CHOICE Humanitarian Nepal 18-Month Progress Report 2015

CHOICE Humanitarian’s expansion into 180 villages in the Lamjung District of Western Nepal has led to meaningful improvements in villager satisfaction and has contributed to a decline in the rate of extreme poverty in the region.

CHOICE Humanitarian Nepal 18-Month Progress Report

2015

James Mayfield Bishnu Adhikari Todd Castagna

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 Background of CHOICE Humanitarian’s Engagement in Nepal ...... 4 Investment Summary and the Significant Reduction in Extreme Poverty ...... 5 Section One: Background and Objectives ...... 10 A...... CHOICE Humanitarian’s Mission ...... 10 B. Key Steps in the Development of the Nepal Self-Developing District Program ...... 10 C. Four Phases of the NSDP initiative ...... 162 D. Objectives of this Report ...... 17 Section Two: Methodology – Sources for Measuring Change ...... 18 A. Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) ...... 18 B. 2013 Census ...... 19 C. 2015 Sample ...... 19 D. Challenges or Potential Survey Data Issues ...... 19 Head of Household Gender and Age (Representative Sample) ...... 20 Section Three: The Challenge of Extreme Poverty ...... 22 A. The Reality of Extreme Poverty ...... 22 B. Contrasts between the extreme poor and the non-extreme poor ...... 28 Section Four: Project/Programs Implemented During the Past 18 Months ...... 31 Development Projects/Programs: Types, Numbers, and Money Spent ...... 33 Assessment of Development Projects ...... 39 Section Five: Five Dimension Scoring and Improvement ...... 40 Key Highlights ...... 41 Section Six: Five WOWs and Corresponding Survey Results ..... Error! Bookmark not defined. Health ...... 42 Education ...... 43 Income ...... 43 Environmental/Infrastructure ...... 45 Leadership and Local Culture Enhancement ...... 46 Other Important Survey Observations ...... 47 Section Seven: Go-Forward Plan ...... 50 Section Eight: The April 2015 Earth Quake: Challenges and Opportunities ...... 53

Section Nine: Conclusions ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendices ...... 57 The Thirty Indicators of Program Progress ...... 57 Program Scoring by VDC ...... 58 List of Abbreviations ...... 60 Questionnaire Responses ...... 60

Acknowledgements

This 18-month progress report of CHOICE Humanitarian’s work in Nepal was concluded through the efforts of several people, including James Mayfield, Bishnu Adhikari, Kiran Neupane, Todd Castagna, and David Sallay. The results of this Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) would not have been possible without the generous donations of time and money from many individuals over the past nearly two years.

We would also like to express appreciation for the Nepalese government and President Yadef for their support and continued interest in CHOICE’s program. Our expansion into 180 villages in West Central Nepal would not have been possible without their sustaining support.

Lastly, the data, which was thoroughly and oftentimes painstakingly collected, is the result of countless hours spent by our Rural Development Facilitators (RDFs). Special thanks goes out to them and to all of the local CHOICE staff – including In-Country Director Bishnu Adhikari – for their hard work in making the dream of a poverty-free Nepal more of a reality.

Executive Summary Background of CHOICE Humanitarian’s Engagement in Nepal

CHOICE Humanitarian is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been actively involved in poverty alleviation in Nepal for 15 years. During this time, we have been privileged to work alongside a people who have a rich culture and a strong desire to improve their lives and the lives of their children. With the encouragement and support of the Nepalese government, CHOICE has been able to expand its footprint in Nepal beginning in late 2013 via its Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP). CHOICE’s groundbreaking poverty alleviation methodologies will now be available to 180 villages containing approximately 75,000 people in the three market towns (and accompanying rural areas) of Bhorletar, Sundarbazar, and Besishahar in the Lamjung District of West Central Nepal.

CHOICE’s overriding goal is to end extreme poverty and improve quality of life through a district-level, self-developing village-centered approach. Extreme poverty is today defined as people who live on less than $1.90 per day per capita. This means a family of four subsisting on less than $8.00 a day would be in living in extreme poverty. Village Development Committees (VDCs), composed of a collection of respected and democratically-elected village leaders, are being trained to understand the resources available to them and how to most effectively and efficiently improve the well-being of the people in their villages. VDCs over the past 18 months have generally selected programs and projects that fall into one of five major categories, known as the five dimensions of rural development:

1) Education (Adult Literacy) 2) Health and Nutrition 3) Income (Agriculture and Non Agriculture Enterprises) 4) Environmental/Infrastructure 5) Leadership and Local Cultural Enhancement (Core Values)

CHOICE’s NSDP program in Nepal can be divided into the following four phases. CHOICE is pleased to report that as of the writing of this report, it has successfully navigated through phases one and two, and has already begun making significant progress in phase three.

Phase One: Trust and Awareness Building: (First 3-6 Months – Second Half of 2013): In this entry phase, the CHOICE staff (20 Rural District Facilitators, or RDFs) were trained in processes of rural development, and the general strategy of the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP). Through face-to-face interviews with all 13,000+ families in some 20 Village Development Committee (VDC) areas, the RDFs came to understand villagers’ problems, concerns, opinions, and goals for a better quality of life. This effort to visit every family in these VDC areas has proven to be an innovative and crucial way of preparing the RDFs in several aspects. First, it helps them to truly understand the villagers and their present situation, second, it helps to build a relationship of trust and mutual respect between RDFs and villagers, and third, it facilitate villagers’ ability to take responsibility for their own development and improvement.

Phase Two: Strengthening Village Leadership (12-18 months – 2014-2015) Working with formal and informal leaders (both men and women, both young and elderly, both upper and lower poor), CHOICE-trained RDFs introduced a leadership training curriculum designed to help villagers achieve the following: (1) Understand principles of good governance: accountability, transparency, and inclusive participation, (2) Develop skills in results-based management, which include learning to implement programs and projects, solve their problems and improve their quality of life, and (3) Ensure that leaders are trusted and respected, able to solve problems, and achieve desired community goals. This process legitimizes village leaders as they commit to adhere to villager-determined core values such as honesty, effectiveness, tolerance, compassion, generosity, and responsibility. It is during this Phase Two period that villagers begin to see the importance of helping the truly disadvantaged in their community.

Phase Three: Institution Building Committed to Eliminating Extreme Poverty (12-18 Months – 2015-2016): This Third Phase is the time to strengthen and formalize local institutions - VDCs, Economic Development Cooperatives, and other local organizations - committed to ensure that all those in extreme poverty move up financially from less than $1.25 per capita per day to at least $2.50 per capita per day. This would ensure that they have regular employment or some enterprise and assets enough to have daily food on their tables, their children can now go to school, and they have enough income to afford limited health care, but more importantly they gain a sense of dignity and confidence that their futures will be better. RDFs work closely with families in extreme poverty, encouraging participation in regular savings programs, completion of adult literacy courses, and development of skills in entrepreneurship, and qualifying for small loans allowing the extreme poor to start their own income-generating enterprises.

Phase Four: District-wide Planning and Improved Quality of Life for All (Years Four through Ten – 2017-2023): A three-year process of poverty elimination through a Self- Developing District Program can greatly reduce the tragedy of extreme poverty in a rural district of several hundred villages. Now, with only informal encouragement and monitoring from CHOICE staff, a Zone Planning Council - two representatives (usually one man and one woman) from each of the participating VDCs – will begin to take full responsibility for the development of their commonly-organized planning zone area. The focus is on creating partnerships with district, regional, central government agencies, local, national, and international NGOs, private- sector businesses, and social sector stakeholders (such as universities, media, religious, service, sports, and cultural groups), all combined to focus on an improved quality of life that reflects the core values, traditions, and aspirations of all the families and communities within the District. Investment Summary and the Significant Reduction in Extreme Poverty

One of the most exciting results to be defined in this 18 Month Progress Report is the realization that of the 13,293 families initially identified in late 2013 in the 20 VDCs in the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) areas, roughly 2,552 families were living in extreme poverty (nearly 20%). After a little over one year of program implementation, nearly one- third (824) of these families have now moved out of extreme poverty. A more detailed explanation of how and why this has happened is in the body of this report, briefly it happened when most of these families: (1) Participated in some form of regular savings program through local economic development cooperatives, (2) completed a six week course in entrepreneurship building, (3) Formalized a business plan, outlining the products to be sold, prices to be charged, 5

paper records of sales and profits, processes for marketing their products, period of time needed to pay back their loan, and a plan for expanding their business, and (4) qualified for an enterprise loan provided by a local bank in partnership with CHOICE Humanitarian. During the period from January 2014 to April 2015, some 350 income-generating projects were funded by CHOICE and her donor partners (See figure 1 below). Over $500,000 was leveraged with VDC budget funds, CHOICE grants, various government agency funding, other NGOs, and private sector business people, including the savings of the local villagers themselves.

Figure 1 Investment in projects in the Five Dimensions and Special Programs (January 2014 through April 2015) - Bhorletar, Sundarabazar, and Besishahar Amount of Investment Number of Projects $800,000 400 $700,000 350 $600,000 300 $500,000 250 $400,000 200 $300,000 150 $200,000 100 $100,000 50 $0 0

Investment (L) Number (R)

Below is a list of the types and numbers of income generating projects funded through the CHOICE-sponsored NSDP initiative. Many of the individual projects serviced multiple families:

Figure 2 Type and Quantity of Income-Generating Projects Types of Projects Quantity (1) Livestock: goats, pigs, cows, buffalos, chickens, etc. 167 projects (2) Agriculture: various grains, vegetables, fruits, etc. 134 projects (3) Irrigation: new systems, repairs, and expansion, etc. 45 projects (4) Enterprises: agriculture and non-agriculture 42 projects (5) Greenhouses: expanding family gardens 27 projects (6) Tourism: trekking and cultural participation 8 projects (7) 6Ps Entrepreneurship Training 4 projects (8) Market Centers 3 projects

Among the five dimensions of rural development (education, health, income, environment, and culture) a progress report was developed to determine which areas of rural development had experienced the most progress between January 2014 and January 2015. A formal scoring system was established for each of six indicators in the five dimensions providing a score of 6 to 24 (1= the poorest score and a 4= the highest score possible for each indicator). Combining all of the scores in the 20 VDCs, the lowest possible score would be 6X20 = 120 and the highest would be 24X20=480. Notice in the figure below the amazing improvement in the score for income- generating activities, suggesting something very significant was happening in the sphere of income-generating growth. Note the higher scores for education and health (sectors that received the highest levels of central government budgetary support). Obviously, economic development as a sector of rural development received much less support from the central government and thus had the lowest score of 129 in January 2014. What is significant is the increase in the income dimension of 66.7% during the year of 2014 when a progress score of 215 was achieved. Below in the body of the report will be a much more detailed explanation as to why and how this amazing reduction in extreme poverty has taken place in the 20 VDC areas of Lamjung district, Nepal.

Figure 3 Aggregated Progress Scoring Results by Dimension of Development Education Health Income Environment Culture 2014 270 301 129 246 217 2015 305 302 215 253 223 % Improvement 13.0% 0.3% 66.7% 2.8% 2.8%

In late 2013, a fifty-question questionnaire was issued to all 13,000+ families in some 20 VDC areas in Lamjung district. In January 2015, a random sample survey of 650 of these 13,000 families was conducted asking the same questions

We are very pleased to report the improvement in satisfaction with level of income in just this short time-frame that we have been engaged in economic development initiatives in these 20 VDC areas. Satisfaction among the extreme poor improved by 21%, while satisfaction among the non-extreme poor also recorded significant improvement of 14%. See Figure 4 below.

Figure 4

Satisfaction with Income Level – 2013 vs. 2015 Responses 2013 Satisfied 2015 Satisfied Improvement Extreme Poor 37% 59% 21% Poverty Non Extreme Poor 66% 80% 14% Male 61% 78% 17% HoH Gender Female 60% 75% 16% 0-34 62% 81% 20% 35-49 59% 75% 16% HoH Age 50-64 61% 76% 15% 65+ 62% 81% 19% Below are three indicators of the financial progress that villagers had made between 2013 and 2015: Satisfaction with their income, level of savings, and efforts to begin new enterprises.

Figure 5 Satisfaction with Level of Income Income (2013) Income (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 1,196 9.0% 1 9 1.4% (7.6%) 2 4,055 30.5% 2 133 21.1% (9.4%) 3 7,520 56.6% 3 474 75.2% 18.7% 4 519 3.9% 4 14 2.2% (1.7%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 630 100.0%

Scale: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 2 = Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3= Somewhat Satisfied, 4 = Very Satisfied. Note that respondents moved from 56.6% somewhat satisfied with their income up to 75.2%, an 18.7% increase.

Figure 6 Savings Activity Saving Activity (2013) Saving Activity (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 7,714 58.0% 1 482 76.6% 18.6% 2 3,365 25.3% 2 84 13.4% (12.0%) 3 2,214 16.7% 3 63 10.0% (6.6%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 629 100.0%

Scale: 1 = Regularly Saves, 2 = Sometimes Saves, 3 = Never Saves Note that the number of regular savers jumped from 58.0% to 76.6%

Figure 7 Enterprise Launching Started an Enterprise (2013) Started an Enterprise (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 908 6.8% 1 102 16.2% 9.4% 2 12,385 93.2% 2 527 83.8% (9.4%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 629 100.0%

Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No In 2013, nearly seven percent (6.8%) of the respondents indicated that someone in their family had started an enterprise. By 2015, over 16.2% could say YES! See Section Four in the body of the Progress Report, page 26, for the types of projects funded.

