary selection process was the data validation by the communities and local stakeholders, which has now been completed. ● Strengthen and consolidate the vulnerability mapping and assessment. A number of further initiatives could be taken to strengthen the assessment, – including increasing the budget for the diagnostic phase since collecting comprehensive, reliable and accurate data is the key for the success of the programme. – greater care to ensure adequate and comprehensive beneficiary identification meetings take place with community groups so that no one is missed. – Validation of Collected VA data against other sources such as Palika profile if prepared, records of the social security allowance recipients and – records of NGO/INGOs engaged serving population with special needs. ● Coordination of the diagnostic phase with the palikas is critical for success and sustainability of the CF, and for ensuring that support for VGs is embedded in palika programmes: – The data collection process was highly effective and rigorous, and has been internalized by the wards and Palikas. They used the data/information into their annual and periodic planning process. It was observed that the VG data has been used to update the database for social security allowances distribution to the VGs. – However, use of VG data is limited to the planning phase, and there is little mechanism for palikas to update and institutionalize this information (exacerbated by the data being in English). – The VA data should be more deeply integrated into the local government planning process. Including updating the information periodically, and sharing information annually as part of the ward and palika planning processes. Close integration with Output Area 1 of Purnima could catalyse this process. ● Although not explored in this study, because the fieldwork predated the COVID-19 pandemic, future assessments need to take explicit account of the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on vulnerabilities. The next diagnostic phase will need to identify the newly vulnerable, and measures to ensure these people are included in the programme.

4.2.2 Empower for Change ● It was observed that the three-pronged strategy for social empowerment—encompassing individual, community and institutional levels—has been found quite effective. Individual level interventions have helped VGs to access services while community level network building has helped them to collectively raise their voices for their rights. At the institutional level intervention, a very sound relationship built with Palikas has helped in mainstreaming social protection issues of VGs into the policies, plans, and programmes as well as budget allocation process. Interventions such as mobile camps for social security card distribution, preparation of public hearing guidelines, social security awareness-raising programmes and access to rights and entitlements have directly benefitted VGs in the programme districts. However, more work is needed to effectively connect individuals into community networks so they can collectively leverage access to services and benefits. ● The project has united the vulnerable into groups, empowered for collective efforts, and that needs to be sustained. The study recommends engaging such VGs in savings and credit schemes, advocacy campaigns, social mobilization and collective income-generating activities (IGAs), etc. ● Create more interfaces between local community mechanisms. In many of the programme Palikas, a number of self-help groups (SHGs) have been formed. However, interaction between the SHGs has been found very poor. Attempts should be made to bring different SHGs together to share their experiences and learn from each other. ● Inclusive and empowered institutions are a key to social empowerment. During the field visit as well as the off-field conversation with the POs, it was felt that although community representation in the local governance mechanism (municipal committees, users’ groups, citizens’ groups, civic forums, etc.) have been strengthened to a considerable extent, inclusiveness of representation was still an issue, meaning that VG members were not sufficiently empowered to speak up with their choices and voices clearly articulated to the municipal authorities. This would suggest the POs need to work hard to support the formation of inclusive institutions (in the form of citizens’ forums, community organizations, etc.) as well as capacity development measures (such as education, induction, knowledge and skills transfer training, income-generating opportunities, etc.). ● Social and political empowerment is also conditioned by economic empowerment leading to economic inclusion. Close synergy between social and economic empowerment pillars is required

4.2.3 Economic Inclusion ● The project has been successful in imparting life skills trainings including for on-farm, off- farm and non-farm enterprises, and financial support for small businesses which have in turn helped increase employment opportunities. The income generation and livelihood recovery support has contributed to diversifying and increasing income sources for the targeted VGs. Savings practices inculcated among the VGs are one of the milestones towards achieving economic inclusion, but although groups have been formed, the interventions for saving practices and access to financial institutions are yet to build momentum. ● More needs to be done to ensure food security for vulnerable groups. Potential methods and measures include: – labour-intensive income-generating schemes in agriculture, horticulture, nursery, etc. that might engage the poor and/or landless labourers, sharecroppers, daily wage earners, migrant workers, and other vulnerable persons and households; – income-and employment-generating opportunities, in off-farm activities such as in agro- enterprises, forest enterprises and similar other MSEs (Micro and Small Enterprises); – involving the VGs in non-farm activities like reconstruction of buildings and houses through mason’s training and other incentives, – enhancing technical and vocational skills for accessing on-farm and off-farm employment, availing micro credit and other financial access opportunities, etc. POs should work with skill

promotion agencies, and BFI for increased access to finance for promotion of skill-based enterprises and other income generating activities. ● Group and market led approach for economic inclusion. Activities to date have mainly been on an individual approach, except for ultra-poor households. POs should now increase their consideration of market perspectives and value chains, and working with beneficiaries in groups.

4.2.4 Safe Shelter ● Housing reconstruction has just been started. The activities to produce such outcomes have so far been confined to grievances registration and facilitation for the tranche release from NRA, and preparatory activities for housing support. The delay in the release of government tranches has also caused delays in the project’s support. But one highly positive thing to reflect here is that the provision for ‘safe-shelter’ is a valuable addition to the three original pillars of LNOB. ● The continuity of ‘safe shelter’ component in the next phase should be determined by selectivity, inclusiveness and need- and demand-responsiveness towards VGs. NRA, has reached the near- end of its fixed five-year tenure, with about 88% of the destroyed houses rebuilt and some more under reconstruction process7 There have been some public criticism of the NRA reconstruction process, appropriacy of designs, choice of materials, etc, which should be considered carefully by Purnima if housing support is proposed in the selected extension municipalities.

4.3 Palika capacity development and sustainability ● The challenge fund has limited financial resources and timeframe, and thus there is a need to focus on developing the institutional capacity of Palikas during and after expansion. This might involve developing several tools and guidelines: – creating, installing and activating necessary database, providing trainings and orientation to the local government offices in Palikas and Wards including, if possible, some sectoral sections or specialized units as well such as Women and Children Development and Elderly Unit, Agriculture and Livestock Unit, etc. – capacitating and strengthening specialized units of Palikas by optimizing the use of the Purnima TA support for inclusive planning to Palikas, because, as we clearly witnessed in Dhading, even though the palikas are actively engaged with the CF/LNOB, they lack physical resources, such as office equipment, as well as human resources for monitoring and providing on-time service delivery to the VGs. – review scope of the TA through a dialogue with the Palikas in order for creating space for supporting its sectoral units which are considered critical for the programme’s effective implementation and sustainability. ● Although VGs have been gradually empowered to raise their voices with the municipal officials, the palikas lack the commensurate capacity to address their voices and demands. Therefore, to balance the demand and supply side, the study recommends developing the capacity of Palikas for creating and sustaining an enabling environment for VGs in order to fully engage them in the spheres of local governance mechanism and inclusive planning and implementation process. ● The POs need to strengthen the palikas’ institutional capability and credibility. POs need to enhance their visibility and acceptability vis-à-vis Palikas by – building mutual collaboration and trustful partnership in the design and implementation of activities targeting vulnerable people so that Palikas feel encouraged to take ownership of such programmes. – supporting Palikas themselves in enhancing their own institutional capabilities by sharing data and information generated while conducting the VA; – transferring knowledge and learning from training and workshops organized for their staff; and

7 http://www.nra.gov.np/en/news/details/aPznnY20kNsNWrnCIpiuZc0_ZiQSEGWH7IsOSl82vkc

– helping Palikas install and operationalize tools such as information management, , etc. as needed and appropriate, and collaborating with Palikas for the use of such learning and knowledge in the allocation of the Palikas’ budget to the VGs, etc. ● Leveraging of the programme resources is key. POs need to be encouraged and facilitated to engage in leveraging additional resources from the Palikas and other sources where possible for the next phase of the programme expansion by the Purnima programme management. Within these overarching objectives and recommendations for palika capacity development, Purnima should ensure the POs have clear guidelines for collaborating with the local governments and wards, and for working with the Purnima TA team.

4.4 PO Expansion Readiness and Institutional Competency ● The POs currently working in the designated Palikas of the four programme districts are largely ready and capable enough for continued engagement after the programme is expanded. The four POs seem willing, ready and competent enough for the programme expansion in varying degrees (and that variation might need case-specific interventions for addressing respective issues of some POs as indicated in our analysis in Section 3.3.1). ● All POs are largely mindful of DFID’s VFM policy. The POs have strategically moved ahead to address all four elements of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity of VFM during the implementation of their programme activities. But it was also felt that the POs need to internalize monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning tools into their institutional operation and management systems more efficiently to further ensure the value for money approach. ● The POs during the vulnerability assessment phase need to be responsive to the operational challenges so they are proactively ready to confront these during the implementation phase. Such challenges stem from several factors such as geographical inaccessibility (resulting in remoteness and mobility) and physical and socio-cultural nature of the settlement (clustered or scattered, ethnically homogeneous or diverse, culturally adaptive or sensitive, equipped with economic potential or resource-deficit, incidence of poverty, presence of special-need vulnerable such as PWDs and IDPs, etc.). ● Striking a balance between the programme and operation costs is highly necessary. There is a variation found among the four POs regarding the proportion of expenditures in programmes and activities, and operation & maintenance (i.e. recurrent, covering mainly staff salary and benefits). CDC and SAPPROS have budgeted and spent a greater proportion on the programmatic side compared to DCA and PHASE. However, there are differences of definitions making it difficult to compare directly. Purnima’s management team should carefully review the proportion each partner spends on programme activities vs operations, and per capita expenditures, and ensure these are optimal when setting budgets for the expansion phase. ● Good governance practices would help improve the POs performance in the field. POs should put in place a robust recording and reporting mechanism to generate and share learning and increasing efficiency in deliveries. For example, the staff hierarchy was found clumsy in some of the programme districts, especially where the consortia were in place (eg Dhading). Complex reporting hierarchies were observed impeding the accelerated impact and generating unnecessary procedural hassles for seeking clearance and confirmation to the issues awaiting quick decision. This demands that POs set up – a clearly defined accountability and reporting mechanism, – a well-recognized tool such as MEAL in full operation to ensure good governance practices, and – greater efficiency in decision making and implementation through reducing hierarchical and procedural delays. ● Review staffing and management arrangements of the POs to ensure they respond to need. In all programme districts and Palikas, the human resources deployed by the POs are trained and committed to providing technical facilities and services. But their deployment may need to be more context-friendly, based on the geographic isolation, number of the VGs and also the size of

population. For example, PHASE Nepal needs more functional coordination mechanism at the district headquarters. Similarly, in Dhading, there are fewer ‘Community Development Facilitators’ at the Palika level, and we suggest that DCA consortium revisit its current staffing structure. The POs should review the ToRs of their staffs as per the prevailing contextual needs and demands. ● Enhance the management efficiency of the POs. – Some of the POs have been using a manual ledger system for accounting practices, so the study recommends they upgrade to automated accounting software for recording financial transactions more accurately and efficiently. – Staff turnover has been a serious issue affecting the programme. Hence, it is recommended a staff retention policy and strategy be adopted at the earliest possible. – Also, a review of quarterly reports shows the trend of reporting based on the four domains of the programme, but we further recommend incorporating the progress and achievements of log-frame indicators. – Most important, as elaborately stated in the Conclusion 6.3 and 6.7 above, the POs need to put a strong and robust monitoring tool in place, preferably in the form of adoption and internalization of the MEAL into their management system. ● Provide more support and training/capacity building to field staff to ensure high quality implementation. During the field visit, it was observed that some of the activities required more quality and practicality for ensuring inclusive income generation and employment opportunities among the VGs. In all programme districts and Palikas, the POs have highlighted their progress on agriculture, livestock and marketing sectors including skills development support. The skills development training will need additional guidance and high-quality monitoring from the POs. This speaks of the need to strengthen the capacity of the field level staff for running such trainings. In conclusion, it is recommended to continue with the current partners. A close scrutiny of the existing POs through our study broadly suggests that the POs have gained reasonable capacity and shown readiness to implement the CF/LNOB activities in the post- expansion phase including in Rasuwa district. Therefore, to have them continue with the expansion will help save the time and energy of the MM/Purnima by rolling out their strengths in newly expanded Palikas.

