NEPAL

Country Programming Framework 2013 ‐ 2017

Government of Nepal and

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Kathmandu, Nepal

January, 2013

i

FOREWORD

ii

Table of Contents

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. i

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................... iii

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

2. SITUATION ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................2

2.1 Agriculture, natural resources and food security .................................................................. 2

2.2 Agricultural policy frameworks and priorities ...................................................................... 4

3. FAO’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES AND CPF PRIORITY AREAS ...............................................6

3.1 FAO’s comparative advantages and core functions .............................................................6

3.2 FAO Technical Cooperation in Nepal .................................................................................... 7

3.3 Collaboration within the UN System .................................................................................... 8

3.4 Development partners in Nepal ............................................................................................ 9

3.5 The Process of the CPF Formulation ................................................................................ 10

3.5.1 National Agriculture Sector Development Priority 2010/11-2014/15 (NASDP) ......... 10

3.5.2 Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Country Investment Plan 2010 (CIP 2010) ...... 11

3.5.3 From NASDP-CIP to the CPF ....................................................................................... 12

4. THE COUNTRY PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK 2013 ‐ 2017 .................................................. 13

4.1 Priority areas, outcomes and outputs ................................................................................ 13

4.1.1 CPF Priority Area 1: Food and nutrition security and safety ......................................... 13

4.1.2 CPF Priority Area 2: Institutional and policy support.................................................... 15

4.1.3 CPF Priority Area 3: Market orientation and competitiveness ...................................... 16

4.1.4 CPF Priority Area 4. Natural resource conservation and utilization including

adaptation to climate change ......................................................................................... 18

4.2 CPF resource requirements ............................................................................................... 19

5. IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION ........................................... 20

5.1 Implementation mechanism .............................................................................................. 20

5.2 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements ........................................................ 21

5.3 Short term implementation plan ....................................................................................... 22

Annex 1: CPF Priority Matrix 2013 ‐ 2017 .................................................................................. 23

Annex 2: CPF Priority Matrix (2013‐2017) aligned with GoN, UNDAF, MDG and FAO Regional Priorities ...................................................................................................................... 32

Annex 3: CPF Resource Requirements (2013‐2017) .................................................................. 35

Annex 4: CPF Results Matrix ....................................................................................................... 37

Annex 5: CPF Short‐Term Implementation Plan (2013‐2014) .................................................. 47

Annex 6: Ongoing and Pipeline Project of FAO Nepal ............................................................... 48

iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

APP Agriculture Perspective Plan

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CCA Common Country Assessment

CIP Agriculture and Food Security Country Investment Plan 2010

CPF Country Programming Framework

CSO Civil Society Organization

DFID Department for International Development

DPs Development Partners

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAORAP FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoN Government of Nepal

FAO HQ FAO Headquarters

I/NGOs International/Non‐Governmental Organizations

IPM Integrated Pest Management

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MoAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (renamed May 2012)

MoAD Ministry of Agricultural Development (from May 2012)

MoF Ministry of Finance

NAP National Agriculture Policy 2004

NASDP National Agriculture Sector Development Priority 2010

NDSP National Development Strategy Paper

NLSS Nepal Living Standards Survey

NMTPF National Medium‐Term Priority Framework

NPC National Planning Commission

NPFS National Programme for Food Security

NRCC National Resource Conservation Commission

OR

PRSP

Organization Result

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

TCP Technical Cooperation Project (FAO)

TYIP

TYP

Three‐Year Interim Plan

Three‐year Plan

UNCT United Nations Country Team

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

WFP World Food Programme

WFS World Food Summit

WTO World Trade Organization

1

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Formerly called National Medium‐term Priority Framework (NMTPF), a Country Programming

Framework (CPF) is the new tool used by FAO to define the medium‐term response to the assistance

needs of member countries in pursuit of national development objectives that are consistent with

the FAO Strategic Framework and Regional Priorities, the MDGs and other internationally agreed

development goals, and strategic objectives of the UNDAF. It outlines the priorities for collaboration

between FAO and the Government and the outcomes to be achieved in the medium‐term (4‐5 years,

aligned to national planning cycles) in support of national agriculture, rural development and food

security objectives as expressed in national development plans and policies. In accordance with the

recommendations of the FAO Strategic Evaluation (August 2010), the name of the NMTPF has been

changed to CPF which is required for all countries receiving FAO support.

The CPF for Nepal outlines the joint Government of Nepal (GoN) and FAO medium‐term priorities for

FAO’s technical assistance over the five‐year period (2013‐2017). It is substantially based on the

comprehensive analytical and consultative processes that led to the formulation by the GoN of two

latest policy and investment frameworks for the agricultural sector. These are National Agriculture

Sector Development Priority (NASDP) 2010 and Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Country

Investment Plan 2010 (CIP 2010). FAO provided substantive technical assistance in formulating these

frameworks, a process that began in 2009 under the NMTPF. These policy and investment

frameworks in turn follow from a series of agricultural and sub‐sectoral policies formulated in recent

years, notably National Agriculture Policy 2004 and several sub‐sectoral policies.

A comprehensive consultation process was followed for the formulation of the NASDP and the CIP,

and hence this CPF. It involved a wide range of national stakeholders and development partners.

Stakeholder meetings were held both at the national and regional levels in Nepal. It also brought

together technical inputs of FAO staffs in both the FAO Headquarters in Rome and the Regional

Office for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok.

The CPF identifies four priority areas for technical cooperation as listed below. Each priority area has

about three outcomes, for a total of 11 outcomes, and 52 outputs in total.

Priority Area 1: Food and nutrition security and safety

Priority Area 2: Institutional and policy support

Priority Area 3: Market orientation and competitiveness

Priority Area 4. Natural resource conservation and utilization including adaptation to climate

change.

The CPF is co‐owned by the GoN and FAO, and the coordination and implementation mechanism is

established based on this basic principle. A joint CPF Implementation Committee is envisaged, co‐

chaired by senior representatives from the GoN and FAO. The Committee will review work plans and

help implementation, undertake Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tasks as needed, and take

leadership in resource mobilization. For CPF operationalization, ad hoc committees or/and

implementing teams may be formed for specific tasks.

As a living document, flexibility needs to be allowed for adjusting priorities and outputs, responding

to unforeseen circumstances during implementation. Given that FAO’s own core funds are limited

and bulk of the financing will be from resources mobilized, the estimated resource requirements are

only tentative. Given this limitation, total resource requirements for the five‐year CPF is estimated to

be USD 50 million of which about USD 8 million is committed, leaving a gap of USD 42 million to be

2

mobilized. The outlook for resource mobilization remains bright as there is an expectation of

significantly increased outlays on agriculture, not only the Official Development Assistance (ODA) but

also from the GoN and private sector.

With this introduction and summary, the rest of the document is organized as follows. Section 2

presents situation analysis, summarizing the current state of food security, agriculture and natural

resources, as well as policy framework governing Nepal’s agricultural sector and development

priorities. Section 3 outlines the process leading to the formulation of the CPF and includes an

overview of FAO’s comparative advantages, the role of development partners in the Nepal’s

agricultural development and GoN’s policies and priorities. Section 4 presents outcomes and outputs

corresponding to the four priority areas identified. And Section 5 outlines implementation and M&E

arrangements. The report also includes five annexes.

2. SITUATION ANALYSIS

Nepal has gone through 50 years of planned development having implemented 10 periodic plans in

this period. Yet, many aspects of economic and social sectors remain backward. Many factors can be

listed for the poor development record. These include not only the high costs of developing physical

and social infrastructures but also restrictive political environment until 1991. The country

encountered prolonged political conflict that continued to disrupt the development process. New

hopes for a sustainable and inclusive development emerged after the end of the conflict in 2006. It

involved the country in the process of formulating a new Constitution. However, the country could

not produce it within the stipulated time and the finally the Parliament was dissolved. As a result, the

country is running now under the Interim Constitution. Given the need for development, the country

is however reached to a consensus that Nepal needs to address structural problems of the economy

such as low productivity, social backwardness, inequitable access to productive resources and

means, and lack of good governance.

2.1 Agriculture, natural resources and food security

Changing structure of the economy ‐ With about 35 percent share in the GDP and close to 70 percent

in employment, agricultural remains the most important sector for economic growth as well as

poverty reduction, food security and rural development. Nepal’s GDP growth rates during the past

two decades have fluctuated between 3 to 5 percent per year. Likewise, during the same period,

agricultural GDP growth rates have been in the 2‐3 percent per annum. Agricultural GDP growth rate

averaged 3.3 percent during 2001‐07, a relatively better growth compared to other countries in the

region. Due to weather, agricultural GDP fluctuates considerably. Within agriculture, the growth rate

in cereal production has been lower relative to non‐cereal agriculture. The structure of the Nepali

economy has also been changing. Thus, while the share of the agricultural GDP fell from 48 percent

in 1990/91 to 36 percent in 2010/11, that of the service sector jumped from 35 to 50 percent in the

same period. The rapid growth of the services sector has been due to expansions in finance, housing,

marketing, health and education. A worrisome development has been the contraction of the

industrial sector, from 18 percent to 15 percent in these periods. As a result, the generation of

productive employment has suffered considerably while income inequality and social exclusion has

increased.

Some progress made but still high levels of food insecurity, poverty and other social ills – Compared

with many other developing countries, Nepal made good progress in these areas. Poverty rate has

fallen markedly – the number of people living below the national poverty line fell from 42 percent in

1996 to 31 percent in 2003 and to 25 percent in 2010. The FAO food balance data show that between

3

1990‐92 and 2005‐07, daily food energy supply increased from about 2,190 to 2,350

kcal/person/day, protein from 55 to 60 grams/person/day and fat from 34 to 40 gm/person/day. As a

result, the proportion of the undernourished population fell from 21 to 16 percent in this period,

while the proportion of underweight children declined from 43 percent in 1996 to 39 percent in

2006.

These levels of poverty and other deprivations are considered high, both in absolute and relative

sense. The country suffers from structural problems such as economic disparities and inequities in

access to productive resources and means, with huge disparities between the rural and urban areas.

The poverty rate is particularly high in the Far‐Western Development region (46 percent) and in the

Mountain belt (42 percent). Similar disparities exist in malnutrition and other social conditions. In

2011, 27 of the 75 districts were found food deficit.

Agricultural production and productivity ‐ The production of food crops has grown at a rate of 2.3

percent per annum during the period 2001/02‐ 2010/11, indicating a marginal positive growth in per

capita terms. Production growth has exceeded area growth, implying that yield is also a contributing

factor. Production growth rates of wheat (4.21 percent) and maize (3.44 percent) are higher than of

paddy (about 1 percent). The yields for major cereals in Nepal are comparable to other South Asian

countries and especially the neighbouring states in India. Despite this, annual per capita food

availability (edible form) declined from 198kg during 1990/91 to 186 kg in 2008/09. Sustaining

production performance requires attention to several challenges on the inputs as well outputs.

Nepalese agriculture is heavily dependent on rainfall, with only 31 percent of the cultivated land

irrigated and not all irrigated land having access to year‐round irrigation. About 44 percent of paddy

and about 37 percent of wheat is cultivated in rain‐fed conditions. The average fertilizer use is

around 29 kg per hectare, much lower than in most other countries. Lack of quality seeds has been a

perennial problem. On the output side, prices are considered low and variable, with poor marketing

and other infrastructure. Private sector participation is low on transport, agro‐storage and agro‐

processing. Lately, agriculture has also been suffering from labour shortage with large outflows of

working age males to urban areas, India and overseas for jobs.

Natural resource conservation and utilization – As a result of the large and growing population over

a small and fragile land mass, Nepal’s natural resources are being over‐exploited beyond their

retaining and regenerative capacity. The contributing factors are well known and include: i)

unsustainable land use practices; ii) unsustainable exploitation of bio‐diversity; (iii) deteriorating

watershed services; and (iv) increasing conversion of forest land to other uses. Climate change is the

new addition. The deterioration of the watersheds is aggravated by improper land‐use practices,

particularly in fragile landscapes, overexploitation of water, land and forest resources, including

deforestation and forest degradation. Lack of alternatives sources of income for food security has led

to the over‐dependency on the use of natural resources. Besides pastureland degradation and poor

agricultural practices, the removal of forest cover has also resulted in accelerated soil erosion from

the hill slopes and excessive run‐off, which in turn contributes to the loss of productive top soil from

the cultivated areas, lowering soil fertility and decreasing crop yields whilst causing siltation

problems in downstream areas. Nepal is rich in biodiversity – ranking 25th in biodiversity scale with

about 118 ecosystems, 75 vegetation types and 35 forest types. However, losing out on biodiversity

conservation is a serious concern in the country. It is one of the reasons for the Nepal Agro

Biodiversity Policy 2007 to consider agro‐biodiversity as a backbone for sustainable development of

agriculture, food security and poverty alleviation.

Many challenges but also opportunities ‐ The above succinct account of the current situation

provides a glimpse of the myriad challenges that Nepal faces in the area of food security, agriculture

and natural resources. The list of individual challenges and gaps can be very long. For example, the

4

National Agriculture Sector Development Priority 2010 (NASDP)1, the latest diagnostics on agricultural

development challenges, lists 21 issues and challenges. These cover a wide range of areas, e.g. low

productivity and gaps across regions and groups of farmers, low investment, poor governance, food

safety and nutrition, degrading natural resource base, and poor policy/programme capability.

Most of these gaps are well known and common to many other developing countries, especially to

the LDCs. What may be unique for Nepal could be some of the challenges due to the rugged and

fragile terrain, high population density, being landlocked and low levels of social and physical

infrastructures.

The low‐input, low‐productivity regime characterising Nepal’s current agriculture also implies

significant opportunities for rapid growth. There are many areas where low‐cost solutions do exist to

the current problems. For example, while developing new farm technologies can be expensive,

productivity gaps across regions and among farmer groups can be narrowed more quickly based on

available technologies and extension services. The same is the case for organizing marginal and small

farmers into groups or cooperatives. In many cases, low‐cost interventions that effectively focus on

removing the existing constraints and by creating an enabling environment in which the key actors in

the business — farmers, agro‐entrepreneurs, traders, fisher folks, and rural youth — tap the

opportunities to enhance food production incomes.

There are also many successful examples of things that have worked well, and what is required is the

programmes to upscale them. For example, Nepal’s Small Farmers Development Programme as a

way to create viable economic entities was a success in late 1980s and early 1990s. Nepal’s

Community Forestry Programme is often cited around the world as a best practice in this area. In

many such cases, what went wrong was governance and lack of guidance and support from the state

bodies.

Nepal’s location between fast‐growing India and China could provide immense opportunity for rapid

growth. Nepal also enjoys unlimited access to the India market under the free trade agreement.

Nepal also has ample water resources which are yet to be harnessed. Nepal’s rich biodiversity,

including medicinal plants, could be an important source of wealth. So, all in all, while the

characterization of Nepal’s current state of agriculture may indicate a sad state. However, the

country has many opportunities lying to be tapped.

