Impact Study Report March 20121

Government of Nepal Ministry of Local Development

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)

Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP)

Prepared by

Dr. Binod Pokharel (Individual Consultant-Impact Study)

March 2012

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank LRUCs Local Road User Committees CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis MOLD Ministry of Local Government CBAS Capacity Building and Advisory

Services MTR Mid Term Review

CBMP Community Based Performance Monitoring

PAF Project Affected Family

CEA Cost-Effective Analysis PCT Project Coordination Team DDC District Development Committee PCU Project Coordination Unit DDF District Development Fund PPMO Public Procurement Monitoring

Office DFID Department of International

Development RAIDP Rural Access Improvement and

Decentralization Project DOLIDAR Department of Local

Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads

RED Road Economic Decision Model

DOR Department of Road RTI Rural Transport Infrastructure DPT District Participation Framework DRILP Decentralization Rural

Infrastructure Development and Livelihood Project

RTIA Right to Information Act

DTMP District Transport Master Plan SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

DTO District Technical Office SNV Netherlands Social Development and Cooperation

EOP End of Project SPAF Severely Project Affected Family ESMF Environment and Social

Management Framework SRN Strategic Road Network

GAAP Governance and Accountability Action Plan

SWAP Sector Wide Approach

GON Government of Nepal VCDP Vulnerable Communities Development Framework

GTZ Gernam Technical Cooperation VDC Village Development Committee HDM-4 Highway Development and

Management Plan VRCC Village Road Coordination

Committee IDA International Development

Association WFP World Food Program

ILO International Labor Organization ZOI Zone of Influence IME International Money Exchange IRAP Integrated Rural Accessibility

Planning

ISAP Institutional Strengthening Action Plan

JT Junior technician JTA Junior Technician Assistance LID Local Infrastructure Development

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM

Project Period

August 15, 2005 to June30, 2010

Executing Agency Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR), MLD

Implementing Agencies Local Bodies (District Development Committees)

Geographical Coverage

30 Districts (20 old & 10 new)

Development Partners World Bank Swiss Agency for Development and

Co-operation (SDC), Asian Development Bank International Labor Organization

(ILO) UK Department for International

Development (DFID), The German Technical

Financial Resources US$m 32.00 Program Components (a) Rural Transport Infrastructures (RTI)

improvement in participating districts and

(b) Capacity Building and Advisory Services (CBAS).

The RTI Component: (a) rehabilitation and upgrading of about

800 km of existing dry-season rural roads to all season standard;

(b) upgrading of about 200 km of existing rural trails and tracks

(c) maintenance of about 500 km of rural roads, covering routine and recurrent maintenance;

(d) construction of 350 short-span trail bridges; and

(e) development of small, community infrastructure, including rehabilitation (R&R) of people affected by the project; and implementation of a pilot rural transport services scheme

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank the Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP), Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR), Ministry of Local Development for assigning me to undertake this impact study of rural road projects. My special thanks go to Mr. Asok Kumar Jha, Co-coordinator, RAIDP for his kind cooperation for the completion of this impact study. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Shekhar Pokharel, Project Engineer of RAIDP and Dr. Shambhu Kattel, Social Development Expert of RAIDP for their helpful comments and feedback that allowed me to finalize the report. I would also like to express my gratitude to Silva Shrestha, World Bank, for her insightful comments and suggestions in different stages of impact study. I am also obliged to the participants of draft report dissemination workshop including Director General of DoLIDAR, Mr. Bhupendra Basnet for their valuable comments and feedback on draft report of the present study.

Special thanks are due to Mr. Deepak Gyawali, Mr. Krishna Gyawali, Mr Baikuntha Aryal, Rabindra Adhikari, Ms. Susma Kandu and Padam Adhikari from RAIDP for their prompt logistical support and cooperation during the impact study period. I would like to thank to Mr. Umesh Kumar Mandal, who was also research consultant of baseline survey of RAIDP roads, for his input in research tool preparation and friendship during my consultancy services.

I am also obliged to all local development officers, divisional engineers, SSDCs, SDCs, PDEs of the sample districts for their kind cooperation and generous support during the field work. My special thanks go to enumerators Mr. Ram Bharose Chaudhari (Kailali), Mr. Durga Nath Tripathi (Bardiya), Ms. Garima Adhikari (Banke), Mr. Nim Thapa (Salyan and Dhading), Mr. Dinesh Acharya (Kapilbastu), Mr. Amrit Bashyal (Palpa), Sirjana Aryal (Nawalparasi), Anita Tiwari (Rupandehi), Mr. Jitendra Chaudhari (Rautahat), Mr. Binod Kumar Mandal (Siraha), Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Jha (Dhanusa), Mr. Tek Nath Tiwari (Rasuwa and Nuwakot), Ms. Babita Chaudhari (Udayapur), Mr. Bal Krishna Paudel (Kaski), Dipesh Ghimire (Makawanpur), Prakash Ahdhikari (Syangja), Mr. Ram Babu Paswan (Mahottari) and Tej Narayan Chaudhari (Sarlahi) for conducting household survey, focus group discussion and traffic survey. I also thanks to statisticians Mr. Shekhar Devkota and Mr. Risi Rijal for coding, editing and data entry of household questionnaire and traffic survey data.

Finally, I indebted to the respondents of the surveyed districts for giving me accurate information and hospitality through out the duration of fieldwork

Dr. Binod Pokharel

Individual Consultant of Impact Study of RAIDP Roads

Executive Summary Impact Study of RAIDP Road Sub- Projects

Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) has been implementing with the financial assistance of the World Bank in 20 districts since 2005. Since 2010, program has extended into ten new districts. The executing agency is the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR) under the Ministry of Local Development (MLD) through RAIDP coordination office. The project aims to improve the existing rural roads, construct trail bridges and support for some Community Infrastructure Development to enhance the access of rural road improvement, the project also includes the construction of three dry season rural roads. The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural areas by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that can increase the quality of life of the poor. This impact evaluation is designed to estimate the counterfactual- namely, what would have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in two phases, the overall objective of the impact study is to assess:

the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of RAIDP on target populations, individuals, households, and

to determine the extent to which interventions under the RAIDP cause changes in the well being of targeted population by examining how they change over time in communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared with those that do not (comparison groups)

The project development objective (PDO) is to assist for residents of participating districts of the recipient to utilize improved rural transport infrastructure and services in order to have enhanced access to social services and economic opportunities. The PDO will be monitored with the following indicators:

a) 20 percent increase in motorize and non-motorized trips by beneficiaries by the end of the Project (EOP), and

b) 20 percent reduction in travel time by beneficiaries by EOP, c) 30 percent increase in annual average daily traffic (AADT) with the project

districts in the categories bus, truck, micro bus and jeep. Participating Districts There are altogether 34 rural roads in original 20 districts of the RAIDP. Of the total roads 12 are laid in Tarai districts and remaining are in Hill districts. Eight Tarai districts have two road projects. Broadly, project Districts can be grouped into four clusters. They are:

Cluster I: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan Cluster II: Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur Cluster IV: Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha and Udayapur

There are 226,309 households with 133, 2,602 populations, 248 VDCs with 1326 settlements under the zone of influence (project area) of rural road projects. Total length of the roads is more than 907 km under the RAIDP original districts. Of the total roads 21 (nearly 62%) roads lies in Tarai districts 13 roads (38%) in the hill districts. Of the total

2

length of the roads, 520 km (nearly 58%) lies in Tarai districts 397 km (nearly 42%) in the hill.

2. Impact Study Methodology

Impact evaluation has used both "with/without" and before and after - data. The impact was compared between the project and control areas over time in settlement level. This measure is a double difference, first measure change over time in the treatment group and in the control group (using baseline and end line data), and then comparing the relative difference in change. The sampling method was based on a quasi-randomized design. Altogether 300 households from project area and 100 HHs from control area were selected for the impact study. Multi- Stage Quasi- randomized design was adopted for the impact study

Structured questionnaire, FGD and traffic flow survey were major tools of data collection. The quantitative data collected through the survey questionnaires were computerized by statisticians using SPSS. Limitation of Impact Study There are several methodological flaws in baseline data (original survey) such as lack

of location of original respondents and places, lack of comparable data both treatment and control groups, lacking of defined PSU. Despite the limitation of the baseline data, this impact study has tried to use them for comparison as far as possible.

Due to limitations of baseline data this study has focused more on cross sectional data. In some cases, longitudinal data have been used collected from focus group discussion and DDCs and RAIDP office records.

RAIDP has been scaled up with the additional financing. Present impact study is only for the roads/ districts cover under the original financing.

3. General Information of Survey Roads

Demography Except Bardiya, Kapilvastu and Mahottari, in all sample districts, average

household size has decreased than baseline survey, 2006/07. The highest population in project area is hill high caste (29.81%) followed by hill

Janajati(25.32%), Tarai Dalit (17.47%), Tarai caste (12.93%), Musalman (7.48%), Tarai Janajati (4.17) and hill Dalit 2.83%) respectively. In control villages, the largest population was hill Janajati followed by Tarai Dalit, hill high caste, Tarai caste, Musalman, hill Dalit and Tarai Janajati respectively.

4. Major Findings Traffic Count and Transportation Indicators

Between 2006/07 and 2011 number of all types of vehicles has increased. Overall growth of motorized vehicles is 37 percent. Similarly, 33 percent increment is seen of non-motorized vehicles during the same period. Increase rate of vehicles is varied by districts. Among the vehicles, jeep/car/taxi is increased by 52 percent followed by truck (44%), motorcycle (42%), bus (35%) and tractor (20%) respectively.

3

Travel cost in all RAIDP remained relatively upward due to increased price of fuel internationally. Travel time has come down 20-50 percent in the period of five years. Average bus fare per kilometer was Rs. 3.6. Average length of sampled road is 9.3 km.

Traffic volume is seen higher in Janakpur and lowest in Rasuwa. Average traffic volume unit of RAIDP road is 180.

Travel Frequency to Market

Between 2006/2007 and 2011, the percent of going market on foot has come down into zero percent in project area. Number of motorcycle users for marketing has increased both project and control areas. Interestingly, jeep user has increased by six percent in project area and two percent in control area.

Traveling time for market centre, hospitals and higher education centre has

reduced by 46%, 50%, and 50% respectively in project area. Travel time has decreased by 81% in Rautahat and 79% in Salyan. There is no change on travel time in Kailali and Mahottari.

More than 71 percent vehicles owned by the respondents are non-motorized in type. Of the motorized vehicles, number of motorcycles is highest followed by truck, tractor, bus and minibus.

Distance and Travel Time to the Nearest Roads and Bus stops People in the participating hill districts that live within four hours of walking to all

season roads has increased by 100 percent in Tarai districts and 18 to 100 percent in the hill districts.

Average distance of road and bus stop from the sample households of project area was 4.14 km for the residents of project area. Similarly; trip per month to nearest road and nearest bus stop is 12.22 and 12.10 by project area sample households. Minimum and maximum trip to market have in the range of 2 to 28.46 in a month. 73 percent from project area and 10 percent from control villages' households are located 0 to 5 kilometer distance from nearest road.

Agriculture and Transportation Bus is common means of transportation for getting farm inputs in project area.

The transport cost for improved seed and fertilizer is 0.85 and 0.81 paisa per kg respectively. Meanwhile control villages have to pay Rs 1.36 per kg while transporting chemical fertilizer to their farm land.

Transportation facilities through RAIDP road have increased total trips to go market and transport cost of farm input has reduced by more than 37 percent.

Percentage of chemical fertilizer and average consumption of fertilizer and improved seeds is slightly higher in project area than control villages. Agricultural households use improved seeds for paddy, wheat and vegetables.

Trucks and tractors are very common means of transportation for agricultural inputs in project area and bullock cart was found popular among the control villages of Tarai.

The average cost was around 2 to 10 percent of the final sale price is consumed by transport cost.

Prices of all agricultural commodities are higher in farm gate of project area than control villages.

Almost 69 percent of 300 households kept some number of livestock and poultry in project area. Altogether 367 poultry farm in project area and three in control

4

villages. Almost poultry farms in project area were established after RAIDP road intervention

Of the total economically active population in project area and control villages 36.03

percent and 46.80 percent were in agriculture respectively. Remaining nearly 64 percent from project area and 53 from control villages were in non-agricultural works.

Agriculture Production

Average production of paddy, wheat and maize has increased 4 to 5 times more than baseline study (2006/07). Causes of production increased may be several such as timely monsoon, easy access to agricultural inputs and market access through RAIDP road connection.

Residents of project area have grown more crops for market than control villages. Market network and transportation facilities have encouraged the residents to grow more for market.

Nearly 44 percent of the sample households have irrigated land in project area. Irrigation data of pre-project are not available. Therefore, it is difficult to speculate how much irrigated land increased in post-project period.

Use of Farm Equipment

Tractor and thresher machine are one of major farm technologies in Tarai districts. Percentage of deep tube well, tractor and thresher were slightly higher in project area than control villages.

Transport and agriculture Extension 38 percent households were found taking the services of veterinary extension.

Nearly 15 percent households were visited veterinary extension service center at least one time in a year.

Major source of transportation for visiting the service centers is bus followed by bicycles in project area.

Between 2006/07 and 2011, privately owned extension service centers have increased in project area.

Non-Agricultural Activities Between 2006/2007 and 2011, number of households operating non-farm

enterprises has increased. Many shops and enterprises were recently established along the RAIDP roads.

3760 people in project area and 319 in control villages were working local level business centers. Non-farm activities include wage labor, foreign labor, government service, shop-keeping, school teacher, driving, etc.

Overall growth of social amenities has increased by more than 12 percent in project area. Road connectivity has made possible to establish many social institutions in the project area. Financial institutions have increased by 3.4 times in the study area.