References

CDC (2018). CDC Budget, Work plan and Target 01-12-2018 (Excel file). CDC (2018). Narrative Proposal-06122018-Final CDC (2019). Helping People Overcome Earthquake Impact (HOPE). "Quarterly update"(Jan-Mar 2019). CDC (2019). Helping People Overcome Earthquake Impact (HOPE). "Quarterly update"(Apr -Jun 2019). CDC (2019). Helping People Overcome Earthquake Impact (HOPE). Quarterly Report (Oct – Dec 2019). CDC (2019). Vulnerability Mapping Report – 2019 (Evidence Phase: 21, December – 31 March 2019). DCA (2018) Narrative Proposal-13122018-Final DCA (2019). BIHANI- Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal. 1ST QUARTER NARRATIVE REPORT. (1ST JANUARY 2019 – 16TH APRIL 2019). DCA (2019). BIHANI- Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal. 2nd QUARTER NARRATIVE REPORT. (1ST APRIL 2019 – 30TH JUNE 2019). DCA (2019). BIHANI- Building an Inclusive and dignified community by protecting Human rights, Augmenting Non-discrimination and promoting Integration of most vulnerable communities in Dhading District of Nepal. 3rd QUARTER NARRATIVE REPORT. (1ST OCTOBER 2019 – 31TH DEC 2019). DCA (2019). DCA Revised Payment schedule and DIP_04 June 2019 clean version (Excel file) DCA (2019). Evidence Phase Report. March 2019. Government of Nepal (2017). Local Government Operation Act (2017) Lam, L. M., & Kuipers, R. (2018). Resilience and disaster governance: Some insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33 (October 2018), 321– 331. Mott MacDonald (2018). Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake recovery in Nepal. Terms of Reference Leave No One Behind (Vulnerability Window), 31 August 2018. Mott MacDonald (2019). Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake recovery in Nepal. Terms of Reference for Technical Support to CF/LNOB POs for Economic Inclusion, 15 October 2019. Mott MacDonald (2019). Purnima: UK Support for Post-Earthquake Recovery. (PowerPoint Presentation). Mott MacDonald, Purnima & UK Aid (2017?). Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal. Purnima - one pager info- Eng & Nep. Mott MacDonald, Purnima & UK Aid (2019). SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT - EVIDENCE PHASE (Vulnerability assessment carried out in 12 Palikas of four Purnima’s districts from December 2018 to March 2019). NPC (2015). Nepal Earthquake 2015. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Vol. A: Key Findings. NPC (2015). Nepal Earthquake 2015. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Vol. B: Sector Reports. NRA (2016) Nepal Earthquake 2015. Post Disaster Recovery Framework 2016 – 2020. PAF (2006). PAF Operational Manual (Revised in 2015).

PHASE Nepal (2018). PHASE LNOB Budget-06122018-Final (Excel file). PHASE Nepal (2018). Narrative proposal-06122018-Final PHASE Nepal (2019). PURNIMA: UK SUPPORT TO POST-EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY IN NEPAL PURNIMA/CF/Challenge Fund/ LNOB Programme Quarterly Report (Jan-March 2019). PHASE Nepal (2019). PURNIMA: UK SUPPORT TO POST-EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY IN NEPAL PURNIMA/CF/Challenge Fund/ LNOB Programme Quarterly Report (Apr-Jun 2019). PHASE Nepal (2019). PURNIMA: UK SUPPORT TO POST-EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY IN NEPAL PURNIMA/CF/Challenge Fund/ LNOB Programme Quarterly Report (Oct - Dec 2019). PHASE Nepal (2019). Report on Evidence Collection Phase Jan to March 2019. Sambodhan Consortium (2019). Vulnerability Mapping and Deeper Understanding (Nuwakot). SAPPROS (2019). First quarterly report of Sambodhan Consortium (Jan – Mar 2019). SAPPROS (2019). Quarterly Progress Report of Sambodhan Consortium (Apr – Jun 2019). SAPPROS (2019). Quarterly Progress Report of Sambodhan Consortium (Oct – Dec 2019). SAPPROS (2018). Narrative Proposal-06122018-Final SAPPROS (2019). Revised-budget of Sambhodhan project_25 April 2019 (Excel file). SRI (2019) Technical Proposal: Study on economic opportunities for vulnerable groups and Technical Support to CF/LNOB-POs for Economic Inclusion in earthquake affected districts. Submitted to Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal. UNDP (2013). Livelihoods & Economic Recovery in Crisis Situations. UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York. Wedgwood, Helen (2019) SRI proposal review against TOR (dated 3/12/19, but SRI received only in 1st week of January).

Annex I: Terms of Reference

(Cover page only)

Annex II: Interview Checklists with Partner Organisation

District Name of the Palika

Name of the POs

Name of the Officer Interviewed

Date

Contact Mobile Number

1. What kind of activities your organization is engaged under the Purnima’s Challenge Fund Grant?

2. Your organization was involved in carrying out the VA. How was Vulnerable Assessment (VA) done?

3. Did you use the VA data in your planning and progress monitoring?

Yes No

4.1 If yes provide evidence Collect the document as evidence for verification)

……………

4.3 How many times did your organization arranged sharing meetings on the findings of vulnerability mapping at ward and Palika level?

No of times at Ward

No of times at Palika

4.2 If no why did you not use? Reasons

……………

5. How are you working closely with Ward/Palika?

How

What activities Type of Support to

Ward/Palika Any Other (specify)

6. What kind of short term technical assistance (STA) your organization provided?

6.1 Is your organization has technical capacity to provide STA?

Yes No

6.1.1 If yes what type specify

7. What kind of technical support your organization is receiving from CF?

8. What livelihood support activities provided? Collect details list and numbers benefitted.

9. How many VGs received grants and allowances through your support?

VGs Grants from NRA (Number) Social Security Allowance (Number) Elderly: … PWD IDP ultra-poor 10. Required POs records and their validation

• Implementation plans, • Targets, • Progress, and • Financial records

11. Obtain indicator specific information listed below from PO

Target Achievement (No of S.N Indicators 2019 Activities/Output) Number of gaupalika that have vulnerability 1 and inclusive policy/plan Number of sharing meetings on the findings 2 of vulnerability mapping at ward and Palika level 3 Elderly: …

PWD Number of elderly, PWD, IDP , ultra-poor and SW who are included in government list or IDP have cards ultra-poor

SW Increased access to support services and 4 participation in decision making of vulnerable people Number of vulnerable people has access to 5 social services Number of vulnerable people are 6 represented / engaged in social networks Increased number of vulnerable HHs 7 engaged in economic, livelihood and income generating activities Number of people engaged in enterprises 8 and increased income after receiving vocational training Number of vulnerable people engaged in on 9 farm enterprises after receiving skill based training

Number of vulnerable people engaged in off 10 farm related enterprises Number of vulnerable HHs will have access 11 to NRA reconstruction grants and top-up grant to complete housing reconstruction SWOT Related Checklist

SWOT Dimensions Strengths

(What they consider as their strengths) Weakness

(What they consider as their weakness) Opportunities

(What they consider as their opportunities) Threat (What they consider as threats)

Example note:

• No of staffs and type • Skill competencies (in house expertise, health, education, agriculture, gender etc) • Salary structure • No of field staffs for programme implementation • Community embeddedness of the POs • Self-capable or consortiums • Multidisciplinary team • Induction training to staffs • Organizational structure (organogram if prepared and its translation in practice) • Accounting system • HR, Risk management, GESI, Financial and Procurement Policy etc • Obtained cross learning through collaboration with other project/partners • Grievances hearing system and redressal mechanism • Clear code of conduct

Annex III.a: Interaction Checklist for Ward/Palika & Other Line Agencies

District

Name of the Palika

Name of the POs

Name of the Officer Interviewed

Date

Contact Mobile Number

A. Use of vulnerability assessment data A1. Does the vulnerability assessment information provided by the POs are useful in your planning process? If yes, then how you are using it?

B. Technical Assistance B1. How helpful the TA & training provided by CF through its POs? Please list the specific benefits you & your team received. (Preparation of annual plan and budget, manuals, guidelines, directives, preparation of periodic plan, sectoral plan, revenue generation, e procurement, monitoring etc)

B2. Did your Palika prepared periodic plan and other sectoral plans? Pl list

C. VGs

C1. What are the major issues or challenges especially related to (a) reconstruction of the VGs in the Palika's? C2. What are the major issues or challenges especially related to access to social security of the VGs in the Palika's?

C3. What are the major issues or challenges especially related to income generation of the VGs in the Palika's?

C4. Are VGs are receiving social security allowance? How Ward/Palika is supporting the group to receive allowance?

C5. How many have received with your support?

C6. If they have not received how Ward/Palika is supporting?

D. Project Relevance D1. Do you think the project is relevant in addressing the issues of VGs communities?

D2. Do you think the project was relevant in the locality? If no, what alternative activities you think, would have been effective?

E. Perception about POs Performance E1. Do the POs regularly coordinate with Ward/Municipality during the project implementation phase? How

E2. How do you assess the performance of POs activities in the Palika? Provide your critical assessment

E3. How the project related support received by Palika is helping? Has it been helpful? If yes how? (Get details).

E 4. Do you think the programme launched by POs helped in uplifting the economic status of VGs?

E5. If POs stop providing support to those programmes will Palika or beneficiaries themselves will be able to continue?

F. Expansion F 1. In the case of the extension of the project, what suggestion you provide for the effectiveness of the project?

F 2 Does the municipality/ward have any plan to promote the project activities?

F.3 Do you have any suggestions or feedback for the project?