Final Major Conclusion: CHOICE Humanitarian has institutionalized a Resource Leveraging Program (RLP) that will be the key to ensuring efforts to eliminate extreme poverty will be sustainable. For the past 12 years (2004-2015), CHOICE has maintained a careful record of the amount of money given to different villages in the five countries where we have been working. The process of calculating our Return on Investment (ROI) involved: (1) monitoring the amount of resources (leveraging funds, grants, materials, and supplies) that CHOICE has given to individual villages; (2) the amount of resources mobilized by the villagers themselves (funds, material, supplies, and sweat equity-hours of volunteer time times average hourly rate of such labor in that community); (3) the amount of central government budget money given as a direct result of local village leadership networking and negotiating with government officials, (4) the amount of resources from the VDC’s own budget mobilized for projects supported by CHOICE and other donors, (5) the amount of resources given by NGOs, private sector donors, and key stakeholders, as direct result of village leaders setting up partnerships, networking, and supportive relationships. In Figure 31 are the five sources of money of the NSDP projects/programs funded in the last several years. In the row entitled are two dollar amounts. The top amount is money raised prior to the NSDP, prior to January 2014. The bottom amount is the money raised between January 2014 and the earth quake (April 2015 Figure 31 Total Budget: (A) pre-2013 Budgets % and (B) Post 2013 Budgets %

Market VDC Choice Govt Other, Villager Total Town Budgets Grants Budgets NGOs Donations Revenue Beshishahar $72,000 $260,000 $200,000 $14,400 $546,400 Bholetar $96,000 $303,579 $200,000 $17,280 $616,859

Sundrabazar $72,000 $260,000 $60,000 $15,840 $347,840

Total $240,000 $823,579 $460,000 $47,520 $1,511,099 Revenue ($381,828) ($278,256) ($302,013) ($211,650) ($110,286) $1,284,033 % of Total (A) 15.9% 54.6% 30.4% -- 3.1% (B)29.7%) 21.7%) (23.5%) (16.5%) (8.6%)

From this Figure 31, we see that in the pre-NSDP period, over half (54.6%) of the funds raised came from CHOICE funds, reflecting the fact that villagers had not yet learned to leverage their funds in an effective way. Note how the ROI of this period was less than 1 to 2 (1.8), while during the NDSP period the ROI was almost 1 to 5 (4.6). It is anticipated in the next year (2016) this ratio should be even larger. Note also, that the villagers themselves were able to raise over $110,000 of their own money from donations of land, labor, materials, and funds. This process of leveraging is the key to helping village leaders learn to become self-sufficient through their own networking and partnership skills. Below in Figure 30 is the ROI calculated for each of the VDC areas. Some of the VDC leaders have been more successful than others, but remember this is mostly the results of the first year. From Figure 30, we can see the progress that many VDCs have made in this past year in developing the networking and partnering skills needed to mobilize additional resources. Bhorletar averaged a higher ROI than the other two market towns, with 7x leverage on CHOICE investment. Besishahar had a 6x leverage, followed by Sundarbazar with a 4x leverage.

Figure 30 ROI by VDC (All 20 VDCs from Highest ROI to Lowest)

18x 16x 14x 12x 10x 8x 6x 4x 2x 0x VDC9 (S) VDC11 (S) VDC11 VDC12 (S) VDC10 (S) VDC14 (S) VDC13 (S) VDC7 (Bh) VDC1 (Bh) VDC5 (Bh) VDC4 (Bh) VDC8 (Bh) VDC2 (Bh) VDC6 (Bh) VDC3 (Bh) VDC16 (Be) VDC20 (Be) VDC17 (Be) VDC18 (Be) VDC15 (Be) VDC19 (Be)

Leverage by VDC Average Leverage

The amount of leveraging in these 20 VDCs has now averaged nearly five to one. For every $1,000 allocated by CHOICE to a village, the villagers have been able to raise nearly $5,000 and as can be seen from Figure 30, five of the twenty VDCs were able to raise from $8,000 to 16,000 for every $1,000 given by CHOICE on average during the year 2014 and early 2015.

This Executive Summary is a short introduction to the approaches, strategies, projects and programs described in much greater detail in the attached final report. Below note a brief outline of the 12 components of the latest version of the CHOICE Humanitarian Model, redefined during the past two years

General Outline of the NSDP Strategy (2016). Below are a list of the 12 components of the new CHOICE model, redefined during the past two years in Nepal. Also included are the 12 challenges (disconnects) that existed prior to the formulation of the NSDP initiative. Most, if not all, of these redefined components emerged as a direct result of the lessons learned from the unintended consequences of CHOICE Humanitarian’s earlier experiences (1980s to 2013). The present successes of the NSDP efforts in Nepal are the result of the innovative redesign efforts outlined in these 12 components implemented during the past two years and described in detail in this 18-Month Progress Report.

The CHOICE Humanitarian Strategy (2016) (12 Components of a Ten Year Program) (Note how the 12 components of this CHOICE program seeks to address the 12 disconnects listed below).

A Pre Program Activities (3-6 months) 1. Identify the District Level Area (Government Approval of an area roughly 100,000 people) **(Disconnect between Central Government vs Villages) 2. Recruit and Train Rural Development Facilitators **(Disconnect between government officials vs villagers) 3. Data Collection: Base Line Data, RDFs interview every family in Program area **(Disconnect between resources spent vs goals achieved, because progress was not measured).

B. First Year of Program: Building Mutual Trust and Understanding 4. Building Trust between RDFs and Villagers (Projects in Five Dimensions) **(Disconnect between Top Down vs Bottom Up Project Implementation) 5. Expeditions (Building Trust among Donors, RDFs and Villagers) **(Disconnect between Donors vs RDFs and Villagers) 6. Emphasizing Core Values (Identify villager-determined core values **(Disconnect between technical/administrative vs culture/core values.

C. Second Year of Program: Institution Building and Introduction to Extreme Poverty Elimination. 7. Gender Equality Leadership Training (Governance, Results based Management, and Leadership Legitimacy. **Disconnect between male domination vs gender equality programming 8. Building Networks and Partnerships (Importance of Leveraging) **Disconnect between Outsider Funding and Local Mobilization of Resources 9. Building Economic Development Cooperatives (Savings and Entrepreneurship Training) **Disconnect between elite control and inclusive participation in economic development.

D. Third Year of Program: Formalize Community-based Extreme Poverty Elimination Program. 10. Building a Collective Collateral Program (Involve extreme poor in enterprise development. **Disconnect between local banks vs extreme poor 11. Community-based extreme poverty elimination program formalized, bringing all extreme poor into middle and upper poor. **Disconnect between non poor, upper and middle poor vs extreme poor

E. Fourth Year To Tenth Year (?): Create a District-Planning Council 12. Formalize a district planning council made up of one man and one women from each village development council (VCD) area, roughly up to 100,000 people. During the next 5-6 year period, the members of the district planning council, with minimum CHOICE Humanitarian support and coordination, will take full responsibility for the funding, planning, implementing and assessing an integrated set of programs structured to improve quality of life for all members of the communities impacted by the CHOICE Humanitarian Three-Year Program. Finally the council will create a district-based system linking communities to political, social and economic opportunities at regional, national, and international levels. With proper leveraging, assisted through networking and partnerships, all of the village development councils and the district planning council, will take full responsibility for their long-term development, allowing CHOICE Humanitarian to move into other districts where the CHOICE model can be replicated.

Choice Humanitarian Nepal 18 Month Progress Report (December 5, 02015)

Section One: Background and Objectives A. CHOICE Humanitarian’s Mission

CHOICE Humanitarian is a non-governmental organization (NGO) currently working in seven countries, including Nepal, Kenya, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico (and now entering Ecuador and Peru). Our overriding goal is to end extreme poverty and improve quality of life through a district level, self-developing village-centered approach. A key to CHOICE’s success is an acknowledgement that when people learn to mobilize their own resources – when they see themselves achieving results based upon their own efforts – there is a pride and a sense of self- esteem and dignity that is infectious and self-perpetuating.

With this in mind, CHOICE utilizes a rural district approach, usually involving a cluster of 100 to 200 villages or more. We refer to this approach as the Self Developing District (SDP) program. This program, at a high level, emphasizes the following four goals at the district-wide level:

1) Planning that reflects the villager-determined vision of how a district level decision- making process might better ensure the quality of life desired by the villagers in this district; 2) Local economic development planning that ensures economic development activities; 3) A program to strengthen families through better education, health, and villager- determined cultural values; and 4) A commitment to reduce, if not eliminate, extreme poverty.

B. Key Steps in the Development of the Nepal Self-Developing District Program

CHOICE has had a presence in Nepal during the past 15 years, working with local villages to institute its poverty-alleviation methodologies. In rural Nepal, a program titled the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) had been field-tested in several village areas in various rural districts (2006-2012). Couple this work experience with the fact that a significant number of Nepalese village leaders had already been trained, supported, and energized, and Nepal was primed to be the ideal location for a large roll-out of CHOICE’s program.

The first step in the development of the NSDP would include the lessons learned and groundbreaking research performed by Dr. James Mayfield (Co-Founder of CHOICE) in his 50 13

years field experience in designing, funding, implementing, and evaluating rural development programs in some 20 countries. Bishnu Adhikari, with over fifteen years’ experience working in rural development programming for USAID and other organizations, is now the In-Country Director of CHOICE in Nepal and was also instrumental in bringing about the NSDP. The second step in the development of the NSDP involved Dr. Ram Baran Yadef, President of Nepal, who upon visiting one of CHOICE Nepal’s major projects in the village of Duradanda in late 2012, presented a letter of appreciation to James Mayfield and Bishnu Adhikari and challenged them to consider replicating this model at the district level, perhaps in as many as 150-200 villages. President Yadef, having seen the good work CHOICE had done in rural Nepal over nearly a decade of important project implementation, encouraged local officials in the Lamjung district to work with CHOICE in implementing the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP).

The third step became a reality when a very generous group of donors in 2013 and 2014 had enough confidence in James Mayfield, Bishnu Adhikari, and in the work of CHOICE Humanitarian over the past 20-30 years, to agree to give a significant monthly donation over the thirty-six months of 2014, 2015, and 2016 to field-test the CHOICE model in an expanded area of some 180 village/hamlets in the rural district of Lamjung in the West Central area of Nepal.

The fourth step involved the identification, recruiting and training of a Nepali staff willing to work in these villages over a three-year period. In the spring of 2013, from a pool of over 70 applicants, some twenty of these young Nepali professionals (ten men and ten women) were given a six-week training in the processes, strategies, and programming of village development. The first half of the training was in a workshop format, outlined in the RDF Training Manual developed by Dr. Mayfield in collaboration with Bishnu and his long-term staff. The second phase of the fourth step required all twenty of the trained RDFs to spend nearly two months going out every day, visiting every single family in these 20 Village Development Committee areas - going into their homes, developing a relationship with them, briefly explaining what the NSDP was and then to ask them some fifty questions to be used as base-line data for our eventual three-year program progress report. This has proven to be one of the most important aspects of RDF training, both in clarifying in our minds which of these RDFs would prove to have the five characteristics of effective RDFs (competency, commitment, creativity, character, and compassion for the needs of the extreme poor), but perhaps more importantly helped them to decide if they really wanted to do this kind of village work. In the final analysis, three of the twenty dropped out or had to be replaced by others much more suited for this kind of work.

Many might assume the time spent in this type of staff preparation could have been completed in a shorter time. Too many NGOs have not taken the time needed to build an awareness and appreciation of the people they will be working with. From our perspective that first preparation period was time well-spent. The successes achieved during 2014 and early 2015 would not have happened if the villagers and the RDFs had not gone through that preparation time together. In fact, as we will see in a later summary of our program after the terrible earthquake of April 2015,

Bishnu has documented the significant differences between the district area of the NSDP and other rural areas also in the epicenter of the quake, where trained leaders in Lamjung were far more effective and prepared to meet the needs of people in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy.

Figure 8 Lamjung District, Western Nepal

Besishahar

Bhorletar Sundarbazar

Source: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; CHOICE Humanitarian

C. Four Phases of the NSDP initiative

With the staff in place, we are ready to review the four phases that constitute a fully functioning Self Developing Rural District program and how they are to be applied to the work for the NSDP. Through our first 18 months in Nepal (as of the writing of this report), we have successfully worked through Phase One and Phase Two and have begun working on Phase Three, having implemented many economic development initiatives already.

Phase One: Trust and Awareness Building: (First 3-6 Months – Second Half of 2013): In this entry phase, the CHOICE staff (20 RDFs) were trained in processes of rural development and the general strategy of the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP). Through face-to-face interviews with all 13,000+ families in some 20 Village Development Committee (VDC) areas, the RDFs came to understand villagers’ problems, concerns, opinions, and goals for a better quality of life. This effort to visit every family in these VDC areas has proven to be an innovative but very crucial way of preparing the RDFs to first truly understand the villagers and

their present situation, second to build a relationship of trust and mutual respect, and third, to facilitate villagers’ ability to take responsibility for their own development and improvement.

Phase Two: Strengthening Village Leadership (12-18 months – 2014-2015): Working with formal and informal leaders (both men and women, both young and elderly, both upper and lower poor), CHOICE-trained RDFs introduce a leadership training curriculum designed to help villagers: (1) Understand principles of good governance: accountability, transparency, and inclusive participation, 2) Develop skills in results-based management, learning to implement programs and projects that solve their problems and improve their quality of life, and (3) Ensure that village leaders are trusted and respected, able to solve problems and achieve desired community goals. In this way they will be seen as legitimate as they commit to adhere to villager-determined core values like honesty, effectiveness, tolerance, compassion, generosity and responsibility. It is during this Phase Two period that villagers begin to see the importance of helping the truly disadvantaged in their community to move out of extreme poverty.

Phase Three: Institution Building Committed to Eliminating Extreme Poverty (12-18 Months – 2015-2016): This Third Phase is the time to strengthen and formalize local institutions - VDCs, Economic Development Cooperatives, and other local organizations - committed to ensure all those in extreme poverty move up financially from less than $1.25 per capita per day to at least $2.50 per capita per day. This ensures they have regular employment or some enterprise and assets enough to have daily food on their tables, their children can now go to school, and they have enough money to afford limited health care, but more importantly they gain a sense of dignity and confidence their futures will be better. RDFs work closely with families in extreme poverty, encouraging participation in regular savings programs, completion of adult literacy courses, developing skills in entrepreneurship, and qualifying for small loans allowing the extreme poor to start their own income-generating enterprises.