2.2 Agricultural policy frameworks and priorities

For the past two decades, Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP), unveiled in 1995 with a 20‐year

vision, remained the main document referred to for Nepal’s agricultural strategy, policy and

programmes. The strategic focus of the APP was based on a vision of strengthening Nepal’s regional

economic linkages between the hills and the Tarai based on their respective comparative advantages

– cereals in the Tarai and high‐value fruits, vegetables, cash crops and livestock in the hills. It adopted

a Green Revolution‐type approach based on massive investments on key inputs such as irrigation,

fertilizers and rural roads to be focussed on high potential areas, generating backward and forward

linkages and multipliers across the economy. The APP is judged to be sound in design but suffered

greatly in implementation.

In the mean time, since about 2000, the GoN has formulated several broader policy frameworks

1 The NASDP document is available here -

http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/Nepal%203%20of%209%20National%20

Agriculture%20Strategy%20NASDP%20Report.pdf

5

related to the sector and sub‐sectoral policies to guide development agriculture in Nepal.

Broader policy frameworks

• Policy and Institutional Arrangement for the Effective Implementation of the APP 2057

(2001)

• National Agriculture Policy 2061 (2004)

• Agri‐business Promotion Policy 2063 (2006)

• Commercial Agriculture Policy 2064 (2007)

• Trade Policy 2009

Sub‐sectoral policies

• National Fertilizer Policy 2058 (2002)

• Irrigation Policy 2060 (2003)

• National Seed Policy 2056 (2000)

• National Tea Policy 2057 (2000)

• National Coffee Policy 2060 (2003)

• Dairy Development Policy 2064 (2007)

• Agriculture Bio‐diversity Policy 2063 (2007)

• Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006‐2010)

• National Bio‐safety Framework (2007)

• Forestry Sector Policy (2000)

• Herbs and Non‐Timber Forest, Products Policy (2006)

• National Wetland Policy 2003

• Pesticides Policy (under preparation)

Of these, National Agriculture Policy 2061 (NAP 2004) remains to date the main policy document for

the sector as a whole. Its formulation was prompted by a number of new developments such as

increasingly liberal policy environment, increased role for the private sector, MDG commitments, and

Nepal’s WTO membership and regional trading agreements. It set food security and poverty

alleviation as the underlying goals to be attained through higher agricultural growth based on

increased productivity and commercial and competitive agricultural system. It upheld the long‐term

vision and strategy of the APP and gave continuity to its approach of pocket programmes. The NAP

2004 identified three core goals: i) increasing agricultural production and productivity; ii) making

agriculture commercialized and competitive in regional and world markets; and iii) conserving,

promoting and utilizing natural resources, environment and bio‐diversity. The Agri‐business

Promotion Policy 2006 further elaborates on some of the policies in NAP 2004 focussed on the

promotion of agri‐business through product value chains.

In Nepal’s context, policy frameworks for biodiversity and natural resources are very important.

There are several of these policies in these areas, as listed above. In order to promote conservation,

these frameworks recommend judicious use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and plant and animal

growth stimulating hormones, promotion of compost fertilizer, establishment of a gene bank and in‐

situ conservation sites, agro‐forestry in degraded lands, and community‐based conservation farming

to protect watershed and river banks.

These goals and polices have been adopted in subsequent policy frameworks also. Thus, the long‐

term vision articulated in the agriculture chapter of the Three‐Year Interim Plan 2007‐2010 reads as

follows, “to modernize and commercialize the agriculture sector, by acknowledging the APP and the

National Agriculture Policy 2004 as the central policy for the development of agriculture”. In support

of that, five specific objectives are listed as follows:

6

1. To increase agricultural production and productivity.

2. To maintain food sovereignty by ensuring food security.

3. To make the agriculture and livestock sub‐sectors competitive by transforming subsistence

agriculture into commercial agriculture.

4. To increase employment opportunities for rural youths, women, Madhesis, persons with

disability, Muslims and deprived groups.

5. To conserve, promote and utilize agricultural biodiversities through the development and

dissemination of environment friendly technologies.

The Three‐Year Plan (2010/11‐12/13) essentially continues with these goals and priorities, with

emphasis on some additional priorities such as nutrition security, climate change, cooperatives and

human resources development.

Lastly, in this process, two new important policy documents were formulated in 2010 – the National

Agriculture Sector Development Priority 2010 (NASDP) and the Nepal Agriculture and Food Security

Country Investment Plan 2010. These documents contributed to further updating, fine‐tuning and

setting priorities in accordance with the above mentioned vision and policies. This CPF has evolved

out of these latest processes. These policy frameworks related to the formulation of this CPF are

presented later in Section 3.5.

3. FAO’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES AND CPF PRIORITY AREAS

The CPF has been proposed to identify areas of priority and a programme of work that provides

support to the Government in FAO’s areas of comparative advantages. Thus, the process of the CPF

formulation is based on a number of considerations which include the following:

• FAO’s strategic objectives, comparative advantages, core functions and experience in Nepal;

• Government of Nepal priorities as articulated in recent policy documents; and

• Collaboration with UN agencies and other development and humanitarian partners to ensure

synergies.

3.1 FAO’s comparative advantages and core functions

FAO’s vision is a world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contribute to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and

environmentally sustainable manner. At the 27th Asia and Pacific Regional Conference held in the Republic of Korea in 2010, Member Countries agreed that FAO’s work in the region should focus on:

• Strengthening food and nutritional security;

• Fostering agricultural production and rural development;

• Enhancing equitable, productive and sustainable natural resource management and

utilization;

• Improving capacity to respond to food and agriculture threats and emergencies; and

• Coping with the impact of climate change on food and agriculture.

The core functions of FAO are:

a) Monitoring and assessment of long‐term and medium‐term trends and perspectives,

b) Assembly and provision of information, knowledge and statistics,

c) Development of international instruments, norm and standards,

7

d) Policy and strategy options, and advice,

e) Technical support to promote technology transfer and build capacity,

f) Advocacy and communication,

g) Inter‐disciplinarily and innovation, and

h) Partnerships and alliance.

3.2 FAO Technical Cooperation in Nepal

FAO has been remained long term partner for the Government of Nepal on agriculture and food

security issues. Nepal became a member of FAO in 1951 and an FAO Representative office was

established in Kathmandu in 1977. Since then, nearly 200 projects covering various aspects of

agricultural development have been completed.

In the most recent years, since 2000, FAO has implemented in Nepal about 80 projects covering

various areas of agriculture including livestock, fishery and forestry, livelihoods development, food

security, marketing, agro‐processing, animal disease control, and so on. Of these 80 or so projects,

about 60 were completed by 2009. Table 1 provides a glimpse of the types of projects completed,

rough amounts of delivery, collaborating DPs and sources of funding. FAO’s TCP is a very important

source of funding. Although the total amount of USD 7 million in Table 1 appears small, TCP projects

typically provided rapid response to the Government needs for technical assistance and often led to

larger projects and programmes taken up by DPs. By their very nature, emergency projects (type

OSRO) account for a large share of the total, 37 percent of the USD 41 million in the table. These

include avian influenza, rapid response to crises through production inputs, and responses to natural

disasters and conflict.

Table 1: Programmes and projects implemented by FAO in Nepal during 2000‐2009

Project type Number of

projects

Value (000 USD)

Development partners TCP 23 6,854 FAO Telefood 10 88 FAO FMPP 4 10,588 Multilateral/FAO MTF 2 500 MTF (FAO/WTO) OSRO 9 15,000 Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, US,

UNOCHA SPFS 1 360 FAO UNDP 2 243 UNDP GCP 3 2,532 Germany, Japan, Italy COOP 1 45 Multiple UTF 2 3,595 Norway, ADB, Nepal GEF 2 1,029 GEF/UNEP UNTS 1 62 FAO Total 60 40,896 Note: The projects/programmes listed are not exhaustive but do cover most of the projects during 2000‐09. The purpose is to illustrate the range of the types of projects, support levels and DPs. Source: Based on information available at FAO Office, Kathmandu.

In addition, as of 2010, FAO was also implementing around 24 projects. These also cover a wide

range of topics and issues, for example: Integrated Pest Management, capacity building on leasehold

forestry and livestock, adaptation to climate change effects, land reform, formulation of food and

nutrition security plan, support to the development of agriculture development strategy of GoN,

combating citrus decline problems, improving genetic quality in carp seed production, and technical

8

assistance to Avian Influenza Control. These projects are being supported by the FAO TCP and other

sources, similar to that shown in Table 1.

FAO strength lies on providing technical assistance, drawn in turn from high level of technical

knowledge and experiences, and best practices, on agriculture and food security issues gained

globally as well as in Nepal. FAO comparative advantages also lie on its image as an independent UN

agency which can act as a neutral partner for the Government on difficult and complex issues

especially related to policies, institutions, legal and regulatory reforms, and its ability to convene and

network with other stakeholders on agriculture and food security matters, including with the IFIs,

donors and NGOs/CSOs.

One of the lessons learnt by FAO from its long working experience in Nepal is that only sustained assistance and intervention that is continued for a sufficiently long period can produce tangible

results. There are some good examples of successful projects and programmes of this nature that

FAO assisted for sufficiently long periods, typically with successive phases of the project. A recent

publication (May 2011) by the FAO Office in Nepal lists such success stories.2 The success stories profiled include the following: vegetable seeds; agricultural marketing, notably Kalimati wholesale

market in Kathmandu; Integrated Pest Management; community and leasehold forestry;

aquaculture; policy support, including analysis of Nepal’s WTO Membership; and emergency

operations, including avian influenza.

3.3 Collaboration within the UN System

The UN development partners follow common priority agenda for the mobilization of support

suitable to the country’s development needs and peace building process. In the case of agriculture

development and food security, they emphasize the relevance of APP and Special Area Development

Programme for Poverty Alleviation (SPPA). Such priorities are reflected in UNDAF 20013–2017.

The UNDAF has 10 broad outcomes, as listed below:

1. Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups get improved access to basic essential social services and

programmes in an equitable manner.

2. Vulnerable groups have improved access to economic opportunities and adequate social

protection.

3. Vulnerable groups experience greater self‐confidence, respect and dignity.

4. Vulnerable groups benefit from strengthened legal and policy frameworks, and have improved

access to security and rule‐of‐law institutions.

5. Institutions, systems and processes of democratic governance are more accountable, effective,

efficient and inclusive.

6. Tiers of government are established and function to meet the provisions of the new federal

constitution.

7. People living in areas vulnerable to climate change and disasters benefit from improved risk

management and are more resilient to hazard‐related shocks.

8. National institutions have adequately addressed conflict‐related violations of human rights and

international humanitarian law and the post‐conflict needs of victims.

9. National actors and institutions have managed conflict risk and are progressively consolidating the

peace.

2 Titled Nepal and FAO Achievements and Success Stories, the document is available at http://foris.fao.org/static/edoc/nepal_edoc_en_final.pdf.

9

10. Nepal’s institutions are strengthened for more effective integration of policy and the economy

into intergovernmental economic and normative processes, and international policy and legal

regimes.

These outcomes are in line with the GoN’s current priorities and with the priorities identified in the

IPoA. The UNDAF outcomes are aligned with the Three Years Plan (TYP) of the government of Nepal

and will contribute to the TYP’s overall objective of achieving employment‐centric, inclusive and

equitable economic growth.

UNDAF outcomes are focused on people—those with claims (vulnerable groups as rights‐holders)

and those with obligations (duty‐bearers, such as members of the civil service or local government

institutions). Outcomes are phrased in language that describes a change primarily from the

standpoint of the vulnerable groups, but also often from that of the duty‐bearers, and are intended

to cumulatively make a contribution to the achievement of national priorities and MDGs by 2017.

UNDAF promotes partnership with a range of Government counterparts, donor agencies, NGOs, civil

society organizations and community based organizations (CBOs). As part of its commitment to

UNDAF, FAO has been supporting activities related to poverty reduction, rural employment

generation, food security, institutional capacity enhancement, delivery of improved inputs,

conservation of bio‐diversities, disaster preparedness and adaptation to climate change impacts.

3.4 Development partners in Nepal

Nepal receives generous financial and technical assistance from many international DPs, both

bilateral and multi‐lateral, as well as international NGOs. Given the stage of the economy where

agriculture is the main economic sector, agriculture in the broad sense receives sizable support.

Efforts have been underway to focus and harmonize supports and focus them to priority areas. In

this regard, Nepal’s Five and Three Year Plans are the main basis for articulating projects and

programmes.

As illustration of the nature of such support in the agricultural sector, the following projects are

noteworthy. With the World Bank, these include, Avian Influenza Control Project (AICP 2007‐2011) –

with FAO collaboration, Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project (IWRMP 2007‐2013),

Social Safety Net Project (SSNP‐2007‐2013), and Project for Agricultural Commercialization and Trade

(PACT – 2009 ‐ 2015). With the ADB, these include Community Livestock Development Project ‐ with

FAO collaboration (CDLP – 2005‐2010), Community Managed Irrigated Agriculture Sector Project

(CMIASP – 2006 ‐ 2010), High Mountain Agri‐business and Livelihood Improvement) Project (HIMALI

2011 – 2016) and Commercial Agricultural Development Project (CADP – 2007‐2013). With IFAD,

these would be Leasehold Forestry‐Livestock (LFLP – 2005‐2012) and High Value Agriculture Project

in Hill and Mountain Areas 2009‐2013) NARC research is supported by CIMMYT and IRRI country

offices as well as other international research centres.

A large number of bilateral donors are also active in agriculture. Their assistance often comes in the

form of collaboration with other projects and programmes, such as the above projects of the World

Bank, ADB and IFAD.

A large number of international and national non‐government organizations (INGOs and NGOs) are

also active in Nepal, estimated to number over 100 INGOs and around 30,000 NGOs. They support

income generation, employment creation, food security, disaster management, environmental

conservation and infrastructure development activities with the mobilization of internal and external

resources. The Government has been encouraging their involvement in the backward communities.

10

The Local Self‐Governance Act 2055 (1999) anticipates their collaboration with the local government

agencies. The role of I/NGOs have increased after the 1990s with new political set‐up in the country.

The analysis of the support assistance provided by different international development agencies in

Nepal shows, that while there is a great deal of interest among the DPs to support agriculture, their

efforts are still scattered. As a result, Nepal has not been able to reap many benefits from their

support yet. With the priority areas identified under the CPF, it is hoped that this potential can be

tapped by developing a cohesive development plan.

3.5 The Process of the CPF Formulation

This CPF is fully based on the comprehensive analytical and consultative processes that led to the

formulation of Nepal’s latest policy and investment frameworks for the agricultural sector. These are

National Agriculture Sector Development Priority (NASDP) 2010 and Nepal Agriculture and Food

Security Country Investment Plan 2010 (CIP 2010). FAO provided substantive technical assistance in

formulating these frameworks, a process that began in 2009 under the National Medium‐term

Priority Framework (NMTPF). These policy and investment frameworks in turn follow from a series of

agricultural and sub‐sectoral policies formulated in recent years, as noted in Section 2.2 above.