5

Income, Expenditure, and Entrepreneurship

Expenditure Indicators

Average consumption in food in project and control area is Rs 51296 and Rs 45518 respectively. Clothing and schooling fee and fuel consumption is also seen higher in Project Area compared to control villages.

Expenditure on medical treatment, rituals and cigarettes, alcoholic beverage is higher in control villages.

Productive sector expenditure is higher in all items in project area (mean expenditure Rs. 106041 for project area and Rs 78730 for control villages).

Income composition

Average income from crop farming is slightly higher in control villages than

project area. In other sectors such as cash crop, livestock, small cottage industry, government

services, and remittances incomes in project area are relatively higher than control villages.

Income pattern in project area concentrates to non-agriculture activities than control villages.

Mean income of project area and control villages has increased by more than four times than baseline period (see Baseline Report, 2007 pp 35-37).

Employment

3760 people are employed in local level business centers. The total number of locally employed in control villages is 317.

Local level employment includes working in rice mills, saw mills, store house, construction work, brick factory, grocery shops, poultry farming, milk collection centers, etc.

There are 96 market centers along with the 20 sample roads of RAIDP. There are at least five shops in each market center. Agriculture goods, dry goods, textiles and garments, fruits and vegetable shops, are the major group of commodities in the markets.

Price of land

Residential land price is increased by 3.24 times in program area and 2.74 times in control villages. RAIDP intervention on rural road is the possible reason for increasing the land value in project area.

Land tenure by gender

26% of sample households in program area and 27 percent in control villages have land under the ownership of women. This may be the cause of government incentive policy for exemption of land registration fee for women owed land.

Access to credit by gender

Bank (32.22%), cooperatives (41.11%) and local money lenders (21.11%) are major institution lending money in RAIDP project area. Of the loan takers 60 percent were female in the project area.

6

Road transportation has made easier to collect remittance sent by family members from abroad. Most of the project area households reach to nearest market centers within one to one and half hours to collect remittance.

Education, Health, Food Security and Social Safe Guard Indicators Total literacy rate of the surveyed area was 82.03 percent. Literacy rate of project

area and control villages was 83.52 and 77.81 respectively. Primary school enrolment percent in program and control villages is 95.25

percent and 93.94 percent respectively. Male female student ratio is 107:100 and 113:100 in program and control villages. There is 10 to 20 percent drop out in lower secondary level. Similarly, absence from class and drop out ratio in primary level has decreased between 2006/2007 and 2011.

Drop out ratio at primary level is low in all RAIDP roads. Drop out ratio has gradually increased in lower secondary and secondary level. Higher drop out was reported among Tarai and hill Dalit and Muslim compared to other groups. Drop out due to poor accessibility has decreased in project area.

Nearly 85 percent students of program area have access to primary school within five km distance while 54.05 percent students of control villages have access to primary school within five km distance.

60 percent school going students have access to transportation in project area. Rate of absenteeism of teacher was low in surveyed roads. Absenteeism of

students and teachers due to bad road has decreased in the survey roads.

Health Indicators

Hundred percent immunization rates were reported in both control and project area. There is no report of death causality due to untimely getting treatment. In Tarai, there were cases of death of snake bites in the past. However, at present there is no report of death caused by snake bites. In the hill districts, road access has made possible to call on doctor in the village in the time of emergency.

Majority of the respondents use public bus and bicycle in project area. Unlike to

project area, nearly 50 percent populations from control area go health post on foot.

80 percent people have used bus service while going to hospital in project area.

Transport and food Security

Of the total households, nearly 20 percent from project area and 24 percent from control villages were food surplus households from their own agriculture production. More than 30 percent in project area and 27 percent households in control villages have ascertained that they meet their households' food requirement for 10-12 months from their own agricultural production. Altogether 13.5 percent households have food sufficiency below three months.

Food supply in the project area has increased due to road transportation. Food

stores have established along the RAIDP road in the Tarai.

After the improvement of the RAIDP roads some effects are seen in the livelihood. Respondents were asked to prioritize the impacts of road in terms of comparative advantages. Almost households gave top priority to easy access followed by increase in going hospital frequency. Similarly, respondents have given top second priority to decreased transportation cost followed by increasing income generation resource and increase in market going frequency.

7

RAIDP Road Condition and Quality

There were some complaints from the respondents RAIDP roads are too narrow that is not suitable for bus and trucks and they suggested to widening the road.

In the hill district community efforts were reported to open the road after the landslides.

In Tarai, couples of week roads are closed due to floods. Rules of operating less than ten tons truck in RAIDP roads in Tarai were not followed. Local demand of construction bridges across roads was repeatedly asked.

Poor quality of gravel and otta seal road was severely damaged in Kailali district just after the completion of road.

In Rajapur ring road, big boulders were placed for graveling than regular size that caused boulder flickers and hit pedestrian.

Landslides and floods, strikes, accidents and others are major reasons for closing down RAIDP road for couple of the days in a year. Of the total sample districts, 14 districts were experienced flood and landslides in RAIDP road.

Social Safe Guards

35 percent sample households were affected by RAIDP roads. They were affected due to land donation, damage of main structure and damage of minor structures and loss of other structure.

Nearly 85 percent were affected giving land to project. Of the total affected family 36.29 percent got assistance from the project.

Among the assistance receiver most of them use their money for household expenses and only three family were used their money for house repaired

Conclusion and Recommendation Given the fact that the upgrading of RAIDP roads has begun demonstrating its impacts through the reduction of travel time to reach the nearest town and social amenities. Similarly, travel behavior of the beneficiaries has changed due to easier access to work place and nearest town. People in the participating districts that live within four hours of walking to all season roads has increased by 100 percent in Tarai districts and 18 to 100 percent in the hill districts. This impact study is limited to Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) (roads only) improvement in participating districts. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct full fledged impact of RAIDP incorporating all components in future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviation and Acronyms...................................................................................................................... ISummary of the Program ......................................................................................................................... IITable of Contents ....................................................................................................................................IIIList of Tables........................................................................................................................................... IV

CHAPTER I............................................................................................................................ 1 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER II........................................................................................................................... 5 2. IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 5 2.1 THE PROJECT AND CONTROL AREA ............................................................................. 5 2.1.1 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 CONTROL AREA ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 EVALUATION DESIGN .................................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 QUALITATIVE SURVEY ................................................................................................ 6 2.3 THE SAMPLE DESIGN ................................................................................................... 6 2.4 DATA SOURCES............................................................................................................ 6 2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 LIMITATION OF IMPACT STUDY................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER III.......................................................................................................................... 9 3. GENERAL INFORMATION OF SURVEY ROADS.............................................................. 9 3.1 DEMOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 9 3.2 CASTE AND ETHNICITY.............................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................................... 12 4. MAJOR FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 12 4. 1 TRAFFIC COUNT AND TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS ............................................. 12 4.1.1 MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN RAIDP ROADS .............................. 12 4.2 LOCAL FARE BY VEHICLES ........................................................................................ 14 4.3 ROAD WISE TRAVEL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER PROJECT.......................................... 15 4.3 OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES.......................................................................................... 16 4.4 DISTANCE AND TRAVEL TIME TO THE NEAREST ALL SEASON ROADS...................... 18 CHAPTER V......................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION..................................................................... 20 5.1.2 TRANSPORTATION FOR FARM INPUTS ....................................................................... 20 5.2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS ............................................................. 21 5.3 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 21 5.4 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ............................... 23 5.5 PRICES OF MAJOR CROPS IN FARM GATE................................................................... 25 5.6 TRANSPORT AND AGRICULTURE EXTENSION............................................................ 26 5. 7 NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.............................................................................. 27 CHAPTER VI ....................................................................................................................... 29 6. INCOME, EXPENDITURE, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP .................................................. 29 6.1 EXPENDITURE INDICATORS ....................................................................................... 29 6.2 INCOME COMPOSITION .............................................................................................. 29 6.3 EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN PROJECT AREA AND CONTROL AREA.......................... 30 6.3.1 PRICE OF LAND .......................................................................................................... 31 6.3.2 LAND TENURE BY GENDER........................................................................................ 32 6.3.3 ACCESS TO CREDIT BY GENDER ................................................................................ 32

CHAPTER VII ...................................................................................................................... 34 7. EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIAL SAFE GUARD .......................... 34 7.1 EDUCATION INDICATORS........................................................................................... 34 7.2 NUMBER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE VILLAGE....................................................... 34 7.2.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL .................................. 34 7.3 HEALTH INDICATORS................................................................................................. 36 7.3.1 DISTANCE AND FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO HEALTH CENTER...................................... 36 7. 4 TRANSPORT AND FOOD SECURITY ............................................................................ 37 7.7 SOCIAL SAFE GUARDS ............................................................................................... 39 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION................................................................... 39 8.1 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 39

References Annexes Terms of References

(1)

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale and Objective

In recent years, rural roads and other infrastructure are being promoted by the government and several donor agencies as rural development and economic growth in Nepal. Very few studies however, have thoroughly examined the causal link between rural roads and final welfare outcomes such as income, consumption, health and education. Little is known for instance, about the extent and distribution of impacts of rural road investment. It is argued that rural roads are key to raising living standards in poor rural areas. By reducing transport cost, roads are expected to generate market activity, affect input and output prices, and foster economic linkages that enhance agricultural production, alter land use, crop intensity and other production decisions, stimulate off-farm diversification and other income generating opportunities, and encourage migration (Van de Walle 2008 p. 1). One study (Jacoby, 2000 cited in Blöndal, 2007 p. 12) looks at the distributional effects of rural roads in Nepal. Using the data from the Nepal Living Standard Survey covering 4,600 households, the study finds that road access to markets bring substantial social welfare benefits including cheaper transport to and from agricultural markets, better access to schools and health facilities and greater variety of consumer goods. The empirical evidence at the macroeconomic level of the positive correlation between road improvements and GDP per capita growth is extensive. Yet, the distributional impact of road projects, especially the impact on the poor, is less known. Previous efforts at assessing the impact of rural roads have typically been limited because of lack of available baseline data and control or comparison groups, making it difficult to disentangle the effects from the road improvements from those of other interventions and overall development of the economy. This impact evaluation is designed to estimate the counterfactual- namely, what would have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in two phases, the overall objective of the proposed study is to assess:

the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of RAIDP on target populations, individuals, households, and

to determine the extent to which interventions under the RAIDP cause changes in the well being of targeted population by examining how they change over time in communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared with those that do not (comparison groups) (See TOR )

Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) has been implementing with the financial assistance of the World Bank in 20 districts since 2005. Since 2010, program has extended into ten new districts. The executing agency is the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR) under the Ministry of Local Development (MLD) through RAIDP coordination office. The project aims to improve the existing rural roads, construct trail bridges and support for some Community infrastructure development to enhance the access of rural road improvement, the project also includes the construction of three dry season rural roads. The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural areas by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that can increase the quality of life of the poor. It is believed that eliminating the isolation of populated areas with previously limited accessibility can provide the population greater

(2)

and stable access to critical goods as well as essential social services, such as medical facilities, schools, visit by concerned officer, and health care. It also creates the opportunity for development of these services in their localities. Improved access to jobs provides opportunities for the poor to participate in the economy and thus they reap more benefits of growth. Transport access, by increasing the ability of the poor to agriculture inputs and resources such as capital and formal or informal trading links, reduced prices of goods and agriculture inputs, all of which can spur rural development efforts. Rural road improvements are also undertaken to promote agricultural development by increasing the production and marketing of agricultural products as well as shift in agriculture pattern to cash crops, particularly where lack of access had chocked agricultural output or marketing facility. By alleviating constraints in the movement of agricultural products, farmers revenues can increase and agricultural and non-farm rural employment can also increase, contributing to a decline in poverty.

This report covers only the roads covered under the 20 districts financed under the original financing for RAIDP and roads completed up to June 2010. It is primarily based on follow up survey of the original/ baseline survey of the selected areas conducted in 2006/2007. This impact survey has included 20 rural roads of the 20 RAIDP districts by comparing the relative change over time and space between the program (project area) and control villages measuring a double difference, first by measuring change overtime in the program villages and in the control villages (using baseline and end line data), and then comparing the relative difference/change before and after project in program area.

1.2 Description of the Project

The project development objective (PDO) is to assist for residents of participating districts of the recipient to utilize improved rural transport infrastructure and services in order to have enhanced access to social services and economic opportunities. The PDO will be monitored with the following indicators:

a) 20 percent increase in motorize and non-motorized trips by beneficiaries by the end of the Project (EOP), and

b) 20 percent reduction in travel time by beneficiaries by EOP, c) 30 percent increase in annual average daily traffic (AADT) with the project

districts in the categories bus, truck, micro bus and jeep. Project Components:

The project components are: (a) Rural Transport Infrastructures (RTI) improvement in participating districts and (b) Capacity Building and Advisory Services (CBAS) (c) Trail bridge component. The RTI Component comprises (a) rehabilitation and upgrading of about 800 km of existing dry-season rural roads to all-season standard; (b) upgrading of about 200 km of existing rural trails and tracks to dry season standard in remote hill districts; (c) maintenance of about 3500 km of rural roads, covering routine and recurrent maintenance; (d) construction of 350 short-span trail bridges; and (e) development of small, community infrastructure, including rehabilitation (R&R) of people affected by the project; and implementation of a pilot rural transport services scheme. The CBAS component comprises: (a) implementation of training related activities, including preparation of training course materials, training of trainers and provision of extensive training and certification on major aspects of rural infrastructure development and management. Provision of technical assistance and advisory services: (i) to participating DDCs to support the implementation of their programs, subprojects, and associated local

(3)

initiatives, including financial management and accounting, project development and implementation, design and supervision of works, environmental management, social mobilization and community participation and monitoring; and (ii) to DoLIDAR for the implementation of its Institutional Strengthening Action Plan (ISAP), capacity-building priorities and long term functional and organizational change goals set by GON for the rural transport sector, and for project coordination and implementation activities; (c) (i) preparation of a GIS-based transport master plan, development of a spatial profile of population/settlements that are or are not connected to an all season road and undertaking of a hazard assessment and needs assessment to determine the investment requirements for connecting settlements; (ii) preparation and updating of District Transport Master Plans (DTMP); and (iii) identification and preparation of a follow-up operation in the rural transport needs and travel patterns of the rural transport infrastructure sector; (d) undertaking of a study to assess the mobility and transport service providers and to formulate a pilot scheme and a rural transport policy of the recipient; (e)Undertaking of a study to assess the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural access transport interventions and to determine the extent to which interventions under the project cause changes in the well being of target population; (f) provision of project implementation support, including logistics and operations cost, to the DoLIDAR and the DDCs.