Annex III.b: Capacity and Readiness of POs

1 Do the activities done fully align with your plan?

2 Could you perform as expected?

3 If not what are the possible reasons?

4 Do you fill your vacancies locally?

5 Do you have enough human resources for programme implementation?

6 What is the ratio of programme cost and O&M cost?

7 Do you ever think that whatever is being spent has high value?

8 In case the project is matured/completed do you think the beneficiaries could sustain?

Annex IV: Achievements against targets of POs by domain

CDC: Until January 2020 Total Total spent Project Achievement (Till Jan 2020) cumulative S.N. Domain as of Dec Target allocation of 2019 SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total 3Qs Vulnerability Assessment-Evidence 1 - 3177 NA NA phase Mapping and deeper understanding of - 3177 NA NA vulnerability Economic Inclusion for Livelihood 2 921 209 290 140 0 277 916 7,044,580 5,619,424 Recovery 3 days organic farming Training with seed 220 56 66 26 0 73 221 1,199,000 829,442 support: Support to establish multi-purpose nursery 11 1 4 1 0 5 11 668,800 481,975 with improved farming technologies Post-harvest loss management training 220 55 70 35 0 60 220 979,000 773,978 and support with seed bin Home garden training and establishment of support to farmers with high value fruits 220 39 80 24 0 78 221 484,000 364,715 and vegetables Support for high value cash crop cultivation 40 7 9 10 14 40 143,180 143,180 support (Seed distribution) Construction /rehabilitation of irrigation 50 16 42 14 0 27 99 900,000 700,132 canal - 4 schemes Construction /rehabilitation of Agro- products collection centre (2 collection 2 nos Started centres *15 VG beneficiaries) Start and improve your business (SIYB) training, help them identify profitable 80 35 9 26 0 14 84 2,070,600 1,866,352 business and start up support

Total Total spent Project Achievement (Till Jan 2020) cumulative S.N. Domain as of Dec Target allocation of 2019 SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total 3Qs Iron/Plastic tunnel/ Plastic pond/ Drip irrigation, etc. support to vulnerable 20 0 10 4 0 6 20 600,000 459,650 individuals 101 3 Empower for Change 1045 0 322 2 6 1,348 637,820 523,145 8 Internship program 5 0 0 0 2 6 8 200,000 169,143

Support to Rural Municipalities to distribute 101 1000 0 282 0 0 1300 200,820 162,671 ID card of senior citizen and PWD 8

Distribute Assistive Devices to PWD (Wheelchair, white stick, hearing aid, 40 0 0 40 0 0 40 237,000 191,331 glass, etc. 4 Safe Shelter/housing reconstruction 101 25 85 18 0 372 500 1,557,590 1,087,985 Orientation to raise awareness on 125 10 80 8 0 78 176 57,590 57,590 reconstruction grant process Support to register grievances for housing 81 9 3 2 0 288 302 - - reconstruction Construction material, labour and 20 30 1500000 1,030,395 transportation support for vulnerable HHs Provide social technical support for 22 6 2 8 0 6 22 housing reconstruction 139 Total Milestone Vs Achievement 2067 234 480 2 655 5,941 9,239,990 7,230,554 3

DCA Nepal Until Dec 2019 Total Project Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Total S.N Domain Allocated Target Expenditure

SM Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Other Total Budget

1 Vulnerability Assessment-Evidence phase Mapping and deeper understanding of vulnerability Economic Inclusion for Livelihood 2 1141 390 161 236 13 325 18 1143 2,773,798 2,773,798 Recovery Composite package of 10 types of vegetable 218 72 30 49 3 56 8 218 30,000 30,000 seeds Vegetable Farming/ Plastic Tunnel 11 1 1 1 0 8 0 11 100,312 100,312 Mushroom spawn (parale/Kanye) to start up 90 28 20 9 1 32 0 90 45,890 45,890 mushroom farming Petty Shop 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 47,500 47,500 Sewing Machine 13 6 1 4 0 2 0 13 167,854 167,854 Iron Smith Support 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 26,508 26,508 Carpentry Support 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 14,091 14,091 Kitchen garden training 218 72 30 49 3 56 8 218 5,709 5,709 Mushroom farming training and material 90 28 20 9 1 32 0 90 4,000 4,000 support Goat 148 57 20 26 1 44 0 148 1,369,228 1,369,228 Buffalo 41 21 4 5 2 9 0 41 481,100 481,100 Poultry 7 2 0 3 1 1 0 7 88,070 88,070 Pig 8 2 3 2 0 2 1 10 106,669 106,669 Barber shop 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 14,000 14,000 Mill support 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 14,000 14,000 Bee Hives 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10,000 10,000 Buck 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10,000 10,000 skilled based training on goat / poultry / 286 97 30 76 1 81 1 286 238,868 238,868 vegetable and soft toy 3 Empower for Change 201 68 12 70 6 28 17 201 504,572 504,572

Total Project Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Total S.N Domain Allocated Target Expenditure SM Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Other Total Budget Life Support Equipment Distribution to (PWD) 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 153,370 153,370 White cane stick distribution as life support 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 14,300 14,300 equipment to PwDs Crutches distribution as life support 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 33,800 33,800 equipment to PwDs Orientation on the local level seven-step 77 34 6 13 3 14 7 77 planning process v303,102 303,102 Interaction programme for social security 80 34 6 13 3 14 10 80 scheme 4 Safe Shelter/housing reconstruction 25 2 1 3 0 1 18 25 21,891 21,891

Interaction and dialogue programme with RM for Housing grant Scheme for the vulnerable 25 2 1 3 0 1 18 25 21,891 21,891 who have not received tranche or could not construct house

Total 1367 460 174 309 19 354 53 1369 3,300,261 3,300,261

PHASE Nepal, End of 2019 Total Project Total S.N. Domain Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Allocated Target Expenditure Budget

SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total Vulnerability Assessment-Evidence 1 phase Mapping and deeper understanding of - - - - vulnerability

Economic Inclusion for Livelihood 2 2843 804 1004 283 52 681 2824 31,053,500 11,275,468 Recovery Skilled based training on off-season Vegetable framing, use of organic 825 326 478 94 25 259 1,182 371,250 422,641 manure, and preparation and use of bio-pesticide (on-farm) Material support for commercial 825 223 280 67 7 208 785 10,312,500 3,791,171 production of vegetables Training and poultry chick distribution 625 187 172 82 0 177 618 8,125,000 5,229,266

Training on bee keeping 50 23 18 17 11 6 75 998,750 85,655 Material support on bee keeping with 50 3 1 4 0 2 10 beehives and other tools Material support for commercial 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,050,000 - production of vegetables Training and poultry chick distribution 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,625,000 - Vocational Trainings (Hair cutting, mobile repair, village animal health worker, house wiring, plumbing, 168 37 55 18 9 27 146 7,446,000 1,713,135 carpentry, automobile, ladies trekking guide) Micro Business start-up support after 100 5 0 1 0 2 8 1,125,000 33,600 vocational training

Total Project Total S.N. Domain Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Allocated Target Expenditure Budget

SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total 3 Empower for Change 8,260 1,057 681 2,590 8 27 4,363 7,206,355 1,471,945

Form/reform vulnerable groups 1,215 397 153 428 0 0 978 178,200 63,705 Orientation on government policies 3,645 629 177 1313 8 25 2,152 628,155 137,522 and rights to the vulnerable groups Facilitating access to services (people with disability, single women and 3,000 26 101 812 0 0 939 900,000 63,009 elderly)-cards and other health services Infrastructure and mobility support to people with disability (Assistive 400 5 250 37 0 2 294 5,500,000 1,207,709 devices and equipment and ramp construction)

4 Safe Shelter/housing reconstruction 1650 587 565 259 40 485 1936 682,300 -

Facilitate inclusion of vulnerable HHs in the Grievance registration process 250 261 240 91 16 121 729 137,500 - of NRA

Facilitate in release of tranches 600 125 47 90 2 115 379 304,800 -

Collect and compile constraints faced by vulnerable groups in rebuilding of 800 201 278 78 22 249 828 240,000 - their houses Total 12,753 2,448 2,250 3,132 100 1,193 9,123 38,942,155 12,747,413

SAPPROS Nepal Until Dec 2019

Total Project Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Total S.N Domain Allocated Target Expenditure SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total Budget

1 Vulnerability Assessment Evidence phase

Mapping and deeper understanding of vulnerability

2 Economic Inclusion for Livelihood Recovery 3,231 539 271 478 1,816 835 3,939 NA 7,130,849 Support on upgrades technical/pragmatic skill and 20 1 - - 21 - 22 300,000 66,291 knowledge (semi0skilled) Support to acquire knowledge to adopt new agriculture 20 - - - 44 - 44 NA NA technology (unskilled/laymen) Support to acquire knowledge through training in non 0farm sector (tailoring, plumbing , carpeting, mobile NR 2 - - 25 - 27 NR 483,179 training

Support to prepare business plan for promote business 95 20 2 19 60 6 107 NA 338,759 Support to have latest agriculture technology 84 3 8 25 59 9 104 NA 2,749,429 demonstration Will have support from revolving fund to start up new 63 1 2 3 98 - 104 NA 1,140,225 business Support improved varieties of seed and breed to scale 1,260 173 96 227 512 286 1,294 NA 1,048,246 up income generation activities

Support minor but highly nutritious crops and vegetables seeds (finger millets, buckwheat, oat, nettle 1,260 211 72 50 483 455 1,271 NA 64,880 etc.) to improve livelihood Support post0harvest technology to prevent from post- 210 - - - 212 - 212 NA 27,685 harvest loss Re/form and develop inclusive self-help group(ISHG) NR 71 73 87 - 47 278 NR 125,887 OF vulnerable groups of people Support on promotion of agro business through 200 - - - 283 - 283 NA 27,685 collection centre establishment

Total Project Achievement (Till Dec 2019) Total S.N Domain Allocated Target Expenditure SW Eld PWD IDPs UPHHs Total Budget Training on inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (IDRR) NR 5 2 12 - 5 24 NR 233,681 and psychological first Aid (PFA) Orient inclusive self0help group on social services NR 52 16 53 2 17 140 NR 220,317 based on policy provision and process Support to improve traditional skills and technology 19 - - 2 17 10 29 NA 604,585 (blacksmith forge, tailoring etc.) 3 Empower for Change 349 47 23 611 - - 681 NA 587,615 Link inclusive self 0Help groups with service providers 306 44 19 571 - 634 NR 306,513 such as organized service camps Undertake referral to specialized agencies in providing support for person with disability , elderly people such 43 3 4 40 - - 47 NR 281,102 as assistive devices and psychosocial 4 Safe Shelter/housing reconstruction 1,913 327 260 58 161 1,111 1,917 NA NA Provide technical assistance, advocacy and training for inclusive design (e.g. elderly and disability friendly) to 1,372 287 244 44 26 775 1,376 NA NA shelter construction and DRR (Facilitate identified vulnerable groups on shelter reconstruction process) STA support in Kispang, Meghang, Suryagadhi and Belkotgadhi Palikas for final Grievance registration at 541 40 16 14 135 336 541 NA NA NRA Total 5,493 913 554 1,147 1,977 1,946 6,537 - 7,718,464

Annex V: Risks, assumptions, descriptions and suggested mitigation

S.N. Risk areas Assumptions linked risk Risks descriptions Mitigation 1 Deeper The GR to lead the implementation of the first The grant recipient must be sensitive to The methodology and proposed sample sizes understanding: component on deepening and quantitative data the risks of identification and targeting of for each Gaunpalika will presented in the mapping of the on vulnerable groups and qualitative data on vulnerable groups, including the risks of proposal and will be finalized during the grant baseline survey causes of poverty and exclusion – particularly causing or reigniting conflict. negotiations. but not only those due to the earthquake - and on factors contributing to inclusion and increased resilience. 2 Social Inclusion: Vulnerable households with a significant labour The GR may miss to promote visibility The actions should follow the ‘inclusion Empowerment of shortage benefit mainly from social inclusion and understanding of vulnerability. continuum’ i.e. empowerment – mainstreaming VG activities, but also many labour-short – inclusion of vulnerable people. households improve their economic opportunities to some extent. 3 Economic Based on a deep understanding by GRs of the Many livelihoods interventions in Nepal in Empowerment: local context, the status of reconstruction, and the past have under-performed, improve economic the extent to which the target groups have been particularly in terms of reaching the most opportunities, able or unable to rebuild houses, access vulnerable, who have the greatest including food services, and restore livelihoods. difficulty in benefiting from market-led security and agricultural programmes and who may livelihoods not have access to the labour needed. 4 Selection of The guiding principle for the selection of the The selection process may be Focus group discussions and/or household vulnerable most vulnerable households and individuals will compromised – may miss out more interviews provide further evidence to justify the households and be community consensus on who are the most objective criteria, the multi-dimensional selection of the most vulnerable households individuals vulnerable of the target groups and deserving poverty index technique – can cause or and individuals. GESI and conflict-sensitive support under the programme. reignite conflict. approaches to identification and targeting of vulnerable groups. 5 Coordination with GRs work very closely with Gaunpalikas to Duplication of activities, and complement Gaunpalikas and identify and address key impediments to the work of other GoN programmes, and other stakeholders livelihoods and economic wellbeing for the other donor or NGO programmes working target groups, especially those that were caused in the same area. by the earthquake. 6 Synergy and GRs to ensure that their activities complement Gaunpalika-level regulations could coordination with and add value to these other outputs, and also impede access to services. other Output to inform them of ways in which the other output Areas of Purnima activities can contribute to the ‘Leave No One Behind’ agenda.