3.5.1 National Agriculture Sector Development Priority 2010/11­2014/15 (NASDP)

The NASDP3 expands the level of detail of the NAP 2004 and further articulates the objectives as set

out in Three‐Year Plan (2010/11‐12/13), which is also Nepal’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

(PRSP). The NASDP was formulated to facilitate strategic planning and resource mobilization and

identifies medium‐term (2011/12‐2014/15) priority perspective and areas requiring support of the

GoN and development partners. It is meant to serve as a strategic planning and resource mobilization

tool by contributing to: i) setting up priorities from a medium‐term perspective; ii) identifying priority

areas requiring investment and technical assistance support of the DPs; and iii) identifying DPs likely

to support the selected priorities. The NASDP also supports the achievement of the MDGs and

attempts to harmonize technical services related to MDG 1 and MDG 7.

Having in place the NASDP has several advantages, one of them being minimized frequency of

shifting of the priorities, typically with changes of the Governments. It has remained as major issue of

concern for the governance of agricultural sector in Nepal. The NASDP also aims to help the DPs to

align and focus their support around the commonly agreed upon priority areas. These improvements

are expected to lead to increased investment in agriculture from all sources, the private sector, GoN

and the DPs.

The formulation of the NASDP was guided by an Inter‐Ministerial Task Force, established under the

chairmanship of Joint Secretary (Planning) at MoAC and represented by different line agencies

related to agriculture.

The NASDP itself was formulated by the MoAC in close collaboration with various Government

agencies. FAO provided technical support to this process. The process involved four major steps: i)

3 The NASDP document is available here ‐ http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/Nepal%203%20of%209%20National%2 0Agriculture%20Strategy%20NASDP%20Report.pdf

11

Situation Analysis – review of policies, strategies and past accomplishments and analysis of the

current and emerging challenges; ii) Prioritization of Issues – reconciliation of priorities aligned with

areas under the three‐year interim plans (current and forthcoming) and identification of priority

issues for a medium‐term five year plan; iii) Preparation of Draft NASDP – discussion of issues,

opportunities and priorities in meetings and workshops under the guidance of the Inter‐Ministerial

Taskforce, identification of priority areas based on the analysis of the current issues and selection of

priorities to be addressed in the medium‐term; and iv) Validation – peer review and validation

workshop.

For situation analysis, the first step, a total of 12 thematic studies were carried out following their

identification during a MoAC/FAO Scoping Workshop organized in August 2009. These were on:

agricultural extension support system; agricultural mechanization; climate change and its

implications to agriculture production system; dairy development; food security and nutrition; hides

and skin; integration of gender in agriculture; labour migration and agriculture; land use policy and

planning; livestock in high altitude areas; market‐led meat production and processing; and pricing

policies for agricultural inputs and outputs.

A final draft version of the NASDP was validated in the course of a two‐stage stakeholder workshop4

in early July 2010, involving 112 participants from several ministries, civil society (national and

international NGOs), the private sector and DPs. These validation processes led to the sharpening of

focus and increased awareness of the Government’s overall priorities and programme initiatives on

agriculture and food security.

The Government endorsed the NASDP in September 2010.

In the final version, the NASDP identified eight priority areas, each with 3‐4 outputs for a total of 29

outputs.

Priority 1: Enhancing food and nutrition security and safety (7 priority outputs)

Priority 2: Enhancing application of “getting‐better” technologies and tools (2 outputs)

Priority 3: Promoting enabling environment (3 outputs)

Priority 4: Promoting market‐ orientation and competitiveness (4 outputs)

Priority 5: Sustaining natural resource conservation and utilization (5 outputs)

Priority 6: Developing infrastructure support facilities (4 outputs)

Priority 7: Enhancing integration of gender in agriculture (2 outputs)

Priority 8: Managing the effects of migration of agricultural labour (2 outputs)

3.5.2 Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Country Investment Plan 2010 (CIP 2010)

The CIP5 follows logically from the objectives outlined for agriculture and food security in the Three

Year Plan (2010/11‐2012/13) that is further articulated in the NASDP. It provides a coherent set of

priority investment programmes and sub‐programmes, encompassing the overall need of the

country for improving agriculture and food security. Like the NASDP, the CIP also provides a five‐year

framework for investment.

4 One held in Pokhara to discuss the preliminary outline and the other one in Kathmandu to validate the draft document prepared. 5

The CIP document is available here http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/Nepal%204%20of%209%20Country%20 Investment%20Plan.pdf

12

The immediate objectives of the CIP are: i) to improve the process of coordinated planning and

investment of resources in the agriculture sector that will address the needs of the overall

agricultural development and food security in all its four dimensions; ii) to increase external

resources through Government‐DPs collaboration; and (iii) to monitor and evaluate the indicators

and management of the investments made so as to maintain an efficient and robust agricultural

investment programme.

It takes advantage of the previously identified opportunities and builds upon ongoing and planned

development programmes, including community‐led programmes. It seeks to connect and create

synergy with other related sub‐sectors outside of the core domain of the agricultural ministry, such

as irrigation, rural infrastructure, rural energy, forestry and health, as well as the contributions of the

DPs, CSOs and the private sector. Many of the programmes under the CIP are actually scaling‐up of

existing successful programmes.

The CIP formulation process was also led by the MoAC and followed a participatory approach as the

NASDP. Brainstorming sessions were organized for priority ranking exercises and the identification of

areas of possible interventions. It went through a validation process based on a series of stakeholder

consultations and workshops held in various regions of Nepal as well as at the national level.

It was finally endorsed by the Government in September 2010.

The CIP identified 10 comprehensive programmes: i) enhancing agriculture production and

productivity; ii) supply of quality agricultural inputs and services; iii) developing and strengthening

agriculture and marketing infrastructure; iv) increasing agriculture competitiveness and

commercialization; v) agriculture research and development; vi) promotion and conservation of

agriculture bio‐diversity; vii) food safety and consumer protection; viii) inclusive agricultural

development; ix) human resource development in the agriculture and food sector; and x)

strengthening policy research, planning and monitoring and evaluation.

Four aspects emphasized by the CIP programmes are: Improved agricultural production and

productivity through a combination of appropriate technologies that woud lead to environmentally

sustainable agricultural practices, notably research for appropriate technologies that would also help

conserve bio‐diversity for long‐term sustainability of agriculture, and to ease input supply

constraints; Improved farm incomes and enhanced livelihood of rural people, particularly

disenfranchised groups, through appropriate interventions and by linking them to markets and

strengthening agricultural value chains and marketing infrastructure; Need for ensuring food safety

to enhance value addition in agriculture and consumer protection; and Stress on the investment for

human resource development of all stakeholders to ensure sustainable outcomes, and also to

improve the Government’s institutional capacity for better planning, management and delivery of

project services.

3.5.3 From NASDP­CIP to the CPF

The CPF fully follows from the comprehensive processes that led to the formulation of the NASDP

and CIP. In addition to these processes, the following two steps have led to the finalization of the

CPF.

Step 1: Short‐listing of the Priority Areas – The NASDP/CIP provide a comprehensive list of priority

areas, outputs and activities. For the CPF, these were further short‐listed to a manageable level

13

based on two key considerations: i) FAO’s comparative advantages; and ii) potential collaboration

with other DPs.

Thus, the NASDP priority areas were reviewed by focusing on those that come closest to FAO

comparative advantages for the provision of technical assistance. For this, brainstorming sessions

were held where priorities and outputs were assessed using, among other things, a method whereby

participants asked questions such as whether “X” is more important than “Y” given FAO comparative

advantages and recent experiences on implementation and collaboration.

The likelihood of or potential for collaboration with DPs in their own programmes and projects,

including joint implementation or provision of technical assistance, was considered important in

finalizing the CPF. Again, past and current experiences were reviewed looking into completed,

ongoing and pipeline projects supported by the DPs in Nepal, whether with FAO collaboration or

without.

Step 2: Final Review – The draft CPF document prepared thus was shared with the Inter‐Ministerial

Taskforce members and relevant technical divisions of the FAO Headquarters and the FAO Regional

Office for Asia and the Pacific for their comments and suggestions. The document was then revised

based on the comments and shared at the Validation Workshop held in July 2010. The participants

representing different line ministries, their associated departments, research organizations,

parastatals, DPs, international and national NGOs, and the private sector attended this workshop.

Besides their participation in the plenary sessions, the participants were also involved in the group

work, which focused on refining the CPF Matrices. The outcome of the workshop was a consensus

built on the priority outcomes, outputs and related activities. The workshop also contributed to the

identification of several new DPs, who were interested in supporting CPF‐related activities. All these

contributions from different stakeholders provided a basis for the CPF document to be finalized.

4. THE COUNTRY PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK 2013 ‐ 2017

This section presents outcomes and outputs for four priority areas. These were all identified through

the process described in Section 3.5. Annex 1 shows Priority Matrix which includes outcomes,

outputs and indicative activities for the four priority areas. Annex 2 shows the alignment of the

priority areas with those of the GoN, UNDAF, MDGs and the FAO regional priorities.

4.1 Priority areas, outcomes and outputs

4.1.1 CPF Priority Area 1: Food and nutrition security and safety Food insecurity remains a serious challenge for Nepal. Agricultural growth provides the principle

pathway to tackle this problem. For agriculture to make this contribution, land and labour

productivity have to grow to start with. This is the only way to break the current vicious circle which

prevents farmers from transacting in the food markets due to low productivity and thus in

purchasing modern farm inputs to raise the productivity. Public investment has to lead this process,

notably in irrigation and infrastructure, technology generation, prevention of animal and crop

diseases and pests and natural resource conservation. It is equally important to take steps to

improve access to nutrition and safe food for vulnerable communities.

Complementary to the existing Government efforts as well as those of the DPs, FAO will contribute

to enhancing national and local capacities for improving productivity and ensuring food security

through the achievement of the following expected outcomes and outputs.

14

CPF Outcome 1.1 (PRODUCTIVITY): Crop, livestock and fishery production and productivity increased through strengthened capacity of the delivery institutions and producers

Output 1.1.1 Livestock: a) Strengthened capacity building (guidelines, manuals, information, reviews)

of Government field technicians, rural animal health workers and farmers in improved animal

husbandry practices (nutrition, , breeding and health ); and b) Improved review and feasibility

study on the establishment of animal feed industries, including fodder production.

Output 1.1.2 Fisheries: a) Improved technical advice and guidance in the establishment of regulatory

framework for management and monitoring of the fish seed production; and b) Improved

technical advice in design of the fish seed production system and promotion of the adoption of

applicable technologies for good brood stock management and breeding programme.

Output 1.1.3 Crops: a) Strengthened capacity building of agricultural workers, including women and

youth and extension workers in the adoption of improved agricultural practices and

technologies for sustainable increase and diversification of crop production (annual crops,

horticulture and vegetables) through promotion of agro‐ecologically suitable for farming

systems, conservation, IPM practice and organic agriculture practices, sustainable soil

management practices, and post‐harvest management; b) Promoted the High Yielding

Varieties (HYVs) in the Terai areas; c) Strengthened capacity building of local seed producers in

targeted districts; and d) Improved technical advice in the development of subsidy and

technology support policy for the use of organic and inorganic fertilizers.

Output 1.1.4 On‐farm water management: Strengthened capacity building in integrated crop and

water management practices and on‐farm water management efficiency.

Output 1.1.5 Genetic resources: Strengthened capacity building of selected stakeholders at the

central, district and grass root levels in the conservation and utilisation of plant and animal

genetic resources through the provision of technical advice and support in (i) the in‐situ

conservation and utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (e.g. conservation and

management of polinators for sustainable agriculture through ecosystem approach;

conservation of native species and breeds); (ii) ex‐situ conservation and utilization of plant and

animal genetic resources, with the particular focus on strengthening the institutional and

technical capacity of NARC in the operation of the gene bank; (iii) the control of invasion and

colonization of alien species; and (iv) fostering regional collaboration and exchange through

the promotion of the country participation in the National Information Sharing Mechanism

(NISM) network for information sharing and utilization.

Output 1.1.6 Research and extension: Improved access of women and men farmers to quality

extension and research services through the provision of technical advice in the (i) diagnostic

assessment of functional linkages between research, extension and education; (ii) assessment

of physical and human capacity of research and extension services and identification of

investment priorities; (iii) organization of national agricultural research system to strengthen

their abilities to generate, adapt and transfer appropriate technologies for improved and

sustainable production systems in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and (iv) development and

testing of models to promote public‐ private partnership linkages and coordinated extension

service delivery.

Outcome 1.2 (ACCESS IMPROVEMENT): Strengthened institutional and governance capacity that

ensures inclusive access to nutritious and safe food of vulnerable communities

15

Output 1.2.1: Strengthened capacity building and advice in the monitoring of food and nutrition

security

Output 1.2.2: Improved legal advice in the review and updating of legislative framework in relation to

food quality and safety, and enhanced institutional and technical capacity building for its

enforcement

Output 1.2.3: Enhanced utilization of safe and diversified food responding to basic nutritional needs

through the elaboration of educational and promotional material and capacity building of

national institutions to launch promotional campaigns.

Output 1.2.4: Enhanced utilization of indigenous genetic materials in the hill areas to ensure access

to adequate as well as nutritious food.

Outcome 1.3 (DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT): Strengthened capacities for emergency

preparedness, response and recovery strengthened to minimize vulnerabilities with regard to

access to safe food, including emphasis on transboundary animal/plant diseases.

Output 1.3.1: Enhanced capacities to develop implement and advocate animal health programmes at

the national level, resulting in the adoption of good animal health management practices.

Output 1.3.2: Enhanced national capacity in the prevention, preparedness and management of

invasive plant pests, migratory pests and diseases, including policy and technical advice and support

in national contingency planning.

Output 1.3.3: Good governance for disaster‐risk reduction institutions strengthened, including

support to Government in the development of national and district DRR/DRM strategy, programmes

and plans with focus on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and technical support in strengthening

capacity at the national and regional levels to implement productive safety nets to boost smallholder

food production and also address soaring food prices at the same time.

4.1.2 CPF Priority Area 2: Institutional and policy support

Effective implementation of the Government policy and programmes depends considerably on the

completeness of the policy and related institutional environment. One long‐standing weakness in this

area is incomplete design of supportive policies and acts, and weak monitoring of the compliance to

existing policies. Institutional capacity for strategic planning and implementation is also limited.

Quality and timely availability of agricultural and livestock statistics has also constrained the

formulation and implementation of programmes to boost agricultural production and productivity.