Phase Four: District-wide Planning and Improved Quality of Life for All (Years Four through Ten – 2017-2023): A three-year process of poverty elimination through a Self- Developing District Program can greatly reduce the tragedy of extreme poverty in a rural district of several hundred villages. Now with only informal encouragement and monitoring from CHOICE staff, a Zone Planning Council - two representatives (usually one man and one woman) from each of the participating VDCs – will begin to take full responsibility for the development of their commonly-organized planning zone area. The focus is on creating partnerships with district, regional, central government agencies, local, national, and international NGOs, private- sector businesses, and social sector stakeholders (such as universities, media, religious, service, sports, and cultural groups), all combined to focus on an improved quality of life that reflects the core values, traditions, and aspirations of all the families and communities within the District. D. Objectives of this Report

The purpose of the sections that follow (and the report in general) is to summarize work done from the second half of 2013 until April of 20151 by CHOICE in Nepal and how this work has

1 It is important to note that the findings which are summarized in this report are as of the first quarter of 2015, which does not include the effects of the April 2015 earthquake. Section 8 below provides a summary of activities after the earthquake from April to September 2015. 17

affected the well-being of Nepal’s citizens (particularly the extreme poor) in the 180 villages in which CHOICE is working. The report will do so by presenting how data was collected and analyzed and how this data shows very convincingly that real progress has been made in the short time that CHOICE has been engaged. Furthermore, this report will detail how various sources have been spent in each VDC and how the money spent has affected the villagers, particularly the extreme poor.

Section Two: Methodology – Sources for Measuring Change A. Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) CHOICE Humanitarian is presently working in partnership with the Government of Nepal (GON) to implement the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) to eliminate extreme poverty in twenty Village Development Committee areas (roughly 13,000 families). With a cadre of 20 CHOICE professionally trained rural development facilitators (RDFs), a complete census of these families was completed in the Fall of 2013, empirically documenting that roughly 2,500 of these families (19.7%) were living in extreme poverty,. After 18 months of implementing the CHOICE model, a random sample (650 families) was conducted suggesting that six percent (roughly 800 of these poorer families) had moved out of extreme poverty. During 2016, our goal is to help the other roughly 1,700 poor families to move out of extreme poverty. Many people talk about eliminating extreme poverty, but most do not seek to define in specific terms how this goal might be achieved. CHOICE hopes to make the process of “how” specific, proven, and replicated throughout the World. The indicators used to determine who is and who is not in extreme poverty utilizes a combination of the ten indicators of the Grameen Foundation’s PPI program (Progress Out of Poverty Indicators), the Oxford MPI Index (Multidimensional Poverty Index of some 14 indicators related to health, education, income, social and general quality of life), and the George Gallup’s ten Quality of Life Indicators. With these indicators, CHOICE Humanitarian seeks a more robust measure of quality of life beyond the narrow concept of per capita income. This provides a measure both of those who live in different levels of poverty: (1) extreme poverty, (2) middle poverty, and 3) upper poverty), but also various measures of non-economic sources which are pre-requisite for a quality of life outside of poverty. CHOICE Humanitarian is excited to take their model to the next level. The Government of Nepal has indicated that if the NSDP program presently working in 20 VDC areas in Lamjung district, can be shown to eliminate extreme poverty by the end of 2016, they will support an effort to replicate this program in ten other districts between 2017 through 2019 and if this is successful to move to all 75 districts between 2020 and 2030, thereby helping to meet the UN- based Post 2015 Goal of eliminating extreme poverty in one country at a time. This is a goal that

the former president of Nepal, Dr Baran Yadef, expressed to CHOICE staff in Nepal in the Fall of 2012. In order to help alleviate extreme poverty, we must first understand who is living in extreme poverty and how they live. The Grameen-based PPI (Progress out of Poverty Index) incorporates a questionnaire that is gauged to determine if a household is living in extreme poverty. Questions include such inquires as “How many children and elderly are in your home?” and “What is the employment situation of the head of household? What is the quality of your home? Do you have access to land?” (The PPI questionnaires are uniquely tailored for each country in which they are administered.) Each response is scored according to a methodology that has been developed over several years by Grameen and other humanitarian organizations. When the villagers are invited to fill out this PPI questionnaire and the results are tabulated by trained professionals, then a calculated probability of the percentage of families living in extreme poverty in a given rural community can be determined. B. 2013 Census

A decision was made to perform a full “census” of the households in the 180 villages covered by CHOICE’s program. This census requires 20 Rural Development Facilitators (RDFs), working in pairs and going door-to-door, to interview personally each of the 13,293 households in Bhorletar, Sundarbazar, and Besishahar, three market towns, in the Lamjung District. An undertaking such as this, according to the villagers interviewed, had never been performed in these parts of Nepal. Many thanks go to the RDFs who worked tirelessly during these three months, with each RDF pair interviewing five to six households per day. Not only were the RDFs able to ask the essential PPI questions, but they were also able to ask several quality-of-life questions which seek to understand how satisfied or unsatisfied villagers are with their health, education, income, village leaders, leisure opportunities, etc. This door-to-door effort also yielded an additional benefit as each villager was made aware of CHOICE’s effort in their VDC area and saw first- hand that their voice and situation mattered. Villager buy-in and trust, so critical to CHOICE’s program, was already beginning to be nurtured. These interviews, which took approximately three months to complete, were finished in December of 2013. C. 2015 Sample

In order to observe the changes in poverty over time, another data-collection process was needed. CHOICE chose to do this in January of 20152. A statistically significant sample of households in these 20 VDC areas would be interviewed again by our trained RDFs, with identical questions that were asked in the census from 14 months prior. Again, these questionnaires helped determine who is living in extreme poverty and also gauges satisfaction in quality-of-life factors. D. Challenges or Potential Survey Data Issues

Although the PPI questionnaire gives us a good approximation of who is living in extreme poverty, it is also important to verify these questionnaire results with observation and knowledge by those who have seen how these families live up close. Thus, the RDFs are asked to make a

2 And will do so annually hereafter. 19

personal assessment on each household’s poverty level, and their findings are then confirmed or dis-confirmed by village leaders. This “triangulation” in the estimation of extreme poverty includes human observation, which can at times lead to faulty data. Although we recognize this weakness, we do believe that it is imperative to use expert observation in the determining of extreme poverty levels and not solely rely upon questionnaire results.

We had one other problem that needs clarification. While the original census taken in late 2013 (and published in January 2014) included all 13,293 families in the 20 VDCs we are working in, the later sample of 650 presented problems we had not anticipated. Over 30 heads of household families in the original census had either passed away or had moved out seeking new work in Kathmandu or India, reducing the sample size to 620, and then another 33 families in the sample because of some coding errors had to be excluded. For this reason, this analysis of change between 2014 and 2015 includes only 587 respondents conclusively determined to be the same person in both data sets. While the assumption that these 587 people are a true representative sample might be problematic, a review of such characteristics such as gender, age and other variable tells us this group of 587 appears to be completely representative of the 13,293 families originally interviewed in 2013. Note below the statistics for the 2013 census and the 2015 random sample show how similar the basic demographics of the two data sets are. We calculated that level of confidence was 95 percent and the tolerated error was plus or minus 4%. Head of Household Gender and Age (Representative Sample)

Approximately 75% of the 13,300 households in the region have a male head of household. This number held constant from 2013 to 2015.

Figure 9 Head of Household Gender

Head of Household Gender

25% Male Female 75%

The age of heads of households only slightly changed from 2013-2015. The change lies within the tolerance error of the survey, but if the trend in the below chart continues to illustrate an aging of the population, there could be ramifications to healthcare needs, income potential, etc. This chart should be closely monitored in subsequent years.

Figure 10 Head of Household Age

Head of Household Age 100% 20.2% 21.0% 80% 65+ 60% 33.1% 35.2% 50-64 40% 35-49 33.4% 30.9% 0-34 20% % of Total Households Total % of 13.2% 12.9% 0% 2013 2015

As the below tables show, all of these variables are consistent between the 13,293 census of 2013 and the 587 sample of 2015 and are within the plus and minus 4% tolerated error expected. The response scores below reflect the PPI methodology, giving different scores depending on the number of children in the family.

# of family members (2013) # of family members (2015) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Response Response 0 1,626 12.2% 0 79 13.5%

6 1,089 8.2% 6 55 9.4%

8 1,915 14.4% 8 86 14.7%

12 3,051 23.0% 12 128 21.8%

19 3,143 23.6% 19 134 22.8%

30 1,262 9.5% 30 48 8.2%

34 1,207 9.1% 34 57 9.7%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Roof Material (2013) Roof Material (2015) Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 0 1,165 8.8% 0 38 6.5% 2 539 4.1% 2 27 4.6% 6 10,640 80.0% 6 468 79.7% 7 949 7.1% 7 54 9.2% Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Land (2013) Land (2015) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Response Response 0 958 7.2% 0 28 4.8%

3 3,689 27.8% 3 163 27.8%

6 8,646 65.0% 6 396 67.5%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Food Grown (2013) Food Grown (2015) Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 1,486 11.2% 1 52 8.9% 2 3,202 24.1% 2 161 27.4% 3 4,269 32.1% 3 160 27.3% 4 4,336 32.6% 4 214 36.5% Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Future (2013) Future (2015) Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 104 0.8% 1 1 0.2%

2 1,097 8.3% 2 38 6.5%

3 11,845 89.1% 3 535 91.1%

4 247 1.9% 4 13 2.2%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Section Three: The Challenge of Extreme Poverty A. The Reality of Extreme Poverty

Perhaps the most important, the most encouraging, and probably the most surprising result (given its magnitude) of our findings shows that the percentage of extreme poor living in these 20 VDC areas declined from 19.2% (2,552 families) to 13.0% (1,728 families) from the time of our 2013 census through the 2015 survey. These results indicate that during this period, over 824 22

of the 2,552 households which were living in extreme poverty in 2013 were no longer considered to be living in extreme poverty. Let us now consider how we define extreme poverty and why we feel confident the number (824) is a reasonable number of families who moved out of poverty.

The 19.2% initial extreme poverty metric is within the range that we would have expected, given that the VDCs in our study area currently appear and have historically been slightly less poor than the country as a whole – Nepal currently has an extreme poverty rate of approximately 20- 25% (using the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development data as a useful range).

Figure 11 Extreme Poor as % of Total Population Bhorletar, Sundarbazar, and Besishahar

Extreme Poor 25.0% 19.2% 20.0% 15.0% 13.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2013 Census 2015 Survey

This movement out of extreme poverty indicates a meaningful improvement in the quality of life for these individuals. The following table illustrates just what it means to move out of the “extreme poor” category and into “middle” or “upper poor” category. Below is an analysis of what it means to be in extreme poverty:

Figure 12 Extreme Poor vs. Middle and Upper Poor Living Situations Extreme Poor Middle Poor Upper Poor (Under $1.25 per day) ($2-3 per day) ($4-5 per day) School Attendance 5% 50% 80% Access to Potable Water 15% 45% 75% Use Oral Rehydration 10% 40% 65% Access to Nutritious Food 1% 33% 65% Adequate Housing 1% 20% 40% Infant Mortality Rate 120 per 1,000 80 per 1,000 40 per 1,000

First, because of their limited income, the amount of food the extreme poor eat each day is usually below the 2,200 calories needed for good health, often causing chronic hunger, malnutrition and sickness. Second, their children do not attend school, as they must spend time begging or scrounging for daily food. Third, most extreme poor are illiterate and have no marketable skills. Fourth, most are easily exploited by lower wages from employers, higher interest rates from moneylenders, and higher prices charged by local merchants selling food, medicine and basic supplies, often double what others in society pay. Fifth, most extreme poor experience chronic or periodic unemployment. Sixth, most have substandard and unsanitary housing. Seventh, all are very vulnerable to constant changes (market changes in crop prices, employment layoffs, debilitating sicknesses, flooding, drought and other calamities of nature and society). Eighth, they are usually excluded from government and NGO services available to the middle and upper poor.

From the tables below (as learned from 2013 survey data) note how attitudes and feelings of people who are extremely poor are very different from people who are not extremely poor. This is a significant finding. In fact, people who perceived their income to be extremely inadequate also tended to have the following characteristics: They tended to be very dissatisfied with most aspects of their lives, they tended to be very dissatisfied with their health, education, income, and opportunities to participate in community affairs. Often they have days with no food, thus they were often hungry and malnourished, were much more apt to be sick, illiterate, and they tended to feel vulnerable (hopeless, miserable, and sad), exploited (receive lower salaries, pay higher prices to merchants, pay higher rates of interest to money lenders, and were often excluded from various government services, such as welfare resources) much more than other members of their village.

Figure 13 Extreme Poor Sentiment on Life Situation Life better Life better in than before the future Extreme Poor 55% 70% Middle Poor 80% 88% Upper Poor 91% 94% Non Poor 96% 98%

Note how only about 55% of the extreme poor felt their life was better than in the past, compared to those in the middle, upper and non-poor. Somewhat encouraging is the fact that nearly three- fourths (70%) of the extreme poor were optimistic that things would get better in the future. Clearly the RDFs meeting with every family had given people in these VDC areas some sense of optimism or hope for a better future.

Figure 14 Extreme Poor Dissatisfaction with Various Issues Dissatisfaction With… Time to Reflect on Family/ My Level Core Education Local Leader Friends of Health Occupation Values Level Effectiveness Extreme Poor 55% 70% 34% 23% 42% 49% Middle Poor 80% 88% 6% 8% 27% 29% Upper Poor 91% 94% 3% 1% 18% 15% Non Poor 96% 98% 2% 2% 19% 15%

The effects of CHOICE’s Self Developing District program in Nepal are meant to be both immediately impactful and long enduring. The program is meant to dramatically improve quality of life from day one of our involvement, and these survey results seem to indicate that we are having the kind of impact for which we had hoped. Even so, a decline of 6.2% in the extreme poverty rate within a 14 month period is even more pronounced than we would have projected. There are a few key explanations that we believe are responsible for this sharp decline:

1) As we mentioned in the methodology section above - in our 2013 census we interviewed every family (some 13,293 head of households). With this complete census, we were able to conclude with some confidence that nearly 20 percent (19.2%) or 2,552 families were living in extreme poverty. In the 2015 survey with 587 validated responses, we concluded the percentage in extreme poverty was 13%, a drop of 6.2% or roughly 824 families. Because of the tolerated error in the survey, the actual percentage of those in extreme poverty could be as low as 9% (a drop of over 1,200 families – not likely) or as high as 16% (a drop of only 400 families - much more likely). Based upon the growth of income generating projects, the amount of money invested in new enterprises, the growth in levels of savings and the higher number of families seeing their income is now adequate, we are very confident that the 13 percent level of extreme poverty or a drop of 824 families is quite reasonable. After a careful review of the various programs and projects implemented in income generation during this past year, we are confident that the six percent drop in extreme poverty is both possible and highly likely. Please review the number of income-generating projects funded this past year in Section Four below.