Annex VI: Due Diligence

PHASE SAPPROS CDC DCA S.N Assessment Pillars Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No A Registration Information The organization is legally registered or affiliated under a prevailing law in Nepal. Does the A.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes organization have renewed registration certificate? B Governance and Board Structure The frequency of the board meetings sufficient to allow oversight for various institutional B.3 Yes Yes Yes NA issues? B.5 The organization is involved in any lawsuit. No No No NA C Fraud, bribery and corruption C.1 The organization has a zero tolerance policy for fraud, corruption and bribery Yes Yes Yes Yes C.2 The organization has ethic policy Yes Yes Yes Yes C.3 The organization has a mechanism in place to report incidence of fraud and corruption Yes Yes Yes Yes C.4 There is a designated committee to investigate reports on fraud, bribery and corruption No No Yes Yes D Internal policies and control mechanisms D.2 Does the organization have insurance policy for staff? Yes No Yes Yes D.3 Does the organization have health and safety policy for staff? Yes No Yes Yes Does the organization have safeguarding policy? How they manage safeguarding of D.4 Yes No Yes Yes downstream partners? E Financial viability E.1 Does the organization have unpaid liabilities for over a period of 12 months? No No No No E.2 Does the organization has outstanding debtors for over a period of 12 months? No No No E.3 Is the organization just donor dependant (single source) for funding? No Yes No No E.6 Does the organization’s annual turnover have been increasing over the past three years? Yes No No No F Financial Management and accounting system F.1 Does your organization have a written accounting policies and procedure manual? Yes Yes Yes Yes F.2 Does the organization maintain separate bank account for each project? Yes Yes Yes No F.2 Does the organization prepare monthly funds forecast? Yes Yes Yes Yes

PHASE SAPPROS CDC DCA S.N Assessment Pillars Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Does your accounting system have the capacity to track project expenses against budget line F.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes item categories? F.4 Is the organization using an automated software for recording financial transactions (or)? Yes Yes Yes F.5 Is manual ledger system used for transaction record? No No No F.7 Are timesheets used to record employee's time charges? Yes Yes Yes Yes F.8 Do you have record retention policy for financial data? Yes No Yes Yes F.9 Is there any periodic financial reporting procedures? Yes Yes Yes Yes F.10 Are monthly Bank account reconciliations prepared? Yes Yes Yes Yes F.11 Do you have any policy or procedures regarding petty cash? Yes No Yes No G Financial Audit G.1 Are you audited on an annual basis? Yes Yes Yes Yes G.2 Do you conduct financial audit per project? Yes Yes Yes Yes G.4 Does the external audit firm(s) have been hired through the board’s direct involvement? Yes Yes No Yes G.6 Are all audit findings reviewed and actioned upon? Yes Yes Yes Yes Does the organization have regular and effective reporting to the audit committee and the G.7 Yes Yes Yes No governing body? Does the organization have transparent, efficient processes for procuring inputs, hiring staff H.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes and services? H.2 Does the organization conduct cost benefit analysis for high valued inputs and assets? Yes Yes Yes No I Downstream Partners I.1 Does the organization have transparent systems in place to select partner Yes Yes Does the organization have the resources to ensure quality control and capacity building for I.2 In plan Yes Yes its downstream partners? I.3 Does the organization have a monitoring framework in place for the downstream partner? In plan Yes Yes I.4 Does the organization ensure external audits, and third party evaluations of the partner? In plan Yes Yes J Ability to Deliver / Programme Management J.1 Have the organization implemented donor funded projects in the past? Yes Yes Yes Yes J.2 Have the organization successfully completed previous donor funded project? Yes Yes Yes Yes J.3 Has the organization established regional/provincial and or district/field offices? Yes Yes Yes No

PHASE SAPPROS CDC DCA S.N Assessment Pillars Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Does the organization have experience of implementing projects for socio-economic J.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes empowerment of vulnerable groups? Does the senior management conduct monitoring/quality assurance visits for all project J.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes interventions? K.1 Does the organization have sustainability policy? Yes Yes Yes No Does the organization have strategies / guidelines to collaborate with (local) government and K.2 Yes No Yes Yes communities to ensure their engagement and ownership in the project? L HR / Staff management Does the organization have a diversity and inclusion policy in its staff, board and senior L.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes management? L.2 Does the organization follow a transparent hiring process? Yes Yes Yes Yes L.3 Does the organization maintain a database of professionals for head hunting? No Yes Yes Yes

Annex VII: Further Information collected from POs

CDC consortium Nepal: Purnima-HOPE

Information collected

ii) Field level staff distribution S.N. Palika No. of staff by skills 1. Naukunda 1. Field Coordinator – 1 2. JTA – 1 3. Social mobiliser – 1 4. Intern-2 2. Uttargaya 5. Livelihood Coordinator (s)-1 6. JTA-1 7. Social Mobilizer- 1 8. Intern- 6

2. How do you manage stakeholder relationship at the local level? i) Approach: The proposed project is following three tires strategies to reach the unreached. The individual and household level interventions are more of skill and enterprise development; community level interventions are technologies demonstration and community assets building, and the institution level activities are broadly with Gaunpalika level developing enabling environment in-favour of poor, vulnerable and excluded. Activities at individual and household level are more focused and targeted; at group level activities are inclusive and targeted and at institution level system level interventions will be done. However, the impact of the project will be seen at household and individual level. The very first step of the this project is to identify those who are at risk of being left (more specifically the elderly, single women, person with disability, poor and food insecure, and internally displaced people due to resettlement/earthquake impact), analyse root causes, and develop strategy to address them. Participatory vulnerability Assessment (PVA) tool was adapted, as baseline of the project, to identify and analyse vulnerability context, causes, opportunities /capabilities of different strata of the target population. While developing strategy to addressing identified causes of vulnerability, the project has broadly adapted the core principles of sustainable livelihood framework. The strategy development process is more consultative and participatory to encourage cross-fertilization of ideas among consortium partners, resources organisations and different stakeholders. The learning and successful practices gained from the implementation of different projects after earthquake by the consortium partners is adapted and scaled-up where appropriate. More precisely, the project has followed the following approaches to ensure balanced interventions across the target groups.

• Community self-help approach: This is a kind of self-reliance (helping each other to grow and develop together) approach rooted Nepalese society. The project encourages the individual to transfer skills and knowledge and asses received from the project to another individual. This enhances the project impact and increases social bonds and culture of self-help culture in the communities. For example- the trainees on construction related skills mobilised on-the job to build houses of the labour poor families. Similarly, farmers trained on improved farming practices transfers the learning to other members of the community and beyond. Cash-for-work is another self-help approach to help reconstruction efforts in the community. • Building on capacities / strength based approach: The strengths-based approach focus on strengths, abilities and potential in individual and help harness the potential to the optimum providing capacity enhancement followed by entrepreneurship support. For example the person with occupational based skills like black smith, tailor, carpenter, meson etc.; person living with physical disability having different skills; women with special skills like weaving will benefit from this approach. • Organising and empowering approach: The project identifies the most vulnerable households, facilitates to organize in community network/groups, provide capacity development supports to strengthen their organized voices for representation and access to services. • Tailored-made support: Unlike conventional approach of reaching larger number of population with thinly distributed activities, the project will adopt tailored-made support to individual, households and community to help them maximize benefit of the project interventions. For example- skill development training will be provided to those who have already some level of skill and experiences on the selected skill; entrepreneurship development support will be provided only to those who have required skills for the enterprises chosen. Similarly, commercial vegetable technology will be provided only to those farmers who have already done some experience of vegetable cultivation and have interest for it.

ii) Mechanism: Social Mobilizers and JTA coordinates with ward offices, communities and individual level. Field Coordinator/Livelihood Coordinator coordinates with palika and ward offices; Purnima other projects and other stakeholders. CDC central office coordinates with the Coordinators and Palika Chair and vice- chair, Purnima other projects, other stakeholders and Mott MacDonald.

3. How many times your office as PO to Purnima was invited and involved in Palika meetings? Please list the agenda of concern to your office as PO. Please also share a sample minutes of concerned Palika, if possible. Purnima-HOPE team engaged in palika meetings 6 times after their invitation. The agenda was joint meeting of all stakeholders and sharing of planned activities, progress, support for planning process, develop plans, etc. 4. How many times your office as PO to Purnima organized coordination meetings with Palika and other stakeholders? Please list the agenda discussed. Please also share a sample minutes. It is 12 times in each palikas: kick off meeting, project activities sharing/progress meeting, activities selection meeting, RMPAC meeting, meeting for ID card distribution, joint meeting of all stakeholders, meeting for DRR activities 5. What monitoring system (s) do you have? i) Your office’s mechanism: ➢ Detail implementation-Monthly plan and follow up ➢ Monthly staff meeting to share progress, achievement, challenges and learning ➢ Weekly meeting are center office- share progress ➢ Consortium meeting- discuss overall progress and issues ➢ Field visits and coaching to staff ➢ Report- event report, monthly/quarterly reports, case story report ➢ Data base/MIS update ii) How often center visits field? Please provide a sample field visit report by the center. The center office staff visits at least twice in a month in one Palika and observation of field level activities. There is also consortium visit and CDC board members visit to observe the project progress. iii) How do you organize SWC monitoring? Please provide a sample field visit report done by SWC. SWC monitoring visit is yet to organize. 6. Evidence of impact Please list the most important impacts (maximum 5) you as PO consider because of the CF/LNOB intervention in the field. i) Housing reconstruction of HOPE project has become a model to support the most vulnerable people to complete the reconstruction process. It is replicable achievement for other similar program to support the most vulnerable people. ii) By using the data and information of vulnerable people provided by this project, the local government has developed their plan and allocated budget to support most vulnerable people for livelihood activities. The local government has allocated budget for Disability rehabilitation fund by developing the policy and guidelines. iii) The left out people with disabilities and senior citizen are incorporated in the government social security services and receiving social security allowances which has contributed to sustainable change into their life. iv) The vulnerable people are now empowered and started claiming their rights from the local government and are also linked with local government bodies through various social and economic empowerment activities which were implemented by involving local government bodies and official/technical persons. v) The income of most vulnerable people, supported by project have increased than before.

7. How do you leverage the cost and technical support from other partners? If not currently done, do you have any plan for the future? • Local Government (Palikas) (Amount in NPR) Palika contribution for irrigation scheme: Rs 300,000 (2 schemes) Palika contribution for collection center construction: 500,000 (2 nos) • Provincial Government (Amount in NPR): N/A • Private Sector (Amount in NPR): N/A • Any Technical support which is equivalent to the cash?: Technical support from Palika level agriculture technical person for training and monitoring 8. Besides Financial aid, what are the other types of supports you received from Mott MacDonald/Purnima? • Technical Support (please list the type of support your organization received both from the district-based and KTM-based staffs): ➢ Technical support for project implementation ➢ Guidance for reporting and budget review ➢ Coordination with palikas and other private sectors ➢ Follow up progress and make suggestion ➢ Monitoring and feedback/suggestion ➢ Support for organizing meeting and facilitation in training • Global lessons learnt, value addition to the POs from Mott MacDonald/Purnima on reconstruction and Challenge Fund ➢ Share lesson learned from other projects ➢ Organized lessons learned workshop ➢ Organized partners coordination meeting • Any additional resource mobilizations? 7. What is the current status of ownership of the programme? Do you have the evidences for the ownership of the programme by the Palikas and all the larger community (besides the VG)? Yes, Palikas have been taking ownership of the program activities. They also contributes money and provide technical support. If any activities not completed we coordinate with ward office and Palika to follow up and monitoring. 9. What is your view on the sustainability of the programme? Are there any measures to be adopted for this to be ensured? ➢ Through the formulation of policies and guidelines the program will be more sustainable. ➢ Empowerment and sensitization of vulnerable people to claim their rights ➢ Budget provision for support the vulnerable people in coordination with Palikas and involving in the planning process. ➢ Capacity building of the Palika officials and elected bodies on social and economic empowerment, GESI and planning process.