The GoN is in the process of formulating a National Food and Nutrition Security Plan and the long‐

term Agriculture Development Strategy, as well as to conduct a new agricultural census. All these

processes would benefit considerably from FAO technical assistance. Several UN agencies and

development partners are also assisting in these activities and therefore this priority area involves

possibilities for high level of partnership and collaboration.

CPF Outcome 2.1 (POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES) – Effectiveness of food and agriculture strategies,

policies and programmes enhanced through strengthened analytical, technical and institutional

capacity for their formulation, implementation and monitoring.

16

Output 2.1.1: Strengthened technical and institutional support and advice for the development,

implementation and monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sector and food security

strategies and programmes.

Output 2.1.2: Enhanced technical and institutional support in the establishment of monitoring and

evaluation system, and capacity building on the review and monitoring of the implementation

of laws, rules and policies.

Output 2.1.3: Improved technical assistance and policy advice on the integration of right to food into

legislation, strategies and programmes in view of adoption of a right to food law in Nepal; and

awareness building and capacity development seminars for parliamentarians, government

officials, judges and representatives from CSOs on how to implement the right to food and

good governance in the context of their service delivery system.

CPF Outcome 2.2. (STATISTICS) ‐ Strengthened Government institutional capacity to collect and

disseminate statistics on agricultural production and trade that includes gender and rural

employment aspects.

Output 2.2.1: Improved advice and enhanced capacity building of Government in the collection and

dissemination of statistics on agricultural production and trade, including the aspects relating

to gender and rural employment.

Output 2.2.2: Improved review, technical advice and capacity building on the adoption of the

appropriate sampling methodology to be used in the National Agricultural Census, and in the

design of crop and livestock surveys.

Output 2.2.3: Strengthened technical support and capacity building in the establishment of

agricultural statistical database for agricultural planning including livestock.

Output 2.2.4: Enhanced technical support and capacity building in mainstreaming gender‐sensitive

approaches into standard agricultural data collection and development of agri‐gender

database for planning and implementation of agricultural activities and improved adoption

FAO statistical toolkits for the production of sex‐disaggregated agricultural data.

Output 2.2.5: Improved dissemination of agricultural and food security statistics to facilitate

informed decision making

4.1.3 CPF Priority Area 3: Market orientation and competitiveness

Almost all of Nepal’s development strategy and policy documents have emphasized the urgency of

market to orient and commercialize the country's largely subsistence‐economy, as one of the

pathways to breaking the vicious cycle. The other pathway is to enhance productivity. A value chain

framework is deemed essential for identifying appropriate interventions from farm to the market.

Public investments in key infrastructure and service areas, notably irrigation, rural roads, post‐

harvest technology and storage and market and price information, should play an important role, but

the bulk of the investment has been envisaged to flow from the private sector. The latter will not

happen automatically but will have to be encouraged through appropriate pricing and other policies.

Many countries around the world are increasingly promoting this approach, i.e. public‐private

partnerships in a value chain context. FAO has the comparative advantage of tapping this knowledge

base and best practice.

17

CPF Outcome 3.1: (VALUE ADDITION) ‐ Strengthened and reoriented technical and institutional

capacities at national and decentralized levels to provide support to promote market‐oriented

production and value addition

Output 3.1.1: Enhanced assessment of institutional capacity and infrastructure to promote market‐

oriented production

Output 3.1.2: Improved formation and strengthening of producers’ groups and cooperatives

Output 3.1.3: The establishment of local service providers promoted at decentralized levels

Output 3.1.4: Strengthened support in creation of a conducive environment for private sector

investment in farming and agro processing

Output 3.1.5: Strengthened support in re‐orientation of research and extension to collaborate more

strongly with the private sector

Output 3.1.6: A comprehensive training package for policy makers, service providers, producers,

entrepreneurs and women developed

Output 3.1.7: Pathways identified for integrating small farmers in product value chains

CPF Outcome 3.2: (COMPETITIVENESS) Policies, regulations and legal issues addressed to promote

competitive agro‐enterprise development for smallholder farmers and small and medium scale

enterprises.

Output 3.2.1: Improved technical advice in the creation of enabling policy environment for

agribusiness development

Output 3.2.2: Improved technical advice in defining regulatory measures for bio security

Output 3.2.3: Improved assessment of policies, regulations etc. for agribusiness development and

cross border trade (marketing acts, agricultural price policies etc.)

Output 3.2.4: Strengthened support in setting up and capacity building of an agricultural price and

trade commission

CPF Outcome 3.3: (WTO/SPS COMPLIANE) Producers and exporters of selected farm products are

enabled to access increased market opportunities by complying with SPS related requirements in

the value chain of those products

Output 3.3.1: International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures developed and adopted

Output 3.3.2: Enhanced capacity for the application of the technical regulations and standards

related to TBT agreement

Output 3.3.3: Improved capacity to actively participate in the Codex Alimentarius Commission

Output 3.3.4: Strengthened regulatory framework for quality control of inputs, genetic materials and

other support services (with strict monitoring of quality control system encompassing import,

production and distribution)

18

Output 3.3.5: Strengthened capacities of small and medium entrepreneurs in supply chains to

address safety and quality management

4.1.4 CPF Priority Area 4. Natural resource conservation and utilization including adaptation to climate change

Nepal’s natural resources are being over‐exploited beyond their retaining and regenerative capacity

for a number of reasons which include unsustainable land use practices, unsustainable exploitation

of bio‐diversities, deteriorating watershed services, increasing conversion of forest land to other uses

and more recently adverse effects of climate change. FAO jointly with the Government and other

development partners will contribute to enhancing the national capacity to promote improved

sustainable management and development of natural resources, including land management,

forestry and watershed management, and climate charge mitigation and adaptation.

CPF Outcome 4.1 (LAND MANAGEMENT): Land record and management practices improved for

sustainable production in a conflict‐free environment

Output 4.1.1: Improved policy and legal advice, capacity building and technical guidance in the

preparation of Scientific Land Reform Strategy, land use policy and its legal provisions

Output 4.1.2: Strengthened policy and legal support in the review and revision of national legislation

on land ownership to allow increased number of women to gain ownership over land

Output 4.1.3: Piloting of the land registration and land management interventions launched

Output 4.1.4: Strengthened national capacity to generate land use data through the establishment of

Land Information Service

Output 4.1.5: Enhanced testing and building national capacity in the application and further

dissemination of land degradation assessment and monitoring methodologies (LADA) in

support of the establishment of national information system on land degradation and

formulation of strategies for sustainable land resource utilization and management.

CPF Outcome 4.2 (FORESTRY AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT): Management and use of forestry

resources and watershed eco‐system services improved for income generation and food security

through national and local level capacity enhancement in strategic planning

Forestry

Output 4.2.1: Strengthened policy advice and institutional building: policy advice and technical

guidance in strategic planning (e.g. development of Master Plan for Forestry Sector),

developing means and approaches to reduce poverty through sustainable forest management,

including capacity to implement scientific forest guidelines, provision of advice and support in

strengthening institutional structures such as Forestry Sector Coordination Committee, District

Forest Coordination Committee, etc. as well as provision of support in the implementation of

National Projects implemented by MoFSC, and in UN‐REDD field implementation programme.

Output 4.2.2: Enhanced support in the creation of an enabling environment for SMFE development

and strengthening linkages among the SMFEs through the application of the Forest Connect

Toolkit; as well as promotion of cultivation of selected NTFPs and MAPS on private, CF and LF

land areas through building the institutional and technical capacities in promotion,

19

conservation and cultivation, harvesting and processing practices; development of knowledge

sharing and coordination linkages among the key stakeholders; facilitation of introduction of

better technologies; creation of enabling policy and private investment environment.

Output 4.2.3: Improved facilitation and support for enhancing forest governance in participatory

forest management regimes

Output 4.2.4: Strengthened Public and Private Land Agroforestry systems, especially in Terai to

reduce pressure on national forest and for environmental balances

Watershed management

Output 4.2.5: Strengthened policy advice and institutional building in the development and

implementation of consistent WM policy, introduction of self‐sustaining funding mechanisms

and establishment of relevant institutional and administrative structures related to WM

Output 4.2.6: Improved advice and guidance in the development of watershed management

programme and strengthened capacity building for its implementation at institutional and

community levels, including development and application of latest state of the art techniques

in natural resources and watershed management, field testing and evidence‐based validation

CPF Outcome 4.3 (CLIMATE CHANGE): Institutional and technical capacities for adaptation to

climate change in agriculture strengthened and adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities

enhanced.

Output 4.3.1: Improved policy advice and institutional capacity building: Capacity building of national

institutions for climate change adaptation and policy advice and guidance in the integration of

climate change priorities into agriculture and food security policies, programmes and action

plans and support in the implementation of prioritized adaptation practices under the

National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)

Output 4.3.2: Improved assessment, monitoring, disaster risk management: Support in assessment

and monitoring of climate risks and vulnerabilities, improvement of early warning systems

and strengthening of capacities, and procedures for effective disaster risk management at all

levels with emphasis on community based disaster risk management and facilitates

integration to the longer‐term climate change adaptation initiatives.

Output 4.3.3: Improved community based adaptation approaches to climate change in vulnerable

districts and capacity building of local communities in the adoption of improved production

practices, including adaptation innovations through ecosystem management and improved

pasture, rangeland management and rehabilitation of degraded lands, promotion of Public

Land and Private Land plantation and agro forestry to enhance coping capacity of farmers,

and promotion of alternative energy sources.

Output 4.3.4: Improved knowledge management, database of good practices, database on

agriculture impacts of climate change on agriculture.

4.2 CPF resource requirements

Resources for implementing the CPF activities will come from three sources: FAO, international DPs

and the GoN. FAO’s own resources are from Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) and TCP Facility

20

(TCPF). TCP finances up to USD 500 000 per medium‐scale project, and TCPF finances up to USD 200

000 per year for small‐scale project such as formulation of project proposals, specific assessments

and studies, and other quick interventions. In addition, FAO also provides technical assistance

through other sources such as the Special Programme for Food Security and extra budgetary

resources for regional and sub‐regional projects mobilized by the Headquarters and Regional offices.

During 2000‐2009, these FAO resources have amounted to about 20 percent of the total. Thus, bulk

of the resources for the CPF will come from other DPs operating in Nepal. Indeed, the success of the

CPF will largely depend on collaboration with these DPs and resource mobilization in the country

itself.

Globally, the ODA commitments to agriculture declined continuously in the 1990s. This has been

reversed and the ODA is expected to increase significantly in coming years, in view of new global

pledges and commitments by rich countries to agricultural development notably in the context of

attaining the MDGs and the ongoing food price crisis since late 2007. There is thus a positive outlook

for resource mobilization for the CPF.

Programmes and projects for implementing the CPF have been identified through a process of

intense consultations among the GoN ministries, departments and agencies, and FAO and

international DPs based in Nepal. Given that about 80 percent of the resources for the CPF needs to

be mobilized, it is not realistic to estimate/fix budgets for each and every activity listed in the CPF.

Annex 3 shows estimated resource requirements. Total requirement is estimated to be USD 50

million of which about USD 8 million is committed, leaving a gap of USD 42 million. Thus, mobilizing

additional resources is crucially important for the CPF. As said above, the outlook for this is better

now than was the case some years back, including from the private sources. A CPF is a living

document and so adequate flexibility should be allowed for additions or changes in priorities and

outputs.

The GoN and FAO will jointly carry out resource mobilisation through inter alia donor briefings,

partnerships and formulation of project proposals for the proposed outputs and indicative activities

in the CPF.

For each CPF priority outcome and output, respective indicators, baseline and targets are identified,

followed by means of verification, risks and assumptions, as well as the role of various Government

partners (Annex 4).

5. IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

5.1 Implementation mechanism

Implementation of the CPF requires both technical assistance and funding, and hence building up

collaboration and consensus with the Government as well as DPs including the UN agencies. This will

require an intense advocacy effort by the FAO Country Office. Subsequently, the main challenge

would be to mobilize resources. For all these, the FAO Country Office will also need strong support

from the FAO Regional Office and Headquarters.

The CPF is co‐owned by the GoN and FAO, and the coordination and implementation mechanism is

established based on this basic principle. In order to effectively implement the CPF, a national‐level

CPF Steering Committee and a CPF Technical Sub‐Committee will be formed right after the

21

endorsement of the CPF document. The former, co‐chaired by the Secretary of the MoAD6 and the

FAOR, is the coordinating and monitoring body for the implementation of the CPF. It will, inter alia: i)

convene meetings and promote initiatives to facilitate the operationalization of the CPF and review

work plans and implementation; ii) undertake M&E as needed, including mid‐term review; and iii)

take leadership in resource mobilization. The Technical Sub‐Committee will involve senior technical

officials in relevant subject matters from all institutions under the line ministries and project

personnel from concerned ministries, and will be the coordinating and monitoring body for the

implementation of the priority projects. The overall responsibility for the implementation of the CPF

will however rest with the FAO Country Office.

Soon after the CPF document is signed by the GoN and FAO, a donor briefing meeting will be

organized to present the CPF and mobilize resources for implementation.

The two CPF committees will meet periodically. The Steering Committee would meet once a year

while the Technical Sub‐Committee will meet once every six months, while ad hoc meetings can take

place any time at the request of the co‐chairs of the Committees. These meetings will involve the

participation of selective representation of ministries and national institutions as appropriate. Other

participants may be invited to attend these meetings, in a consultative position, as appropriate,

including other DPs and national stakeholders directly involved in the activities included in the CPF

Results Matrix. The participants in these meetings may thus vary and will be decided by the co‐chairs.

If necessary, the Technical Sub‐Committee may also establish ad hoc committees or/and

implementing teams for specific tasks, including for substantive outputs and activities.

5.2 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the CPF will take place at two levels.

The first level is within projects (or activities or outputs), ensuring that the goals and objectives of

each project are significantly and directly contributing to the CPF outputs. The primary inputs for

M&E will be baseline data and indicators of the project. These projects and activities typically have

their own implementation and M&E calendars.

At the second level, CPF outputs and indicators will be monitored on a six‐monthly and annual basis

and presented as progress reports in ways similar to reporting on project logical frameworks. The six‐

monthly reports will be short while the annual reports will also have comments on the progress

made. These will be prepared by the FAO Country Office and discussed at the respective CPF

Committee meetings as appropriate. The annual progress reports may also be shared with the UN

country team and the UN Resident Coordinator.

A mid–term review of the CPF will be carried out with the assistance of the FAO Regional Office for

Asia and the Pacific to assess whether the CPF is on track or if major changes need to be made in

response to changing circumstances.

A final review will be made at the time of preparation of the next CPF. This review will be conceived

as external evaluation, and will: i) assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and

sustainability of FAO support to the country; ii) assess credibility, impartiality, transparency and

6 The Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD) was created in 2012 from the previous Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoAC). In this document, MoAC has been used so far in the previous sections to indicate the “ministry of agriculture”.