2) There were likely several households in these VDC areas that were on the “edge” of extreme poverty, meaning that in 2013 they would have barely qualified as being “extreme poor”, and by 2015, given economic improvements in the area, they would be categorized as not living in extreme poverty today.

3) CHOICE’s program has been the catalyst for dramatically increasing investment in these VDC areas in the areas of health, education, work/income, environment, leadership, and culture. There is good reason to believe that this investment and training has already moved a significant number of households out of extreme poverty.

As more surveys are performed in subsequent years, we are likely to understand if this improvement is sustainable. We are more likely to see smaller declines in extreme poverty

during the next few years, as the “low hanging fruit” has already been found, so to speak. Furthermore, the earthquake in April of 2015 is likely to have adverse ramifications on levels of extreme poverty in the short to medium term. This challenge will be outlined in the last section of this report. Let us now outline some of the specific action steps taken by the NSDP initiative which clearly contributed to this decline in extreme poverty.

Steps to Move out of Extreme Poverty 1. Establishing a VDC Savings Program: By May 1, 2015, most VDCs participating in the NSDP had some type of Economic Development Cooperative (EDC) functioning, with membership and voting privileges given to every individual participating in a savings program. All members of the Cooperative participate in electing the formal members of the Executive Council that will include at least one person from each of the nine wards (usually one of the four representatives from each ward participating in the CHOICE Leadership Workshop). In addition, two representatives selected by the members of the VDC, and the CHOICE RDFs functioning in the VDC area will also be formal members, with voting rights on all issues. From among the members of the Executive Council, a Management Committee will be formed: one to be the chairman, one to be the vice chairman, one to be the secretary, and one to be the treasurer.

This Management Committee will keep a written record of the money deposited by each family and will prepare a monthly record from the bank indicating the total amount deposited each month. It recommended that each Cooperative (EDC) identify a group of volunteers (maybe three or four with some higher level of education) to work with the Management Committee in maintaining the financial records for the EDC. Each executive committee will have access to a computer provided by the RDFs, allowing the proper recording of each family’s savings, interest earned by each family, and all loans given, including a record of each family’s loan’s present schedule.

Village leaders are encouraging every family in their VDC areas to participate in a savings program by paying at least 100 rupiahs per month. Some families may pay much more than that, but a careful record of what each family puts into the savings account each month will be maintained, including any interest each family might receive, calculated to reflect the total amount saved by each family. From the surveys conducted in the Fall of 2013 and the Spring 2015, those villagers that had moved out of extreme poverty, their percentage participating in a monthly savings program went from 46% in 2013 to 75% in 2015. Among those not in extreme poverty, their participation level in a savings program went from 65% in 2013 to 83% in 2015.

2. Establishing a Collective Collateral Account: As Economic Development Cooperatives (EDCs) in the various VDCs build up significant savings accounts from among its members, a formal relationship between each VDC-level Cooperative and a local bank is being established. Each Cooperative (EDC) savings account will gradually be formalized as a Collective Collateral Account jointly coordinated by the Local Bank, the participating Economic Development Cooperatives (EDCs) and CHOICE Nepal. CHOICE Nepal will provide a significant endowment of funding to be used as a guarantee for loans issued to villagers participating in this Collective Collateral system. In order to ensure that all loans

issued by the participating Bank will be repaid, any villager seeking a loan from the Bank must first complete a six week course in Entrepreneurship (6P’s program), second present an enterprise development proposal (business plan) to the executive council of the Cooperative for their approval, before it is submitted to the Bank. Most loans given to villagers in the beginning will generally be given to the middle and upper poor. However, the major purpose of the NSDP effort is to encourage the participating banks to give at least one-fourth of their loans to the poorest of the poor, ensuring over time that a significant number of extreme poor families are allowed to start enterprises that can bring them out of extreme poverty. The survey of 2013 and 2015 documented that the percentage of families that had moved out of extreme poverty and who started a new enterprise went from 3% in 2013 up to 9% in 2015, while the families not living in extreme poverty who had started a new enterprise went from 7% to 18%.

3. A Sustainable Banking System for the Extreme Poor: It is hoped that over time, as more and more of the extreme poor are given loans and are able to demonstrate their ability to repay these loans, that the banks participating in this NSDP effort will gain the confidence needed that many additional loans will be extended to the extreme poor. Thus while these poor by themselves do not have adequate assets/collateral to qualify for a regular bank loan, the banks participating in this “collective collateral” program will gradually be willing to continue giving loans to the poor after the CHOICE-sponsored NSDP effort ends in one rural district and moves on to other rural districts. What is important is the fact that even the poorest of the poor, who historically were never given a loan, will now be able to obtain a loan from the bank to start their own income generating enterprise. It is hoped that all VDC- level Economic Development Cooperatives (EDCs) will gradually spread throughout all of Nepal, helping the extreme poor in all the rural districts to move up to a better quality of life.

The RDFs have now shared a vision of how these 20 VDC areas working together, can help each ward (there are 9 wards in each VDC area) to identify a specific set of goods that they can sell and also agree to buy goods produced in other VDCs. In this way, many goods and services earlier produced imported in China or India, are now beginning to be produced in Nepal. This helps to give spent in the Lamjung district to stay in the district. With each VDC area specializing in a limited set of products and goods for sale throughout all the VDCs of the NSDP area, and all the other VDCs are also specializing in a different set of goods, ensuring all VDCs can benefit.

4. A New Sense of Pride: When the leaders in a community or ward make a commitment that all the poorest of the poor are organized to move out of extreme poverty, then work together to help the poorest of the poor start their own enterprises, and agree to buy the goods produced by the poorest of the poor, something special happens, a kind of new sense of pride in knowing that gradually no one in their village will need, necessarily, to live in the tragedy of extreme poverty. One VDC leader once said to me: “For first time, I see why we who are middle and upper poor must help the extreme poor move out of extreme poverty. Just thinking about the possibility that our VDC could be one of the first VDCs in the country to have no one living in extreme poverty gives me a sense of pride I never had before.” The survey of 2013 and 2015 documented that the percentage of extreme poor families that were “somewhat satisfied” with their income had moved went from 37% in 2013 up to 59% in

2015, while the families not living in extreme poverty that were “somewhat satisfied” with their income went from 66% to 80%.

B. Contrasts between the extreme poor and the non-extreme poor

Let us now review the four groups of villagers listed below and determine the differences in their responses to various questions in the survey and outline a few conclusions that can be gleaned from this data. The sample of 587 respondents is divided into four groups: 1. Those who moved out of extreme poverty (Exited EP) 67 2. Those who fell into extreme poverty (Entered EP) 40 3. Those who remained out of extreme poverty (Remained non EP) 445 4. Those who remained in extreme poverty (Remained EP) 35 Total 587 Those in Extreme Poverty 13% Those not in Extreme Poverty 87%

The percentages listed in the following two tables demonstrate the percentage of families that moved into a more positive sense of satisfaction from 2013 to 2015. Negative percentages indicate the families moved to a negative sense of satisfaction.

Figure 15 Differences in the Responses of the Four Groups of the Survey between 2013 and 2015 Exited Entered Remained Remained Topic Total EP EP non-EP EP Level of Happiness +17 +30 -3 +19 +3 Quality of Work +17 +25 -3 +18 +20 Quality of Family Life +17 +33 -10 +17 +11 Quality of Health +15 +28 -10 +18 +9 Quality of Leaders +23 +33 +10 +22* +11 Level of Participation +1 +21 +8 +10 +9 Level of Education +12 +30 -3 +9 +14 Culture Strengthen +15 +18 +10 +15 +11 Leisure Time +16 +30 +25* +18 +20 Level of Income +19 +42* -5 +17 +29*

In Figure 15 above, please note the significant increase in perceived level of satisfaction for the villagers that exited out of extreme poverty and the drop in satisfaction for those that fell down into (entered) extreme poverty. It is interesting also to note that all four groups had an increased level of satisfaction for their leaders, opportunities to participate, and opportunities to strengthen their cultural values and their amount of leisure time, all aspects of village life emphasized by the CHOICE rural facilitators as they worked with villagers during this past 18 months. Also note in Figure 16, how those falling into poverty, moved from 55% feeling their income was adequate down to zero percent and those that moved out of extreme poverty moved up to 58%, 28

Figure 16 Changes in Economic Conditions (first number is 2013, second number is 2015) Exit Enter Always NonEP EP EP EP Level of Savings 46-75% 40-62% 65-83% 26-20% Income Adequate 0-58% 55-0% 61-7%1 0-0% Start Enterprise 3-9% 2-20% 7-18% 0-6%

Also troubling is the fact that those who fell down into extreme poverty, went from 2% starting an enterprise up to 20% while those moving out of poverty went from 3% up to 9%. Obviously sometime strange is happening. With additional research, we may find that starting a new business does not guarantee success and that farmers especially relying on banks, money lenders, and even family members as outlined in Figure 17 below, may find the new debt needed to start a business is a burden that must be confronted as we work with villagers starting new businesses.

Figure 17 Source of Loans – All Households (2013 vs 2015) 2013 Census 2015 Survey Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent Bank 444 3.3% Bank 135 22.2% 18.9% Money Lender 954 7.2% Money Lender 42 6.9% (0.3%) Family 1,448 10.9% Family 96 15.8% 4.9% Saving Group 4,933 37.1% Saving Group 302 49.8% 12.6% Other 5,514 41.5% Other 32 5.3% (36.2%) Total 13,293 100.0% Total 607 100.0%

Families who were able to exit extreme poverty during the time period of our study exhibited the ability to secure loans from more stable lenders such as banks and savings groups. We feel that it is a very good sign that several people were able to avoid money lenders, who often-times take advantage of the extreme poor’s lack of business sophistication with high interest rates and other unfavorable terms.

Figure 18 Source of Loans – Households Exiting Extreme Poverty (2013 vs 2015) 2013 Census 2015 Survey Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent Bank 2 3.0% Bank 6 9.1% 6.1% Money Lender 13 19.4% Money Lender 4 6.1% (13.3%) Family 11 16.4% Family 13 19.7% 3.3% Saving Group 19 28.4% Saving Group 40 60.6% 32.2% Other 22 32.8% Other 3 4.5% (28.3%) Total 67 100.0% Total 66 100.0%

Figure 19 Source of Loans – Households Entering Extreme Poverty (2013 vs 2015) 2013 Census 2015 Survey Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent Bank 2 5.0% Bank 2 8.3% 3.3% Money Lender 3 7.5% Money Lender 2 8.3% 0.8% Family 4 10.0% Family 10 41.7% 31.7% Saving Group 11 27.5% Saving Group 8 33.3% 5.8% Other 20 50.0% Other 2 8.3% (41.7%) Total 40 100.0% Total 24 100.0%

Figure 20 Source of Loans – Households Continuing in Non-Extreme Poverty (2013 vs 2015) 2013 Census 2015 Survey Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent Bank 24 5.4% Bank 112 25.2% 19.8% Money Lender 20 4.5% Money Lender 24 5.4% 0.9% Family 35 7.9% Family 56 12.6% 4.7% Saving Group 176 39.6% Saving Group 228 51.4% 11.8% Other 190 42.7% Other 24 5.4% (37.3%) Total 445 100.0% Total 444 100.0%

Figure 21 Source of Loans – Households Continuing in Extreme Poverty (2013 vs 2015) 2013 Census 2015 Survey Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent Bank 1 2.9% Bank 3 9.4% 6.5% Money Lender 11 31.4% Money Lender 10 31.3% (0.2%) Family 9 25.7% Family 12 37.5% 11.8% Saving Group 5 14.3% Saving Group 5 15.6% 1.3% Other 9 25.7% Other 2 6.3% (19.5%) Total 35 100.0% Total 32 100.0%

Section Four: Income Projects/Programs Implemented During the Past 18 Months

One of the most exciting results to be defined in this 18 Month Progress Report is the realization that of the 13,000 families initially identified in late 2013 in the 20 VDCs in the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) areas, roughly 2,552 families were living in extreme poverty (nearly 20%); and after a little over one year of program implementation, nearly one- third (824) of these families appear now to have moved out of extreme poverty! This happened when most of the families: (1) Participated in some form of regular savings program through local economic development cooperatives, (2) Completed a six week course in entrepreneurship building, (3) Formalized a business plan, outlining the products to be sold, prices to be charged, paper records of sales and profits, processes for marketing their products, period of time needed to pay back their loan, and a plan for expanding the business started, and (4) Qualified for an enterprise loan provided by a local bank in partnership with CHOICE Humanitarian. During the period from January 2014 and April 2015, some 430 income generating projects were funded by CHOICE and her donor partners (See the figures below). Over $500,000 were leveraged with VDC budget funds, CHOICE grants, various government agency funds, and/or other NGOs and private sector business people, including the savings of the local villagers themselves.