Output Indicators:

The project has following output indicators: (a) 15% increase in the number of people in participating hill districts that live within four hours of walking to an all-season road, (b) 10% increase in the number of people in participating Tarai districts that live within two hours of walking to an all-season road; (c) DoLIDAR and participating DDCs receive favorable evaluation from independent reviews on their performance to execute the project and manage the sector in a decentralized governance structure; (d) 30 districts have updated DTMPs and use it for investment and maintenance prioritization and budgeting; (e) GIS-based plan and sector outcome is developed and guides donor support in the sector; (f) conducive regularity and institutional framework for rural transport service provision is adopted in districts. Participating Districts:

There are altogether 34 rural roads in original 20 districts of the RAIDP. Of the total roads 12 are laid in Tarai districts and remaining are in Hill districts. Eight Tarai districts have two road projects. Broadly, project Districts can be grouped into four clusters. They are:

Cluster I: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan Cluster II: Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur Cluster IV: Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha and Udayapur

According to social screening reports of RAIDP project districts; there are 226,309 households with 133, 2,602 populations, 248 VDCs with 1326 settlements under the zone of influence (project area) of rural road projects. Total length of the roads is more than 907 km under the project area. Of the total roads 21 (nearly 62%) roads lies in Tarai districts 13 roads (38%) in the hill districts. Total length of the roads in the original RAIDP districts is approximately 916 km. Of the total length of the roads, 520 km (nearly 58%) lies in Tarai and 397 km (nearly 42%) in the hill districts. Of the total beneficiaries more than 71 percent are from Tarai and 29 percent from the hills. Table 1.1 presents distribution of RAIDP roads by regions.

(4)

Table 1.1 Distribution of RAIDP road by regions

S.N. Districts Cluster Total Roads Total

Beneficiaries Tarai Region 1 Kailali 1 1 19370 2 Bardiya 1 1 82440 3 Banke 1 1 24660 4 Kapilbastu 2 2 76161 5 Rupandehi 2 2 12482 6 Nawalparasi 2 2 34658 7 Rautahat 4 2 145088 8 Sarlahi 4 2 139722 9 Mahottari 4 2 141979 10 Dhanusa 4 2 47136 11 Siraha 4 2 81750 12 Udayapur 4 2 141630 Total 21 947076 Hill Region 1. Salyan 1 1 13169 2 Palpa 2 2 94288 3 Syanja 3 2 35968 4 Kaski 3 2 36226 5 Rasuwa 3 1 5533 6 Dhading 3 2 115292 7 Nuwakot 3 1 15644 8 Makawanpur 3 2 69406 Total 13 385526 Source: Social Screening Reports, RAIDP, 2011.

(5)

CHAPTER II 2. IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.1 The Project and Control Area

2.1.1 Project area

Generally, project area is defined as the village that the road passes through. An alternative that is sometimes followed is to set maximum distance on either side of the road link- and confine the search for impacts to this area (Van de Walle 2008). For this study, the project area is that area where rural access program is operated/implemented to encourage the location, linkage, population activity and market (for definition see table-2.1). Internationally, zone of influence is defined in terms of walking distance from the road. Project areas are classified into four groups based on its influence. Definition of zone of influence is presented below.

Table- 2.1 Definition of Zone of Influence Hill Tarai

Z0= is the zone lying at walking distance of 0-30 minutes from the road


Z1= is the zone lying at walking distance of 30mins-1hr from the road


Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of 1hr-2 hrs from the road

Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of 30minutes-1hrs from the road

Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 2 hrs-4 hrs from the road

Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 1 hrs-2 hrs from the road

Source: ESMF, RAIDP, 2005

2.1.2 Control Area

The control area is defined as the far long area from the project area. There is no intervention from RAIDP. The logic behind control area comparison with project area is that the linkage effect of access may influence the social and economic activities in control sub-region due to the multiplier effects of the project area economy.

2.2 Evaluation Design

Impact evaluation has used both "with/without" and before and after - data. The impact was compared between the project and control areas over time in settlement level. This measure is a double difference, first measure change over time in the treatment group and in the control group (using baseline and end line data), and then comparing the relative difference in change.

1. Single difference comparisons: Single difference comparisons can be either reflexive (before and after) comparisons that track gains solely in project areas, or with and without comparisons that take single differences in mean outcomes between participants and non-participants using cross sectional data. Baseline data and cross sectional data were the source of comparison.

2. Double difference: Double difference (DD) (difference in difference) a first difference is taken between outcomes in the project areas after the program and before it. Indicators This study has concentrated on the analysis of 60 indicators suggested in TOR. These indicators are categorized into five major groups of indicators such as transport

(6)

indicators; non-agriculture activities indicator, income and expenditure indicators, and entrepreneurship indicator; education indicators and health indicators. (See attached TOR).

2.2.2 Qualitative Survey

Qualitative survey includes focus group discussion (FGD) that was conducted in each sampled villages to gain additional insights and to verify/augment quantitative survey groups. This technique provided habitation level information including the information of road placement. Both cross sectional and longitudinal data of socio-economic condition volume of traffic in a normal day, people's view towards RAIDP roads were also asked to people to substitute the limitation of baseline data.

2.3 The Sample Design

The sample was designed to facilitate comparative study between project areas (treatment) and control villages. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of RAIDP road projects in the household and community level. Theoretically, comparison of with or without project in similar social condition is significant. Variations in social settings do not provide sufficient ground for comparability. Therefore, this survey has utilized the method of segregating the total respondents into two groups: people of the project area and people of the control area (See Annex-1).

Sample size

The sampling method was based on a quasi-randomized design. Multi-staged sampling was employed within the sampled districts and there were two sets of primary sample units (PSUs): treatment PSUs and control PSUs. This impact study was conducted in the same settlement of baseline survey. Original households were not found out, and then alternative households from the same settlement were selected representing all caste/ethnic groups and economic classes.

Multi- Stage Quasi- randomized design

Stage 1: Selecting one road from each district containing 20 roads from 34 roads in 20 RAIDP districts

Stage 2: Total 40 PSUs, 2 PSUs from each road for project and control areas separately.

Stage 3: 20 sampled households, 15 for project and 5 for control area

2.4 Data Sources

Various pre-existing data sources such as baseline study reports, remedial action plan, previous social screening reports, local and district level archrivals were used for impact study. The following survey tools were employed to gather the primary data:

1. Structured Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire was administered, which includes the following issues: i) socio-demographic including health and education status of the surveyed households; ii) transportation indicators iii) non-agricultural activities iv) income, expenditure, and entrepreneurship indicator v). Survey questionnaire of baseline survey could not used as it is. Baseline questionnaire seems like dummy table or they were not in the form of questions. Therefore, the earlier questionnaire was modified without losing the content of baseline questionnaire.

(7)

2. FGD with the community people

Focus group discussions were organized in each survey zone. Local road executive members, personnel from local transportation, shop keepers, staff of health institution, school teacher and other from different sector were the participants of the focus group discussion.

3. Accessibility and Traffic Flow Survey

Consultant conducted traffic counts along the sample road. These traffic counts provided a measure of the volume and composition of traffic passing on the roads. Traffic counts entail directional count of passenger vehicles (car, buses, micro bus, etc) and freight vehicle (truck) including non-motorized vehicles. Traffic count was held for twelve hours. Supplementary information was also gathered from local syndicates and FGD.

2.5 Data Management

Once the completed questionnaires were brought back to the office of RAIDP, well-trained statistician edited all filled-in questionnaires, and assigned coding categories as required before the data were computerized. Then, the quantitative data collected through the survey questionnaires were computerized by statistician using SPSS. Barring an exception to a few, the general quality of the survey responses was found to be good. Data cleaning was done by meticulously looking at inconsistencies in the responses. Simple statistical tools such as frequency distributions mean and percentages have been used to organize or summarize the quantitative data. Qualitative data were analyzed by the consultant himself. He did it using thematic classification system. Research Process

This study has properly investigated the transport indicators and identified the possible impacts, in the field of non-agriculture activities, income, expenditure and entrepreneurship indicator, education indicators, health indicators (See TOR).

Relevant project documents were reviewed in the earlier stage of the research. Two meetings were carried out with RAIDP personnel and World Bank representative in research designing phase. First meeting was held in July 29, 2011 and next one was carried out in August 19, 2011. Former meeting decided sample size and PSU and were discussed the shortcoming of baseline survey conducted in 2006/07. Second meeting had exclusively discussed on research tools prepared by consultant. Research tools prepared for impact study were presented and discussed during the meeting and participants commented and gave feedback on it. Research tools were revised according to feedback made by participants. After the designing the full-fledged research tools and evaluation methodology a pilot survey was conducted in Nuwakot district (Trisuli- Deurali-Meghang Road) taking a small sample size where research tools (Household questionnaire, checklist of focus group discussion, traffic survey checklist) were tested. On the basis of pilot survey research tools were modified and a brief report was prepared and submitted to RAIDP. Four orientation programs for enumerators and SDCs/SSDCs were organized in RAIDP clusters in different dates of October and November, 2011 (See Annex-2). All enumerators were hired from respective district. After the completion of orientations for enumerators, they were deputed to respective district for data collection. Fieldwork for impact evaluation was held from 17 October, 2011 to 30 November 2011. The study result sharing workshop was held in March 1, 2012 after the submission of final draft report. Participants of the workshop were from Ministry of Local development, DoLIDAR, RAIDP, District Development Officers and Divisional Engineers from the

(8)

selected district. Comments and suggestions come from the workshop were also incorporated in the final report.

2.2.1 Limitation of Impact Study

There are several methodological flaws in baseline data (original survey) such as lack of location of original respondents and places, lack of comparable data both treatment and control groups, lacking of defined PSU. Despite the limitation of the baseline data, this impact study has tried to use them for comparison as far as possible.

The original baseline study was based on the highly influential area of the roads without considering the zone of influences; therefore, this impact study has followed the same place where baseline was conducted.

Control villages were also selected without considering level of accessibility to main road network, basic economic and social facilities. Some of the control villages of baseline survey were located closed to main high way. This hindered to compare control and program area socio-economic conditions. In such cases, alternative control villages were selected in few places.

Due to limitations of baseline data this study has focused on cross sectional data. In some cases, longitudinal data have been used collected from focus group discussion and DDCs and RAIDP office records.

Some modification and readjustment are made on baseline questionnaire in order to incorporate output indicators of RAIDP roads.

RAIDP has been scaled up with the additional financing. Present impact study is only for the roads/ districts cover under the original financing. It has not covered other components of RAIDP except rural roads

In Mahottari, improvement of RAIDP roads did not happen due to local level disputes and security reason. However, a road from Mahottari was selected for this study to represent all RAIDP district under the impact study.

(9)

CHAPTER III 3. GENERAL INFORMATION OF SURVEY ROADS

3.1 Demography

This impact study survey was conducted in 20 roads from 20 RAIDP original districts. Of the 2523 sample population, men constitute more than 4.74% (52.37) followed by women (47.63%) (See table 3.1). Male population is seen higher both program and control area. Average household size in project area and control villages was 6.24 and 6.6 respectively which is higher than national level household size (5.2). Between 2006/07 and 2011, average family size of project area has slightly decreased (See table 3.1). Except Bardiya, Kapilvastu and Mahottari, in all sample districts, average household size has decreased than baseline survey, 2006/07.

Table 3.1 Average household size of the project area S. N. District Roads Before After 1 Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 9.15 8.462 Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 5.55 5.933 Banke Titeriya-Sonpur 10.7 6.064 Salyan Khalanga-Hospital-Simkharka 7.2 5.735 Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok 7.6 8.266 Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 6.45 67 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 10.25 5.48 Palpa Bastari-Jhadewa 6.8 4.939 Syangja Biruwa-Rangkhola 7.25 5.810 Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 7.05 5.3311 Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 10.6 5.5312 Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 7 5.1313 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang 11.6 6.9314 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 7.47 6.0615 Rautahat Auraiya- Himalibas 8.6 516 Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiwol 10.45 6.5317 Mahottari Matihani_pipra 7.25 7.6618 Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 5.75 6.8619 Siraha Mirchaya-Siraha 7.85 7.1320 Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 6.85 6Total 7.2 6.24Source: Baseline Survey, 2007 and Field Survey, 2011 Table 3.1 shows that average household size in Bardiya, Makawanpur, Banke, Sarlahi and Nawalparasi has significantly decreased during the period of 2006/07 and 2011. In Kailali and Kapilbastu average family size is seen higher than other districts due to joint family system among the Rana Tharu and Muslim respectively. Declining household size may be due to urbanization process accelerated by the RAIDP interventions and other factors. Sex composition of a population has multiple socio-economic implications for the development of a region. The table 3.2 presents sex composition of sample households.