22

usefulness of FAO’s contribution during the CPF cycle; and iii) Identify lessons learnt in the

implementation of the current CPF to be taken into account for the formulation of the next CPF.

The main tool for the M&E mechanism in the CPF process is the CPF Results Matrix (Annex 4), which

indicates performance indicators, with targets and baselines, specifications of the assumptions and

risks on which the formulation of the CPF outcomes and outputs and their corresponding indicators

are based, and the indication of the means of verification of the actual performance. Using this

matrix effectively requires capacity to collect data for performance indicators, and analyze and

report it. Monitoring is also about adjusting and fine‐tuning programmes, when key parameters and

assumptions change, e.g. national priorities and assumptions made.

The modalities for the M&E mechanism will be further defined by the CPF Steering Committee, which

will agree on the adjustment procedures for additional joint periodic review meetings on progress

achieved with the CPF implementation, mid‐term review of its implementation and the final

assessment, so as to ensure maximum flexibility depending on circumstances, and adequate mutual

accountability.

5.3 Short term implementation plan

This CPF is formulated for 2013‐2017. It becomes operational following the endorsement and

approval by FAO, the national CPF Implementation Committee, and the MoAD on behalf of the GoN.

Annex 5 shows the short‐term implementation plan.

During the short‐term (2013‐14), FAO and the GoN will focus on prioritization of activities or projects,

identify funding gaps and work on resource mobilization. Programmes and activities to be prioritized

for the short‐term will include: i) activities already funded and budgeted and reflected in the CPF

outputs, with resource requirements already specified on the basis of current commitments or firmly

committed pipeline projects or initiatives; and ii) new initiatives still in the pipeline (in case resources

are not yet fully committed) or modifications of past programmes, which are expected to become

operational within the short‐term period and for which additional funding efforts are anticipated.

Once the CPF Steering Committee endorses these activities for immediate implementation, work will

begin for formulating the activities for funding. FAO will consider funding those activities classified as

top priority. In addition, FAO and the GoN together approach donors and funding sources to finance

priority programmes and focused activities. Where possible and appropriate, FAO activities will be

undertaken jointly with other UN agencies and the DPs. Planning for the 2014‐15 biennium could

commence in October 2013.

Collaborations and partnership with national stakeholders would also commence during the short‐

term implementation period. These include building networks, forming forums and committees

around each pillar – and around outputs when substantive – and advocacy groups for resource

mobilization. Relevant stakeholders, notably CSOs, farm associations and private sector, will be

encouraged to collaborate in this process. Thus, communications, networking, monitoring systems

and reporting mechanisms should be in place by the end of the short‐term. Implementation of major

activities will continue through the second biennium.

23

Annex 1: CPF Priority Matrix 2013 ‐ 2017

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

Priority Area 1: Food

and nutrition security

and safety

Outcome 1.1 (PRODUCTIVITY):

Crop, livestock and fishery

production and productivity

increased through improved

institutional arrangements and

producers’ capacity

development.

Output 1.1.1 Livestock:

a) Strengthened capacity building (guidelines, manuals, information,

reviews) of government field technicians, rural animal health

workers and farmers in improved animal husbandry practices

(nutrition, breeding and health)

b) Improved review and feasibility study on the establishment of animal feed industries, including fodder production.

Output 1.1.2 Fisheries:

a) Improved technical advice and guidance in the establishment of

regulatory framework for management and monitoring of the

fish seed production

b) Improved technical advice in design of the fish seed production system and promotion of the adoption of applicable technologies

for good brood stock management and breeding programme.

Output 1.1.3 Crops:

a) Strengthened capacity building of agricultural workers, including

women and youth and extension workers in the adoption of

improved agricultural practices and technologies for sustainable

increase and diversification of crop production (annual crops,

horticulture and vegetables) through promotion of agro‐

ecologically suitable farming systems, conservation, IPM practice

and organic agriculture practices, sustainable soil management

practices, , post‐harvest management)

b) Promoted the High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) in the Terai areas

c) Strengthened capacity building of local seed producers in

targeted districts; and Improved technical advice in the

development of subsidy and technology support policy for the

use of organic and inorganic fertilizers.

Output 1.1.4 On‐farm water management:

Strengthened capacity building in integrated crop and water

management practices and on‐farm water management

• Increased productivity of

relevant agricultural

commodities in targeted

areas.

• Number of socially excluded

households receiving

production inputs and

services.

24

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

efficiency.

Output 1.1.5 Genetic resources:

Strengthened capacity building of selected stakeholders at

central, district and grass root levels in the conservation and

utilisation of plant and animal genetic resources through the

provision of technical advice and support in: (i) the in‐situ

conservation and utilization of plant and animal genetic

resources (e.g. conservation and management of polinators for

sustainable agriculture through ecosystem approach;

conservation of native species and breeds); (ii) ex‐situ

conservation and utilization of plant and animal genetic

resources, with the particular focus on strengthening the

institutional and technical capacity of NARC in the operation of

the gene bank; (iii) the control of invasion and colonization of

alien species; and (iv) fostering regional collaboration and

exchange through the promotion of the country participation in

the National Information Sharing Mechanism (NISM) network for

information sharing and utilization.

Output 1.1.6 Research and extension:

Improved access of women and men farmers to quality extension

and research services through the provision of technical advice in

the (i) diagnostic assessment of functional linkages between

research, extension and education and technical advice for its

improvement; (ii) assessment of physical and human capacity of

research and extension services and identification of investment

priorities; (iii) organization of national agricultural research

system to strengthen their abilities to generate, adapt and

transfer appropriate technologies for improved and sustainable

production systems in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and (iv)

development and testing of models to promote public‐ private

partnership linkages and coordinated extension service delivery.

Outcome 1.2 (ACCESS

IMPROVEMENT): Strengthened

institutional and governance

capacity that ensures inclusive

Output 1.2.1: Strengthened capacity building and advice in the

monitoring of food and nutrition security

Output 1.2.2: Improved legal advice in the review and updating of legislative framework in relation for food quality and safety, and

• By 2015, GON has

developed national

strategies and action plans

25

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

access to nutritious and safe food

of vulnerable communities enhanced institutional and technical capacity building for its

enforcement

Output 1.2.3: Enhanced utilization of safe and diversified food

responding to basic nutritional needs through the elaboration of

educational and promotional material and capacity building of

national institutions to launch promotional campaigns.

Output 1.2.4: Enhanced utilization of indigenous genetic materials in the

hill areas to ensure access to adequate and nutrition food.

for raising public awareness

and education on food

safety and quality, including

nutritional benefits.

• By 2015, GON has

developed and

implemented national

nutrition education

programmes.

• By 2016, GON assessed its

food safety/quality

legislative framework, to

identify legislative drafting

priorities and to

develop/adopt required

legislation.

Outcome 1.3 (DISASTER RISK

MANAGEMENT): Strengthened

capacities for emergency

preparedness, response and

recovery strengthened to

minimize vulnerabilities with

regard to access to safe food,

including emphasis on

transboundary animal/plant

diseases.

Output 1.3.1 (B02P201): Enhanced capacities to develop, implement and

advocate animal health programmes at the national level

strengthened, resulting in adoption of good animal health

management practices.

Crop protection: Capacity building and policy advice in the prevention, preparedness and management of invasive plant pests,

migratory pests and diseases, including policy and technical advice

and support in national contingency planning (e.g. new virulent

races of wheat rusts); promotion of and support in

institutionalization of national IPM programme through integration

of IPM approach in the training and support programmes for small

holder farmers; Identification of suitable location specific

technological options for disease management, with the specific

focus on Citrus.

Output 1.3.2: Enhanced national capacity in the prevention,

preparedness and management of invasive plant pests, migratory

pests and diseases.

• Good governance for disaster‐risk reduction and institutional

• By 2014, contingency plans

developed for specific pest

and disease threats.

• By 2014, the country is

implementing actions for

prevention and control of

priority animal / zoonotic

diseases.

• By 2014, DRM strategy and

programme launched.

• By 2015, Disaster Risk

Reduction action plans for

agriculture included in the

national DRM.

• Percentage of targeted

beneficiary families

reporting increased ability

to meet their immediate

26

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

strengthening: Support the Government in development of national

and district DRR/DRM strategy, programmes and plans with the

focus on agriculture, forestry and fisheries and building capacity for

its implementation; support in mainstreaming DRR/DRM strategies

and measures in the national agriculture and food security policy

and strategies; support in the establishment of National Disaster

Mitigation Fund; promotion of resilient food systems in most food

insecure areas (e.g. hills, and mountains); mapping of hazard‐prone

areas (e.g. flood, landslide, and droughts).

• Technical support in strengthening capacity at national and regional

level to implement productive safety nets to boost smallholder food

production and address soaring food prices.

Output 1.3.3: Good governance for disaster‐risk reduction and

institutions strengthened

food needs and improve

their food security situation.

Priority Area 2:

Institutional and

policy support

environment

Outcome 2.1 (Policies and

programmes) – Increased

effectiveness of agriculture and

food and nutrition security

related policies, strategies, plans

and programmes through

strengthened institutional and

technical capacity in their

formulation, implementation and

monitoring.

Output 2.1.1: Strengthened technical and institutional support and

advice for the development, implementation and monitoring and

evaluation of agriculture sector and food security strategies and

programmes; and improved participatory and sustainable food

security and nutrition plan formulation.

Output 2.1.2: Enhanced technical and institutional support in the

establishment of the monitoring and evaluation system, and

capacity building in the review and monitoring of the

implementation of laws, rules and policies

Output 2.1.3: Improved technical assistance and policy advice on the

integration of right to food into legislation, strategies and

programmes in view of adoption of a right to food law in Nepal;

and awareness building and capacity development seminars for

parliamentarians, government officials, judges and

representatives from civil society organizations on how to

implement the right to food and good governance in the context

of their work.

• By 2013, GoN formulated

agriculture, food security

and nutrition policy,

strategy and plans and

respective M&E systems.

• By 2015, GoN has

implemented agriculture,

food security and nutrition

policy, strategy and plans.

• By 2017, Number of

legislative or strategic

processes that include right

to food (Contributing to OR

indicator H02 /02)

• The interim constitution

includes right to food laws

are yet to be approved.

Outcome 2.2. (Statistics)

Strengthened government Output 2.2.1: Improved advice and enhanced capacity building of

Government in the collection and dissemination of statistics on • By 2013, Agricultural

statistical database for

27

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

institutional capacity to collect

and disseminate statistics on

agriculture production and trade

that includes gender and rural

employment aspects.

agriculture production and trade, including the aspects relating to

gender and rural employment.

Output 2.2.2: Improved review, technical advice and capacity building

on the adoption of the appropriate sampling methodology to be

used in the National Agricultural Census, and in the design of crop

and livestock surveys.

Output 2.2.3: Strengthened technical support and capacity building in

the establishment of agricultural statistical database for

agricultural planning including livestock.

Output 2.2.4: Enhanced technical support and capacity building in

mainstreaming gender‐sensitive approaches into standard

agricultural data collection and development of agri‐gender

database for planning and implementation of agricultural

activities and improved adoption FAO statistical toolkits for the

production of sex‐disaggregated agricultural data.

Output 2.2.5: Improved dissemination of agricultural and food security

statistics to facilitate informed decision making

agricultural planning,

including livestock data,

established and functioning.

• By 2013, Quality and

content of periodic

agricultural surveys and

censuses improved.

• By 2015, Statistics on

priority areas available.

• By 2015 Capacity of field

office to collect and process

data improved.

• By 2013, GON applies new

(FAO) methodologies for

collecting, analysing and

disseminating data and

statistics on food and

agriculture.

Priority Area 3:

Market orientation

and competitiveness

Outcome 3.1: (VALUE ADDITION)

Strengthened and reoriented

technical and institutional

capacities at national and

decentralized levels to provide

support to promote market

oriented production and value

addition

Output 3.1.1: Enhanced assessment of institutional capacity and

infrastructure to promote market‐oriented production

Output 3.1.2: Improved formation and strengthening of producer groups

and cooperatives

Output 3.1.3: The establishment of local service providers promoted at

decentralized level

Output 3.1.4: Strengthened support in creation of a conducive

environment for private sector investment in farming and agro

processing

Output 3.1.5: Strengthened support in re‐orientation of research and

extension to collaborate more strongly with the private sector

Output 3.1.6: A comprehensive training package for policy makers, service providers, producers, entrepreneurs and women

developed

Output 3.1.7: Integrated small farmers in product value chains

By 2015, No of programmes

related to agribusiness

capacity building designed

and implemented by GoN

28

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

Outcome 3.2:

(COMPETITIVENESS) Policies,

regulations and legal issues

addressed to promote

competitive agro‐enterprise

development among smallholder

farmers and small and medium

scale enterprises.

Output 3.2.1: Improved technical advice in the creation of enabling

policy environment for agribusiness development

Output 3.2.2: Improved technical advice in defining regulatory measures

for bio security

Output 3.2.3: improved assessment of policies, regulations etc. for

agribusiness development and cross border trade (marketing acts,

agricultural price policies etc.)

Output 3.2.4: Strengthened support in setting up and capacity building

of agricultural price and trade commission

• By 2016, GoN initiated

policy reforms to help small

producers to increase value

addition and participate in

changing markets

• By 2016, No. programmes/

projects where policies,

regulations, and laws

relating to agribusiness are

being enforced

Outcome 3.3: (WTO/SPS

COMPLIANE) Producers and

exporters of selected farm

products are enabled to access

increased market opportunities

by complying with SPS related

requirements in the value chain

of those products

Output 3.3.1: International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

developed and adopted

Output 3.3.2: Enhanced capacity for the application of the technical regulations and standards related to TBT agreement

Output 3.3.3: Improved capacity to actively participate in the Codex

Alimentarius Commission

Output 3.3.4: Strengthened regulatory framework for the quality control

of inputs, genetic materials and other support services (with

strict monitoring of quality control system encompassing import,

production and distribution)

Output 3.3.5: Strengthened capacities of small and medium

entrepreneurs in supply chains to address safety and quality

management

By 2016, No. of

programmes/ projects

where food safety/ quality

issues are being addressed,

including SPS related issues.

Priority Area 4.

Natural resource

conservation and

utilization including

adaptation to climate

change

Outcome 4.1 (LAND

MANAGEMENT): Land record and

management practices improved

for sustainable production in a

conflict‐free environment

Output 4.1.1: Improved policy and legal advice, capacity building and

technical guidance in the preparation of Scientific Land Reform

strategy, land use policy and its legal provisions

Output 4.1.2: Strengthened policy and legal support in the review and

revision of national legislation on land ownership to allow

increased number of women to gain ownership over land

Output 4.1.3: Piloting of the land registration and land management

interventions launched

Output 4.1.4: Strengthened national capacity to generate land use data

through the establishment of Land Information Service

Output .4.1.5: Enhanced testing and building national capacity in the

By 2017, the Government

has adopted the national

land policy and land use

plans, national strategy and

national land use legislation

(Contribution to OR

Indicator F01P2/02)

29

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

application and further dissemination of land degradation

assessment and monitoring methodologies (LADA) in support of

the establishment of national information system on land

degradation and formulation of strategies for sustainable land

resource utilization and management.

