Improving the Resilience of Mixed-Farm Systems to Pending Climate Change in Far Western Nepal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Improving the Resilience of Mixed-Farm Systems to Pending Climate Change in Far Western Nepal Endline Survey Report Helen Keller International Nepal Submitted to: Utah State University December, 2015 1 Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge our partnership with Utah State University (USU) that allowed us to undertake this endline survey in Bajura District, Far Western Nepal. This effort was made possible under the auspices of the USAID program entitled, Feed the Future Innovation Laboratory—Adapting Livestock Systems to Climate Change. The endline survey was designed with the technical guidance of USU and implemented by Helen Keller International (HKI). The training for the data collection was led by Sanoj Tulachan with the support of Divakar Duwal and Meghana Dhungana. The data entry, cleaning and analysis was managed by Bishnu Dulal. The final report was reviewed and prepared by Nirmala Pandey and Sanoj Tulachan. The cooperation of the residents from the Jugada, Budhiganga, Gudukhati, and Attichaur study communities are particularly thanked for their generous participation and important contributions to the survey results. This document is the third and final report in a series prepared under the auspices of the Feed the Future program. The first report was completed in September 2013 and addressed results from Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercises that identified priority problems in selected communities in Bajura District. The second report was completed in October 2014 and addressed results from baseline surveys in the Jugada, Budhiganga, Gudukhati, and Attichaur communities. These baseline results described many aspects of the households and production systems prior to implementation of capacity-building interventions in two of the four study communities by early 2014, and confirmed a high degree of socioeconomic and environmental homogeneity throughout the study area. This endline report thus describes impacts associated with the interventions following the baseline circumstances. Impacts are largely quantified in terms of contrasting changing perceptions of local residents as to whether their lives are improving, worsening, or unchanged as a result of the interventions, and why. This is a somewhat different approach for monitoring and evaluation that was advocated by USU and largely justified in light of the short project timeline for impact generation and assessment. Both the baseline and endline reports only offer general highlights of field approaches as well as simple descriptive summaries of quantitative or qualitative outcomes. There is little in the way of detailed methods or research-caliber statistical analyses. Data from both the baseline and endline surveys are being statistically analyzed at USU for peer-reviewed, scientific publications. Highly detailed methods and final project conclusions will thus be presented in these follow-on efforts. Readers interested in obtaining copies of the reports or research papers are urged to contact either HKI ([email protected]) or USU ([email protected]). Dale Davis Country Director Helen Keller International 2 3 Executive Summary This report presents general findings from an endline survey carried out during May 2015 in Jugada, Budhiganga, Attichaur and Gudukhati Village Development Committees (VDCs) in Bajura District. A total of 320 households were surveyed, a total of 80 per VDC. Two of the VDCs—Jugada and Budhiganga—received capacity-building interventions for 16 months concerning climate- change adaptation, poverty reduction, and other aspects of well-being, while two VDCs—Attichaur and Gudukhati—were their “paired controls,” respectively, that did not receive interventions. The interventions were largely delivered as informal educational or training modules. The endline survey was thus conducted to assess impacts of the capacity-building interventions by comparing findings between the intervention and control communities. The endline survey was carried out using a household survey instrument and male and female household heads were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Data were entered using CSPro 6.0 Version and cleaned and analyzed in SPSS 22.0 Version. Results indicated that the effects of the educational and training interventions were dramatic. Residents that received the capacity-building investments reported improving trends in awareness, skill development, and knowledge pertaining to climate-change adaptation and risk management when compared to their peers in adjacent control communities. This reportedly promotes the ability of households to better recover from future environmental or economic shocks. In addition, the capacity-bulding portfolio improved how communities managed water due to collective action involving formation of water-user groups. Production of key crops and livestock reportedly also was enhanced as a result of improved community attention to the management of inputs and other resources. Finally, the intervention communities noted that trends for improved food security were also positive when compared to those reported by control communities. It is concluded that a concentrated and relatively low-cost educational and training effort—based largely on community felt needs—can enhance well-being, innovation, and adaptive capacity among similar populations of the rural poor in a relatively short perid of time. 4 Table of Contents Page No. Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ 10 1.0 Introduction and objectives ......................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Climate change awareness, adaptation, and resilience interventions ....................................... 12 1.2.1 Group formation, awareness, and capacity building trainings ............................................................. 12 1.2.2 Awareness and capacity building trainings .................................................................................................. 12 1.2.3 Improved technologies and other inputs ........................................................................................................ 14 1.2.4 Networking and coordination with district government authorities ................................................ 14 1.2.5 Expected outcomes from the research intervention activities .............................................................. 14 2.0 Endline survey methodology ....................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Endline survey .................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Study district and clusters ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Sampling design ................................................................................................................................................. 17 2.5 Data collection tool ........................................................................................................................................... 17 2.6 Enumerator training ........................................................................................................................................ 18 2.7 Data collection .................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.8 Data management and analysis ................................................................................................................... 18 3.0 Household characteristics and community participation ........................................... 20 3.1 Household characteristics ................................................................................................................. 20 3.1.1 Household head by gender .......................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Household head by ethnicity/caste ............................................................................................. 21 5 3.2 Household participation in the research project ................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Participation in the awareness and capacity building trainings ..............................................