DCA consortium Nepal: Purnima-BIHANI

Information collected

1. What is exact operational structure (staffing and management) with relevant skills sets devoted specifically to Purnima (CF/LNOB) programme implementation? ii) Organogram 2. Specific to Purnima - Concerned human resource with their designation and line of command (From top to bottom)

Head of Organisations, Head Project Steering Committee of Progs, Head of Finances, Programme Manager

Project Management Project Manager, Project Committee Coordinator, Technical Experts, MEAL, Programme Funding Coordinator, Finance

Project Manager – DCA at Dhading

Inclusion Expert Project Coordinator/ Governance Expert Livelihood expert (RIMS) (NSD) at Dhading (GO GO Foundation) at at Dhading Dhading

Khaniyabas Ganga Gajuri RM Admin & RM Jamuna RM Finance Field Officer (RIMS) Field Field Facilitator-2 Facilitator-2 Facilitator-2 JTA - 1 JTA - 1 JTA - 1 ii) Field level staff distribution S.N. Palika No. of staff by skills 1 Gajuri 1. JT/JTA – 1 2. CDF/mobiliser – 2 2 Gangajamuna 1. JT/JTA – 1 2. CDF/mobiliser – 2 3 Khaniyabas 1. JT/JTA – 1 2. CDF/mobiliser – 2 Note: Three thematic coordinator i) Livelihood Expert, ii) Good Governance Expert and iii) Inclusion expert are at the district based and did the intensive field visit to provide technical and

operation support to the team. Further, 1 Project Manager is also district based to oversight the entire team. 2. How do you manage stakeholder relationship at the local level? DCA has adopted following approaches/ steps to manage stakeholder relationships at the local level Approach: Multi-stakeholder Platform approach - The project has adopted multi-stakeholders platform approach to increase ‘the ownership of Local Government (LG), private sector and other relevant stakeholders for tailored income generation activities/livelihood opportunities targeted for the most vulnerable people identified by this project. This is a proven approach of DCA, widely applied in other districts too, including Western Nepal where the LG invites all the relevant stakeholders in the Palika to participate and contribute on various aspects of development including projects, planning, issues, etc. DCA has developed a guideline for conducting such platforms, which has to be endorsed by the local governance. This platform supports the LG to adopt good governance practices and also promotes adoption of adopt best practices by all. This approach has encouraged all local level stakeholders come together in planning and policy making process, grievance handling mechanism and replication of best practices. The approach has also supported to enhance relationship between the financial institutions (FI) and the Vulnerable Groups (VGs). Coordination and Collaboration at various levels: The project is coordinating and collaborating with the stakeholders in many ways. Some of them are as follows: - Organising coordination and collaboration meeting with the LG and other relevant stakeholders (financial institutions, network , National Reconstruction Authority, I/NGOs at district) in sharing plans and events associated with the project, engage LG authorities in relevant activities, provide technical support to the LF on policy and guideline formulation, and resource leveraging. - Linkage development with the local level networks and alliances such as Networks of single women, senior citizens, and Person living with Disability (PWDs). This greatly supports in sustaining the project activities in a longer run. - Coordination and communication at a broader level by the Project Manager with Mott and DIFID field offices as and when necessary. - Regularly participate in Palika and other stakeholders’ activities and meetings. - Inviting and ensuring higher level of participation by Mott, DIFID district team; and the LG mainly during activity delivery and periodic field monitoring. - Community Facilitator (CDFs) also coordinate with Wards, Palikas and local level stakeholders and share information to district team and seek for support as necessary. - Thematic level of coordination, relation building through participation by the Project Coordinators and Thematic Experts in relevant forums. Ensure accountability and transparency - As a part of relationship building, the project also closely works with the LG to strengthen good governance and support in organising social audit and public hearing and also conducts activity audit right after programme execution. Capacity development and resource sharing - Supporting capacity and knowledge building initiatives plan for LG authority and relevant stakeholders. 3. Working together wherever possible with relevant organisations at district level, for example resource collaboration, ensuring participation of the VGs, monitoring, making recommendations for the support items to VGs, etc.

How many times your office as PO to Purnima was invited and involved in Palika meetings? Please list the agenda of concern to your office as PO. Please also share a sample minutes of concerned Palika, if possible. - In general, Palika invites the project team as per needs on regular basis formally and informally. - In April 2019, for example, Palika invited the project team during their planning process to share the project plan and activities and identification of collaborative actions. Informally, they (all the three Palikas) invite to discuss on the project activities, beneficiaries selection, project implementing approach and monitoring of the activities. Therefore, there is no fixed number of meetings/frequency of meetings. - on 22 March 2020, Khaniyabas invited for Planning process meeting where the Governance Expert of BIHANI participated.

4. How many times your office as PO to Purnima organized coordination meetings with Palika and other stakeholders? Please list the agenda discussed. Please also share a sample minutes. - Palika level Kick off meeting with Gajuri, Gangajamuna and Khaniyabas on March 2019. [Minute is at office, and this can be provided once the lock-down is over]. The main agendas were – collaboration activities, implementation strategies, policy and guideline development etc. - Ward level validation and dissemination of survey data with ward chairperson, ward members and key informant of ward in May & June 2019 in all 20 wards of working areas. [Minute is at office and could not go office due to all staffs working from home, can be submitted later]. The main agendas were – Issues and challenges of vulnerable groups, reasons for not able to house reconstruct. Potential livelihood support, validate the HHs for support t - Palika level validation and dissemination of survey data with all Palika council members at each of 3 Palikas in July & Sep 2019. [Minute is at office and could not go office due to all staffs working from home, can be submitted later] - Meeting for the housing reconstruction process at palika level with the existing 3 palikas (one meeting in each palika – January 2020). Minute remained at office, can be sent later. - Meeting with all the wards and their palika during the time of housing grievance registration in June 2019 at Galchhi, Jwalamukhi and Benighat Rorang Palikas. Minute remained at office, can be sent later. - Meeting with Gangajamuna palika for the support of VG with palika resources, 7-step

Meeting minute of planning process conduction, etc on July 11, 2019. Minute is attached:Gang palika - 11 July, 2019.PDF - Meeting with Gajuri palika for the flex print support by BIHANI at palika, on July 29,

Meeting minute for 2019. Minute is attached: flext printing_with Gajuri RM- 29 July, 2019 .pdf - Meeting with Gangajamuna-6 Baseri to resource collaboration on Dec 5, 2019. Minute is attached.

Meeting at Gan-6, Baseri_5 Dec2019.pdf - Meeting with Gajuri palika for housing survey, resource collaboration, social development work, etc on 20 Jan 2020. Minute is attached.

meeting with Gajuri, Jan 20, 2020.pdf - Meeting with Gangajamuna-1 for resource collaboration on bamboo related training and other livelihood activities on Feb 6, 2020.

Minute at Gan-1, Feb 6, 2020.jpg - Meeting with Gangajamuna-2 about the bamboo enterprise training on 17 Mar 2020. Minute is attached.

Bamboo training Minute_17 Mar 2020.pdf - And, many more meeting with NRA, Purnima, Nepal Disability Welfare Association/Network at least twice a year time to time and other I/NGOs. Main agendas – the key challenges and problems facing by disable people, ID card, access to services and social benefits, mobility equipment support, potential livelihood support etc - Planning Advisor of Purnima at Gajuri facilitated to discuss on disability issue between inclusion expert of BIHANI and Palika chair on 2nd week of March 2020. The agenda was the same as above - In ward level planning process training organized by Purnima to palika staffs offer participation of BIHANI 3 PCs on March 7 & 8, 2020 at Dhadingbesi. Minute not received. 3. What monitoring system (s) do you have? 5. Your office’s mechanism DCA do have its own organization M&E guideline and following procedure will be ensured:

84 Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 85

Answer: - Based on the Monitoring guideline, DCA undertakes activity level monitoring through the digital database using the activity tracker. Further the data verification will be carried out on the quarterly basis. - To ensure the quality of work and technical back stopping, district programme team does the monthly monitoring plan and move to the field as per the plan. The field visit report is then prepared and shared with the programme team. - DCA Project Manager also conduct a period monitoring visit and prepare a field visit report and share the DCA central Team. - DCA encourage joint monitoring visit (Partner organization, DFID, MOTT and DCA center team) - DCA also have a data protection policy, hence ensure the data protection of all the relevant data recorded from the field.

6. How often center visits field? Please provide a sample field visit report by the center. Answer: - Kick off meeting with Palika level at the start of the project - At least once in two months as well as whenever needed - Participated in Quarterly and annual review and planning meeting. - DIP revision and discussion time of meeting.

7. How do you organize SWC monitoring? Please provide a sample field visit report done by SWC. Answer: This project is included in the General Project agreement of DCA, wherein a lot of interventions are included including this PURNIMA-BIHANI Project. Based on which, SWC carries out evaluation visits twice in the five year project period. However, we report our progress through the Central Project Advisory Committee Meeting that happens every 6 months. As per the policy and Project Agreement with SWC, SWC generally carries out an evaluation of the project and whenever get time, they also organize monitoring visit. Generally, SWC will share the project evaluation report and only provides suggestion/recommendations in the field visit reflection session – not in writing. Some evaluation reports for reference;

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 86

SWC DCA_NE3R Final Evaluation report-Signed2018.pdf 4. Evidence of impact 8. Please list the most important impacts (maximum 5) you as PO consider because of the CF/LNOB intervention in the field. - The collected evidence data of vulnerable groups through the face to face survey has been owned by Palika in their data bank. The owned data has been used for various purpose to provide utmost benefit to the VG. For example: For the Covid- 19 response programme, Palika took the reference of the evidence based data prepared by DCA and provided to the Palika, to provide food and relief item support. This was informed by the Palika on phone. - The collected evidence of severe vulnerable groups has been prioritized by the LG to support them in income generation activities. The access of VGs has been increased to the government resource. For example, doll making training at Gajuri, Bamboo item training at Gangajamuna-2.

Bamboo training Minute_17 Mar 2020.pdf - 4,103 VG been able to enrolled in the grievance registration that was announce by the NRA last year. Some of them are being eligible to be in NRA beneficiaries list. BIHANI is maintaining the MIS data of this quarter, will share the list of people those are eligible for housing reconstruction support. - PURNIMA-BIHANI provided economic support to the VG that support them to pay their debt which was taken for the house reconstruction. For example, Phulmaya Tamang, Single women who lost her husband in collapsed of house by EQ. She received government support to rebuilt her house, in addition to this she also take loan around NPR 100,000 that was repaid after she operate petty shop that was supported by BIHANI. She is earning around NPR 20,000 per month that make possible to repay her debt.