Outcome 4.2 (FORESTRY AND

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT):

Management and use of forestry

resources and watershed eco‐

system services improved for

income generation and food

security through national and

local level capacity enhancement

in strategic planning

Forestry

Output 4.2.1: Strengthened policy advice and institutional building:

Policy advice and technical guidance in strategic planning (e.g.

development of Master Plan for Forestry Sector), developing

means and approaches to reduce poverty through sustainable

forest management, including capacity to implement scientific

forest guidelines, provision of advice and support in

strengthening institutional structures such as Forestry Sector

Coordination Committee, District Forest Coordination

Committee, etc. as well as provision of support in the

implementation of National Projects implemented by MoFSC,

and in UN‐REDD field implementation programme.

Output 4.2.2: Enhanced support in the creation of an enabling

environment for SMFE development and strengthening linkages

among the SMFEs through the application of the Forest Connect

Toolkit; as well as promotion of cultivation of selected NTFPs and

MAPS on private, CF and LF land areas through building the

institutional and technical capacities in promotion, conservation

and cultivation, harvesting and processing practices;

development of knowledge sharing and coordination linkages

among the key stakeholders; facilitation of introduction of better

technologies; creation of enabling policy and private investment

environment.

Output 4.2.3: Improved facilitation and support for enhancing forest

governance in participatory forest management regimes

Output 4.2.4: Strengthened Public and Private Land Agroforestry

systems, especially in Terai to reduce pressure on national forest

and for environmental balances

Watershed management

• By 2015, the institutional

capacity assessed and

capacity enhancement

programmes implemented

for sustainable watershed

management practices and

strategies.

• By 2016, Self‐sustaining

funding mechanism

developed for adoption.

• By 2016, national forestry

policy adopted taking into

account poverty

consideration and FAO best

practices.

• By 2015, New training

programme launched

enhance awareness and the

processes involved

benefitting from Carbon

Stocks.

• By 2015 national entities

enabled to use scientific

forestry management

guidelines and tools for

improved policies and field

implementation in

conservation and utilization

of forest.

30

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

Output 4.2.5: Strengthened policy advice and institutional building in the

development and implementation of consistent WM policy,

introduction of self‐sustaining funding mechanisms and

establishment of relevant institutional and administrative

structures related to WM

Output 4.2.6: Improved advice and guidance in the development of

watershed management programme and strengthened capacity

building for its implementation at institutional and community

levels, including development and application of latest state of

the art techniques in natural resources and watershed

management, field testing and evidence‐based validation

• By 2013, Forest Users Groups

supported by handing over

31,000 ha. of national

forests to groups below

poverty line with appropriate

management plans and

mechanism of functioning.

(Technical plans

implemented in >80% of

forest users groups and

>60% of groups benefitted

with increased production of

forest products).

Outcome 4.3 (CLIMATE CHANGE):

Institutional and technical

capacities for adaptation to

climate change in agriculture

strengthened and adaptive

capacity of vulnerable

communities enhanced.

Output 4.3.1: Improved policy advice and institutional capacity building:

Capacity building of national institutions for climate change

adaptation and policy advice and guidance in the integration of

climate change priorities into agriculture and food security

policies, programmes and action plans and support in the

implementation of prioritized adaptation practices under the

National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)

Output 4.3.2: Improved assessment, monitoring, disaster risk management: Support in assessment and monitoring of climate

risks and vulnerabilities, improvement of early warning systems

and strengthening of capacities and procedures for effective

disaster risk management at all levels with emphasis on

community based disaster risk management and facilitates

integration to the longer‐term climate change adaptation

initiatives.

Output 4.3.3: Improved community based adaptation approaches to climate change in vulnerable districts and capacity building of

local communities in the adoption of improved production

practices, including adaptation innovations through ecosystem

management and improved pasture, rangeland management

and rehabilitation of degraded lands, promotion of Public Land

and Private Land plantation and agroforestry to enhance coping

• By 2015, Number of

agriculture, forestry and

food security policies,

programmes and action

plans adopted with climate

change considerations

• By 2013, 561 leasehold

forest household, and their

group networks

empowered on CC

adaptation through

extension activities

• By 2016, households in

selected areas benefit from

increased productivity and

income through the

adoption of improved

adaptation innovations and

practices and improvement

of early warning systems.

31

Priority Areas Outcomes Outputs Key performance indicators

capacity of farmers, and promotion of alternative energy

sources.

Output 4.3.4: Improved knowledge management, database of good

practices, database on agriculture impacts of climate change on

agriculture

32

Annex 2: CPF Priority Matrix (2013‐2017) aligned with GoN, UNDAF, MDG and FAO Regional Priorities

CPF Priorities

Agriculture

Perspective Plan

(1995/96 – 2014/15)

Three Year Plan

(2010/11 – 2012/13)

United Nations Development Assistance

Framework for Nepal

(2013 – 2017)

Millennium Development Goals ‐ Nepal (1990 –

2015)

Regional Priority Areas of Action (FAO)

1

. En

han

cin

g Fo

od

/ N

utr

itio

n S

ecu

rity

an

d S

afet

y

• Accelerate agricultural growth through increased productivity

• Poverty reduction with the expansion of employment opportunities

• Well controlled water and its availability for most of the year to reduce risks and to introduce the water regimes of the high yield crop varieties that drives the green revolution

• Develop groundwater through shallow tube wells and electricity

• Provide a full grid of agricultural roads around existing trunk roads

Expand economic transformation opportunities by fulfilling preconditions for agriculture development

• Ensure food & nutrition security

• Reduce the number of people living under the poverty line by increasing/ creating employment and income generating opportunities

• Development of physical and social infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, industry, essential services such as drinking water, energy, electricity, roads, foods, medicines and education

Establish sustainable peace through the employment centric inclusive and justifiable economic growth

• National Planning Commission and line ministries have improved capacities to deliver socially inclusive and gender‐responsive food and nutrition security programmes/activities. (Re: Output 1.5)

• Reduce poverty, from 25 percent in 2009 to 21 by 2015 (Re: MDG 1 Target 1a).

• Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (Re: MDG 1 Target 1c).

• Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people (Re: MDG 1 Target 1b).

• Reduce proportion of employed people living below $1day from 22.0 in 2010 to 17.0 in 2015 (Re: MDG 1 Target 1a).

Promote gender equality and empower women (Re: MDG 3)

• Strengthening food and nutrition security, with special emphasis on food safety and nutrition (Priority 1)

• Fostering agricultural production and rural development, with special emphasis on sustainable crop intensification, diversification to improve productivity, and agriculture diversification with emphasis on livestock productivity, aquaculture, and sustainable forest management. (Priority 2)

Improving capacity to prepare and respond to food and agricultural threats and emergencies, with special emphasis on trans‐boundary animal/plant diseases and emergency response to natural disasters. (Priority 4)

33

Co

mp

etit

iven

ess

CPF Priorities

Agriculture

Perspective Plan

(1995/96 – 2014/15)

Three Year Plan

(2010/11 – 2012/13)

United Nations Development Assistance

Framework for Nepal

(2013 – 2017)

Millennium Development Goals ‐ Nepal (1990 –

2015)

Regional Priority Areas of Action (FAO)

2. P

rom

oti

ng

Inst

itu

tio

nal

an

d

Po

licy

Sup

po

rt E

nvi

ron

me

nt

• Encourage women in agri‐ business through appropriate research and technology policy

• Accelerate technological change for increasing agricultural production and income

• Develop cooperatives for agriculture development

• Develop human resources for sustainable agriculture development process

• Rural youth self‐ employment promotion

• Ministry of Agriculture Development has appropriate policies and increased capacity to manage and execute programmes promoting agribusiness, including non‐timber forest and bio‐secure products. (Re: Output 2.2)

• In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies (Re: MDG 8 Target 8f).

• Strengthening food and nutrition security, with special emphasis on food safety and nutrition. (Priority 1)

3. P

rom

oti

ng

Mar

ket

Ori

en

tati

on

an

d

• Transform the subsistence agriculture into commercial agriculture (with comparative advantage based diversification of crops)

• Foster agri‐business development with commitment to industrial development

• Make agriculture sector competitive and business‐ oriented with increased production and productivity

• Responsible institutions and the private sector have enhanced capacity to promote agriculture in compliance with international standards. (Re: Output 10.2)

• Develop open, rule‐ based, predictable, non‐discriminatory trading and financial system (Re: MDG 8 Target 8a

• Fostering agricultural production and rural development, with special emphasis on sustainable crop intensification, diversification to improve productivity, and agriculture diversification with emphasis on livestock productivity, aquaculture, and sustainable forest management. (Priority 2)

• Strengthening food and nutrition security, with special emphasis on food safety and nutrition. (Priority 1)

34

CPF Priorities

Agriculture

Perspective Plan

(1995/96 – 2014/15)

Three Year Plan

(2010/11 – 2012/13)

United Nations Development Assistance

Framework for Nepal

(2013 – 2017)

Millennium Development Goals ‐ Nepal (1990 –

2015)

Regional Priority Areas of Action (FAO)

4. S

ust

ain

ing

Nat

ura

l Re

sou

rce

Co

nse

rvat

ion

an

d

Uti

lizat

ion

Incl

ud

ing

Ad

apta

tio

n t

o C

limat

e

Ch

ange

• Promote efficient use of resources and pursue agricultural productivity through sustainable methods that prevent encroachment onto forest and marginal land

• Increase profitability of environmentally sound farming system through strong research and extension

• Environment conservation

• Minimize adverse effects of environment and climate change in agriculture

• Landless/land‐poor have increased access to productive land, assets and environmentally friendly technologies. (Re: Output 2.4)

• Vulnerable groups in at least nine districts have adopted climate change adaptation technologies in agriculture. ((Re: Output 7.3)

• Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources

(Re: MDG 7 Target 7a)

• Reduce biodiversity loss (achieve significant reduction in the rate of loss by 2010)

(Re: MDG 7 Target 7b)

• Enhancing equitable productive and sustainable natural resource management and utilization, with special emphasis on genetic resources (Priority 3)

• Fostering agricultural production and rural development (related to forestry) (Priority 2)

• Coping with the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food and nutritional security, with special emphasis on climate change adaptation and mitigation (Priority 5)

35

Annex 3: CPF Resource Requirements (2013‐2017)

CPF outcomes

Total

requirements,

US$ (in million)

Committed

(ongoing

projects),

US$ (in

million)

Gap

Responsible

Government

Institutions

Collaborating

partners

CPF Priority Area 1: Food & nutrition security and safety

Outcome 1.1: (PRODUCTIVITY) Crop, livestock and fishery production and

productivity increased through improved institutional arrangements and

producers’ capacity development.

15.7

2.63

13.67

MoAD, NPC

USAID,EC, UNDP,

ADB, IFAD,

Norway, Finland,

World Bank, WFP

Outcome 1.2: (ACCESS TO FOOD) Strengthened institutional and

governance capacity that ensures inclusive access to nutritious and safe

food of vulnerable communities

2.0

0.20

1.80

MoAD, NPC,

MoFA &LD,

MoHP, MoFSC,

MoCS

EC, WB, WFP,

USAID

Outcome 1.3. (DRM) Capacities for emergency preparedness, response

and recovery strengthened to minimize vulnerabilities with regard to

access to safe food, including emphasis on TBA/TBP

7.0

1.0

6.0

MoHA, MoFA

& LD, MoAD,

MoEST, MoCS

World Bank,

USAID, EU,

UNCERF, UNPDF

FAO Priority Area 2. Institutional and policy support environment

Outcome 2.1: (STRATEGIES & POLICIES) Increased effectiveness of

agriculture and food and nutrition security related policies, strategies,

plans and programmes through strengthened institutional and technical

capacity in their formulation, implementation and monitoring

1.0

0.143

0.857

NPC ,

MoFA&LD,

MoAD, MoI, MoCS, NHRC

ADB, WB,SDC,

WFP, UNICEF,

WHO, IFAD

Outcome 2.2: (STATISTICS) Strengthened government institutional

capacity to collect and disseminate statistics on agriculture production

and trade that includes gender and rural employment aspects

0.70

0.03

0.67

NPC ,

MoAD

ADB, WB, EU

CPF Priority Area 3: Market orientation and competitiveness

36

CPF outcomes

Total

requirements,

US$ (in million)

Committed

(ongoing

projects),

US$ (in

million)

Gap

Responsible

Government

Institutions

Collaborating

partners

Outcome 3.1: (MARKET ORIENTATION) Strengthened and reoriented

technical and institutional capacities at national and decentralized levels

to provide support to promote market oriented production and value

addition

3.0

0.0

3.0

MoAD, MoFSC,

MoCS

ADB, WB, SDC, EU,

IFAD

Outcome 3.2: (COMPETITIVENESS) Policies, regulations and legal issues

addressed to promote competitive agro‐enterprise development among

smallholder farmers and small and medium scale enterprises.

0.7

0.0

0.7

MoAD,

MoCS

ADB,WB

EC, IFAD

Outcome 3.3: (WTO/SPS COMPLIANCE) Producers and exporters of

selected farm products are enabled to access increased market

opportunities by complying with SPS related requirements in the value

chain of those products

2.0

1.17

0.83

MoAD,

MoCS, FNCCI

STDF,EIF, ADB, WB,

DANIDA

CPF Priority Area 4: Natural resource conservation and utilization including

adaptation to climate change

Outcome 4.1: (LAND) Land record and management practices improved

for sustainable production in a conflict‐free environment

1.0

0.0832

0.917

MoAD,

MoFSC,

MoLRM

UNJP, UNFPN,

DFID, EU

Outcome 4.2: (FORESTRY & WATERSHED) Management and use of

forestry resources and watershed eco‐system services improved for

income generation and food security through national and local level

capacity enhancement in strategic planning

10.0

3.10

6.9

MoAD,

MoFSC

Finland, ADB,

USAID, SDC, DFID,

WB, IFAD

Outcome 4.3: (CLIMATE CHANGE) Institutional and technical capacities

for adaptation to climate change in agriculture strengthened and

adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities enhanced

7.0

0.085

6.91

MoAD

MoFSC, MoEST,

MoF

UNDP, GEF, SDC,

Norway, WB, ADB,

Finland, DFID

Total 50.10 8.44 41.66

37

Annex 4: CPF Results Matrix

CPF Priority Area 1: Enhancing food & nutrition security and safety – Results Matrix

CPF Priority

Areas/Results

CPF indicators, baseline & target

Means of

verification

Risks and Assumptions

Responsible Government

Institutions/partner

CPF Priority Outcome 1: Enhanced national and local capacity to generate improved productivity and ensure food security

Outcome 1.1:

Crop, livestock and

fishery production and

productivity increased

through improved

institutional

arrangements and

producers’ capacity

development.