(10)

Table 3.2 Sex composition by project area and control villages

Zone of influence Sex

Project area Control area Total population

Population 984 342 1326Male

% 52.56 51.82 52.37Population 888 318 1206Female

% 47.44 48.18 47.63Population 1872 660 2532Total

% 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011. Population of the sample households has been classified into four broader age groups namely non-school going age, school going age, economically active population and old age population. Among the broader age groups, one sees that 65.92 percent of population is in 15-59 age groups. The population distribution by age is presented in table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Age composition by project areas and control villages Zone of influence

Age interval Program area

Control area

Total popn.

Population 104 31 135Below 5 years

% 5.56 4.70 5.33Population 400 132 5325 - 14

% 21.37 20.00 21.01Population 1222 447 166915 - 59

% 65.28 67.73 65.92Population 146 50 19660 and above

% 7.80 7.58 7.74Population 1872 660 2532Total

% 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011

3.2 Caste and Ethnicity

This study has made attempt to include the respondents from different caste and ethnic groups with a view to represent them in sample. However, the proportion of the sample does not actually represent the proportion at national level because of the predominance of particular caste and ethnic groups at the local level sample sites of the study. The population of the sample area has classified into seven broader categories based on caste and ethnicity. Table 3.4 shows that the highest population in project area villages is hill high caste followed by hill Janajati, Tarai Dalit, Tarai caste, Musalman, Tarai Janajati and hill Dalit respectively. In control villages, the largest population was hill Janajati followed by Tarai Dalit, hill high caste, Tarai caste, Musalman, hill Dalit and Tarai Janajati respectively.

(11)

Table 3.4: Population distribution by caste/ethnicity in sample area Caste/Ethnic Groups Project area Control Area Total

No % No % No %

High hill caste 558 29.81 119 18.03 677 26.74

Hill Janajati 474 25.32 218 33.03 692 27.33

Tarai Dalit 327 17.47 133 20.15 460 18.17

Tarai caste 242 12.93 80 12.12 322 12.72

Musalman 140 7.48 54 8.18 194 7.66

Tarai Janajati 78 4.17 21 3.18 99 3.91

Hill Dalits 53 2.83 35 5.30 88 3.48

Total 1872 100.00 660 100.00 2532 100.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011

In hill districts, hill high caste is major groups of beneficiary (54%) followed by hill Janajati (40%) and hill dalit (6%) respectively. However, of the total sample household population Tarai dalit is seen largest population (30%) in Tarai followed by Tarai caste group (22%), hill Janajati (15%), hill high caste (13%), Musalman (13%), Tarai Janajati (7%) and hill dalit less than one percent respectively. This indicates that all social groups of the sample households of project area have transportation access to go to nearest markets and other social institutions. Access of sample households to roads by caste and ethnicity in terms of region has been presented in 5.5 (See Annex 3).

Table 5.5 Population distributions of sample households by caste and ethnicity in project area

Program area -Tarai Districts Program area- Hill Districts

Groups Population % Population % Hill high Caste 141 12.82 417 54Hill Dalits 7 0.63 46 6Hill Janajati 165 15 309 40Terai caste 242 22 0 0Terai Dalit 327 29.73 0 0Terai Janajati 78 7.1 0 0Musalman 140 12.72 0 0 Total 1100 100 772 100

Source: Field Survey, 2011

(12)

CHAPTER IV 4. MAJOR FINDINGS

4. 1 Traffic Count and Transportation Indicators

Number and Type of Vehicles

The traffic counts have provided the study team with a measure of the volume and composition of traffic passing on the RAIDP roads, and provided important background information for understanding the impacts in terms of cost savings from decreasing travel times and travel costs. Traffic counts were undertaken along RAIDP road one day period, 12 hours counts from six in the morning until six in the evening. Counts were taken at the starting point of the road. It was reported in the focus group discussion no vehicles were operating on the project at night in the hill districts except in emergency. Number of two wheelers and bicycles has increased in all RAIDP roads. Next to motorcycle the use of non-motorized bicycle in the Tarai is popular. Average number of vehicles run over the RAIDP roads is 159 per day. Table 4.1 provides a summary view of daily traffic volumes at survey points.

Table 4.1 Number of vehicles by types

Types of Vehicles Total vehicles per

day Number of sample roads Average

Jeep/Sumo 43 10 4.3 Motorbicycles 890 19 46.8 Bus/minibus/micro 109 18 6.1 Truck/Minitruck/Triper 190 19 10.0 Tractor 392 18 21.8 Bicycle 1323 14 94.5 Tanga/Carriage 2 2 1.0 Rickshaw 3 2 1.5 Car 16 4 4.0 Cart 198 12 16.5 Taxi 5 1 5.0 Ambulance 1 1 1.0 Total 3172 20 158.6

Note: Traffic survey was conducted in starting point of RAIDP roads it was held on different dates of the months of October and November, 2011 from 6 am to 6 pm.

4.1.1 Motorized and Non-motorized Vehicles in RAIDP Roads Between 2006/07 and 2011 number of all types of vehicles has increased. Overall growth of motorized vehicles is 37 percent. Similarly, 33 percent increment is seen of non-motorized vehicles during the same period. Increase rate of vehicles is varied by districts. Table 4.2 shows that motorized vehicles are augmented by 63 percent in Nuwakot district while number of vehicles is decreased in Mahottari district because of not upgrading RAIDP road. According to FGD, factional politics at local level and insecurity were the major causes of not implementation of RAIDP road in Mahottari. Among the vehicles, jeep/car/taxi is increased by 52 percent followed by truck (44%), motorcycle (42%), bus (35%) and tractor (20%) respectively (See Annex 4). Of the total upgraded sample RAIDP roads, high traffic volume is seen in Kailali district (Khutiya-Matiyari road) and lowest in Rasuwa district (See table 4.2). Of the non-motorized vehicles, bicycles share more than 86 percent of the total.

(13)

Table 4.2 Number of vehicles before and after RAIDP Road

District Motorized vehicle

Non-motorized

vehicles Increased percent

Before After Before After Motorized Non-motorized

Kailali 80 193 70 111 59 37 Bardiya 74 138 96 128 46 25 Banke 69 97 67 87 29 23 Salyan 37 42 0 0 12 0 Kapilvastu 72 88 80 79 18 0 Rupandehi 114 146 64 90 22 29 Nawalparasi 63 111 59 93 43 37 Palpa 65 86 4 0 24 0 Rasuwa 9 9 0 0 0 0 Kaski 66 89 2 1 26 0 Syangja 16 31 0 0 48 0 Dhading 32 82 0 6 61 100 Nuwakot 44 118 0 0 63 0 Makawanpur 28 50 0 0 44 0 Rautahat 64 80 100 116 20 14 Sarlahi 26 39 103 197 33 48 Mahottari* 20 3 82 44 0 -86 Dhanusa 113 167 110 333 32 70 Siraha 30 49 117 152 39 23 Udayapur 18 28 66 89 35 26 1040 1646 1020 1526 37 33 Source: Districts Records, RAIDP Office Records, 2011, Traffic Survey and FGD, 2011 Note: Non-motorized Vehicles includes bicycle, animal cart, rickshaw * RAIDP road upgrading was not held due to security and local dispute reasons in Mahottari

Traffic Unit

Various traffic volumes have been quantified in terms of a standard traffic unit transport unit (TU) or passenger car unit (PCU). Traffic volume is seen higher in Janakpur followed by Rupandehi and Nawal parasi districts (See Table 4.3). Lowest volume of traffic is seen in Rasuwa district. Traffic volume is higher in Tarai districts than hill districts. Average traffic volume unit of RAIDP roads is 180. Volume of traffic by its type and roads has presented in Annex 4a.

Table 4.3 Traffic units by districts

Districts Roads Traffic units

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 227.5 Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 310 Banke Titihiriy-Sonapur 231 Salyan Khalangga 43.5

Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok 251 Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 337.5 Nawalparasi Daldle-Dhauwadi 276.5 Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 89.5 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 10 Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 86.5 Syangya Rangkhola-Biruwa 64

(14)

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 115.5 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang 83 Makwanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 37.5 Rautahat Auriya-Himalibas 214.5 Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol 195 Mahottari Matihani-Pipara 213.5 Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 404 Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 293 Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar 123.5

Total 3606.5 Source field Survey: 2011

4.2 Local Fare by Vehicles

Travel time, according to FGD, has come down 20-50 percent in the period of five years. Travel cost was varied according to type of vehicles. Average bus fare per kilometer was Rs. 3.6. Average length of sampled road is 9.3 km.

Table 4.4 Mean Transportation fare by vehicles and distance

Types of Vehicles Distance in KM

Fare for Passenger

Per km fare (Rs)

No Mean No Mean Jeep/Sumo 43 14.4 43 89.2 6 Bus/Minibus 109 13.8 109 49.4 3.6 Truck/minitruck 190 14.2 4 67.5 4.75 Tanga/carriage 2 6.6 2 32.5 4.9 Rickshaw 3 4 3 26.7 7 Bullock cart 198 12.9 1 300 23 Taxi 5 5 5 740 150 Ambulance 1 5 1 4500 900 Total 551 9.3 168


Bus fare has slightly increased than baseline survey. Per kilometer bus fare was 2.86 rupees in 2006/07 (Baseline Report, 2007) and now it has reached 3.6 rupees per kilometer in 2011. This fare is more or less the same as fixed by the government of Nepal for rural roads. Jeep/sumo fare is 40 percent expensive than bus (see table 4.4). Travel cost in all RAIDP remained relatively upward due to increased price of fuel internationally. Total 775 motorized and non-motorized vehicles were operated in the sample RAIDP roads carrying goods. Average weight carried by vehicles was 1875.5 kg. Many residents of RAIDP road in Tarai use bicycles to import and export small amount of commodity.

(15)

Table 4.5 Mean number of weight of goods carried by vehicles Quantity of goods (KG) Types of vehicle Number

Mean Distance

Truck/Minitruck/Triper 186 3809.1 14.3 Tractor 392 1854.1 12.0 Cart 197 92.4 12.9

Total 775 1875.5 12.8 Source: Traffic Survey, 2011 Travel Frequency to Market

Between 2006/2007 and 2011, the percent of going market on foot has come down into zero percent in project area. However, at the same time the percent of going to market on foot in control village has increased. Number of motorcycle users for marketing has increased both project and control areas. Interestingly, jeep user has increased by six percent in project area and two percent in control area (See Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Average travel frequency by mode of transport

Mode of Transport Project area

Control Area

Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%) On foot 5 0 13 28 Bus 62 58 56 46 Motorcycle 3 14 3 6 Bicycle 24 22 18 18 Jeep 0 6 0 2 Missing 6 0 10 0 Total 100 100 100 100

Source: Baseline Survey, 2006/07 pp 5 &6, Impact Survey, 2011 Table 4.6 indicates that mode of transport for market town has increased in project area. However, the situation in control area has declined compared to baseline survey.

4.3 Road wise travel time before and after project Travel time has significantly decreased in most of the surveyed roads after the RAIDP intervention. Table 4.5 shows that traveling time for market centre, hospitals and higher education centre has reduced by 46%, 50%, and 50% respectively. Travel time has decreased by 81% in Rautahat and 79% in Salyan. There is no change on travel time in Kailali and Mahottari (See Table 4.7).

(16)

Table 4.7 Road wise travel time and time to key facilities before and after RAIDP road upgrading

Travel Time (hrs)

Time for market center

(hrs)

Time for hospital (hrs)

Time for higher

education (hrs)

Name of Districts

Name of Roads

Before After Before After Before After Before After

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3

Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 2.2 1 0.7 0.3 3.1 1.8 3.1 1.8

Banke Titiriya MRM 1.1 0.5 1.8 0.7 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.8

Salyan Khalanga-Simkharka 2.4 0.5 0.9 0.4 3.3 1.8 3.3 1.8

Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchok 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 1 0.4 1 0.4

Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 1.5 1 1.5 1 0.75 0.8 1.5 1

Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4

Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi 3 1.5 2 1 2 1 2 1

Syanja Rangkhola-Biruwa 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1

Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 3.2 1 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.7

Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjayang 0.75 0.5 2 1.3 2 1.5 2 1.5

Dhadding Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5

Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 2 1 2.5 2 1 0.6 1 0.6

Rautahat Himalibas-Auriya 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.7 3 1.4 3 1.4

Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathol 4 2 1.5 0.75 2 1 2 1

Dhanusa Janakpur-Khariyani 2 0.75 2 0.75 2 0.8 2 0.75

Siraha Siraha-Mirchaiya 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9

Mahottari Matiyani-Piparara-Brahmapur 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara 1.8 0.7 1 0.5 1.7 0.8 1.7 0.8

Average hours for travel 2 0.8 1.4 0.76 1.8 0.9 1.8 0.93

% of travel time reduction 60 46 50 50

Source: RAIDP Records and Field Survey, 2011. Reduction of travel time and time to key facilities is made possible by RAIDP interventions. Fifty percent reduction of travel time is more than estimated in PDO and outcome indicators of RAIDP roads. This also indicates that accessibility of residents to health and education institution has enhanced due to RAIDP road enhancement.

4.3 Ownership of Vehicles

Table 4.8 shows that more than 71 percent vehicles owned by the respondents are non-motorized in type. Of the motorized vehicles, number of motorcycles is highest followed by truck, tractor, bus and minibus. If we divide the vehicles among the sample households, there would be more than one vehicle (both motorized and non-motorized) to each household.

(17)

Table 4.8 Vehicle Ownership across sample households and utilization pattern in project area

Purpose Used in Type of Vehicle

Total No.