English_Purnima Newsletter Feb 2020.pdf - With moto “Local Representative at VG Door Step” PURNIMA-BIHANI programme was able to influenced Gangajamuna Palika to organize mobile Camp to provide Social Security Card. The eligible VG was identified in evidence collection data which was share to the Palika. Based on that data sheet, the Palika organised a mobile Camp where total 800 person received social security card. The data already reported in online system of Mott. - PURNIMA-BIHANI supported to all three palikas to develop guidelines of Public hearing, multi-skeholders platform and grievance handling which has been endorsed by the respective palika. This is great work which made provision to VGs for the access to government system as a part of good governance practices.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 87

5. How do you leverage the cost and technical support from other partners? If not currently done, do you have any plan for the future? • Local Government (Palikas) (Amount in NPR) = 190,000 Answer: Doll making training NPR 55,000, Bamboo item making training NPR 135,000 from local government. • Provincial Government (Amount in NPR) - None • Private Sector (Amount in NPR) Answer: Nepal Disability Welfare Association supported goat purchasing cost to 25 PwDs at Gajuri = NPR 300,000 (at the rate of 12,000 per person with disability). • Any Technical support which is equivalent to the cash? Answer: Not calculated in cash but palika representatives participated in different event and meeting of PURNIMA-BIHANI. In average with is more than NPR 200,000 allowance need to pay. 9. National Disability Fund: Answer: 4 wheelchairs support= NPR 72,000. (at the rate of of 18,000 per wheelchair for disability). And 50% Discount in three CP chair purchasing so NPR 30,000 at the rate of 10000 saved per CP chair). The consortium partner (NSD) has very good link with the national level network and suppliers. With constant negotiation, they are able to get the equipment’s in subsidized rate.

6. Besides Financial aid, what are the other types of supports you received from Mottmac/Purnima? • Technical Support (please list the type of support your organization received both from the district-based and KTM-based staffs) Answer: - In general, DCA has always received hands-on support from the team based in Kathmandu and Field. At Kathmandu level, the regular follow-ups, technical backstopping and suggestions/feedback was provided. DCA team mainly appreciates the feedback session after each field visit of Mott team. The very detailed feedbacking structure of Mott, mainly in the reports (both financial and narrative) has supported DCA team to work harder and become more efficient. - In ward level planning process training organized by Purnima to Palika staff, PURNIMA-BIHANI team members were also invitedon March 7 & 8, 2020 at Dhadingbesi, which provided the team to get better understanding on the planning process - Short orientation on online data entry in Solstice was provided to the MEAL focal point of DCA.

• Global lessons learnt, value addition to the POs from Mottmac/Purnima on reconstruction and Challenge Fund Answer: - MOTT staff are placed at Palika level and extend support in developing coordination and collaboration with Palika

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 88

- Organize PURNIMA level coordination meeting where all the colleagues of all components participated and discussed. This helped to get support from other components as well such as housing reconstruction - At National level, MOTT has been organizing period lesson learn workshop where all LNOB consortium partners participated and shared experiences. This helped to adopt and replicate best practices in one district to another districts. • MOTT team field visit and reflection/recommendations helped to manage project activities effectively and efficiently. • MOTT has developed a Web-based on-line data and information management Solistic and developed capacity of project staff. Also support in data entry in the system at first place and later the project staff has been managing data and information on the Solistic software • Timely review and feedbacks on report and ongoing activities heled to enhance project performance • MOTT invites POs in different consultation and meeting and give suggestions and helped to resolve project management and implementation issues and challenges. Any additional resource mobilizations? Answer: - Mott allowed DCA to use the surplus budget to hire 3 JTA and Data Officer that ensure the quality of programme and manage the database system. 7. What is the current status of ownership of the programme? Do you have the evidences for the ownership of the programme by the Palikas and all the larger community (besides the VG)? Answer: - The support from the BIHANI is based on the tailor-made approach to address the need in context of their capacity and appropriacy, so the supported activities are highly appreciated by the LG and the VG. - Evidence data collected by PURNIMA-BIHANI has been owned by the respective Palika and now they are using that data to provide social security scheme and other relevant programmes. This database was also maintained and updated by the Palika following the VG definition provided by PURNIMA LNOB programme. - The collected evidence of severe VGs has been prioritized by the LG to support them in income generation activities. The access of VGs has been increased to the government resource. For example, doll making training at Gajuri, Bamboo item training at Gangajamuna-2.

Bamboo training Minute_17 Mar 2020.pdf - BIHANI influenced Gangajamuna Palika based on the evidence data and information in the door to door visit to organize the mobile camp where 800 persons could be able to be eligible from the social security scheme of the government. BIHANI also jointly participated to support the palika during the camp.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 89

- Overall, we believe that the project and its interventions are owned by the respective Palikas greatly, and have well- coordinated with DCA and partners while designing activities for the vulnerable people. 8. What is your view on the sustainability of the programme? Are there any measures to be adopted for this to be ensured? Answer: - Three approaches (individual, institutional and intergrated) were adopted to provide the optimum benefits to the VG. This has worked well to make a transformative change in life and livelihoods of the VG. - Each of the provided support was done on a joint collaboration of LG (data and information collection, awareness raising activities, ID card distribution, LG policy and guidance development, and organize event based activities – income generating training, exhibition etc) and hence, the LG is ready to scale up many activities introduced by this project such as doll making training, poly-house farming, livestock insurance, mini-tiller support, mobility equipment to disable people etc. Further, the LG will closely monitor the activities that were done in joint collaboration. This will ensure the quality of work. - The project is supporting the VGs to link with the community level institutions to generate resources, and to ensure sustainability and spill-over effect of the skill and technology to other community members such as poly house farming, goat farming, mushroom farming, livestock insurance, poultry farming, commercial vegetable farming etc. - Package of training, technology and skill has been ensured before supporting of on/off farm enterprises. - Community are linked with the social protection and safety nets schemes of the Government of Nepal . - In many parts (where exactly?), the project supported to system and policy level strengthening which ensure the policy environment for the community (for example??) - Record of supports provided to the PwDs in the district are also recorded in National Disability Fund and National Disability rehabilitation center, which provides these organisations opportunity to monitor if the provided equipment are appropriately used.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 90

PHASE Nepal

Information collected

1. What is exact operational structure (staffing and management) with relevant skills sets devoted specifically to Purnima (CF/LNOB) programme implementation? i) Organogram Specific to Purnima - Concerned human resource with their designation and line of command (From top to bottom) The Purnima: CF-LNOB team, although self-contained and fully responsible for project implementation, is working as part of the overall PHASE Nepal team, drawing support from a variety of team members, such as health and livelihood experts, education, logistics, finance and admin team. In order to engage local skilled manpower through this project to overall PHASE team. Trainee JTA has also been recruited in involved in project implementation. There are 7 Trainee JTA complementing to 13 experienced JTAs in the four Palika. 4 Sub- overseers has also been engaged in designing, estimating and completing housing modification as required for the wheel-chair users. With the turn over of 2 GC (1 in Ajirkot and 1 in Tsum Nubri), Technical officer with academic training in agriculture has been recruited and deployed to provide technical support on livelihoods activities and backstopping to JTA and TJTA along with coordination with palika and wards for smooth implementation of the project. One technical officer recently deployed will support Ajirkot and coordinate with district level stakeholders. ii) Field level staff distribution (As per the recent staff structure) S.N. Palika No. of staff by skills 1 TsumNubri Rural Municipality 1. Gaupalika Coordinator-1 2. Technical Officer-1 3. JTA-3 4. Trainee JTA-1 5. Sub-overseer-1 6. Social Mobilizer-7 2 Dharche Rural Municipality 1. Gaupalika Coordinator-2 2. JTA-2 3. Trainee JTA-3 4. Sub-overseer-1 5. Social Mobilizer-7 3 Ajirkot Rural Municipality 1. Gaupalika Coordinator-1

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 91

2. Technical Officer-1 (Both for Ajirkot and coordination at district) 3. JTA-2 4. Sub-overseer-1 5. Social Mobilizer-5 4 Gandaki Rural Municipality 1. Gaupalika Coordinator-2 2. JTA-5 3. TJTA-3 4. Sub-overseer-1 5. Social Mobilizer-10

2. How do you manage stakeholder relationship at the local level?

• Approach: Major approaches efficiently adopted are: Identifying stakeholders with definite sector, Considering the significance of stakeholders, Evaluating opportunities, Considering responsibilities of the stakeholders, Considering relationship-enhancing strategies and actions. • Participation at district level meetings organized by MM. • Meetings at Gaupalika level and ward level

• Mechanism: Gaupalika Coordinator and Technical Officer are responsible in managing local stakeholders. Central team use to manage national and district level stakeholders. Regular meetings and interaction with palika and ward is organized either formally or informally which permits fast and better output for project implementation. Sharing of the activities and progress update with palika and ward. Involvement of ward and palika in ensuring the selection of relevant individual as beneficiary and endorsing from them. Participatory field monitoring and observation with the involvement of palika, ward and relevant stakeholders (local NGOs, CBOs). Sharing of the project progress and plan in wider mass through participation in quarterly meetings at district level organized by DFID/MM.

4. How many times your office as PO to Purnima organized coordination meetings with Palika and other stakeholders? Please list the agenda discussed. Please also share a sample minutes.

5. What monitoring system (s) do you have? • Your office’s mechanism: PHASE is executing both Central level and Palika level monitoring system for this project like others. Field based observation and visit, meetings and interaction with Palika, wards and relevant stakeholders, direct and indirect beneficiaries are the major methods/means for the monitoring of the project interventions. Program manager and Project Manager, Members of EC from the central team visit project areas for monitoring in regular time interval. Monitoring based on the results/outputs of the implemented activities is in the priority for the organization. At palika level, Gaupalika Coordinator is entitled with full defined responsibility for monitoring of the frontline staffs

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 92

as well as coordination with Palika and other stakeholders for project intervention. Participatory monitoring system is also applied in order to involve representatives from Palika, wards and relevant stakeholders in order to monitor/supervise the project interventions with wider perspective and collect valuable feedback for efficient and smooth implementation of the project. (i) How often center visits field? Please provide a sample field visit report by the center. o Project manager is responsible for overall monitoring of the project from central team and with best possibilities, once in a month in each palika monitoring is conducted. Project area visit by program manager and members from EC is also conducted regularly basically for stakeholder management and project monitoring. (ii) How do you organize SWC monitoring? Please provide a sample field visit report done by SWC: a. SWC monitoring is arranged by the central management team. At the end of the project, monitoring team is requested from SWC to have field observation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. SWC has not conducted monitoring visit for this project, which will be due towards the end of the project. Several other PHASE projects has been monitored by SWC. 6. Evidence of impact b. Please list the most important impacts (maximum 5) you as PO consider because of the CF/LNOB intervention in the field: c. Within the short span of project implementation, impact level evidence would be little early to observe. However, intervention from the project has started showing outcomes at both individual/households and community level. (i) Based on the evidence phase survey results, Gaupalika have used data of vulnerable groups in preparing strategic planning and budgeting as well as annual work plan. Gandaki RM has allocated budget for People with disability and single women. Vulnerable individuals have realized that they are also the active member of the society and community have realized them as the productive manpower. Activities of CF-LNOB through PHASE are highlighted in annual work plan of RM. (ii) With the implementation of farm based activities, farmers are being able to produce, consume and sell organic and nutritious vegetable at their own. They have observed and realized that poultry rearing is the best alternatives for income generation and enhancing livelihood within short period of time. Earnings of Nrs. 3000-4000 from single chick (Giriraj) has aid on the smooth iving of vulnerable individuals. Sunmaay Gurung of Dharche is an example who is rearing poultry chicks, sold some of them and purchase goat to have diverse income sources. (iii) Skill-based trainings have also shown positive results in the lives of vulnerable individuals. Skill-based trainings have become source of income through initiation of small business at the local level. Bal Bahadur Gurung of Tsumnubri-3, carer of single women had returned back from abroad with no income however, started saloon in his own locality after hair cutting training and is earning around NRs.15000-20000 per month. Gopal Adhikari of Ajirkot-3 has started providing health services to the livestock in the same locality as well as being called from adjoining locality for the treatment of animals after receiving village animal health worker training. He revealed that trainings has become important source of income for running his household. These are some of the examples.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 93