• Increased productivity of relevant agricultural

commodities in targeted areas (Contribution to

UNDAF indicator)

(Baseline: MoAD data)

• Number of socially excluded households

receiving production inputs and services

(Contribution to UNDAF indicator)

(Baseline: Project data)

FAO reports

• Resumption of

conflict;

• GoN and

implementing

agencies have proper

field access;

• GoN commitments

and support are

maintained.

MoAD, NPC

Outcome 1.2:

Strengthened

institutional and

governance capacity that

ensures inclusive access

to nutritious and safe

food of vulnerable

communities

• By 2015, GON has developed national strategies

and action plans for raising public awareness and

education on food safety and quality, including

nutritional benefits (Contribution to OR

Indicator D03P2/04)

(Baseline: Zero)

• By 2015, GON has developed and implemented

national nutrition education programmes

(Contribution to OR Indicator H03P2/03)

(Baseline: Zero)

• By 2016, GON assessed its food safety/quality

legislative framework, to identify legislative

• Food and

Nutrition

Security Plan

of the GON

• Agriculture

Development

Strategy

• FAO reports

• Resumption of

conflict;

• GoN and

implementing

agencies have proper

field access;

• GoN commitments

and support are

maintained.

MoAD, NPC, MoFA &LD,

MoHP, MoFSC, MoCS

38

CPF Priority

Areas/Results

CPF indicators, baseline & target

Means of

verification

Risks and Assumptions

Responsible Government

Institutions/partner

CPF Priority Outcome 1: Enhanced national and local capacity to generate improved productivity and ensure food security

drafting priorities and to develop/adopt required

legislation (Contribution to OR Indicator

D02P2/02)

(Baseline: To be established)

Outcome 1.3.

Capacities for emergency

preparedness, response

and recovery

strengthened to

minimize vulnerabilities

with regard to access to

safe food, including

emphasis on

Transboundry plant and

animal diseases and

pests (TBA/TBP)

• By 2014, contingency plans developed for

specific pest and disease threats (Contribution to

OR Indicator A02p2/03)

Baseline: Zero)

• By 2014, the country is implementing actions for

prevention and control of priority animal /

zoonotic diseases (Contribution to OR Indicator

B02P2/02)

(Baseline: Zero)

• By 2014, DRM strategy and programme launched

(Baseline: Zero)

• By 2015, Disaster Risk Reduction action plans for

agriculture included in the national DRM plans

(Contribution to OR Indicator I1.3)

(Baseline: Zero)

• Percentage of targeted beneficiary families

reporting increased ability to meet their

immediate food needs and improve their food

security situation. (Contribution to Project

outcome indicator) Projects’ data

DRR Flagship

programme

• Resumption of

conflict;

• GoN and

implementing

agencies have proper

field access;

• GoN commitments

and support are

maintained.

MoHA, MoFA & LD, MoAD,

MoEST, MoCS

Component I ‐ UNDAF Outcome 1: Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups get improved access to basic essential social services and programmes in an

equitable manner (UNICEF, UNESCO, WFP, WHO, UNFPA, UNODC, FAO, UN HABITAT, UNV)

39

CPF Priority

Areas/Results

CPF indicators, baseline & target

Means of

verification

Risks and Assumptions

Responsible Government

Institutions/partner

CPF Priority Outcome 1: Enhanced national and local capacity to generate improved productivity and ensure food security

FAO Regional Results: A01P (Capacity of member countries strengthened to enhance agricultural production and rural development by promoting sustainable crop

intensification and diversification in Asia and the Pacific),

A02P2 (Support for the development and implementation of Regional and International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPMs and ISPMs), as welll as IPM,

A04P (Countries supported to enhance integrated approach to conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, including seed systems)

B01P (Institutional and analytical capacity strengthened to maximize livestock sector contribution to food security, economic growth and poverty alleviation)

B02P (Sound animal health programmes, coordination mechanism and supporting regulatory framework developed and implemented resulting in the prevention,

control and eradication of priority TADs and EIDs at regional and national levels)

D02P2 (Institutional and legal frameworks strengthened for food safety and quality management to cover the food chain approach with strengthened regional

coordination & networking)

D03P2 ‐ Capacity (programmes & human resource) strengthened for the formulation and implementation of food safety and quality management & control

H03P2 ‐ Appropriate actions implemented in countries in Asia in order to address food security and nutrition concerns with strengthened regional coordination and

networking

I02P (Capacity to prevent, manage and respond to food and agricultural threats and emergencies of member countries strengthened and DRR/DRM strategies

integrated in national agriculture and food security policy and strategies)/I01 I01 (Countries' vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies is reduced through

better preparedness and integration of risk prevention and mitigation into policies, programmes and interventions)

40

CPF Priority Area 2: Institutional and policy support environment – Results Matrix

CPF Results

Indicators, baseline & target Means of

Verification

Risks and Assumptions Responsible Government

Institutions/partners

FAO Priority Outcome 2. Enhanced institutional capacities to support food security policies and programmes

FAO Outcome 2.1: Increased

effectiveness of agriculture and

food and nutrition security

related policies, strategies,

plans and programmes through

strengthened institutional and

technical capacity in their

formulation, implementation

and monitoring (H01, H02)

By 2013, GoN formulated agriculture, food

security and nutrition policy, strategy and plans

and respective M&E systems (Contribution to

OR Indicator H01P2 /01)

(Baseline: Zero)

By 2015, GoN has implemented agriculture,

food security and nutrition policy, strategy and

plans. (Contribution to OR Indicator H01P2 /02

(Baseline: GON data)

By 2017, Number of legislative or strategic

processes that include right to food

(Contributing to OR indicator H02 /02)

[Baseline: The interim constitution includes

right to food laws are yet to be approved.)

• GON, FAO

and UNCT

reports

• Food and

Nutrition

Security Plan

of the GON

• Agriculture

Development

Strategy

• No major changes in

institutional,

legislative and

decision‐making

arrangements which

disrupt the continuity

of capacity building

and sharing of

technical expertise;

• Continuity of country

support to right to

food;

• Continuity of

participative

constitution‐building

processes

NPC ,

MoFA&LD, MoAD, MoI, MoCS,

NHRC ,Civil Society

Organization (CSO)

FAO Outcome 2.2:

Strengthened government

institutional capacity to collect

and disseminate statistics on

agriculture production and

trade that includes gender and

rural employment aspects (FAO

RR: H04)

By 2013, Agricultural statistical database for

agricultural planning, including livestock data,

established and functioning

By 2013, Quality and content of periodic

agricultural surveys and censuses improved

By 2015, Statistics on priority areas available.

By 2015 Capacity of field office to collect and

process data improved

(Baseline: to be established)

By 2013, GON applies new (FAO)

GON and FAO

reports

• Resumption of

conflict;

• GoN and

implementing

agencies have proper

field access;

• GoN commitments

and support are

maintained.

NPC ,

MoAD

41

CPF Results

Indicators, baseline & target Means of

Verification

Risks and Assumptions Responsible Government

Institutions/partners

methodologies for collecting, analysing and

disseminating data and statistics on food and

agriculture (Contribution to OR Indicator H04P2

/02 )

(Baseline: Zero)

Component I ‐ UNDAF Outcome 2: Vulnerable groups have improved access to economic opportunities and adequate social protection (ILO, UN Women,

UNESCO, UNDP,ILO, FAO, UNDP, UNCDF, FAO, UNDP, WFP, IOM, UNICEF)

FAO Regional Results:

H01P2 ‐ Capacity of member countries to formulate, implement and monitor the policies, strategies and programmes that address the root causes of hunger, food

insecurity and malnutrition enhanced;

H02 ‐ Member countries and other stakeholders strengthen food security governance through the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the

Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security and a reformed Committee on World Food Security,

H04P2 ‐Countries in Asia and the Pacific have strengthened capacity to generate, process, analyze and access data and statistics for enhanced food and nutrition

security (Links to OR K2, regarding enhancing capacities to incorporate gender in programmes using sex‐disaggregated statistics)

42

CPF Priority Area 3: Market orientation and competitiveness – Results Matrix

CPF Results

Indicators, baseline & target

Means of

Verification

Risks and Assumptions

Responsible Government

Institutions/partners

CPF Outcome 3: The country has strengthened its institutional, policy and legal environment to enable producers and processors to compete in the national and

international market

Outcome 3.1: Strengthened and

reoriented technical and institutional

capacities at national and decentralized

levels to provide support to promote

market oriented production and value

addition (G01)

By 2015, No. of programmes

related to agribusiness capacity

building designed and

implemented by GoN

(Contribution to OR Indicator

G01P2 /02)

(Baseline: Project data)

FAO project

reports

Political and social

stability maintained

MoAD, MoFSC, MoCS

Outcome 3.2: Policies, regulations and

legal issues addressed to promote

competitive agro‐enterprise development

among smallholder farmers and small and

medium scale enterprises. (G01, G03)

By 2016, GoN initiated policy

reforms to help small producers

to increase value addition and

participate in changing markets

(Contribution to OR Indicator

G01P2 /01)

(Baseline: Project data)

By 2016, No. programmes/

projects where policies,

regulations, and laws relating to

agribusiness are

being enforced (Contribution to

OR Indicator G01P2 /01)

(Baseline: Project data)

FAO project

reports

GoN commitments and

support are maintained.

MoAD,

MoCS

Outcome 3.3: Producers and exporters of

selected farm products are enabled to

access increased market opportunities by

complying with SPS related requirements

in the value chain of those products (G04)

By 2016, No. of programmes/

projects where food safety/

quality issues, including SPS

related issues are addressed

(Contribution to OR Indicator

G04P2/03)

(Baseline: Project data)

FAO project

reports

Political and social

stability maintained

MoAD,

MoCS, FNCCI

43

Component III ‐ UNDAF Outcome 10: Nepal’s institutions are strengthened for more effective integration of policy and the economy into

intergovernmental economic and normative processes, and international policy and legal regimes. (UNCTAD, UNCITRAL, UNEP, UNIDO, FAO, ITC, UNDP,

IAEA, RCPD, WHO, UNDP, UNDP (Asia‐Pacific Regional Centre, APRC), Various UNCT agencies, coordinated by IOM (joint project) )

FAO Regional Results: G01, G03, G04

G01P2 ‐ Institutional and human resource capacity of organizations supporting small producers and processors in linking to markets strengthening

G03P2 ‐ Policy and strategy development and capacity building programmes to enhance agri‐business and agro‐industry development in member countries

G04P2 ‐ Awareness of and capacity for analysing developments in international agricultural markets, trade policies and trade rules to identify trade opportunities

and to formulate appropriate and effective pro‐poor trade policies and strategies are strengthened at a country and regional levels

D04P2 ‐ Countries establish effective programmes to raise awareness of food producers and processors on food safety and quality issues and build capacities to

implement good practice in the producer‐to‐consumer chain in order to meet requirements of local, national, regional and international markets)

44

CPF Priority Area 4: Natural resource conservation and utilization including adaptation to climate change effects – Results Matrix

CPF Results Indicators, baseline & target Means of

Verification Risks and Assumptions Responsible Government

Institutions, partners CPF Priority Outcome 4: Enhanced national capacity to promote sustainable management and development of natural resources, including land, forestry

management and watershed services, disaster risk management and climate charge mitigation adaptation to its impacts Outcome 4.1: Land record

and management practices

improved for sustainable

production in a conflict‐free

environment [F01P]

• By 2017, the Government has adopted the

national land policy and land use plans,

national strategy and national land use

legislation (Contribution to OR Indicator

F01P2/02)

(Baseline: Zero)

National Land

Policy, Land use

plans, strategy

and legislation

available

GoN commitments and

support are maintained. MoAD,

MoFSC,

MoLRM

Outcome 4.2: Management

and use of forestry

resources, watershed eco‐

system services and farm

level water management

improved for income

generation and food

security through national

and local level capacity

enhancement in strategic

planning

Watershed:

• By 2015, the institutional capacity assessed

and capacity enhancement programmes

implemented for sustainable watershed

management practices and strategies

(Contribution to OR Indicator E06P2 /01)

(Baseline: Zero)

• By 2016, Self‐sustaining funding mechanism

developed for adoption

(Baseline: Zero)

Forestry:

• By 2016, national forestry policy adopted

taking into account poverty consideration and

FAO best practices (Contribution to OR

Indicator E03P2 /02).

(Baseline: zero)

• By 2015, New training programme launched

enhance awareness and the processes involved

benefitting from Carbon Stocks (Contribution

to OR Indicator E04P2 /03) , (Baseline: Zero)

• By 2015 national entities enabled to use

Watershed:

• Review of

field

activities;

training

materials and

curricula;

interviews

with trainees

and

government

staff,

improved

economic

situation of

rural

communities

Forestry:

• National

policy

documents

Watershed:

Commitments from the

institutions

Risks (Forestry)

• Commitment

from high‐level

forestry officials

• State restructuring as

per the new

constitution into

federation not

creating confusion as

per the authority

between state and

central Govt

• Inadequacy of

financing to support

implementation of

strategic plans in

forestry

MoAD,

MoFSC, Nepal Water

Conservation Foundation,

International Centre for

Integrated Mountain

Development (ICIMOD), the

Mountain Institute (TMI)

45

CPF Results Indicators, baseline & target Means of

Verification Risks and Assumptions Responsible Government

Institutions, partners

scientific forestry management guidelines, and

tools for improved policies and field

implementation in conservation and utilization

of forest (Contribution to OR Indicator E06P2

/01),

(Baseline zero)

• Project

progress

reports

• By 2013, Forest Users Groups supported by

handing over 31,000 ha. of national forests to

groups below poverty line with appropriate

management plans and mechanism of

functioning. (Technical plans implemented in

>80% of forest users groups and >60% of

groups benefitted with increased production of

forest products).

(Baseline: 27000hectare 2011)

Project Reports • Increased synergy

within Development

Partners (GOs and

I/NGOs).

• Current policy issues

managed and

recommended

amendments in the

Forest Act

implemented.

Outcome 4.3: Institutional

and technical capacities for

adaptation to climate

change in agriculture

strengthened and adaptive

capacity of vulnerable

communities enhanced

• By 2015, Number of agriculture, forestry and

food security policies, programmes and action

plans adopted with climate change

considerations (Contribution to OR Indicator

E06.4)

• By 2013, 561 leasehold forest household, and

their group networks empowered on CC

adaptation through extension activities

Baseline: zero

• By 2016, households in selected areas benefit

from increased productivity and income

through the adoption of improved adaptation

innovations and practices and improvement of

early warning systems.