Below is list of the types and numbers of income generating projects funded through the CHOICE-sponsored NSDP initiative. Many of the individual projects serviced multiple families:

Figure 22 Type and Quantity of Income-Generating Projects Type of Project Quantity (1) Livestock: goats, pigs, cows, buffalos, chickens, etc. 167 projects (2) Agriculture: various grains, vegetables, fruits, etc. 134 projects (3) Irrigation: new systems, repairs, and expansion, etc. 45 projects (4) Enterprises: agriculture and non-agriculture 42 projects (5) Greenhouses: expanding family gardens 27 projects

(6) Tourism: trekking and cultural participation 8 projects (7) 6Ps Entrepreneurship Training 4 projects (8) Market Centers 3 projects

Figure 24 Satisfaction with Income Level – 2013 vs. 2015 Responses 2013 Satisfied 2015 Satisfied Improvement Extreme Poor 37% 59% 21% Poverty Non Extreme Poor 66% 80% 14% Male 61% 78% 17% HoH Gender Female 60% 75% 16% 0-34 62% 81% 20% 35-49 59% 75% 16% HoH Age 50-64 61% 76% 15% 65+ 62% 81% 19% Below are three indicators of the financial progress that villagers had made between 2013 and 2015: Satisfaction with their income, level of savings, and efforts to begin new enterprises.

Figure 25 Satisfaction with Level of Income Income (2013) Income (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 1,196 9.0% 1 9 1.4% (7.6%) 2 4,055 30.5% 2 133 21.1% (9.4%) 3 7,520 56.6% 3 474 75.2% 18.7% 4 519 3.9% 4 14 2.2% (1.7%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 630 100.0%

Figure 26 Savings Activity Saving Activity (2013) Saving Activity (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 7,714 58.0% 1 482 76.6% 18.6% 2 3,365 25.3% 2 84 13.4% (12.0%) 3 2,214 16.7% 3 63 10.0% (6.6%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 629 100.0%

Scale: 1 = Regularly Saves, 2 = Sometimes Saves, 3 = Never Saves Note that the number of regular savers jumped from 58.0% to 76.6%

Figure 27 Enterprise Launching Started an Enterprise (2013) Started an Enterprise (2015) Change Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 908 6.8% 1 102 16.2% 9.4% 2 12,385 93.2% 2 527 83.8% (9.4%) Census Total 13,293 100.0% Survey Total 629 100.0%

Scale: 1 = Yes, 2 = No In 2013, nearly seven percent (6.8%) of the respondents indicated that someone in their family had started an enterprise. By 2015, over 16.2% could say YES!

Development Projects/Programs: Types, Numbers, and Money Spent

Among the five dimensions of rural development (education, health, income, environment, and culture) a progress report was developed to determine which areas of rural development had experienced the most progress between January 2014 and January 2015. A formal scoring system was established for each of six indicators in the five dimensions providing a score of 6 to 24 (1= the poorest score and a 4= the highest score possible for each indicator). Combining all of the scores in the 20 VDCs, the lowest possible score would be 6X20 = 120 and the highest would be 24X20=480. Notice in the figure below the amazing improvement in the score for income- generating activities, suggesting something very significant was happening in the sphere of income-generating growth. Note the higher scores for education and health (sectors having received the highest levels of central government budgetary support). Obviously, economic development as a sector of rural development has received much less support from the central government and thus had the lowest score of 129 in January 2014. What is significant is the increase in the income dimension of 66.7% during the year of 2014 when a progress score of 215 was achieved. Below in the body of the report will be a much more detailed explanation as to why and how this amazing reduction in extreme poverty has taken place in the 20 VDC areas of Lamjung district, Nepal.

Figure 23 Aggregated Progress Scoring Results by Dimension of Development Education Health Income Environment Culture 2014 270 301 129 246 217 2015 305 302 215 253 223 % Improvement 13.0% 0.3% 66.7% 2.8% 2.8%

Over the past year, CHOICE facilitators (RDFs) introduced a training program structured to identify and prioritize specific needs and goals for their communities and to use a form of results-based management to determine the appropriate inputs, outputs, outcomes, and eventual impacts desired by the villagers as a whole. Below is a list of the many projects implemented in the 20 VDCs of the Nepal Self Developing District Program (NSDP) during the past 18 months (2014-2015)3.

Let us first outline the various types of projects found within each of the five dimensions of rural development: 1) Education, 2) Health, 3) Income, 4) Environment, and 5) Culture. (There are also projects that could be categorized as “Management Costs” and “Special Programs”. These are also included in the figures below.

3 A complete, detailed list of the projects implemented is available in this report’s appendix. 34

Figure 28 Types and Numbers of Projects Implemented4 Educ ati on Health Income Envi r onme nt Culture Manag ement Cos t Special Programs Gen eral 24 Gen eral 32 Lives tock 167 Roads 99 Gen eral 41 VDC Su p p o rt 48 Minority Programs 139 Secondary 24 Latrines 18 Agriculture 134 Potable Water 32 Core Values Training 31 Gen eral 25 Children Programs 55 Primary 22 Health Center 8 Irrigation 45 Gen eral 13 Sports Youth 22 Vo lu n t eers Su p p o rt 7 Women Programs 46 Computers 10 Family Gardens 8 Green h o u s es 27 Electricity 12 Centers 17 Leadership Training 5 Disabled Programs 19 College 2 Midwifes 6 Gen eral 23 Bio-digester 8 ReligionTemple 4 Police Security 4 Elderly Programs 17 Libraries 2 Defecation 4 Enterpris es 19 Reforestation 7 Festivals 1 Mother/Infant 5 School latrines 2 Tourism 8 Sewage 4 6Ps Training 4 Market Center 3 Total 70 54 346 131 94 240

What are the twelve most common projects/programs?

(1) Livestock Projects 167, (2) Minority Programs 139, (3) General Agriculture 134, (4) Roads, (5) Children Programs 55, (6) VDC Support 48, (7) Women Programs, 46, (8) Irrigation 45, (9) General Culture 41, (10) Potable Water Projects 32, (11) Health General 32, (12) Villager-Determined Core Value Training 31.

How many projects/programs in each of the five dimensions: Numbers of projects/programs and money spent?

Dimension/Special Programs Number Money

1. Income: Enterprises in Agriculture/Non Agriculture (346) $557,196 2. Environment: Roads and Potable Water (131) $378,538 3. Education: School Building and Maintenance (70) $137,113 4. Health: General Health and Latrines Programs (54) $119,911 5. Culture: General Culture, Sports/Youth, Core Values (94) $92,232 6. Special Programs: Minorities, Women, and Children (240) $250,079 7. Management Support Funds $133,286

4 Note that the Total is often less than the sum in the corresponding column – this is because several projects have been sub-categorized into two different categories. 35

$800,000 400 $700,000 350 $600,000 300 $500,000 250 $400,000 200 $300,000 150 $200,000 100 $100,000 50 $0 0

Investment (L) Number (R)

Section Five Sources of Funding for the NSDP projects and programs: Ensuring a Return on Investment (ROI): CHOICE’s Secret for Eliminating Extreme Poverty in Nepal.

The foundation of the CHOICE model rests on the training of villagers and their leaders who have learned to identify their own resource/assets first, and then through networking and partnerships seek to leverage their own resources to encourage government agencies, private sector donors, non-government organizations (NGOs), and other key stakeholders to participate in the funding of needed projects/programs. In the figure below are a list of the five basic sources of funding that the NSDP initiative has leveraged. For every $1,000 that CHOICE might give a VDC, it is expected that after completing the three phases of the NSDP effort, villagers should have raised an addition $5,000 to $10,000 from other sources. CHOICE considers this leveraging process best measured by the amount of money villagers and others can raise by themselves, now seen as an ROI (Return on Investment). The five basic sources of funds for the various projects/programs were: 1) The Village Development Committee’s local government budget, 2) Grant money distributed by CHOICE Humanitarian, 3) government agencies funded by central government, 4) Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and other private and social sector donors, and 5) Donations from the villagers themselves: land, labor, materials, and funds). Note below in figure 29 the amount of money allocated for each of these five sources.

Figure 29 Allocation of Funds from the Five Basic Sources VDC Budget $381,828 29.7% CHOICE Grants $278,256 21.7% Agencies of the Central Government $302,013 23.5% NGOs and other Private and Social Sector Donors $211,650 16.5% Villagers Donations (land, labor, material, and funds) $110,286 8.6% Total Resources $1,284,033 100%

From Figure 30, we can see the progress that many VDCs have made in this past year in developing the networking and partnering skills needed to mobilize additional resources. In the figure below, we can see the progress that many VDCs have made in this past year in developing the networking and partnership skills needed to mobilize additional resources. Bhorletar averaged a higher ROI than the other two market towns, with 7x leverage on CHOICE investment. Besishahar had a 6x leverage, followed by Sundarbazar with a 4x leverage.

Figure 30 ROI by VDC (All 20 VDCs from Highest ROI to Lowest)

Leverage by VDC Average Leverage

Of great significance has been the ability of the leaders (both formal and non-formal) in these 20 VDC areas located in three marketing areas to develop skills in networking and partnership building. CHOICE rural development facilitators have developed a close relationship with these villagers, helping them to identify their needs, prioritized these needs, develop plans, mobilize needed resourced by network with government agencies, various other NGOs, and local stakeholders, then leverage their own funds, materials, and labor, to implement and monitor the development of these projects: Over the past 18 months some 3,700 families were the beneficiaries of the projects outlined above: The CHOICE model is structured to take villagers through three phases of activities: (1) a trust-building phase to gain the support of the villagers and ensure the RDFs are sensitive and aware of the local situation, (2) a village-institution- building phase where village leaders (formal and informal) understand and practice principles of good governance, results-based management and the importance of strengthening and adhering to their own core values , and (3) a local economic development phase, where villagers learn to identify and help villagers to move out of extreme poverty and to build an economy in the rural areas that ensures all villagers have a self-determined good quality of life.

***CHOICE has learned through experience that this third phase is generally not possible without an enabling environment established and strengthened through phases one and two. In Figure 31 are the five sources of money of the NSDP projects/programs funded in the last several years. The top portion of Figure 31, is money raised prior to the NSDP, prior to January 2014. At the very bottom is the money raised between January 2014 and the earth quake. In a later section of the report are the projects and money raised since the earth quake.

Figure 31 Total Budget: (A) pre-2014 Budget % and (B) Post 2014 Budget %

Sundrabazar $72,000 $260,000 $60,000 $15,840 $347,840

From this Figure 31, we see that in the pre-NSDP period, over half (54.6%) of the funds raised came from CHOICE funds, reflecting the fact that villagers had not yet learned to leverage their funds in an effective way. Note how the ROI of this period was less than 1 to 2 (1.8), while during the NDSP period the ROI was almost 1 to 5 (4.6). It is anticipated in the next year (2016) this ratio should be even larger. Note also, that the villagers themselves were able to raise over $110,000 of their own money from donations of land, labor, materials, and funds. This process of leveraging is the key to helping village leaders learn to become self-sufficient through their own networking and partnership skills. Below in Figure 32 is the ROI calculated for each of the VDC areas. Some of the VDC leaders have been more successful than others, but remember this is mostly the results of the first year. It is also clear that some project/program areas appear to be easier to leverage than others. Apparently, education and income, and management support are the easiest to leverage.

Figure 32 The Return on Investment (ROI) from CHOICE Grants in the five dimensions of rural development Education Program $11 Health $4 Income $11 Culture $9 Management Support $15 Special Programs $5

The VDCs in Beshishahar emphasized projects in three areas: (1) local economic development projects (cows, pigs, and goats), Green houses to ensure a diversity of crops for improved diets, and milk coops; (2) Smokeless kitchens through metal stoves and bio-digesters, and (3) potable water systems, especially for the extreme poor. The VCDs in Bholetar emphasized projects in the following areas: (1) Education especially adult literacy, support of a local college for rural students, (2) Smokeless kitchens through metal stoves and bio-digesters among the extreme poor, and (3) local economic enterprises through cooperatives emphasizing a savings program among all families in their VDC area. The VDCs in Sundrabazar emphasized: (1) potable water systems among the extreme poor, (2) Encouraging local families to complete a formal course in entrepreneurship, providing training for workers in a banana plantation, expanding green houses to produce food crops for marketing in their nearby town, and seeking to expand milk production through both cows and buffalos, and (3) building metal stoves and bio-digesters, to improve the health of women, reducing their work load as less fire wood now has to be collected.

As a side note, under the leadership of Bishnu Adhikari (In-Country Director in Nepal) and Dr. James Mayfield (NSDP Coordinator), the twenty RDFs have already completed in early 2015 (the second year of this program) the training of some 800 village leaders (one man and one woman in each of the 20 VDCs or 400 men and 400 women) in processes of good governance, results-based management, and skills in effective entrepreneurship, completed in June/July 2015. By the end of 2015 and on into 2016,, the Nepal Self Developing District Program seeks to provide loans to all the extreme poor villagers in these 20 VDCs as they begin their journey out of extreme poverty. We are hoping to raise an additional $500,000 so that by the end of 2016, this goal to eliminate extreme poverty will have been accomplished.

Assessment of Development Projects

The data collection process described above lists all projects implemented during the first 18 months of this program: first listing all the projects implemented, second the five sources of revenues used to finance these projects (VDC budget money, CHOICE grants, Government funds, other NGO funds, and resources provided by the villagers themselves - their own labor, materials, and funds) and third, a coding of all projects into the five dimensions of rural development: education and adult literacy, health and nutrition, income from agriculture and enterprises, environment and infrastructure, and culture and core values enhancement. The CHOICE model is structured to take villagers through three phases of activities: (1) a trust- building phase to gain the support of the villagers and ensure the RDFs are sensitive and aware of the local situation, (2) a village-institution- building phase where village leaders (formal and informal) understand and practice principles of good governance, results-based management and the importance of strengthening and adhering to their own core values , and (3) a local economic development phase, where villagers learn to identify and help villagers to move out of extreme poverty and to build an economy in the rural areas that ensures all villagers have a self- determined good quality of life. ***CHOICE has learned through experience that this third phase is generally not possible without an enabling environment established and strengthened through phases one and two.

Section Six: Five Dimensions of Rural Development: Scoring and Improvement

Among the five dimensions of rural development (education, health, income, environment, and culture) a progress report was developed to determine which areas of rural development had experienced the most progress between January 2014 and January 2015. During this year-long period significant progress was achieved in all the three market areas, with an 11.6% increase in scores. Notice in Figure 33 below, the amazing improvement in the score for income-generating activities, suggesting something very significant was happening in the sphere of income generating growth. Note the higher initial scores for education and health (sectors having received the highest levels of central government budgetary support) in previous years. Obviously, economic development as a sector of rural development has received much less support from the central government and thus had the lowest score of 129 in January 2014. What is significant is the increase of 66.7% during the year of 2014 when a progress score of 215 was achieved.