Domestic Commercial Both Within project

area

Outside project

area Both

Average per day trip in

project area

Non-motorized transport* 233 193 4 38 86 31 118 4

Motorcycles 63 45 9 9 30 8 25 3

Bus 4 2 1 1 3 1 0 2

Tractor 10 3 5 2 7 2 1 4

Truck 15 3 10 2 8 4 3 8

Minibus 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total 328 247 29 52 135 46 147 4 Source: Field Survey, 2011 *Bicycle and bullock cart There is no data of baseline survey (2006/07) regarding the vehicle ownership by the respondents. However, participants of FGDs reported that number of motorcycle owners has increased after the upgrading of RAIDP roads. After the upgrading of the RAIDP roads some residents of project area were encouraged to invest motorized vehicles. For example, 14 residents of Trisuli-Mehang-Deurali road (Nuwakot) have bought trucks which are operated in the project area for transporting goods and passengers. Mode of Transportation for the residents

Residents of the sample roads go to various destinations using different means of transportation. As reported in the field, both male female from different social groups used public bus to go to nearest towns, health centre and hospitals. However, only males were found going to government office and work place. Similarly, bicycles or walking is common for the visiting of rural market. Average travel distance in project area was 13.3 km (See Table 4.9). Travels have made for various purposes such as marketing, job, business studying and treatment.

Table 4.9 Number of family member going outside for work and vehicle type used for travel in project area

Destination Mode of transportation Frequency Traveled by Total trips

Travel distance

(km)

Travel time (hrs)

Purpose

Nearest Town Bus/bicycle/byke/jeep Male/Female 816 19.6 1.2 Marketing

Rural Market Foot/bicycles/byke/bus/jeep 66 Male/Female 1285 1.4 0.26 Marketing

Gov Office Foot/bus/ibicycle 8 Male 200 2.2 0.41 Job

Work place Foot/bicycle/byke/bus 21 Male 535 98.7 3.4 Business

School Foot/bicycle/byke/bus 183 Male/Female 3094 1.9 0.45 Study

College Foot/Bicycles/bus/byke 17 MaleFemale 423 3 0.8 Study

Health centre Foot/Bus/bicycle/byke 47 Male/female 281 11.7 0.6 Treatment

Hospital Foot/Bus 41 Male/Female 173 13.3 0.85 Treatment Source: Field Survey, 2011

Unlike to project area, residents of control villages have spent more time to travel from their house. They go to nearest road on foot and then they get public transportation. Travel frequency, total travel trips in control villages is low compared to project area.

(18)

Table 4.10 Number of family member going outside for work and vehicle type used for travel in control villages

Destination Mode of

transportation Frequency Traveled by

Total trips

Travel distance (km)

Travel time (hrs)

Purpose

Nearest Town Foot/Bus 23 Male 253 19.13 1.5 Buying

Rural Market Foot 32 Both 722 2.2 0.48 Other

Gov Office Foot/Bus 7 Both 121 24.4 2.7 Job

Work place Foot 5 Male 210 3.9 0.75 Labor work

School Foot 49 Male/Female 975 2.8 0.75 Study

College Foot/Bus 7 Female/male 132 27.9 1.5 Study

Health centre Foot 18 Female/male 70 2.8 0.61 Treatment

Hospital Foot/Bus 10 Male/female 38 22.9 2.3 Treatment Source: Field Survey, 2011.

Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show travel time and travel distance in project and control areas. Having no baseline data of travel time, it is difficult to say precisely how much travel time has declined in project area. Participants of FGDs reported that travel time has significantly declined after the upgrading the roads. According to them, travel time has declined 20 to 50 percent in Project area. As reported in the field survey, with the decline of travel time frequency of travel trips has increased.

4.4 Distance and Travel Time to the nearest all Season Roads

Average distance of road from the project area has classified on the basis of walking time such as 0-30 minutes, 31 minutes to 2 hours, 2-4 hours, more than 4 hours. The distance of respondents' households to nearest all season roads is in the range of 0 to more than four hours. Forty-three percent households are located in the distance of 31 minutes to 2 hours from the all season roads. Similarly, 29 percent households have reached the nearest all season roads within 0 -30 minutes. Households having access to 2- 4 hours to arrive at nearest all season roads is 23 percent. Five percent households have got to nearest all season roads more than four hours (See Table 4.11).

Table 4.11 Average distance to road Districts 0-30 m 31 m to 2 hrs 2-4 hrs More than 4 hrs

Kailali 33 67 0 0

Bardiya 100 0 0 0

Banke 33 67 0 0

Salyan 40 25 10 25

Kapilbastu 0 0 100 0

Nawalparasi 47 53 0 0

Rupandehi 0 73 27 0

Palpa 0 20 80 0

Kaski 13 54 20 13

Syangja 7 66 20 7

Dhading 80 0 20 0

Makawanpur 7 27 33 33

Rasuwa 93 0 7 0

Nuwakot 47 26 27 0

Rautahat 0 100 0 0

Sarlahi 53 47 0 0

Mahottari 20 67 13 0

Dhanusa 0 100 0 0

Siraha 7 27 66 0

Udayapur 0 40 40 20

Total % 29 43 23 5 Source: Field Survey, 2011

(19)

People living within four hours of walking distance to all season roads have increased by cent percent in eleven Tarai districts and four in hill districts. Percent of increment in Salyan, Syangja and Udyapur is 19%, 18%, and 14% respectively. However, accessibility of people living within four hours walking distance to all season roads in Kaski and Makawanpur has decreased (See Table 4.12)

Table 4.12 Accessibility of people living within four hours walking distance to all season roads

S.N. Districts Before (2006) (%) After (2011) (%) Increased % 1 Kailali 5 0 1002 Bardiya 4 0 1003 Banke 0 0 1004 Salyan 43.6 25 195 Kapilbastu 0 0 1006 Nawalparasi 9 0 1007 Rupandehi 1.8 0 1008 Palpa 8 0 1009 Kaski 9.28 13 -410 Syangja 25 7 1811 Dhading 36 0 10012 Makawanpur 5 33 -2813 Rasuwa 23 0 10014 Nuwakot 32.9 0 10015 Rautahat 6 0 10016 Sarlahi 6.03 0 10017 Mahottari 6.03 0 10018 Dhanusa 0 0 10019 Siraha 0 0 10020 Udayapur 33.65 20 13.65

Source: Field Survey, 2011 and Preliminary Accessibility Profile of Districts of Nepal, 2006. Trip per month to nearest road and nearest bus stop is 12.22 and 12.10 by project area sample households (See Annex 5 & 6). Minimum and maximum trip to market have in the range of 2 to 28.46 in a month. Ninety percent residents of the control area spend substantial amount of time to get the nearest road from their settlements. In project area, spatial mobility of residents has increased after the RAIDP intervention because of knowledge enhanced about the market opportunities, employment and so on.

(20)

CHAPTER V

5.1 AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION

5.1.2 Transportation for Farm Inputs

Bus is common means of transportation for getting farm inputs in project area. The transport cost for improved seed and fertilizer is 0.85 and 0.81 paisa per kg respectively. Urea, DAP and potash were major type of chemical fertilizers applied by the sample households. Generally, vehicles do not charge for pesticides transportation being a small bottle, therefore travel cost of passenger is added as pesticide transportation fare (See Table 5.1). According to respondents, transportation cost for farm input has decreased by 15 to 20 percent in project area. Transportation cost of chemical fertilizer has decreased by 75% in Nuwakot. As discussed in FGD transportation cost of a sack of fertilizer (50 kg) was 200 rupees. Now the transportation cost has declined in 50 rupees per sack.

Table 5.1 Mode of transport used for getting farm inputs in project area villages

Farm input

Mode of transport

Market distance(km)

Travel time one way(hrs)

No of trips

Per unit transport

cost Improve seeds Bus 16.48 1.13 80 0.85Fertilizers Bus 15.89 1.09 159 0.81insecticides Bus 12.68 0.89 36 32.17

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Data presented in table 5.1 came from household survey. General trend is that residents of the project area have brought one or two sacks of fertilizer, some kilograms of improved seeds and small bottles of pesticides at a time while traveling to nearest town. In such a situation they bring agricultural inputs along with passenger bus. However, as observed in the field and reported in the FGD residents also use other means of transportation such as truck, tractor, bullock cart if they need huge quantity of fertilizer. In some cases bicycle is used to transport chemical fertilizer. In control villages, transportation cost for farm input is relatively dearer. Sample households from control villages have to pay Rs 1.36 per kg while transporting chemical fertilizer to their farm land (See Table 5.2). In the hill districts of control villages, farm inputs are transported by men. However, bicycle and bullock cart are means of transport in control villages of Tarai.

Table 5.2 Mode of transport used for getting farm inputs in Control villages

Farm input

Mode of transport Market

distance(km)

Travel time one

way(hrs)

No of trips

Per unit transport cost

Improve seeds Bicycle 4.92 0.65 16 0

Fertilizers Man/bicycles/bullock cart 5.33 1.55 32 1.36

insecticides Bicycle 12.68 1.25 4 0 Source: Field Survey, 2011

(21)

Table 5.1 and 5.2 clearly show that transportation facilities through RAIDP road has increased total trips to go market and transport cost of farm input has reduced by more than 37 percent.

Use of Purchased Inputs

Percentage of chemical fertilizer and average consumption of fertilizer and improved seeds is slightly higher in project area than control villages. Agricultural households have used improved seeds in selected crops such as paddy, wheat and vegetables.

Table 5.3 Use of purchased inputs in the project and control areas Project area Control Area

Input Percent of

HH Average

consumption (kg) Percent of HH

Average consumption (kg)

Fertilizer 74 109 66 101

Pesticide 21 13

Seeds 34 40 31 24 Source: Field Survey, 2011.

5.2 Agriculture Productivity Indicators

A majority of respondents (96% in project area and 94% in control villages) have operational landholding. Landholding size in this study broadly classified into four categories i.e. landless, .01 to .49 hectare, .50 to .99 hectares and one and above hectors. Nearly 80 percent households of project area and 71 percent in control villages owned land in the range of .01 to .99 hectares. Seventeen percent in program area and 23 percent in control villages have owned land one hectares and above. The average size of agricultural land area in the project area and control villages is 0.57 hectare and 0.75 hectare respectively (See Annex 7). These are slightly lower than Nepal average landholding size (0.83 hectare, NLSS, 2004). The average landholding size has decreased both in the project area and control villages than the period of baseline survey to present (See Baseline Report, 2007 p.3). The relatively small size of the operational landholding is the result of the sample households from the semi-urban areas where most have homesteads only. There is tendency of Migration from control and other parts of the country into project area, shift from agriculture to non-agricultural activities may also the cause of small landholding size in the study area. With the improvement of RAIDP roads some of the households have constructed house in project area of various districts for trade and business purposes.

5.3 Agriculture Production

Paddy, maize, wheat, millet, potato, oil seeds, pulses and different kinds of vegetables are major crops and cash crops grown in the survey villages. Annex tables (7-14) show the percent of the agricultural households cultivating selected crops. The proportion of households cultivating paddy is 76%, wheat 41 %, maize 55%, millet 20%, potato 27%, oil seeds 31.%, pluses 21% and vegetables 93%. Paddy, maize, wheat, millet, potato, pluses, oil seeds oil and vegetables were grown in 143.49 ha, 54.94 ha, 52.22 ha, 14.84 ha, 6.47 ha, 41.54 ha, 23.44 ha and 10.31 ha respectively in project area (See Annex 8 to 15). Production of main crops has enormously increased than baseline study to present both in control and project area. Table 5.4 presents the average production of major crops before project and after project.

(22)

Table 5.4 Mean production of major cereal crops before and after project (kg) Mean value project area Mean Value Control Villages Crops

Before After Before After Paddy 339 1834 327 2154

HH 280 229 247 81 Maize 113 646 105 646

HH 50 165 60 49 Wheat 192 826 191 955

No 162 122 153 54 Source: Baseline Study; 2006/07 pp 4-5 and Impact study, 2011. Table 5.4 shows that average production of paddy, wheat and maize have increased 4 to 5 times more than baseline study (2006/07). Reasons of production increased may be several such as timely monsoon, easy access to agricultural inputs and market access through RAIDP road connection, improvement of irrigation facilities, etc. Much of the production of food staples in the study area is produced both for domestic use and for market. Small quantities of cereal crops are sold even by the food deficient household during harvesting time to arrange the household expenses. Marketed crops such as potato, oil seeds, pulses, fruits and vegetables are clearly important sources of income for farm household. More than 96 percent of the sample households from project area were found growing more or less vegetable crops in their garden. Vegetable farming (both seasonal and off seasonal) is very common in all project area. More specifically, residents of Makawanpur, Dhading, Rautahat and Kailali districts have grown more vegetables for market than other districts. Residents under the Auriya- Himalibas road of Rautahat have grown the vegetables targeting to the market of Kathmandu valley. As mentioned in the FGD, whole sellers from Kalimati (Kathmandu) vegetable market directly collect the vegetables from farm gate of sample households in Rautahat. Similarly, oil seeds from Bardiya and potato from Rasuwa are also grown for targeting the Kathmandu market as well as domestic consumption. As reported in Syangja and Palpa, ginger and citrus are exported in large amount from Rankhola -Biruwa and Banstari-Jhadewa roads. In the group discussion, it was informed that around NRs 50 million citrus and ginger exported by local farmers. Commonly grown crops frequency, disposition and yield estimates from survey household for the study area is reported in Tables 5.5 and 5.6.