(Baseline: Zero)

Project Reports Consistent national and

international

commitments and

political commitment

MoAD

MoFSC, MoEST, MoF, MoHA

46

CPF Results Indicators, baseline & target Means of

Verification Risks and Assumptions Responsible Government

Institutions, partners

Component I ‐ UNDAF Outcome 2: Vulnerable groups have improved access to economic opportunities and adequate social protection (ILO, UN Women,

UNESCO, UNDP,ILO, FAO, UNDP, UNCDF, FAO, UNDP, WFP, IOM, UNICEF);

Component II ‐ UNDAF Outcome 7: People living in areas vulnerable to climate change and disasters benefit from improved risk management and are more resilient to hazard‐related shocks (UNDP, UN WOMEN, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, UN HABITAT, IOM, FAO, Various UNCT agencies coordinated by OCHA, OHCHR)

FAO Regional Results:

F01P2 ‐ Awareness and capacity of land degradation assessment and monitoring for sustainable land management and land use planning of member countries

strengthened

E03P2 ‐ Institutional and human resource capacity strengthened in Asia and the Pacific in the analysis, formulation and implementation of forest policies, laws and

governance at all levels through multi‐stakeholder and participatory approaches

E04P2 ‐ Capacities of Asia‐Pacific countries strengthened with respect to forest management, implementation of codes of practice for forest harvesting, fire

management and forest rehabilitation, combating threats from forest invasive species and agroforestry, especially in relation to contribution of such activities to

forest‐related climate change mitigation and adaptation

E06P2 ‐ Awareness of the environmental values of forests increased and capacities of member countries in Asia and the Pacific strengthened for addressing issues

related to forest invasive species, natural resources‐related disasters, conservation of biodiversity, forest genetic resources, forest rehabilitation, watershed

management and forest‐related climate change mitigation and adaptation

47

Annex 5: CPF Short‐Term Implementation Plan (2013‐2014)

Activities

2013‐2014

National Partners Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1. Preparation of work plan for FY2013 by CPF Steering Committee (CPFSC)

X CPFIC

2. Prioritization of programmes and projects for FY2013 by CPFSC X Govt agencies

3. Presentation of programmes and projects for FY2013 to CPFSC X CPFIC

4. Clearance of FY2013 programmes and projects by MoF X MoF

5. Submission of programmes and projects to FAO, Govt of Nepal, UN agencies and development partners for financing

X FAOR

6. FAO consideration of funding FY2013 programmes and projects X FAO

7. Request for GoN annual budget of FY2013 X Govt agencies

8. Clearance of work plan for FY2013 by MoF X MoF

9. Launch and implementation of FY2013 programmes and projects X X X X X X X X Govt agencies 10. Review by CPFSC of half‐year CPF progress

X CPFIC

11. Preparation of work plan for FY2014 by CPFSC X CPFIC

12. Prioritization of programmes and projects for FY2014 by CPFSC X Govt agencies

13. Presentation of programmes and projects for FY2014 to CPFSC X CPFIC

14. Clearance of programmes and projects for FY2014 by MoF X MoF

15. FAO consideration of funding FY2014 programmes and projects X FAO

16. Request for GoN annual budget for FY2014 X Govt agencies

17. Preparation of work plan for FY2015 by CPFSC X CPFIC

48

Annex 6: Ongoing and Pipeline Project of FAO Nepal

I. Ongoing Projects of FAO Nepal at national level and Regional level

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting

Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total

Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor

country /

Institutions

Remarks

A. UTF/GCP/MTF Projects A1. UTF/NEP/059/NEP

Support to National IPM

Programme in Nepal:

Consolidation, Up-scaling and

Institutionalization Phase II

2008- 2013 • Strengthening the organizational and managerial

capacity of IPM farmer groups/associations /field level

technicians

• Expansion of FFS to cover the entire crop cycle of one

year

• Addressing the food safety issues in the context of global

trade requirements( WTO-SPS agreement)

• Establishment of facilities for bio-agent rearing, bio-

pesticide testing, and monitoring of pesticide residue

• Introduction of IPM principles and approaches in

vocational schools and training centres

3,4 00,000 (FAO Component)

Government

of Norway

A2. GCP/NEP/062/FIN: Technical

Assistance for Lease-hold forest

and Livestock development

2009- 2014 • Develop guidelines on livelihood improvement

• Develop policy and legal framework for community

based leasehold forestry

• Capacity building

• Technical Assistance to Leasehold forestry program

(supported by IFAD)

3,546,500 Finland Extended

up to

March,

2014

A3. UNJP/NEP/071 Climate change

adaptation and disaster risk management

2012 • Strengthening technical and institutional capacity of concerned Government organizations mainly

Department of Agriculture,

• Enhancing basic support services on early warning, risk-

related and demand-led seed storage and disaster

database systems,

• Developing location specific technologies on CCA and

DRM in agriculture and carrying-out socio-economic

impact assessment, up scaling and institutionalizing

good practices.

38,449 UNJP

49

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor country /

Institutions

Remarks

A4. UTF/NEP/072/NEP: Technical

Assistance to the Review and

Scaling up of IFAD project

experiences in Nepal

2012-2014 • Assessment of the impacts of 18 years of IFAD

leasehold forestry experiences in Nepal

• Strengthened knowledge management and upscaling strategies for LFLP developed

• Establish a simple household income monitoring system

appropriate to key IFAD projects in nepalr

400,000 IFAD

A5. PGM/MUL/Nepal Ginger:

1. MTF /NEP/068/STF - STDF

Compo.

2. MTF /NEP/068/OPS - EIF

Compo.

Enhancing Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Capacity of Nepalese Ginger Exports through Public

Private Partnerships

2012-2014 • Design facilities, carry out preparatory assessments

(EIA, etc.), obtain permits and produce business plan

• Establish and operation of a ginger washing and

processing facility (with auction yard) at the Jhapa

corridor.

• Deliver hands-on training (including on financial and

business management, record-keeping, etc.) and set up

systems required for the effective operation and

management of the facilities.

• Develop trainers and conduct trainings for farmers and

other value chain actors on GAPs, post-harvest

management, grading and control of post-harvest rots,

etc..

• Establish ginger demonstration cum multiplication

plots at Jhapa hubs and use these plots for field training

courses in GAPs and post-harvest management

• Obtain improved (marketable) cultivars from other

parts of Nepal and further afield.

• Conduct market study and produce detailed analysis

report on existing and potential markets Traceability

and reducing frequency of pesticide residue testing.

• Bilateral meetings and contacts between the Nepalese

and Indian government counterparts to discuss sanitary and phytosanitary issues related to fresh ginger exports

from Nepal to India, and reach agreement on sanitary

and phytosanitary import requirements for ginger.

1,173,694 WTO

A6. EP/GLO/802/GEF: Conservation

and management of pollinators for

sustainable agriculture through

2009-2013 • Integrated and accessible knowledge base for

management of pollination services for farmers, land

managers and policy makers

193, 258 GEF Trust Fund

50

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor country /

Institutions

Remarks

ecosystem approach • Enhanced conservation and sustainable use of

pollinators for sustainable agriculture Increased

capacity for conservation and sustainable use of

pollinators by farmers and land managers

• Mainstreaming of pollinator conservation and

sustainable use at the national and international levels.

A7. UNJP/NEP/069/UNJ Gender Responsive Recovery Peace Project

2012-2013 To support the conflict-affected women recover from

psycho-social hardships and enhance their participation

in community-based economic recovery initiatives

265,000 (FAO component)

UNPF UN women,

FAO and

B. TCP Projects B1. TCP/NEP/3301 TCPF 2010-2012 • Policy and programme development support 175,000 FAO

B2. TCP/NEP/3302 Combating Citrus Decline Problem in Nepal

2010-2013 • Institutional and technical capacity building for

disease prevention and sustainable citrus production

• Upgrading of monitoring and information system for

better planning of citrus development and decline

management

303,000 FAO Extended

B3. TCP/NEP/3303 Improving Genetic Quality in carp Seed Production in

Nepal

2010- 2013 • Establishment of national regulatory system for

managing and monitoring fish seed production in

Nepal

• Establishment of well structured national fish seed

production system

• Improve genetic quality of existing broodstock of

major carp species

• Strengthened capable human resource base in public

and private sector

3,30,000 FAO Extended

B4. TCP/3401/NEP TCP Facility 2012-2013 • Preperation of Program Document for Integrated

natural Resource Conservation and management in

Churia Region - $ 50,622

• NAFSP proposal development- 46,501

97,123 FAO

B5. TCP/3402/NEP: Policy

assistance to bio-secure agro- 2012- 2014 • Strengthened capacity, and integrate the small farmers

into a bio-secure agro-food supply chain for

unhindered market access and enhanced livelihood

327,000 FAO

51

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor country /

Institutions

Remarks

food supply Chain for enhanced

market access and food security

for the small holding rural sector

generation.

• Capacity of the public and private sector on bio-

security enhanced.

• Capacity of National food control system of Nepal

strengthened.

B6. Sustainable Management and

Development of Non wood

Forest Products in Tarai and

Siwalik Regions of Nepal

2012-2014 • The project will contribute in poverty reduction and

sustainable livelihoods development through

improved cultivation, processing, and marketing of

NWFP in the Tarai and Siwalik region of Nepal

300,000 FAO

C. Emergency Projects C1. OSRO/RAS/605/USA

Immediate technical

assistance to strengthen

emergency preparedness for

highly pathogenic avian

influenza

2006 -2013 • Support planning and coordination for HPAI within the department of Livestock Services including development of legislation and standard operating procedures

• Support veterinary epidemiology centre in designing, & monitoring surveillance systems for HPAI Capacity building for district staff.

$1,494,000

(100,000

proposed for

2012-13)

USAID 7th

Phase –

2012-13 – under

discussion

with donor

C2.

OSRO/NEP/201/CHA:Urgent

food security Assistance to

severely food insecure rural-

household in karnali-Bheri-

Rapti regions of Nepal

2012

Resumption of disrupted agriculture farming by

providing seeds and technical support to the

highly affected household.

$ 796,886

CERF

D. Joint Programme D1. UNJP/NEP/069/UNJ Gender

Responsive Recovery Peace

Project

2012 -

2013 To support the conflict-affected women recover

from psycho-social hardships and enhance their

participation in community-based economic

recovery initiatives

$ 265,000 (FAO

component) UNPF

E. Regional Projects

52

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor country /

Institutions

Remarks

E1. (TCP/RAS/3312)

Land degradation assessment and

monitoring for sustainable land

management and climate change adaptation in South Asia

(Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri

Lanka)

2011–2013 standardised methodologies of land degradation and

climate change assessment to support the formulation of a

wide range of improved, integrated, synergistic, sustainable

and practical farm- and policy-level strategies in the agriculture sector of South Asia, that are inter-country

networked and self-supporting for sustainable land and

water management and reduced land and resource

degradation.

$ 50,000 FAO US$

4,88,000

E2. OSRO/RAS/102/EC Integrated Food Security Phase classification

(IPC) in Asia: Special focus to

strengthen IPC capacity in four

countries (Bangladesh, Myanmar,

Nepal and Pakistan)

2012- 2013 To introduce IPC for standardized classification of food

security for advocacy, planning, and response in food

security and nutrition interventions at national and regional

levels

$ 117,000

(Nepal component)

European Commission

Directorate-

General for

Humanitaria

n and Aid

and Civil

Protection

(ECHO)

Total US$ 1,679,584

F Global Project

F1. GCP/GLO/324/NOR Right to Food 2012-2013 To support the Government of Nepal to promote, protect

and monitor human rights in programmes, policies and

legislation on food security and right to food in Nepal

US $ 185,541

(Nepal Component) Government

of Norway

G. FAO Headquarter G1. Formulation of Food and Nutrition

Security plan 2012- 2013 To support the Government of Nepal to formulate a

National Food and Nutrition Security Plan that will guide

all the stakeholders to work towards achieving the goal of

food and nutrition security.

US$ 100,000

FAO

H. TELE FOOD H1. TFD-10/NEP/003: Improving

nutritional status of children by

demonstrating kitchen garden

model in school and its vicinity-

Jhirubas-4, Palpa

05/012- 05/013

• Capacity building of the local communities/group

through training and demonstrations

• Production input support to the group

9,930 FAO

53

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Starting Date /

Ending

Date

Major Activities Total Amount of

Assistance (US $)

Donor country /

Institutions

Remarks

H2. TFD-10/NEP 004: Improving

nutritional status of school children

and community people through

increased production and consumption of fruits and

vegetables, Ruppakot-VDC-9,

Tanahun

03/012-

03/013 • Capacity building of the local communities/group

through training and demonstrations

• Production input support to the group

9125 FAO

H3. TFD-10/NEP/005: Improving

national status of children by

demonstraining kitchen garden

model in school and its vicinity –

Devital VDC-2, Kavrepalanchowk

03/012-

03/013 • Capacity building of the local communities/group

through training and demonstrations

• Production input support to the group

10,000 FAO

H4. TFD-10/NEP/006: Improving nutritional status of school children and community people through

increased production and

consumption of fruits and

vegetables, Nirmal Pokhari VDC,

Ward No. 1- Kask

03/012- 03/013

• Capacity building of the local communities/group

through training and demonstrations

• Production input support to the group

9,125 FAO

H5. TFD-11/NEP/002: Improving nutritional status of children by demonstrating kitchen garden

model in schools and its vicinity,

Gorkha-1

05/012 - 05/013

• Capacity building of the local communities/group

through training and demonstrations

• Production input support to the group

9960 FAO

54

II. Pipeline projects

S.N Name of the Project / Programme Project

duration Status Estimated

Amount (US $) Donor

country /

Institutions

Remarks

A. Development Project (UTF/GCP/MTF/GEF)

A1. UTF/NEP/ : Technical Assistance

to Nepal Agriculture and Food

Security Project (NAFSP) under

GAFSP

2013-2017 Draft agreement for FAO technical

Assistance has been shared with GoN

NAFSP Project Director for comments and

suggestions.

The GoN and WB have formally completed

negotiation. The process of finalizing

agreement document along with project

description is going on in close consultation

with GON and Technical officer FAORAP.

8.4 million GAFSP/WB

A2. GEF/NEP/010/CDF: Reducing

Vulnerability and Increasing

Adaptive Capacity to Respond the

Impacts of Climate Change and

Variability for Sustainable

Livelihood in Agriculture Sector

2013-2017 Endorsement letter from the GEF focal

point sent to GEF SEC for Nepal on 4 May

2012 and the project is under approval

process

Barbara Cooney (TCID) formally

resubmitted the revised PIF for the full-size

project for approval on 28 December, 2012

3 million GEF/LDC

Fund

A3. Support to Ecology based Apple

Production System Improvement

in the Trans Himalayan

Region of Nepal

2013-

2015 Request from the Government of Nepal

(GON) received and forwarded to is FAO

HQ for funding provision.

600,000 Italy

B. TCP Projects

B1. Strengthening institutional

capacity to promote Agri-business

development

2013-2015 Request received from Government of

Nepal and further processing of detail

project is in progress.

305,000 FAO