Figure 33 Five Dimension Aggregated Scoring Results by Market Town 2014 2015 # of Percentage Cluster Total Total VDCs Increase Score Score Besishahar 6 351 392 11.7% Bhorletar 8 463 520 12.3% Sundarbazar 6 349 386 10.6% Total 20 1,163 1,298 11.6%

Figure 34 Aggregated Scoring Results by Dimension of Development Education Health Income Environment Culture 2014 270 301 129 246 217 2015 305 302 215 253 223 % Improvement 13.0% 0.3% 66.7% 2.8% 2.8%

Within each of the five dimensions, there are six “key indicators” which we can use to help track progress within a VDC area and district5. We score these indicators on a 1-4 scale (with 4 being the best)6. 1= 24% or less of the families are participating, 2= 25% to 49% of the families are participating, 3= 50% to 74% are participating, and 4= 75% or more of the families are participating. In each of the five dimensions are six indicators, each scored with the one through four scale explained above. The scoring system is as follows: 5 dimensions x 6 indicators = 30.

Lowest score is 30 x 1 = 30 x 6 VDCs in a given market town = 180 Second score is 30 x 2 = 60 x 6 VDCs = 360 Third score is 30 x 3 = 90 x 6 VDCs = 540 Highest score is 30 x 4 =120 x 6 VDCs = 720

5 A full list of indicators is found in the appendix of this report. 6 The full scoring results are also found in the appendix of this report. 40

Key Highlights

Health: High score 92 (Sundarbazar); biggest change 1 (Sundarbazar). In the area of health, all three market town areas had almost no change in Health scores, as they all began with a score over 90.

Education: High score was 98 (Besishahar); biggest change 13 (Bhorletar). All three Market towns had scores of 86 or above, again largely because of the government’s relatively stronger emphasis on education than in the other dimensions.

Income: Highest score 67 (Bhorletar); biggest change 27 (tied Besi and Bhol). Since income improvement was a very high emphasis in the NSDP effort, CHOICE was pleased to see the highest level of improvement observed in the dimension of income. All three market town areas had a score improvement of twenty points or higher. We believe the strong emphasis on income generation activities and projects is one of the major reasons why extreme poverty dropped roughly 6 percent in the past 18 months.

Environment: Highest score 78 (Sundarbazar); biggest change 5 (Sundarbazar). While all three market town areas had a score improvement of over 70 points from the environment indicators, the level of change was very low, averaging less than 3 points. Note how environmental projects had the second highest level of progress, again largely because of CHOICE’s emphasis on water projects, sanitation, and bio-digesters.

Culture: Highest score 69 (tied Sund and Bhol); biggest change 4 (Besi). The highest scores were in Education (98) and Health (92) (mostly because of government funds).

Recommendations: Special emphasis on income generation, especially for the extreme poor, must continue. While, the RDFs in Nepal are very proud of the progress made in the past year, there is still significant work to be done. It is hoped that enough progress will be made in all five dimensions in all 20 VDC areas to ensure a score of at least 100 is achieved in each VDC area.

Of the “key indicators” in the five dimensions of development that we feel would be the most important to address and perhaps the easiest to implement quickly, we have suggested that villages look at the below five goals as a good start. Some have suggested that we call these goals “WOW outcomes” as a way of motivating villagers to get excited by the possibility of achieving these outcomes. The Five WOWs that will ultimately bring all families out of extreme poverty are:

1) Health – Every family has a family garden for good nutrition and access to health services 2) Education – Every adult is literate (basic reading, writing, and arithmetic) 3) Income – Every family is participating in savings/loan programs and learns basic income-generating skills 4) Environmental/Infrastructure – Every family has a smoke-free kitchen (human/animal waste sent to a bio-gas digester) 5) Core Values – Every family has identified and seeks to adhere to their core values 41

The following sections illustrate how, with the leverage model used by villagers and training gleaned from CHOICE, villagers began seeing positive results in their own lives within a very short time frame.

All of the below sections derive their satisfaction metrics from the questionnaires given during the census and survey processes of December 2013 and January 2015. Villagers were given various questions and were asked to answer as being 1) Very satisfied, 2) Somewhat satisfied, 3) Somewhat dissatisfied, or 4) Very dissatisfied. At times in the below visuals and text, we refer to individuals as being “satisfied”, which means that they either responded 1 or 2 in the above questionnaire. “Unsatisfied” means that they responded either 3 or 4 in the questionnaire. Health

How satisfied or unsatisfied are you with your health, energy, and well-being?

Villager satisfaction in their own health, energy, and well-being improved by over 9% between December 2013 and January 2015. As one might imagine, the extreme poor began with a much lower level of health satisfaction, with fewer than half satisfied with their level of health. However, the extreme poor’s level of satisfaction improved in similar fashion to that of those who are not extreme poor, indicating that CHOICE programs are indeed reaching the extreme poor as it pertains to health and wellness. Female satisfaction with health improved to a greater extent than that of their male counterparts. This larger improvement is significant enough to note (see table below), and could possibly be explained by the positive impact that new bio-digesters can have on health – knowing that in Nepal, women spend more time in the home than the men. The implementation of bio-digesters over the past few years (even before the NSDP program began) has resulted in more smoke-free kitchens, and therefore, healthier homes.

To improve nutrition amongst the extreme poor, CHOICE emphasizes that each household plants a family garden. VDCs are encouraged to leverage their resources in order to find the necessary seed and fertilizer (which fertilizer can come from bio-digester output) to plant and help the family gardens thrive. Family garden adoption is yet another reason for the large increase in those who are satisfied with their health level.

Although health has improved amongst the extreme poor, much work remains to vault levels of satisfaction to higher levels. First, health was one of the least improved of the five dimensions according to our scoring methodology. Second, of note is that although satisfaction in health improved amongst all categories of individuals, those who responded as being VERY satisfied remained unchanged from 2013-2015. We expect to see improvement in the level of those who are very satisfied in coming years. The below figure shows the percent of villagers who are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their level of health, energy, and well-being.

Figure 35 Satisfaction with Health – 2013 vs. 2015 Responses 2013 Satisfied 2015 Satisfied Improvement Extreme Poor 48% 57% 9% Poverty Non Extreme Poor 66% 76% 9% Male 63% 72% 9% HoH Gender Female 63% 77% 15% 0-34 67% 79% 12% 35-49 63% 72% 8% HoH Age 50-64 63% 73% 10% 65+ 60% 71% 12%

Education

How satisfied or unsatisfied are you with the level of education you have completed?

Although survey results indicated a significant improvement in satisfaction with education level completed (a 9% gain from baseline 2013 levels), the distribution of respondents in the 2015 survey vs. the 2013 census were different enough to be less than comfortable with the data results from this question. As such, we will wait until the next version of this report to comment on results in the change in satisfaction with education.

What we can say definitively is that CHOICE, VDC funds, and the Nepalese Government were able to allocate significant resources to the improvement of the educational system in the region. CHOICE’s goal is that every adult will have basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills, leading to improved opportunities for employment, personal growth, and business management. Over $137,000 were spent to improve the educational infrastructure from Jan 2014 through April 2015. New libraries and learning centers were built at schools in Bhorletar, Sundarbazar, and Besishahar. New furniture, materials, uniforms, and educational programs were provided for students at all levels. This investment will continue in the coming years as CHOICE expands its impact on the education of villagers both young and old. Income

How satisfied or unsatisfied are you with your level of income, wealth, assets?

We are very pleased to report the improvement in satisfaction with level of income in just the short time frame that we have been engaged in economic development initiatives in these regions. Satisfaction among the extreme poor improved by 21%, while the non-extreme poor also recorded significant improvement of 14%.

CHOICE’s goal is that every family will have a savings account and receive training in basic income-generating skills, providing more opportunity for micro-loan support and business

development. In order to enhance the savings activities of the villagers – particularly the extreme poor - a cooperative was created or developed in each VDC. Cooperatives allow villagers to save money in a secure location and earn interest on that money. Villagers are encouraged to save each and every month, even if it is as little as a dollar (or less) per month. This membership in a cooperative gives the extreme poor advantages that they likely never had before, including:

1) Savings that they can use when they confront financially distressing times; 2) A greater voice in the affairs of the co-op and in the village at large; and 3) An opportunity to borrow money for entrepreneurial and economic development initiatives, using collective collateral from the co-op

We are pleased with the enthusiasm that we have received already with regards to the cooperatives we work with. Villagers who once felt that they had no voice in the village now feel that they have a right to express their opinions, given that they are financially invested in the workings of the local councils.

We are also encouraged by the creative thinking and initiative of the Nepalese villagers with regards to economic development. CHOICE has partnered with Interweave to train villagers on entrepreneurship and business building techniques. There is great opportunity to increase the production and income of villagers, as many products (200 have been identified, including items such as goats, vegetables, essential oils, flowers and carnations) that are currently being imported from outside the country or from outside the district could easily be farmed/produced in Lamjung.

What is amazing to us is that 37% of the extreme poor in 2013 responded that they were at least somewhat satisfied with their income, when in fact their income was less than $1.25 per day (USD equivalent). Much can be learned from these individuals’ perspectives, given that they face severe hardships on a daily basis yet are able to say that they feel somewhat satisfied.

Figure 36 Satisfaction with Income Level – 2013 vs. 2015 Responses 2013 Satisfied 2015 Satisfied Improvement Extreme Poor 37% 59% 21% Poverty Non Extreme Poor 66% 80% 14% Male 61% 78% 17% HoH Gender Female 60% 75% 16% 0-34 62% 81% 20% 35-49 59% 75% 16% HoH Age 50-64 61% 76% 15% 65+ 62% 81% 19%

The programs that helped lead to such dramatic improvement in villagers’ income level satisfaction include training sessions for women and men in all three market areas covered by CHOICE in the Lamjung District. For example, CHOICE invested in and provided training

courses for animal farming and greenhouse development in all three areas. Other programs include pig and goat keeping, irrigation canal development and maintenance, rice mill development and maintenance, beehive procurement, agricultural training and investment, women skill development, and several other programs. These programs led to significant income generation for the villagers who were a part of these programs, likely leading several to be able to escape extreme poverty. Environmental/Infrastructure

In the Bhorletar VDC from January 2014 through April 2015, $13,860 was invested in bio- digesters (16% of which was provided by CHOICE). We believe that the increase in bio- digesters is a significant contributor to the increased satisfaction in health levels, as was explained in detail in the “Health” section above. We are committed to the goal in which every household in areas covered by CHOICE who wants a bio-digester receives and understands how to operate a bio-digester shall have one. The below results chain and picture help illustrate the purpose and value-add of bio-digesters in rural settings:

1. Inputs: Identify villagers wanting a bio-digester; buy the equipment, supplies and materials needed. Find an expert who knows how to build a bio-digester, buy the supplies to build a latrine, talk to someone who owns a buffalo and get some training in caring for a buffalo. 2. Outputs: Have a committed family ready to pay for a bio-digester, bring the supplies needed to the villager, build the latrine and the bio-digester and cattle shed and buy a buffalo, ensure buffalo is vaccinated, has good food and water 3. Outcomes: Human and animal waste is available. People use the latrine, Cows are healthy, methylene gas is provided, food is cooked, family has milk 4. Impact: Villager has a smokeless kitchen, health and life expectancy of wife and children is better7, women who used to collect wood have more free time for other things, fewer trees are cut down, and fertilizer is available for agriculture.

7 Life expectancy of women who live in smokeless kitchens is approximately 20 years higher than that of women who live in a smoke-filled kitchen. 45

Figure 37 Bio-Digester Process

Leadership and Local Culture Enhancement

How satisfied or unsatisfied are you with the amount of time you have to learn new things, reflect on religious truths, and reflect on the purpose and meaning of life?

CHOICE’s program has emphasized that individual families and appointed village leaders should magnify culturally relevant core values as they identify goals and lead families and villages on a path of self-reliance. For many villagers, this focus on core values is the first time in their lives in which they have invested time into considering what their core values are and how they shape their lives. For village leaders, this focus on core values is an invaluable way to make sure that programs they choose to pursue are in line with goals and that there is full buy-in amongst leaders and villagers alike. The following table shows the core values that villagers in Nepal are looking for in their village leaders.

Figure 38 20 Core Values that Nepalese Villagers Look for in their Leaders 1 Creativity 11 Humility 2 Fairness 12 Self-Discipline 3 Tolerance 13 Self-Actualization 4 Knowledge 14 Hope 5 Wisdom 15 Spirituality 6 Courage 16 Gratitude 7 Persistence 17 Citizenship 8 Integrity 18 Loyalty 9 Vitality 19 Self-Awareness 10 Compassion 20 Humor

This emphasis on core values and goal-making appears to be paying off, with villager satisfaction improving across every key demographic. The core-values focus appears to be resonating with both women and men alike (although women seem to have been positively affected to a slightly greater degree) and across all age groups, but particularly amongst the elderly (65+ years old) and the young (34 years old or younger).

Figure 39 Satisfaction with Core Values 2013 Satisfied 2015 Satisfied Improvement Extreme Poor 57% 66% 8% Poverty Non Extreme Poor 75% 81% 6% Male 71% 78% 7% HoH Gender Female 72% 82% 10% 0-34 73% 84% 11% 35-49 71% 78% 7% HoH Age 50-64 71% 76% 5% 65+ 72% 82% 10% Section

Other Important Survey Observations

In addition to the five WOWs discussed above, several other questions from the census and survey revealed positive trends in the well-being of the villagers. In the figure below we observe that the extreme poor experienced a 16% increase in happiness satisfaction, a very robust number that we would conclude is a result of the efforts of the government, CHOICE, and other NGO’s to improve quality of life in the region.

A considerable amount of time and resources were invested for the data collection process of the 2013 census and the 2015 survey of households in the areas of Bhorletar, Sundarbazar, and Besishahar in the Lamjung District as described in the “Methodology” section of this report. 47

Throughout this process we came to understand better both the physical and mental state of the peoples in these areas by visiting them in their homes and requesting the completion of detailed questionnaires.