(iv) Elderly, single women and people with disability after having access to beneficiary cards through the project in collaboration with RM are eligible to receive social security allowances which is being used by themselves as household as well as personal expenses. This has also increased self-esteem and dignity. (v) Most importantly, support for PwDs with assistive devices have increased mobility of persons who were confined within the small room of the house. Family members and community have recognize them as productive manpower. Elderly people who needed help for proper sanitation now have access to mobile/sitting toilet, which has become very convenient now. PwDs provided with wheelchair have increased mobility after ramp construction. Common understanding on issues of vulnerability within Palika, among stakeholders and communities made encouraging environment to continue project activities through synergic effort. (vi) Rabina, from Keraunja has started to attend school. Before the project support, she was left at home, often alone when her parents had to engage for farming, as her fingers were wrapped with skin. Now she can eat herself and is attending school with interest. It has reduced burden on her parents and she is enjoying her life better. Similarly, Yam Bahadur from Gandaki-6 restarted school after he got artificial limb. He was about drop out from school and to take care of cattle. 7. How do you leverage the cost and technical support from other partners? If not currently done, do you have any plan for the future? • Local Government (Paliaks): Regular coordination and collaboration with palika during project implementation has wider space for leveraging resources as well technical support both form organization and palika. Card distribution program for vulnerable groups is being implemented in collaboration with palika leveraging technical manpower and sharing cost for the activity. The leveraging is both way: palika is also getting technical support for implementing their annual approved activities through organization. Palika are directly involved in endorsing beneficiary for vocational trainings and ensuring their continuity through support in microbusiness establishment. • Provincial Government (Amount in NPR): o Provincial government has allocated funding for livelihoods activities in Dharche in which Purnima cofounding has been used for fairly large scale livelihoods activities –Fish ponds construction. CFLNOB team has been providing technical support towards the Palika’s (Dharche) initiation in making pocket area for spice crops (Ginger, Turmeric) in the Palika wards with funding from Provincial government. • Private Sector (Amount in NPR): o Some of the VG families are interested in bee keeping. Project has discussed with the supplier (bee hives and bees) and later has agreed to keep connection with the farmers for marketing if their product. It was also realized that the bee keepers can sell not only honey but also bees and hives. o PHASE had introduced KIWI fruit in Kashigaun and Keraunj villages about three years ago. This year they got fruit. After testing the fruit, beneficiaries raised money themselves and PHASE connected them with the fruit sapling providers. • Any Technical support which is equivalent to the cash? Not yet.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 94

8. Besides Financial aid, what are the other types of supports you received from Mottmac/Purnima? • Technical Support (please list the type of support your organization received both from the district-based and KTM-based staffs):

Organization is receiving technical support in reporting, database management (MIS system), project management along with feedbacks through field monitoring and supervision both form central as well as district team.

Purnima district and central team has been supporting in strengthening coordination and collaboration with Palika and related stakeholders at local and district level.

• Global lessons learnt, value addition to the POs from Mottmac/Purnima on reconstruction and Challenge Fund o PHASE Nepal has been successful to secure funding for USD 0.5M for Strengthening Independent Living Concept for PWDs. o • Any additional resource mobilizations? o Gandaki Gaupalika paid cost of 10 Enumerators out of 36 for collection of information for this project during the evidence phase. o PHASE has been using fund from other project in three wards of Dharche for VGs. o National Disabled Fund (NDF), Kathamndu contributed NRs. 6000 out of NRs.26000 to support artificial limb (leg) to Yam Bahadur from Gandaki RM ward no. 6. o All the Palikas have been organizing ID card distribution events for VGs with support from the project.

9. What is the current status of ownership of the programme? Do you have the evidences for the ownership of the programme by the Palikas and all the larger community (besides the VG)? • CFLNOB activities are included in the annual plan of Palikas.

• Gandaki Gaupalika allocated fund for evidence collection and the information was used for periodic planning of the Palika.

• All the activities conducted are as per the plan. However, some of the activities are revised and implemented at the field level as per the requirement of the community and vulnerable groups in order to ensure ownership.

• Palika and wards are realizing the issues of vulnerable groups and thus planning accordingly to address them through their annual plans. They have recognized the activities of CF-LNOB as their own in order to provide services and sources of livelihood enhancement for the VG.

• Successful livelihood activities carried out by vulnerable people has increased motivation to community people as well as all the stakeholders and are adapting the process on their own.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 95

10. What is your view on the sustainability of the programme? Are there any measures to be adopted for this to be ensured? Vulnerable groups are being capacitated through various trainings, awareness raising activities, skill development trainings, support in startup of microbusiness thorugh the project interventions. Organization will link beneficiaries with the local level and thus think and believes that beneficiaries will be able to carry out the major livelihood enhancing activities in their own. The holistic and diverse use of baseline data by the RM for (i) planning and budgeting and (ii) identifying most vulnerable elderly, PwDs and single women to provide beneficiary cards for increasing access to social services, is in fact a kind of evidence-based planning and development process, which we thought is an important initiative and sustainable. This also signals a good relationship among PHASE field staffs and Palika/Ward representatives. The learning acquired by the local project staff and local government members has supported this with regular and effective collaboration and coordination with local governments. Palikas have also included vulnerable support program and allocated budget in coherence with our projects, which enhances the ownerships of the activities. Recognition of vulnerable individuals by the ward and RM level, and formation of networks of elderly, PwD and single women at ward level (in Dharche, it is included in the annual Palika plans) itself are the sustainable measures however, strategies for effective mobilization of these groups through allocating budget is necessary, which will be done in project period. Some interventions – such as provision of personalized aids – will be only possible because of the project funding. There is regular coordination at ward and RM level for implementation of project activities. Sharing of project activities and budget at ward and RM level have facilitated in joint implementation of beneficiary card distribution in Gandaki, Ajirkot and Dharche RM. Women development division in Gandaki has allocated NRs. 50000 for single women and NRs. 100000 for PwD and are in process to implement various skill development trainings through the vulnerable groups formed at ward level after the project implementation. Dharche RM has planned for establishing Kiwi, turmeric and ginger pocket in this fiscal year and PHASE Nepal is providing technical guidance and assistance to the RM. Representative from ward and RM are regularly involved in monitoring and supervision of activities under economic component whereas activities under social and housing component are implemented with the direct enactment of the ward and RM and also focus on ensuring ownership by respective ward and RM. Thus, PHASE Nepal is concerned and focused on effective coordination and collaboration with reformed federal structure at local level.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 96

SAPPROS consortium: Sambodhan

List of information collected

ii) Field level staff distribution S.N. Palika No. of staff by skills 1 Dupcheshwor 1. Livelihood Officer-1 2. Volunteers Social Mobilizer-4 3. Agro based Technician : 1 2 Tadi 4. Livelihood Officer-1 5. Volunteers Social Mobilizer-3 6. Agro based Technician : 1 3 Shivapuri 7. Volunteers Social Mobilizer-5

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 97

8. Agro- based Technician : 1 (There is no separate livelihood officer in Shivapuri so Livelihood Coordinator and Technical Officer provides more support in Shivapuri as well as provide overall backstops in all three Palika)

2. How do you manage stakeholder relationship at the local level? a. Approach • Endorsement of project from Palika • Sharing entire project activities and budget to Palika • Incorporate LNOB activities with Palika’ s plan and making possible resource collaboration with Ward/Palika Coordination and linkages with other NGOs working in Palika for the synergy creation • Mechanism: At least by monthly meeting with each Palika an regular sharing and planning b. How many times your office as PO to Purnima was invited and involved in Palika meetings? Please list the agenda of concern to your office as PO. Please also share a sample minutes of concerned Palika, if possible. Each Palika had invited SAPPROS as PO in more than six meeting in a year. Major agendas were: Quarterly/ Annual planning, NGO coordination, Conducting activities jointly, Id card distribution to vulnerable people, quarterly/annual progress review etc.

c. How many times you’re office as PO to Purnima organized coordination meetings with Palika and other stakeholders? Please list the agenda discussed. Please also share a sample minutes. SAPPROS conducted dozens of meetings with Palika other stakeholders in a year. Major agendas were: Sharing of Vulnerability Mapping Report, Sharing of Sambodhan Project activities, Quarterly/ Annual planning, progress sharing, Cost collaboration, Insurance of livestock’s, conducting activities jointly, Engagement of vulnerable people in Income Generating Activities and so on. 3. What monitoring system (s) do you have? a. Your office’s mechanism Permanent monitoring and evaluation section is provisioned. Regular field visit, backstops and monitoring by project management team at least two times in every quarter. b. How often center visits field? Please provide a sample field visit report by the center. Center office visits in regular basis at least two visit in one quarter and backstops to the district team. c. How do you organize SWC monitoring? Please provide a sample field visit report done by SWC. Generally SWC monitors the project after project completion. SWC has monitored different project implemented by SAPROS in past years. SWC will monitor this project at the end of the project or after completion of two year project period. SAPPROS has allocated budget for the SWC monitoring.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 98

4. Evidence of impact Social Component

Vulnerability and deeper understanding survey revealed that among 8718 person with disabilities, only 351 person had disability identity card. One year after Sambodhan, almost all person with disability have the identity card. Among them 253 persons with disability who have red (70) card and blue (183) card are enrolled in government social security allowances in three Gaunpalika. They are receiving 3,000 and 1,600 allowance per person per month in regular basis. Similarly person with disability, single women and elderly people are now pleased due to help of assistive device and their own engagement in livelihood opportunity. Assistive devices has increased the mobility of persons with disability and their participation on Income Generating activities. For example: Kanchhi Maya Tamang is handling her business after having assistive devices. The elderly people who had problem going to the restroom on time (suffered from urinary and fecal incontinence) are found in better condition with the help of mobile toilet and other necessary support of assistive devices. Economic Component

During end of 2018 percapita income per person was 17,7049 NRs (among identified 1959 vulnerable households) where as it was 13,79610 (among program supported most vulnerable 177 households who are at poorest quantile of 1959 HHs) and now it is increased by at least NRs 1,507 per person (6,933 per household, cumulative income from second and third quarter)11 from open vegetable farming and 31,321 NRs from plastic tunnel. This increment is 10.9 percent from MERS/Sambodhan conducted 177 beneficiaries and 8.3 percent from vulnerability assessment conducted1959 beneficiaries. For example: Kanchha Tamang, Krishna BK, Bed Sarki, Rajkumar Tamang, Sita Pariyar, Suvash Pariyar and more other are continuing their previous business. Technicians from Sambodhan project have provided such support to dozen of households so that person with disability and elderly people are making good income from low cost agriculture technology. Vulnerable people are expanding livelihood business as per business plan linking with supply chain/market actors at their own risk and initiation after receiving notable income. For example : Saroj Pandit, PWDs and poor household, from Dupcheshwar earned 40 thousands rupees from his tunnel business on first cycle and now he is adding another tunnel from his earning to scale up his business. Suman Tamang, Poor and PwDs family, Binda Thapa, single women at Dupcheshwar earned 40 thousands, 36 thousands rupees respectively from vegetable farming and they are expanding their business. Ram Krishna Tamang, family member of PwDs at Shivapuri earned 64,000 rupees from his poultry business from first lot and now he has continued his business from his own initiation linking with local Dangol agro-vet. Nirmala Nepali, poor household at Tadi is earning 20 thousands per month from her tailoring business to take care of her family. Common understanding on issues of vulnerability within Palikas and among stakeholders, communities made encouraging environment on continue project activities through synergic effort. Palika has addressed the vulnerability issues in their annual plan and policy. Gaunpalika is making financial leverage on activities implementation like card distribution camp in all Gaunpalika, partnership on tailoring training Dupcheshwar. Registration of iSHG with name of farmer group in Gaunpalika for financial and technical

8 Vulnerability and deeper understanding survey 2019 Sambodhan 9 Vulnerability and deeper understanding survey 2019 Sambodhan 10 MERS survey 2019, Sambodhan Project 11 Third quarter reporting from district team, December 2019

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 99

support from Gaunpalika on all three Gaunpalika. Local cooperative are ready to involve vulnerable groups in their business chain and provide technical support. Housing Component

The vulnerability mapping had showed that there were 1376 earthquake damage households were not constructed. By the end of 2018, Project staffs visited to all 1376 households and facilitated to construct their households with the technical support and linkage with ward Palika and NRA to enroll and receive tranche from NRA. Out of 1376 households 775 were poor and food unsecured households, 287 were single women households, 44 households belonged to person with disability. Project staffs facilitated them on getting enrolled in NRA process, supported to register in ward and Palika level grievance mechanism, completion of construction work through technical support. Now reconstruction of 1128 vulnerable households have been completed and Only 248 households are left to complete their reconstruction of houses. Project is going to make necessary support to 248 households to complete their house construction.