Table 5.5 Dispensation of crops grown in project area villages

Crops No of

HH HH consumption

(% of growing crops)Grown for sale (%)

Agricultural output sold/HH (kg)

Paddy 229 58.43 41.57 2312.00 Maize 165 81.12 18.88 719.00 Wheat 122 72.61 27.39 790.00 Millet 60 68.73 31.27 407.00 Potato 81 35.21 64.79 1108.00 Mustard 94 86.67 13.33 229.00 Pulses 62 75.60 24.40 165.00 Vegetables 288 58.17 41.83 597.00 Fruits 9 27.28 72.72 2043.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011

(23)

Table 5.6 Dispensation of crops grown in control villages

Crops No of HH HH consumption

(% of growing crops) Grown for sale

(%) Agricultural output

sold/HH (kg) Paddy 71 64.94 35.06 1981.00 Maize 49 84.48 15.52 615.00 Wheat 54 59.88 40.12 1294.00 Millet 26 79.13 20.87 289.00 Potato 26 43.18 56.82 1125.00 Mustard 32 79.52 20.48 143.00 Pulses 20 62.80 37.20 186.00 Vegetables 94 74.69 25.31 410.00 Fruits 1 0.00 100.00 100.00

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Tables 5.5 and 5.6 clearly show that residents of project area have grown more crops for market than control villages. Market network and transportation facilities, according to FGDs, have encouraged the residents to grow more for market in the project area.

Irrigation

Nearly 44 percent of the sample households have irrigated land in project area. Irrigation data of pre-project are not available. Therefore, it is difficult to speculate how much irrigated land increased in post-project period. However, as reported from FGDs indicates that installers of deep tube well have increased in some Tarai districts for last five years.

Table 5.7 Share of irrigated land in project area and control area Sector Total land (ha) Irrigated land (ha) Percent Project area 171.52 74.77 43.59 Control area 75.04 21.41 28.53 Total 246.56 96.17 39.01

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Use of Farm Equipment

Farming practices were mixed up with respect to technology. Tractor and thresher machine are one of major farm technologies in Tarai districts. Percentage of deep tube well, tractor and thresher were slightly higher in project area than control villages. However, sample households in the hills were found using hand tools, plough and oxen power as farm technology.

Table 5.8 Farming practice with respect to technology used by farmers in the project area

Deep Tube Well Tractor Thresher Sample using Project Control Project Control Project Control

Farmers using 74 20 104 30 102 29 Percent of sample 24.66

20 34.67

30 34

29


5.4 Means of Transportation for Agricultural Products

Trucks and tractors are very common means of transportation for agricultural products in project area and bullock cart was found popular among the control villages of Tarai. Bicycles and motorcycles were not only use for day today travel but also use for transporting petty agriculture and market commodities from one place to another.

(24)

Respondents reported that on the improvement of road, tractors have increasingly available in project area and many tractor owners have rented out their services to farmers for a fee. Table 5.9 below reports the mode of transportation for supply agricultural commodities in the village.

Table 5.9 Mode of Transport for selling agricultural products in project area Major crops

Mode of transport

Market mean distance(km)

Travel time(hrs)

Total trips

Transportation cost/ per quintal

Food grain Truck/tractors 4.97 1.5 90 56.11

Pulses Truck/tractors 5.5 1.5 17 56.36 Potato Truck 13.92 1 46 135.75 Oilseeds Truck 4.33 1.83 4 46.67

Cash crop Bus 14.33 0.9 42 150.00 Fruits Bus 14 0.86 27 50.00

Vegetables Home market 0 0 28 0.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Travel time and travel costs data were taken from household survey and FGD. As reported in various places of project area 20-50 percent of transportation cost for supplying agricultural commodities has declined after the improvement of RAIDP roads. Travel cost and traveling time is not the same for all roads of RAIDP. Fare of trucks/tractors varied from one season to another and one district to another in the hill districts. In bound and out bound of truck fare is also different in Palpa district. For example, trucks charge full fare if the trucks are booked timely while transporting from Butwal to Bastari-Jhadewa road. If empty trucks are going down or if truck was already booked, and if still remained surplus capacity, then one could bargain, and thus the rate might fall for the additional capacity. A truck driver in Banstari-Jhadewa road says that they transport fifty percent below fare rate if the truck is not booked and it is out bounded for own destination. According to a driver, running empty truck is better than taking fifty percent below fare. In control villages of the hill districts, most of the goods are carried out by men up to nearest roads while control villages of Tarai use bullock cart and bicycles to transport the agricultural commodities. Syangja and Palpa district export ginger and citrus fruits. According to a local estimate, about 40 million worth of citrus are exported from Syangja district via Rang-Khola Biruwa Road. A sharp decline of travel fare was reported in Syangja. A participant of FGD told "British and India armies when they came back home in their vacation used to pay Rs 800 to porters for carrying their goods to reach Biruwa from Rangkhola, now they pay only 120 rupees for the same destination by bus". With respect to transport cost, respondents were asked what percentage of their final sale price was consumed by transport costs. Of farmers who provided a response to this question, some said that transport costs were zero as they carry their products by their own bullock cart or bicycles. The average cost among the non-zero responses was around 2 to 10 percent.

(25)

Table 5.10 Mode of transport for selling agricultural products in control villages

Major crops Mode of transport

Market distance(km)

Travel time(minute)

Total trips

Transportation cost/ per quintal

Foodgrain Bullock cart 9.31 105 78 61.56 Pulses Bullock cart 9.43 116 9 54.29 Potato Bullock cart 10.5 120 6 66.67 Oilseeds Bullock cart 11 140 3 48.33 Cash crop Man 6.67 105 10 100 Fruits Man 5 120 10 100 Vegetables Bullock cart 13 120 14 80


5.5 Prices of Major Crops in Farm Gate

Table 3.15 shows that prices of all agricultural commodities are higher in farm gate of project area than control villages. Residents of control village get lower price for their agricultural products. According to FGD, middlemen have to transport commodity from control village to nearest road head using local porters and bullock cart. Therefore, generally middlemen bargain for lower price in the farm gate of control villages. Cereal crops such as paddy, wheat, maize and millet are produced for both domestic and market consumption. On the other hand, marketed crops such as oil seeds, pulses, vegetables, ginger and sugarcane were clearly important sources of income for farm households. Potatoes were grown almost all the farms for household use and market product. Average price of agricultural products in farm gate of project area and control villages have presented in Table 5.11.

Table 5.11 Farm gate prices of key crops (kg)

Crops Farm gate price Middlemen price Market Prices

Project Area Control Project Area Control

Paddy 16.92 15 18.89 17 21.14

Maize 20.87 18 22.95 20 25

Wheat 16.75 16 18.5 18 20.87

Millet 13 12 15.5 14 17.5

Mustard 54.4 50 62 60 72

Pulses 37.67 35 40.33 40 44

Potato 9.33 8 11 10 12.83

Tomato 35 25 40 30 55

Ginger 23.25 20 27 25 32.5 Source: Field Survey, 2011.

In addition to cropping questions, households were asked to report on the number of poultry and livestock they had. Almost 69 percent of 300 households kept some number of livestock and poultry in project area (See Table 5.12). According to FGD discussions, poultry farming has tremendously increased in the project area. There were altogether 367 poultry farm in project area and three in control villages. As informed that this was happened just after the road improvement (See Annex table 16) in project area. Of the total poultry farms 150 were in project area of Palpa district.

(26)

Table 5.12 Livestock and Poultry Enterprise of the sample Households in project area & control area

Cattle Goat and

sheep Poultry Pigs

Item Project Control Project Control Project control Project Control

Average Number of Flock/Herd 3

5 5

3 60

13 2.69

1

Numbers of Farmer keeping 208

76 190

68 96

47 16

14

Percent of total 69 76 63 68 32 47 5 14 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Except cattle, average livestock holding seems higher in project area than control areas. Increase of poultry farming is directly associated with RAIDP road improvement. According to field survey, residents of project area started keeping poultry farm for market when their access enhanced to transportation facilities. Wage Rate

Wage rate for agriculture, construction and skill labor has varied from one district to another. There is similar wage rate for male and female for agricultural works in 14 project area out of 20. In six districts, female wage rate is lower than male. Daily wage rate for agricultural labor is in the range of 150 -300 rupees (see Annex table 17). According to field survey lowest wage for agricultural labor is in Banke and highest in Dhading district. Number of people working on farm

A remarkable change seen in wage employment in the last five years is probably the shift in shares of agriculture and non-agriculture sectors. According to FGD discussions, percent share of agriculture has decreased than before project situation. However, we can not say exactly how much percent of non- agriculture occupation has increased in project area due to lack of data of occupational distribution in original survey, 2006/07. Of the total economically active population in project area and control villages 36.03 percent and 46.80 percent were in agriculture respectively. Remaining nearly 64 percent from project area and 53 from control villages were in non-agricultural works.

Table 5.13 Number of people working in agriculture and non-agriculture Zone of influence

Main occupation Program area Control area

Total

No 382 161 515Agriculture

% 36.04 46.80 39.25No 678 183 797Non-agriculture

% 63.96 53.20 60.75No 968 344 1312Total

% 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011

5.6 Transport and agriculture Extension

Of the total household, 38 percent households were found taking the services of veterinary extension. Table 5.15 shows that 26 percent households were visited agriculture extension service center at least once a year. Most of the veterinary and agricultural extension centers are located within one hour distance. Major means of transportation for visiting the veterinary service centers is bus followed by bicycles in project area (See table 5.14). However, 71 percent household in control area go

(27)

veterinary center on foot (See Table 5.14). Unlike to veterinary service center, major means of transportation going to agricultural center is bicycle followed by bus (Table 5.15) in project area.

Table 5.14 Mode of transport for visiting to veterinary extension Project area Control area

Types of Transport No % No %

Bus 44 38 1 2

Bicycle 35 31 12 27

Motorcycle 1 1 0 0

On Foot 30 26 32 71

Truck 1 1 0 0

Bullock cart 1 1 0 0

Jeep 2 2 0 0

Total 114 100 45 100 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 5. 15 Mode of transport for visiting to agricultural extension Project area Control area

Types of transport No % No %

Bus 24 31 5 16

Cycle 28 36 10 31

MotorCycle 4 5 1 3

Bullock cart 12 15 0 0

Microbus 9 12 2 6

Jeep 1 1 0 0

On foot 0 0 14 44

Total 78 100 32 100 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Frequency of JT visiting in the villages of project area and control was very low. Respondents say that they use to go to private agro-vet office while getting the service. They reported that government agriculture and veterinary experts were visited rarely in the villages. Like in baseline survey, the condition of government extension services is poor. The JTs and JTAs of agriculture and veterinary extension worked only sporadically in few Tarai districts. Services of extension were reported to be low in hill districts. Between 2006/07 and 2011, privately owned extension service centers increased in project area villages.

5. 7 Non-Agricultural Activities

Between 2006/2007 and 2011, number of households operating non-farm enterprises has increased. Similarly, access has increased almost across all type of facilities (See Table 5.16). There are 1479 shops and 564 small enterprises in project area. The number of shops and enterprises in control villages were 158 and 50 respectively. Many shops and enterprises were recently established along the RAIDP roads (See Annex 18). According to FGDs, there are 3760 people in project area and 319 in control villages working local level business centers (See Annex 19). Non-farm activities include wage labor, foreign labor, government service, shop-keeping, school teacher, driving, etc. Many social amenities have increased in project area after the improvement of RAIDP roads in sample districts. Number of schools, health institutions, financial institutions and market centers has increased in all sample roads. Financial institutions have increased by 3.4 times in the study area (see Table 5.16).

(28)

Table 5.16 Name and number of social amenities

School Health

Institutions Financial

institutions Market centre S.

N. District

Before After Before After Before After Before After 1 Kailai 8 9 3 5 6 8 4 4 2 Bardia 18 20 8 10 1 4 5 7 3 Banke 5 7 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 Salyan 10 11 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 Palpa 13 13 14 14 0 4 10 10 6 Rupandehi 6 7 3 4 0 1 3 3 7 Kapilbastu 24 24 7 8 0 1 2 2 8 Nawalparasi 24 24 10 10 0 10 4 4 9 Syangja 8 9 2 2 1 5 6 6 10 Kaski 19 20 3 3 0 3 6 6 11 Makawanpur 16 16 2 2 0 3 2 2 12 Dhading 36 40 5 5 0 6 3 4 13 Rasuwa 4 15 1 2 1 2 2 2 14 Nuwakot 18 18 5 5 0 4 7 7 15 Rautahat 6 9 5 5 0 2 4 5 16 Sarlahi 14 15 13 15 0 8 5 5 17 Siraha 39 40 9 12 5 5 5 5 18 Mahottari 15 15 4 5 1 1 4 4 19 Dhanusa 15 16 4 6 1 3 4 4 20 Udayapur 19 19 9 11 2 5 4 6 Total 344 347 114 125 25 85 89 96

Source: Baseline Survey, 2006 and Field Survey, 2011. Overall growth of social amenities has increased by more than 12 percent in project area. Road connectivity has made possible to establish many social institutions in the project area.

(29)

CHAPTER VI

6. INCOME, EXPENDITURE, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

6.1 Expenditure Indicators

In nominal terms, per capita average consumption in food, clothing, and schooling fee and fuel consumption is seen higher in Project Area compared to control villages. Food consumption includes own farm production and market commodities. However, expenditure on medical treatment, rituals and cigarettes, alcoholic beverage is higher in control villages. Productive sector expenditure is higher in all items in project area. Table 6.1 compares the mean expenditure of project area and control villages by items.