We are also pleased with the increased trust of village leaders, which exceeded 20% growth in satisfaction from 2013-2015. Given CHOICE’s focus on leadership training and an enhanced awareness amongst villagers of the programs available to them, this does not come as a big surprise to us.

All in all, we observed an average of a 14% satisfaction improvement for the extreme poor in the below chart. In the second chart below, the non-extreme poor experienced a 12% average satisfaction improvement. In no category was there a decline in satisfaction for either the extreme poor or the non-extreme poor. We are very pleased with the below results, as we know that our programs are reaching the poor and non-poor alike and are leading to meaningful improvement in the quality of life of these individuals, which is the entire purpose for which CHOICE is engaged in these regions.

Figure 40 Change in Satisfaction across a Variety of Topics Extreme Poor Increased Non Extreme Poor Satisfaction Increased Satisfaction 2013-2015 2013-2015 25% 25%

20% 20% Average = 14% 15% 15% Average = 12% 10% 10%

5% 5%

0% 0%

% Increase in Satisfied HHs % Increase in Satisfied HHs

Source: 2013 Census and 2015 Survey

One very encouraging (yet not altogether surprising) observation is the dramatically increased satisfaction among women in their ability to participate in community affairs and have a voice in what is happening. Although in late 2013 women felt less empowered to participate in

community affairs than men, by early 2015 women’s satisfaction with their ability to participate usurped that of the men, rising to 78%. We hope that the satisfaction for both women and men will improve even further in coming years.

Figure 41. Ability to Participate in Community Affairs – Men and Women

Ability to Participate in Community Affairs 90% 78% 80% 73% 70% 65% 58% 60% 50% 2013 40% 30% 2015 20% 10% 0% Male Female

Section Seven: Go-Forward Plan

Phase Four of the NSDP: Creating a Formal Economic Development and Planning Zone Council (Fourth to Tenth Year 2017-2023).

During the third year of the program (in later 2015 and 2016), all 20 VDCs in the NDSP will be invited to participate in a Planning Zone Council made up of two representatives (one male and one female) from each VDC to implement the third step of the CHOICE Local Economic Development program. The focus of this third period (2016) will be the establishment of a financial support system that will fund and support larger enterprises that will increase employment opportunities for large numbers of poor villagers in the 20 VDC areas of the Lamjung rural district. This effort will focus on existing, successful small businesses that can be expanded or consolidated in the area. With only informal encouragement and monitoring from CHOICE staff, the Zone Planning Council begins to take full responsibility for the development of their own organized planning zone area. Networking with the central government, district- wide systems can be established to provide the funds needed for expanded district-wide projects and programs.

Value-chain marketing and small- and medium-sized enterprises can be expanded, taking advantage of district, provincial, national and international systems of marketing. Since villagers will by then have developed their business skills through their own cooperatives and district- wide marketing systems, they should then be ready to negotiate in ways that ensure they receive a fair price for their products, goods and services, thus helping to bring all families out of extreme poverty and into a better quality of life. In one study of the Lamjung district it was determined that at least 250 products sold in the local markets were being imported from China or India. If Nepali villagers could learn to produce many of these 250 products themselves, this would allow local Nepali merchants, rather than merchants in India or China, to benefit from these economic activities. RDFs are encouraged to end this last session with the observation that Nepal for too long has been a nation of consumers. Other countries have grown rich by becoming the producers of goods that Nepalese are only happy to purchase. By being only consumers and not producers also they ensure that the Chinese and Indian merchants get rich. It is now time for the Nepalese to become producers. This is the major purpose of the NSDP during 2015 and 2016.

The following is a discussion on how CHOICE’s methodology has evolved and how this has played into our progress to-date and our planning for the future.

Figure 40 Historical Poverty Alleviation Approaches Approach Unintended Consequences 1. Expeditions sent to a single village Projects determined by outsiders (Focus on Expeditioners) 2. Basic needs projects (Focus on Single Projects were needed, but without government Projects) support no sustainability

3. Local Experts worked with villagers Villagers became too dependent on experts; (Focus on Outside Experts – RDFs) passively waiting for handouts 4. Train Local Leaders (Focus on Village Leader-based projects tended to benefit the Leadership) rich/middle but ignored the extreme poor 5. Rural District Coordination (Focus on Coordinated projects helped villagers to better Multiple Village Councils in a District) cope with their poverty but not to come out of poverty 6. Local Economic Development (Focus on Emphasis on economic enterprises helped Entrepreneurship) some villagers but the gap between rich and poor tended to increase as the extreme poor were too often ignored 7. Self-Developing District (Focus on Core Rediscovered the importance of core Values. Values in the Community) Now better prepared to understand and prepare for Unintended Consequences through VDCs committed to principles of good governance (Accountability, Transparency, Inclusive Participation, Help the Extreme Poor).

So what is the CHOICE Model today? From each approach we have learned something valuable:

1. From the sixth approach, we better understand the importance of local economic development, especially when village leaders are committed to a set of core values that seeks to help the extreme poor find a better quality of life.

2. From the fifth approach we better understand the importance of decentralized control over program implementation, using a middle ground (rural district) between a top down (central government) approach and a bottom up (single village) approach.

3. From the fourth approach we better understand that training local leaders requires more than giving them management and organizational skills. Without their commitment to villager-determined core values and adherence to the principles of good governance, they will lack the effectiveness and legitimacy needed to solve problems and achieve a quality of life for all members of their communities.

4. From the third approach we better understand how local outsider experts (rural development facilitators-RDFs) have an important role to play, when they are properly trained and have the five Cs (Competence, Commitment, Creativity, Character, and Compassion).

5. From the second approach we better understand the importance of projects and programs implemented through partnerships and networks involving the public sector (the government), the private sector (the business community), and the social sector (voluntary institutions and non-government organizations). As villagers understand the process of leveraging, begin to mobilize their own resources and join together with

others, amazing progress is possible and a better quality of life for all is no longer a dream.

6. From the first approach we better understand that rural development requires a two-way system of communication where expeditions of outsiders from rich countries can visit poor villagers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The outsiders see the reality of poverty for the first time and how their support can help and the villagers learn they are not alone and that with this help they can begin to take responsibility to move themselves out of poverty. This is what the CHOICE Model is all about!!

Starting in the year 2014, CHOICE embarked on a new seventh approach that takes the Self Developing Village Program to the next level. A single village does not have the economies of scale needed to ensure a sustainable process of development. Single villages are too small and scattered and central government programs are too far removed from a village-development program to be effective. Between these two extremes (top down or bottom up), is a middle level, a rural district or a large cluster of villages (50,000 to 100,000 people at least) working together and often tied to a district town that is large enough to develop a sustainable process of economic growth and prosperity.

The Self Developing Rural District program (to be implemented in 2015-16) seeks to emphasize four things:

1. District-wide planning that reflects the villager-determined vision of how a district-level decision-making process might better ensure the quality of life desired by the villagers in this district. The word “rural district” simply means a cluster of village units that collectively have roughly 100,000 people. It generally has at least one town or district headquarters with government representatives, the potential for an expanded market economy, generally a high school, a small hospital, and other amenities that provide economies of scale for future improvements in their quality of life.

2. A district-wide effort to coordinate a Local Economic Development plan that ensures three types of economic development activities: (a) District-wide Credit Banking system of savings and micro credit loans, (b) District-wide food security program emphasizing increased production, higher yields through district-coordinated agricultural and marketing cooperatives, and (c) District-coordinated medium and large scale enterprise development plan for increased employment, the creation of marketing-value chains to increase villager income, but structured to reflect the villagers’ own core values and evaluated by the criteria of their own definition of a quality of life.

3. A district-wide program to strengthen families, and encourage gender equality in all village institutions. First, RDFs will work with the 40-member Ward Development Council or Ward Civic Forum, encouraging these Ward leaders to monitor all the families in their Ward to ensure that every family would have the following: (a) potable source of water, (b) a family garden, (c) latrines tied to their own bio-digester, (d) all children vaccinated, (e), all children attending a school with a link to the internet (when available), and (f) a written statement of each family’s core values. Second, RDFs will work with

village leaders encouraging them to elect women into their VDCs, inviting women to learn leadership skills by participating in the sub-committees of their VDC.

4. A district-wide effort to reduce, if not eliminate, extreme poverty, committing to the UN Post 2015 Millennium Development Goals which among others includes: (1) Eliminate extreme poverty by the year 2030. (2) Emphasis extreme poverty in rural areas where nearly two-thirds of the extreme poor reside. (3) Work through local institutions committed to principles of good governance. (4) Encourage a multi-sector (public, private, and social) strategy that uses partnerships and networks for the elimination of extreme poverty. (5) Implement a base-line data collection process that allows us to determine how, when and why we are or are not making progress.

Section Eight: The April 2015 Earth Quake: Challenges and Opportunities: Written by Bishnu Adhikari.

The April 2015 Earthquake: Description The April 2015 Nepal earthquake (also known as the Gorkha earthquake) killed more than 9,000 people and injured more than 23,000. It occurred at 11:56 NST on 25 April, with a magnitude of 7.8Mw or 8.1Ms and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of IX (Violent). Its epicenter was east of the district of Lamjung, and its hypocenter was at a depth of approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi). It was the worst natural disaster to strike Nepal since then 1934 Nepal–Bihar earthquake.

The earthquake also triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest, killing at least 19, making April 25, 2015 the deadliest day on the mountain in history. The earthquake triggered another huge avalanche in the Langtang valley, where 250 people were reported missing.

Hundreds of thousands of people were made homeless with entire villages flattened, across many districts of the country. Centuries-old buildings were destroyed at UNESCO World Heritage sites in the Kathmandu Valley, including some at the Kathmandu Durbar Square, the Patan Durbar Square, the Bhaktapur Durbar Square, the Changu Narayan Temple and the Swayambhunath Stupa.

Continued aftershocks occurred throughout Nepal at an intervals of 15–20 minutes, with one shock reaching a magnitude of 6.7 on 26 April at 12:54:08 NST. The country also had a continued risk of landslides.

A Major Aftershock: 12th May 2015 A second major earthquake occurred on 12 May 2015 at 12:51 NST with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.3Mw 18 km (11 mi) southeast of Kodari. The epicenter was near the Chinese border between the capital of Kathmandu and Mt. Everest. This earthquake occurred along the same fault as the original magnitude 7.8 earthquakes of 25 April but further to the east. Tremors were also felt in northern parts of India including Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and other North- Indian States. In Nepal, more than 200 people were killed and more than 2,500 were injured by this aftershock.

The Damages Thousands of houses were destroyed across many districts of the country, with entire villages flattened, especially those near the epicenter. In the aftermath of 2015 earthquake, Nepal suffered its worst loss of heritage since the earthquake of 1934. Major monuments in Kathmandu’s seven World Heritage Monument Zones were severely damaged and many collapsed completely. In addition, in more than 20 districts, thousands of private residences built on traditional lines, historic public buildings, ancient and recently built temples and monasteries were affected by the disaster, 25 percent of which were destroyed completely.

The Dharahara tower, built in 1832; the collapse of the latter structure killed at least 180 people. Historian Prushottam Lochan Shrestha stated, "We have lost most of the monuments that had been designated as World Heritage Sites in Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur District, Nepal. They cannot be restored to their original states." The earthquake affected about 2,900 structures with cultural, historical and religious heritage value. The total estimated damages to tangible heritage are NPR 16.9 billion (US $ 169 million).

Economic Loss Nepal, with a total Gross Domestic Product of USD$19.921 billion (according to a 2012 estimate), is one of Asia's poorest countries, and has little ability to fund a major reconstruction effort on its own. Even before the quake, the Asian Development Bank estimated that it would need to spend about four times more than it currently does annually on infrastructure through to 2020 to attract investment.

The earthquake now has reduced the gross domestic product (GDP) of Nepal by Rs 36.52 billion. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) before the earthquake had projected the GDP to rise to Rs 2.161 trillion. Post earthquake, it has published preliminary estimation that domestic production of goods and services will be limited to Rs 2.124 trillion on basic price.

Beyond this monetary-based poverty estimate, a larger impact can be expected when factoring in multidimensional poverty, which includes additional factors such as water and sanitation services, disruption of schools and health services and the possibility of an uptick in food insecurity. The poor and vulnerable are particularly dependent on local infrastructure such as roads, bridges for access to labor and commodity markets, but also health posts, and schools for accumulation of human capital (especially those of children). Reviving local economic activities and the resumption of basic public services along with an accelerated implementation of reconstruction projects will be critical to make up for the set back on poverty reduction caused by the earthquake.

Moreover, concern was expressed that harvests could be reduced or lost this season as people affected by the earthquake would have only a short time to plant crops before the onset of the Monsoon rains. With the exception of the Kathmandu Valley, the central and westerns regions that have been affected by the earthquakes are essentially rural. They are heavily dependent on agriculture for livelihood, which the earthquakes and the ensuing landslides have damaged. Furthermore, these districts have a generally higher per unit livestock than the national average,

indicating that the widespread loss of livestock which is another main source of income for rural households will potentially cause a severe income shock in the short term.

Rajiv Biswas, an economist at a Colorado-based consultancy, said that rebuilding the economy will need international effort over the next few years as it could "easily exceed" USD$5 billion, or about 20 percent of Nepal's gross domestic product.

Social Effect The disadvantaged social groups in the poorer districts have suffered the largest damage and loss. An analysis of the impact on employment and livelihoods indicates that more women than men (50.63 million and 44.19 million work days respectively) lost a high number of work days in commerce, tourism and agriculture except for industry. This is more pronounced in the agriculture sector which employs more women than men. The high loss of work-days also corresponds to a high time poverty being experienced by women. Women’s dependence on the sector compounded by limited access to economic resources means they will struggle the most to recover from the disaster.

Moreover, the combined factors of poor living conditions, disruptions in economic activities and loss of income could compel families to adopt negative coping strategies such as stress selling of assets, child labor, human trafficking and early marriage which would impact girls in particular. Added disruptions on policing, justice systems and loss of family protection also mean that these vulnerable groups will experience heightened risk of violence, abuse and exploitation.