5. How do you leverage the cost and technical support from other partners? If not currently done, do you have any plan for the future? • Local Government (Paliaks) (Amount in NPR) : 120,5000/- • Provincial Government (Amount in NPR) • Private Sector (Amount in NPR) : • Any Technical support which is equivalent to the cash? NPR 1200000/- (Technical supported provided by different institution such as Shakti Samuha, Share and Care for the conducting of Disability Identity Camp in three Palika.)

6. Besides Financial aid, what are the other types of supports you received from Mottmac/Purnima? • Technical Support (please list the type of support your organization received both from the district-based and KTM-based staffs) - Technical input for the different types of Income Generating activities to the vulnerable people - Technical support for disability inclusive planning, social mobilization and project implementation - Capacity Building in planning process of local bodies - Center level coordination and arrangement for the referral of most vulnerable people especially person with disabilities in specialized agencies. - Coordination with NRA in center for the facilitation in project implementation - Regular monitoring and backstopping to the district project implementation team • Global lessons learnt, value addition to the POs from Mottmac/Purnima on reconstruction and Challenge Fund - Organize different workshop at least one learning workshop in each quarter and share the global practice and learning. • Any additional resource mobilizations?

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 100

7. What is the current status of ownership of the programme? Do you have the evidences for the ownership of the programme by the Palikas and all the larger community (besides the VG)? o All three Gaunpalika have included challenge fund activities in their annual work plan. Resource leverage and activity level partnership is done different activities and Palikas have owned their activity and placed them in their annual work plan. o Mechanism of sharing and approval of activities: Project activities are approved from Palika and ward before implementation that helps to create space for collaboration, replication and leverage on program. Finally activities demanded by vulnerable people will automatically incorporated in regular program of Gaunpalika. o Regular meeting with Palika, Ward, likeminded organizations (Shakti Samuha, Share and Care, CDC, CRDSN, NCCI, PMAMP) for planning, implementation, progress sharing is conducting in regular basis. This kind of activities are supporting on Joint action like: ID card distribution, sustainable IG activities(citrus and avocado sapling plantation, livestock keeping, vegetable farming), skill based training, market collection center establishment and operation, o Ward officials are convinced and showing their willingness to work to gether for elderly people ID card distribution process and appropriate IG activities for vulnerable groups. As requested Dupcheshwar ward number 7 chair, training materials support from Sambodhan, machine support from ward, resource person support from Palika. o Linking Inclusive Self Help Group (iSHG) and vulnerable people with local agro vet (RC agro vet), financial institutions (Sanima bank, Everest bank, Jagaruk Bahuudeshiya Sahakari Sastha, cooperatives (Jagaruk multipurpose cooperative), collection center (Shivapuri agriculture product collection center), local suppliers makes financial access to vulnerable groups for continue their already set up income generation activities or small scale entrepreneur business. 8. What is you view on the sustainability of the programme? Are there any measures to be adopted for this to be ensured? The project is being implemented in functional coordination and collaboration with Palika and respective wards. Palika has incorporated LNOB concept in their policy and annual plan. Since capacity building and economic recovery of vulnerable people is the key intervention of the project, the project is widely accepted by Palika and communities. The group of vulnerable people named inclusive self-help group (ISHG) is recognized by the Palika and formally register in Palika. Palika is also going to support to the same group with different interventions. Entire project activities had been planned and adopted as per the need after the detail assessment of the individual need and endorsed by Palika through planning meeting. Most of the project activities are complementing the plan of Palika. After the capacity building of vulnerable people, they themselves have reached in different service holders agencies and started to claim their right.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 101

Annex VIII: Detail SWOT Matrix as provided by POs

VIII.a CDC - Lead organization of the district - Competent and experienced staffs and members - Able to compete with national and international organizations - Well-equipped office with technology and gender friendly environment - Public relations and outreach - Complaints hearing system - Institutional Chart of Account managed by software - Active participation of members of the committee and clear division of work - Minimum standards of good governance and accountability implemented - Strategic plans developed and executed on regular basis - Effective partnership with Local Government (CDC model) Strengths - Good coordination with government and non-governmental organizations - Revised Statute, Policy and Directory - Willingness to partner with local stakeholders - Representatives of local government have been positive for self-partnership for joint operation and mobilization of local resources. - The MEL system institutionalized - Prior knowledge of the program for the participation of stakeholders in monitoring, public relations, and community relations - Credibility with target groups, communities and stakeholders - Regular updating of the organization’s rules and guidelines - Annual social tests/audit - Provision for performance evaluation, promotion and reward of employees - Participation of working committees, sub-committees and members causing less time to devote in implementation - Plan for internal resource enhancement and sustainability of not clearly put in place - Programs not sufficiently based on the demands of the community Weaknesses - The institution doesn’t have a building in its own name - The volunteers and staff of the organization have not been provided various capacity development trainings from time to time - Emphasis not sufficiently placed on technology-friendly records and promotion of various activities undertaken by the organization - Less visibility of the activities of the organization - Ample room to work in partnership with elected local government and other stakeholders. - Prospects for increased partnership with semi-government organizations - Possibility of improved standard of living in remote areas of district and poor communities Opportunities - Scope for enhanced coordination and cooperation with the local government to assist in the creation of various policies, laws - Prospects for expanding and establishing relation at national and international levels - Possibility of cooperating with various government and non-government financial institutions, industries and traders - Communities view on all organizations - Lack of coordination between government bodies and thematic offices at the local level - Difficulty in understanding the requirements of the program among elected representatives Threats - Difficulty in implementing programs, as the local government has not complied with all the required policies, rules - Not having enough income for the organization - The financial support provided by the donor is mobilized through a private organization, - Difficult to disseminate creative works done by the organization to other districts

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 102

VIII.b: DCA - Relevant Policies, manuals and code of conduct documents in place - Strong management and programme team - Strong MEL framework and team - Separate Communication with the team to ensure branding and visibility - Pool of experts equipped with skill and experience Strengths - Strong financial management and procurement systems in place - Expertise on sustainable livelihood, good governance, GESI, DRR and humanitarian response - Local staffs for the social mobilization process already familiar with the community/ local context for the tailor-made approach Technical experts/advisors at HQ extending support to the country office - Limited human resources to provide regular support and guidance to implementing Weakness partners - Regular DANIDA Framework programme supplement and compliment the donor funding Programme. - HQ team are available to backstopping the country team for quality assurance and thematic support. - Adapting dual approach of encouraging VGs as art of the bottom-up process and influencing stakeholders with the support of VG-specific policy formulation appropriate for local context Opportunities - Bundle of information available from the local community from the initial study to rigorous door-to-door visit of VG created good position to work together for the social security mobile camps with local government and accessing larger number of ultra-poor VGs to social security schemes. - Developing linkage with VGs networks ad alliance at different levels - Partnership with government wings such as National Disability Fund (NDF) for the clause of supporting the wheelchair-needy PwDs adopting a blanket approach with the working territory - Underdeveloped good governance mechanism and accountability at the Local Government institution. - Limited Policy Framework available in local government to support development Threats programme focusing VGs. More government expenditure in infrastructure development rather than social component - The vulnerable groups are in scattered areas which are HR intensive to reach and frequent follow up.

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 103

VIII.c: PHASE - An active voluntary board and advisors from diverse background, expertise and experience, ranging from medical doctors and public health and nutrition experts to entrepreneurs, senior nurses, engineers and lawyers - 200+ staff with diverse background such as clinical health, public health, agriculture, education, social sciences, development studies, and disaster risk reduction and research - A female chair of the organization along with about 50% female staff. - Diversity of staff representing as many as 31 different districts with respect to their origin and different castes and ethnicity - Robust financial system and track record of compliance vetted by international government agencies like DFID, Austrian Development Agency (ADA), USAID and 20+ international partners Strengths - 13+ years of experience and understanding of working in ultra-remote areas with successful completion record of sustainable grassroots projects - Two international partners (separate entities but with same vision, mission and goals),namely, PHASE Worldwide and PHASE Austria supporting PHASE Nepal continuously from the inception of the organization in fund raising and capacity building - Ownership of basic physical facilities, IT equipment and core staff thereby facilitating immediate startup of any bigger projects (owns four-story building and two four wheelers, five motorbikes and other basic infrastructure) - Very strong ties with local communities with integrated activities in sectors such as health, education, livelihood, etc. - Regular training to staffs to enhance their capacities and update their knowledge/skill. Provision of staff promotion based on regular assessment. - Scholarship opportunity for field level, mainly health sector, staff for further study and a comparative remuneration package s for staff motivation - Inadequate office space in central office to accommodate working space, meetings and Weakness other activities - Project-wise budget limitation causing setting up a district office only in Mugu out of 9 districts, low level of visibility at district and national level - Reach new and larger partners who can fund to scale up successful projects in more needy areas Opportunities - Building expertise of the existing staff and board with training and capacity development - Utilizing existing resources and working with present partners with best possible collaboration and results from the implemented projects - Expansion of district level coordination offices wherever budget permits - Natural disasters such as flood, landslides, pandemic, etc. Threats - Political pressure on staff recruitment. - Non-presence of the government staff in remote areas causing delay in project activities to be implemented in coordination with the local bodies

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 104

VIII.d: SAPPROS - Competent and experienced staffs - Strong and functional coordination with local governments - Cohesiveness /impartiality among staffs Strengths - deeper understanding on vulnerability - In-depth knowledge of community essentials - Project implementation-related standard operating procedures and guidelines - Sound technical expertise - Strong GESI consideration targeting vulnerable people - To meet multidimensional requirement of vulnerable people for their inclusion such as education and health related support with limited resource of project Weaknesses - Support to more numbers of vulnerable people with limited resources - Limited number of staffs to reach the vulnerable households living in remote and scattered settlement - Opportunity of resource collaboration for the tangible support to vulnerable people Opportunities - Inclusion of vulnerable people in reconstruction process - Scope to support vulnerable people for their dignified life - Unseasonal rains causing difficulties in transportation to reach vulnerable areas, Threat - Movement of vulnerable people to access the services

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction

Mott MacDonald | Purnima: UK Support to Post-Earthquake Recovery in Nepal 105

mottmac.com

OA4: CF/LNOB I TOR I April 2020 I Technical Assistance to Implementing Partner Organisations for Vulnerable Group Housing Reconstruction