Table 6.1 Annual expenditure by items in project and control areas (mean value in Rs)

Project area Control area Items

HHs Annual

expenditure HHs

Annual expenditure

Food 300 51296 100 45518

Clothing 300 18936 100 16671

School's fee, book, stationary 242 16573 85 16049

Medical treatment 262 11853 88 12951

Fuel 284 4634 79 4112

Rituals 209 6997 67 10383

Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages 140 2954 49 3840

Tax, levy, Fines 167 725 59 977

Others 53 1946 23 2770

Productive Expenditure

Gold, Silver ornaments 30 20850 14 10320

Income generation 50 50899 26 45000

Purchase land 13 18923 5 11300

Housing cost 82 14363 27 11120

Others 7 1006 6 990

Total 106041 78730 Source: Field Survey, 2011

6.2 Income composition

Average income from crop farming is slightly higher in control villages than project area. However, in other sectors such as cash crop, livestock, small cottage industry, government services, and remittances incomes in project area are relatively higher than control villages. Income pattern in project area concentrates to non-agriculture activities than control villages. However, some spill over impacts of income also seen in control villages. Mean income of project area and control villages has increased by more than four times than baseline period (see Baseline Report, 2007 pp 35-37). Crop farming income is common to all sample households both in project area and control villages. The second largest category of income group is livestock. As mentioned earlier, poultry faming is new sector of business in project area and milk selling business is also emerged in the area under study. Table 6.2 presents major area of sources of income in project area and control villages of RAIDP.

(30)

Table 6.2 Annual incomes by item in project area (mean value in Rs) Project Area Control Area

Items HHs Annual income HHs Annual Income

Crop Farming 300 47059 100 49320

Vegetable and cash crops 86 8305 31 6745

Fruits 10 610 2 300

Livestock 134 10557 41 10011

Small cottage 6 2763 1 1200

Government Service 39 26500 16 23990

Pension 18 4906 4 8200

Remittance 74 90400 29 83350

Agricultural wage 64 4766 16 4430

Construction wage 49 4873 16 5140

Non-agricultural wage 73 16627 19 15300

Trade 77 29483 14 23300

Tender commission 10 3283 2 3450

Others 26 5430 8 10846

Total 255562 245582 Source: Field Survey, 2011 6.3 Employment Situation in Project Area and Control Area

According to FGD information, 3760 people are employed in local level business centers. The total number of locally employed in control villages is 317 (See Table 6.3). Local level employment includes working in rice mills, saw mills, store house, construction work, brick factory, grocery shops, poultry farming, milk collection centers, etc. As reported in Kailali 400 people from project area of Khutiya –Matiyari road go to Dhangadi Bazar each day for work. Similarly, people of project area in Janakpur go to Birgunj, Narayanghat, Biratnagar for working in factory and wholesales shops using RAIDP road. Similarly a large number of people in the project area and control villages were working within and outside Nepal. According to FGDs, there were 6197 people from the project area villages working in foreign countries (Mostly in India and Gulf countries). Table 6.3 presents employment situation of project area and control villages of sample roads.

Table 6.3 Number of people working outside the village Within Nepal Outside Nepal

District Project Control Project Control

Dhanusa 300 400 1000 300 Palpa 100 20 200 30 Makawanpur 120 3 20 7 Dhading 50 40 150 100 Kailali 40 23 212 45 Rupandehi 7 5 15 15 Kapilbastu 100 60 800 300 Udayapur 20 5 90 20 Kaski 40 20 500 80 Mahottari 50 21 130 120 Syangja 40 20 220 100 Salyan 50 100 200 100 Bardiya 50 10 220 20 Banke 40 20 300 40 Nawalparasi 50 20 100 30 Rasuwa 120 15 120 20 Rautahat 300 150 500 100 Siraha 400 200 1000 400 Sarlahi 80 20 300 30 Nuwakot 40 5 120 4 Total 1997 1157 6197 1861

Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011

(31)

Rural Markets

The average service area for the shops is 2.5 km for rural markets. Total 96 market centers are recorded along with the 20 sample roads of RAIDP. There are at least five shops in each market center. Agriculture goods, dry goods, textiles and garments, fruits and vegetable shops, are the major group of commodities in the markets. Most of the markets in RAIDP roads had 1-2 pharmaceutical shops, one or two agro-vet centers. Unlike to project area, few rural shops are located in control areas. Prices of key traded commodities

Prices of the traded commodities are seen slightly higher in control area compare to program area. The prices for the goods listed varied somewhat, as might be expected in control villages where there was little competition and substantial transportation costs.

Table 6.4 Prices of key food staples in the markets of the project area and control villages (per kg)

Average price Min and max price Modal Value Item

Program Control Program Control Program Control Paddy 14 15.37 11-16 12-22 12 14 Maize 14.50 19.87 10-20 12-35 13 15 Wheat 15.90 17.22 10-20 15-18 14 16 Millet 10.50 18.50 10-11 11-20 11 14 Potato 8.80 14.33 5-13 8-25 9 12 Oil seeds 39.83 43.33 32-90 32-60 50 50 Pulses 37.85 37.37 35-45 28-46 40 35 Vegetables 22.80 27.50 5-40 20-35 25 25 Fruit 28.33 25 4-40 4-25 20 25 Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011

6.3.1 Price of land

Residential land and agricultural land price has increased both program and control area after the RAIDP intervention. However, residential land price is increased by 3.24 times in project area and 2.74 times in control villages. Table 6.5 shows that a price of agricultural land has increased by 4 and 2.29 times in project and control villages respectively. Table 6.5 below shows the prices of land value mean with range of minimum and maximum prices.

Table 6.5 Residential land Price in project area and control villages (ha) Program Area (price in Rs) Control Area (price in Rs)

Before After Before After

Mean 11778106.51 38053063.56 3967885.093 10869536.17Sum 235562130.2 761061271.2 79357701.85 217390723.4Minimum 322580.6452 1479289.941 295857.9882 483870.9677Maximum 96774193.55 161290322.6 23668639.05 32258064.52Range 96451612.9 159811032.6 23372781.07 31774193.55

Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011. After the improvement of the RAIDP roads, not only the prices of residential land has increased but also increased agricultural land prices. As reported in almost places in migration has increased in project area of roads. As reported in all places, there is a trend of migration in road head side of RAIDP road. As discussed in Palpa, twenty to twenty-five houses have been constructed in Banstari Jhadewa road annually. Out migration has declined, according to FGDs, in various RAIDP districts particularly Kaski and Syangja districts.

(32)

Table 6.6 Agriculture land value before and after project Project area (Price in Rupees) Control Area(Price in Rupees)

Before After Before After Mean 1345207 5393759 699276.1 1606839 Minimum 221565.7 443131.5 118168.4 147710.5 Maximum 6000000 32000000 2000000 4000000 Range 5778434 31556869 1881832 3852290 Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011

RAIDP intervention on rural road is the possible reason for increasing the land value in project area.

6.3.2 Land tenure by gender

The survey has revealed that 26 percent of sample households in project villages and 27 percent in control villages have land under the ownership of women. This may be the cause of government incentive policy for exemption of land registration fee for women owed land.

Table 6.7 Land ownership status of women Ownership

Yes No Villages HH % HH %

Project area 78 26 222 75.25 Control area 27 27 73 24.75 Total 105 100.00 295 100.00

Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011

6.3.3 Access to credit by gender

Bank, cooperatives and local money lenders are major institution lending money in RAIDP project area. Of the loan takers 60 percent were female in the project area. Generally, such loans are small and use for small scale income generating and household expenditure.

Table 6.8 Major Institution of loan taking in project and control area No of HH in Project

area No of HH in Control

area Institutions No % No %

Bank 29 32.22 11 40.74

Co-operative 37 41.11 10 37.04

Money lenders 19 21.11 6 22.22

Both of Bank & cooperative 5 5.56 0 00

Total loan browers HH 90 100 27 100 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Of the total loan borrowers sixty percent were from female members of the project area sample households. As mentioned in the FGDs, more women are members of the local cooperative than men in project area. Therefore, women have easy access to co-operatives to take loan in the time of emergency. Nearly, 24 percent of the total survey households have to credit access in project area villages. Between 2006/2007 and 2011, percent of households having access to credit has increased from 5 percent to 24 percent (See Baseline Report, 2007).

(33)

Road transportation has made easier to collect remittance sent by family members from abroad. Most of the project area households reach to nearest market centers within one to one and half hours to collect remittance. In Rajapur Ring Road, IME has recently established within project area.

Table 6.9 Loan borrowed by gender in project area & control village project area control villages

Gender No Percent No Percent

Male 34 37.78 5 18.52 Female 54 60.00 22 81.48 Both male & female 2 2.22 0 0.00 Total HH 90 100.00 27 100.00

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Loan borrowing from formal institutions has increased in project area. As reported in FGDs, in the past loans were exclusively borrowed for household expenditure and medical treatment, but now loan is also borrowed for starting small enterprises such as small grocery, poultry, animal husbandry, etc. Of the total loan borrowers more than 56 percent form project area and 20 percent from control area has used bus while going to financial institutions to take loan (See Annex 20).

(34)

CHAPTER VII

7. EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIAL SAFE GUARD

INDICATORS

7.1 Education Indicators

Total literacy rate of the surveyed area was 82.03 percent. Literacy rate of project area and control villages was 83.52 and 77.81 respectively. These figures are higher than national level literacy rate. Number of schools establishment in project area and control villages, government/non-government agencies non-formal education programs over the year might be the cause of higher literacy in the project area. Recently established privately owned schools in project area have also accelerated the literacy rate of the residents.

7.2 Number of primary school in the village

Primary schools are seen both project area and control villages within one hour distance. However, private schools are established in project area recently. In some RAIDP roads such as Kailali and Banke private school buses run to pick up and drop out the children in each day from project area villages. Number of school has increased in 14 districts between 2006/2007 and 2011 (See Table 5.16). Primary school enrolment rate by gender

Primary school enrolment percent in project and control villages is 95.25 percent and 93.94 percent respectively. Male female student ratio is 107:100 and 113:100 in project and control villages. As reported in FGDs, 10 to 20 percent drop out in lower secondary level. Similarly, absence from class and drop out ratio in primary level has decreased between 2006/2007 and 2011.

Table 7.1 Literacy rate of Household members and access of children to School

Survey Villages Literate

Members Literacy

Rate % of Children

enrolled Female-Male

student Project area Villages 1465 83.52 95.25 197/184 Control Villages 484 77.81 93.94 66/58 Total 1949 82.03 94.92 263/242

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Primary school drop out rate by gender

Drop out ratio at primary level is low in all RAIDP roads. As reported in focus group discussion drop out ratio has gradually increased in lower secondary and secondary level. Higher drop out was reported among Tarai and hill Dalit and Muslim compared to other groups. Drop out due to poor accessibility has decreased in project area.

7.2.1 Distance to nearest primary and secondary school

The percentage of children enrolled in primary schools was the highest in project area and control villages (see table 7.2). Nearly 85 percent students of program villages have access to primary school within five km distance while 54.05 percent students of control

(35)

villages have access to primary school within five km distance. As observed both project and control area primary schools are located in walking distance.

Table 7.2 Distance to nearest Primary School from sample household in project area and Control Villages

No of Households No of Households Range of Distance (km) Project Area Percent Control area Percent

Up to 1 30 16 5 13

1 to 3 85 47 4 11

3 to 5 40 22 9 24

5 to 10 24 13 10 27

Above 10 4 2 9 24

Total 183 100 37 100 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Table 7.2 shows that 85 percent households have access to primary school within five kilometer distance in project area. Only 2 percent were found more than 10 km distance from the project area. Mode of Transportation for Schooling

Bus, bicycles, motorcycles are means of transport for school going children both in project and control area. Eighty two percent children in control area and 40 percent in project area go to school on foot.

Table 7.3 Number of students going to schools and vehicle types used Project area Control Area Mode of transport

Project % Control % On foot 73 40 40 82 Bicycle 47 26 6 12 Motorcycle 7 4 1 2 Bus 54 30 2 4 Total 181 100 49 100

Source: Field Survey, 2011. Table 7.3 shows that 60 percent school going students have access to transportation in project area. A large number of students (40%) have still gone to school on foot due to close proximity. According to settlement level discussions, access of school going students have increased after the RAIDP road upgrading. However, we cannot say accurately how much percent of students have increased access from baseline survey (2006/07) on transportation having no comparable data of school accessibility. Like school going children, bicycle, bus and motor, bicycles are popular means of transportation among the campus going students. 63 percent from project area and 74 percent from control area use at least one means of transportation while going to college. However, unlike to project area students of control area, according to focus group discussion, have to walk a substantial amount of time to get public transportation. Table 7.4 presents modes of transportation for campus going student.

(36)

Table 7.4 Number of students going to campus and vehicle types used Project Area Control Area Mode of Transportation

Project % Control % On foot 17 37 4 27 Bicycle 13 28 3 20 Bike 4 9 1 7 Bus 12 26 7 47 Total 46 100 15 100

Source: Field Survey, 2011. Qualification of teachers

In project area and control villages, all teachers were reported qualified according to requirements of teaching. No report of teachers' absent was found in project area villages. The teachers are relatively qualified in survey villages. Rate of absenteeism of teacher was low in surveyed roads. As reported in the focus group discussion, "teacher used to absent during monsoon, flood and landslides, now there is no such problems". Absenteeism of students and teachers, according to settlement survey, due to bad road has decreased in the survey roads.

7.3 Health Indicators

7.3.1 Distance and Frequency of Visit to Health Center

As reported in all places, distance of heath centers and hospitals has decreased due to upgrading of RAIDP roads. Number of health institutions has increased in ten districts (See Table 5.16). Frequency of visit to health centre by male, female and children were higher in project area than control villages. According to settlement level survey, number of women visiting to health center during prenatal and post natal period of pregnancy has increased after the improvement of RAIDP roads. Most of the RAIDP roads have an ambulance service that is availed in the time of emergency. Participants of FGD have expressed that travel time has decreased with the improvement of the roads. More than 62 percent residents of the project area have access to health centers within 5 km. Distance of health centers from control villages is longer than project area (See Table 7.5). In project area, private clinical services are established. There is a tendency to go private clinics and pharmacy for treatment in project area. Hundred percent immunization rates were reported in both control and project area. There is no report of death causality due to untimely getting treatment. In Tarai, there were cases of death of snake bites in the past. However, at present there is no report of death caused by snake bites in the project area. In the hill districts, road access has made possible to call on doctor in the village in the time of emergency.