According to International Labor Organization, 12,000 women and children are trafficked to the Middle East and India every year, mainly for exploitation in brothels or as forced labor and other forms of servitude. Girls aged over 14 to 16 years are more likely to enter sex trafficking through a route of fraudulent marriage. Some of the severely affected districts, particularly Sindhupalchowk, Nuwakot, Dhadhing and Kavre are historically known for high rates of trafficking of women and children and hence may face elevated levels of human trafficking. There have been already cases of 64 children being trafficked from Dolakha and Dhading districts after the earthquakes and another 11 children ages 10 to 12 from Dolakha to Kathmandu and this seem to be increasing.

National Rescue and Relief Efforts The Government of Nepal made an official request for international assistance within hours of the 25 April earthquake. Nepal’s National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF) served as a key tool for coordination of earthquake response, facilitating decisions and instructions from the central government. Over time, 134 international SAR (Search and Rescue) teams from 34 different countries responded to Nepal’s request for help. More than 90 percent of the security forces were mobilized to focus on SAR.

Rainfall and aftershocks were factors complicating the rescue efforts, with potential secondary effects like additional landslides and further building collapses being concerns. Impassable roads and damaged communications infrastructure posed substantial challenges to rescue efforts. Survivors were found up to a week after the earthquake.

However, the network of NGOs, including CHOICE Humanitarian Nepal and local affiliates of INGOs based in Nepal swiftly rallied to support community rescue and relief efforts. Several volunteer groups, especially of youth and professionals like doctors and engineers, were active in treating the wounded, setting up temporary shelters supplying food and attending to vital needs.

Choice Nepal Effort CHOICE Nepal became one of the first responders, especially in the rural areas of Lamjung, Gorkha, Dhading, Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha, Kathmandu, Nuwakot and Ramechhap districts. We are grateful to many institutions: Latter Days Saint Charities, Healing Hands Foundation- dOTERRA, Smile for Life, Meridian Magazine and numerous individuals who remembered us and contributed to make CHOICE Nepal one of the first responders.

Rescue: CHOICE has comparatively contributed less in this sector as we lack trained rescue teams within our organization. However, CHOICE staffs and volunteers have gone to assist local and government efforts in rescuing people and properties by clearing the debris.

Relief: From day one, CHOICE focused its efforts in providing reliefs-food items (rice, lentils, salt, cooking oils, dried rice-ready to eat); blankets; tarps and tents to more than 20 thousand families. Recovery: CHOICE Nepal focused specially on providing two items: temporary shelters and temporary classrooms. Built 45 temporary classrooms, 200 semi-permanent homes, and provided more than 550 sets of classroom furniture-550 desks and 1100 chairs. CHOICE also brought 500 classroom size [4M X6 M] tents from China and distributed them to severely affected 98 schools in 8 districts. Reconstruction: Now, CHOICE focuses on building permanent, earthquake resilient private houses and schools to provide a template for safer future.

Choice Future Goals: (Nepal Life Program and Rebuilding Efforts) In 2013, under the Nepal LIFE program, CHOICE Nepal surveyed more than 13,000 families to identify the extreme poor. In the survey, we used the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) developed by the Grameen Foundation. The Nepal LIFE program is being piloted among 100,000 people in 20 VDCs of Lamjung district. Before the earthquake, we with the villagers have been able to bring about great changes among the poorest of the poor in this piloted area. Over the past 18 months some 824 families out of 2,500 listed as extreme poor, now feel they are no longer in extreme poverty. This exciting result was revealed in the second iteration of the survey taken among the sampled families in 2015. The earthquake forced us to divert our efforts from development work to reconstruction work especially during the first two months after April 25.

After rigorous discussions and planning, CHOICE Nepal came to the conclusion to merge these two efforts. Both the Nepal LIFE Program and our reconstruction efforts must now be emphasized due to the devastating aftermath of the April earthquake, as we continue together in eradicating extreme poverty from this piloted area.

Appendices

The Thirty Indicators of Program Progress

I. Key Indicators in Health RDF Assignment (***) VDC Health Sub Committee Assignment (+++) Voluntary Health Facilitators 1) ***Number/% of Families with family garden/green house in each Ward. 2) ***Organized Health Sub Committee in the VDC (# of hamlets participating) 3) +++ Compute Infant Mortality Rates in each Ward at least every six months. 4) +++Number/% of children vaccinated for common diseases 5) +++Number of Village Health Workers trained in the VDC area. 6) +++Number of children malnourished and underweight.

II. Key Indicators in Education RDF Assignment (***) VDC Education Sub Committees Assignment (+++) Voluntary Education Facilitators (This could be a school’s responsibility) 1) *** Number of Adults who are participating in a literacy program in each Hamlet. 2) *** Organize Adult Literacy Sub Committee in the VDC. (Number of hamlets with at least one villager participating in the Literacy Sub Committee) 3) +++ Number/% of adults (Women and Men) who are not literate? 4) +++ Number/% of children (girls and boys) finishing primary school? 5) +++ Number/% of children (girls and boys) finishing middle school. 6) +++ Number/% of children (girls and boys) finishing High School.

III. Key indicators in Economic Development: RDF Assignment (***) VDC Economic Development Sub Committee Assignment (+++) Voluntary Facilitators and members of the Economic Development Cooperative (EDC). 1) *** Number/% of families participating in an EDC in a monthly saving program. 2) *** Number/% of families who have completed the 6 P’s training program. 3) +++ Leadership in the EDC identifies the families that are in extreme poverty and prepares a monthly report showing families moving out of extreme poverty. 4) +++ Number/% of families that have started their own small/medium enterprise. 5) +++ Number/% of farmers who are receiving training that increases crop yields, how to diversify their crops, and how better to market their crops. 6) +++ Number/% of families who market goods or services outside their VDC area.

IV. Key Indicators in Environmental Improvement RDF Assignment (***) VDC Environment Improvement Sub Committee (+++) Voluntary Facilitators 1) *** Number/% of families with latrine and animal waste linked to a bio-digester. 2) *** Organize Environment Sub Committee in the VDC. (Number of hamlets participating), working on establishing a Defecation Free VDC area. 3) +++ Number/% of families with access to potable water in or near their homes. 4) +++ Number/% of families with access to adequate housing 5) +++ Existence/completion of a reforestation/tree planting program. 6) +++ Access bus service, electricity, internet connectivity etc.

Key Indicators for Cultural Enhancement are: RDF Assignment (***) VDC Cultural Enhancement Sub Committee (+++) Voluntary Facilitator

1) *** The RDFs works with each ward to develop a VDC-wide list of Core Values where one of the values is a commitment to help all the extreme poor to develop a better quality of life. 2) *** Encourage the Cultural Enhancement Sub Committee to establish a group of people willing to develop a written history of the VDC area, describing traditions, norms, weddings, funerals, a list of core values that most people consider important) 3) +++ Number/% of women who belong to a women’s/mother’s club teaching good health practices, child rearing skills, income generating activities and seeking gender equality 4) +++ Number/% of teenage boys/girls belong to a sports team, youth club, cultural groups. 5) +++ Number/% of people with traditional handicraft skills or musical or dance skills that might bring tourists into their VDC area. 6) +++ Is there a community center in the VDC area that allows the community to discuss and consider various ways to eliminate extreme poverty and to improve their quality of life? Encouragement of annual festivals, traditional cultural events, dance or music events. What is the level of participation and community pride developed by these events? Do elderly people play a formal role in teaching the youth the history, traditions and norms of their culture?

Program Scoring by VDC

In January, 2014 Besishahar Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Besishahar 19 15 7 15 10 66 Gaunshahar 15 15 6 12 11 59 Nalma 12 15 6 12 8 53 Chiti 13 15 6 13 8 55 Udipur 13 15 6 13 8 55 Bhotewadar 16 15 7 12 13 63

In January, 2015 Besishahar Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Besishahar 19 15 11 15 11 71 Gaunshahar 15 15 11 12 11 64 Nalma 13 15 9 13 10 60 Chiti 16 15 11 12 8 62 Udipur 16 15 11 13 9 64 Bhotewadar 19 15 12 12 13 71

In January, 2014 Bhorletar Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Karapu 13 15 6 12 13 59 Ishaneshwor 13 15 6 12 13 59 Bhorletar 16 15 8 13 11 63 Ramgha 13 15 8 10 13 59 Samibhanjuang 12 15 6 12 12 57 Bangre 11 15 6 12 6 50 Suryapal 14 15 7 13 13 62 Tanrang Taxar 12 15 6 12 9 54

In January, 2015 Bhorletar Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Karapu 14 15 11 12 13 65 Ishaneshwor 15 15 11 12 13 66 Bhorletar 19 15 11 13 11 69 Ramgha 16 15 11 12 13 67 Samibhanjuang 14 15 12 12 12 65 Bangre 13 15 12 12 8 60 Suryapal 16 15 10 13 13 67 Tanrang Taxar 14 15 11 12 9 61

In January, 2014 Sundarbazar

Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Sundarbazar 15 15 7 13 12 62 Parebadanda 13 15 7 12 10 57 Mohoriyakot 11 15 6 11 13 56 Tarkughat 13 15 6 13 12 59 Chakratirtha 13 16 6 12 11 58 Damilikuwa 13 15 6 12 11 57

In January, 2015 Sundarbazar

Cluster VDC Education Health Income Environment Culture Total Sundarbazar 15 15 11 13 12 66 Parebadanda 15 15 10 13 10 63 Mohoriyakot 12 16 9 12 13 62 Tarkughat 14 15 10 16 12 67 Chakratirtha 15 16 10 12 11 64 Damilikuwa 15 15 11 12 11 64

2014 2015 # of Percentage Cluster Total Total VDCs Increase Score Score Besishahar 6 351 392 11.7% Bhorletar 8 463 520 12.3% Sundarbazar 6 349 386 10.6% Total 20 1,163 1,298 11.6%

Education Health Income Environment Culture 2014 270 301 129 246 217 2015 305 302 215 253 223 % Improvement 13.0% 0.3% 66.7% 2.8% 2.8%

List of Abbreviations

CHOICE – The Center for Humanitarian Outreach and Inter-Cultural Exchange

NGO – Non-governmental Agency

NSDP – Nepal Self Developing District Program

SDRD – Self Developing Rural District

VDC – Village Development Committee, or Village Development Council

RDF – Rural District Facilitator

Questionnaire Responses

# of family (2013) # of family (2015) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Response Response 0 1,626 12.2% 0 79 13.5%

6 1,089 8.2% 6 55 9.4%

8 1,915 14.4% 8 86 14.7%

12 3,051 23.0% 12 128 21.8%

19 3,143 23.6% 19 134 22.8%

30 1,262 9.5% 30 48 8.2%

34 1,207 9.1% 34 57 9.7%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Land (2013) Land (2015) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Response Response 0 958 7.2% 0 28 4.8%

3 3,689 27.8% 3 163 27.8%

6 8,646 65.0% 6 396 67.5%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Future (2013) Future (2015) Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 104 0.8% 1 1 0.2%

2 1,097 8.3% 2 38 6.5%

3 11,845 89.1% 3 535 91.1%

4 247 1.9% 4 13 2.2%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 587 100.0%

Happy (2013) Happy (2015) Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 435 3.3% 1 8 1.3%

2 3,470 26.1% 2 79 12.5%

3 8,576 64.5% 3 515 81.7%

4 812 6.1% 4 28 4.4%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 630 100.0%

Age (2013) Age (2015) Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 1,761 13.2% 1 81 12.9%

2 4,439 33.4% 2 194 30.9%

3 4,406 33.1% 3 221 35.2%

4 2,687 20.2% 4 132 21.0%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 628 100.0%

Gender (2013) Gender (2015) Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 9,930 74.7% 1 469 74.7%

2 3,363 25.3% 2 159 25.3%

Total 13,293 100.0% Total 628 100.0%

Income (2013) Income (2015) Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 1,196 9.0% 1 9 1.4% (7.6%) 2 4,055 30.5% 2 133 21.1% (9.4%) 3 7,520 56.6% 3 474 75.2% 18.7% 4 519 3.9% 4 14 2.2% (1.7%) Census Survey 13,293 100.0% 630 100.0% Total Total

Saving (2013) Saving (2015) Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 7,714 58.0% 1 482 76.6% 18.6% 2 3,365 25.3% 2 84 13.4% (12.0%) 3 2,214 16.7% 3 63 10.0% (6.6%) Census Survey 13,293 100.0% 629 100.0% Total Total

Income Adequacy (2013) Income Adequacy (2015) Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 895 6.7% 1 43 6.9% 0.1% 2 5,098 38.4% 2 172 27.5% (10.9%) 3 6,479 48.7% 3 383 61.2% 12.4% 4 821 6.2% 4 28 4.5% (1.7%) Census Survey 13,293 100.0% 626 100.0% Total Total

Started an Enterprise (2013) Started an Enterprise (2015) Change Response Frequency Percent Response Frequency Percent 1 908 6.8% 1 102 16.2% 9.4% 2 12,385 93.2% 2 527 83.8% (9.4%) Census Survey 13,293 100.0% 629 100.0% Total Total

Work Family Income Village Ability to Education Core Time for Extreme Poor Satisfied Happiness Satisfaction Help Level Health Leaders Participate Level Values Leisure Average Dec-13 49% 42% 57% 37% 48% 29% 47% 29% 57% 61% 46% Jan-15 66% 60% 70% 59% 57% 50% 60% 38% 66% 73% 60% % Increase in Satisfied HHs 17% 18% 13% 21% 9% 21% 12% 9% 8% 12% 14%

Work Family Income Village Ability to Education Core Time for Non Extreme Poor Satisfied Happiness Satisfaction Help Level Health Leaders Participate Level Values Leisure Average Dec-13 76% 68% 75% 66% 66% 45% 67% 46% 75% 77% 66% Jan-15 89% 82% 86% 80% 76% 67% 77% 57% 81% 87% 78% % Increase in Satisfied HHs 14% 13% 11% 14% 9% 22% 9% 10% 6% 10% 12%