Table 7.5 Distance to Health Care Centre from the sample households in project area and control villages

Project area Control area Range of Distance (km)

HHs % No %l

Up to 1 14 8.86 4 10.81

1 to 3 30 18.99 10 27.02

3 to 5 54 34.18 7 18.92

5 to 10 24 15.18 3 8.11

Above 10 36 22.79 13 35.13

Total 158 100 37 100


(37)

Qualifications of medical personnel as reported in the settlement level survey are reasonable and absent of such personnel was not reported in project area. At least one trained health assistant is availed in the project area. There are records of hospital in sample roads. However, access to hospital was noticeable in within one to two hours travel distance. Health treatment and means of Transport

Of the total visitors in health post majority of the respondents use public bus and bicycle in project area. Unlike to project area, nearly 50 percent populations from control area go to health post on foot.

Table 7.6 Vehicle types used for going health center Project Area Control Area Mode of Transport

No % No % On foot 47 30 18 49 Bicycle 49 31 12 32 Bus 62 39 7 19 Total 158 100 37 100

Source: Field Survey, 2011 RAIDP intervention on road has made significant contribution for going hospital. Table 7.7 shows that 80 percent people have used bus service while going to hospital in project area.

Table 7.7 Vehicle types used for going hospitals Mode of Transport Project Area Control Area

No % No % On foot 4 8 7 39 Bicycle 4 8 0 0 Motorcycle 1 2 1 5 Bus 41 80 10 56 Jeep 1 2 0 0 Total 51 100 18 100

Source: Field Survey, 2011 Accessibility on health institutions has increased in project area compared to control with the enhancement of road by RAIDP.

7. 4 Transport and food Security

Of the total households, nearly 20 percent from project area and 24 percent from control villages were food surplus households from their own agriculture production. More than 30 percent in project area and 27 percent households in control villages have ascertained that they meet their households' food requirement for 10-12 months from their own agricultural production. Altogether 13.5 percent households have food sufficiency below three months.

(38)

Table 7.8 Number of month of food sufficiency Project area

Control area

Total

Months No % No % No %

Surplus (well-off) 59 19.67 24 24.00 91 22.75

10 to 12 Months 91 30.33 27 27.00 110 25.00

6 to 9 Months 59 19.67 27 27.00 86 21.50

3 to 5 Months 51 17.00 8 8.00 59 14.75

Below 3 Months 40 13.33 14 14.00 54 13.5

Total 300 100 100 100.00 400 100.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Food supply in the project area has increased due to road transportation. As observed in the survey villages food stores were established along the RAIDP road in the Tarai.

7.5 Rural Road Improvement and Livelihood

After the improvement of the RAIDP roads some effects are seen in the livelihood. Respondents were asked to prioritize the impacts of road in terms of comparative advantages. Almost households gave top priority to easy access followed by increase in going hospital frequency (See Table 7.9). Similarly, respondents have given top second priority to decreased transportation cost followed by increasing income generation resource and increase in market going frequency. Table 7.9 presents respondents' prioritization according to their judgment.

Table 7.9 Livelihood priority in different sector in project area Priority

Sector 1 2 3

Easy for access 259 21 20

Increase in going hospital 156 91 53

Increase in market frequency 112 117 71

Increase selling items in market 99 106 95

Increase in income generation resource 75 127 98

Employment opportunity 74 107 119

Decrease transportation cost 61 152 87

Total 837 723 546 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Table 7.9 shows that there are many impacts of RAIDP roads in village level. Accessibility on various social amenities has helped to reduce poverty to some extend. 7.6 RAIDP Road Condition and Quality RAIDP has improved the rural roads based on the demand and DTMP prioritization. The road improvement has enhanced the access of locals to market centers, physical facilities and district and national roads. However, there were some complaints from the respondents RAIDP roads are too narrow that is not suitable for bus and trucks and they suggested to widening the road. In Nawalparasi and Rupandehi, as reported in FGD, more accidents were occurred due to narrow road. In the hill district community efforts were reported to open the road after the landslides. In Tarai, couples of week roads are closed due to floods. Rules of operating less than ten tons truck in RAIDP roads in Tarai were not followed. Local demand of construction bridges across roads was repeatedly asked. Poor quality of gravel and otta seal road was severely damaged in Kailali district just after the completion of road. In Rajapur ring road, big boulders were placed for graveling than regular size that caused boulder flickers and hit pedestrian.

(39)

Landslides and floods, strikes, accidents and others are major reasons for closing down RAIDP road for couple of the days in a year. Of the total sample districts, 14 districts were experienced flood and landslides in RAIDP road. There was no report of road closing down in Palpa, Rupandehi and Kapilbastu in any reason. In Salyan, road was blocked due to strikes and accidents while road was closed down other reasons in Kailali district. Figure 1 presents the causes of road blocked with frequency.

02468

101214161820

Cause

Bar Nu Rau Mak Ban Sir Sar Sal Nab Rasu Syan Uday Kaski Maho Rup Kapil Dhad Kail Pal Dhanu

District

Couses of Road Block

Landslides & Floods

Strikes

Accidents

Others

Figure 7.1- Causes of Road blocked in RAIDP Districts

7.7 Social Safe Guards

Of the total sample households, 35 percent were affected by RAIDP roads. They were affected due to land donation, damage of main structure and damage of minor structures and loss of other structure. Of the total affected households, nearly 85 percent were affected giving land to project. Of the total affected family 36.29 percent got assistance from the project. Among the assistance receiver most of them use their money for household expenses and only three family were used their money for house repaired (see annex tables 21 & 24). Category of land giving household told that they give land for widening the road and soil providing to fill up the road. In various places people were found to give more land to road if its width is extended.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Conclusion Based on the findings of the study, a few conclusions have been drawn and presented hereunder:

1. Given the fact that the upgrading of RAIDP roads has begun demonstrating its impacts through the reduction of travel time to reach the nearest town and social amenities. Similarly, travel behavior of the beneficiaries has changed due to easier access to work place and nearest town. People in the participating districts that live within four hours of walking to all season roads has increased by 100 percent in Tarai districts and 18 to 100 percent in the hill districts.

2. Traffic volume is higher in almost RAIDP sample roads compare to baseline condition. Overall growth of motorized and non-motorized vehicles is 37 and 33 percent respectively due to up grading of the roads. These figures are more than PDO target of 20% increment of vehicle at the end of the project.

3. Transportation cost of goods has slightly decreased in the hill districts compared to the past. However, passenger fare of bus and jeep has increased due to augment of fuel price internationally.

4. It is seen that accessibility of beneficiaries to private (e.g. bicycles, motorcycles) and public means (bus, jeep) of transport has increased along the RAIDP road.

(40)

There is impact of roads on social sector outcomes mostly in health and education sectors. For example, number of health institutions and schools has increased along the upgrading of the RAIDP road. Overall growth of social amenities in the project area is 12 percent. Due to RAIDP roads upgrading, people have timely got treatment in the time of the emergency.

5. Some impacts of RAIDP roads are seen on agriculture sector of the project districts. Due to improvement of the roads, farmers of project districts have started to produce traded commodities such as vegetables, fruits, poultry, etc. Bus, truck, bicycle, motorcycles and tractors are major means of transportation for agriculture inputs and agriculture production. Production of main crops has enormously increased than baseline study to present both in control and project areas. Reasons of production increased may be several such as timely monsoon, easy access to agricultural inputs and market access through RAIDP road connection, improvement of irrigation facilities, etc.

6. Despite the fact that RAIDP districts are overwhelmingly based on agriculture, there are some new trends of shifting towards non-agricultural activities in the project areas. With the improvement of roads, migration in search of work has increasedd in various districts of Tarai. Employment opportunities through new business sector i.e. grocery shops, store houses, poultry farming, etc have recently started in the project area.

8.2 Recommendations Present impact study is limited to RAIDP road sub projects. In order to know the full effect of the RAIDP, the study comes up with following recommendations.

1. This impact study is limited to Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) (roads only) improvement in participating districts. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct full fledged impact of RAIDP in future.

2. RAIDP has given various types of trainings and constructed income generating buildings to project affected households under the social safeguards component. Therefore, it is suggested to incorporate such activities under the scope of impact study in future.

3. Present study is largely based on the sample survey. It is recommended to adopt mixed up method (Qualitative and quantitative techniques) while to understand the impacts of road in individual level. People's experiences, case studies and life history would also enhance our understanding on impact brought by RAIDP road project.

4. Present endeavor has not covered the sustainability of roads-maintenance cost; therefore, it is suggested to incorporate such issue under impact study in future.

5. This impact study has covered the livelihood aspect of the people of participating districts in general. In future, it is suggested to examine linkage of rural road and livelihood of people living in the project area rigorously.

6. RAIDP has been contributing for rural accessibility enhancement and poverty reduction, therefore, it is recommended to continue the project for further accessibility of rural population to social amenities and market town.

(41)

REFERENCES

Bista, Raghab (2006). Preliminary Accessibility Profile of Districts of Nepal,

RAIDP/DoLIDAR, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur

Blöndal, Nina (2007). Evaluating the Impact of Rural Roads in Nicaragua. Ministry

of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Danida

CBS (2004). Nepal Living Standards Survey 2003/04. Statistical Report, Volume I

& II, Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics

Development Grant Agreement between Kingdom of Nepal and International

Development Association, 2005

DoLIDAR/RAIDP (2009). Environmental and Social Management Framework.

Kathmandu: DoLIDAR/RAIDP

Khana, S.K. and Justo, C.E.G. (1984). Highway Engineering. India: New Chand

Bros

Pokharel, Binod (2011) Pilot Survey of Trisuli- Deurali-Meghang RAIDP Road,

Nuwakot (Project Report), DoLIDAR/RAIDP, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur

RAIDP (2009) Remedial Action Plan for the Project Affected People, RAIDP,

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads,

Government of Nepal

Sharma, Vallabha (2007). Final Report on Baseline Study of Twenty RAIDP-

Districts of Nepal (Project Report), DoLIDAR/RAIDP, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur

The World Bank (2005). Project Appraisal Document

The World Bank (2009) Aid Memo

The World Bank (2009). Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Credit and

Proposed Additional Grant

The World Bank (2010) Aid Memo

The World Bank (November 20, 2009). Project Paper on a proposed additional

credit, Sustainable Development Unit, Nepal Country Unit, South Asia region, The

World Bank

Van de Walle, Dominique (2008). Impact Evaluation of Rural Road Projects, World

Bank 1818 HST, NW Washington, DC

(42)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviation and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. I Summary of the Program ................................................................................................................ II Table of Contents............................................................................................................................III List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. IV CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE........................................................................................1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................................2 CHAPTER II ...........................................................................................................................5 2. Impact Study Methodology.................................................................................................5 2.1 THE PROJECT AND CONTROL AREA .............................................................................5 2.1.1 PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................5 2.1.2 CONTROL AREA............................................................................................................5 2.2 EVALUATION DESIGN...................................................................................................5 2.2.2 QUALITATIVE SURVEY.................................................................................................6 2.3 THE SAMPLE DESIGN....................................................................................................6 2.4 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................6 2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................7 2.2.1 LIMITATION OF IMPACT STUDY ...................................................................................8 CHAPTER III ..........................................................................................................................9 3. General Information of Survey Roads ...................................................................................9 3.1 DEMOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................9 3.2 CASTE AND ETHNICITY ..............................................................................................10 CHAPTER IV........................................................................................................................12 4. Major Findings...............................................................................................................12 4. 1 TRAFFIC COUNT AND TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS..............................................12 4.1.1 MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN RAIDP ROADS...............................12 4.2 LOCAL FARE BY VEHICLES.........................................................................................14 4.3 ROAD WISE TRAVEL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER PROJECT ..........................................15 4.3 OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES ..........................................................................................16 4.4 DISTANCE AND TRAVEL TIME TO THE NEAREST ALL SEASON ROADS ......................18 CHAPTER V .........................................................................................................................20 5.1 Agriculture and Transportation ..........................................................................................20 5.1.2 TRANSPORTATION FOR FARM INPUTS........................................................................20 5.2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS .............................................................21 5.3 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION......................................................................................21 5.4 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS................................23 5.5 PRICES OF MAJOR CROPS IN FARM GATE ...................................................................25 5.6 TRANSPORT AND AGRICULTURE EXTENSION ............................................................26 5. 7 NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ..............................................................................27 CHAPTER VI ........................................................................................................................29 6. Income, Expenditure, and Entrepreneurship .........................................................................29 6.1 EXPENDITURE INDICATORS .......................................................................................29 6.2 INCOME COMPOSITION...............................................................................................29 6.3 EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN PROJECT AREA AND CONTROL AREA..........................30 6.3.1 PRICE OF LAND...........................................................................................................31 6.3.2 LAND TENURE BY GENDER ........................................................................................32 6.3.3 ACCESS TO CREDIT BY GENDER.................................................................................32

(43)

CHAPTER VII.......................................................................................................................34 7. Education, Health, Food Security and Social Safe Guard ........................................................34 7.1 EDUCATION INDICATORS...........................................................................................34 7.2 NUMBER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE VILLAGE .......................................................34 7.2.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL ..................................34 7.3 HEALTH INDICATORS .................................................................................................36 7.3.1 DISTANCE AND FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO HEALTH CENTER ......................................36 7. 4 TRANSPORT AND FOOD SECURITY.............................................................................37 7.7 SOCIAL SAFE GUARDS................................................................................................39 8. Conclusions and Recommendation .....................................................................................39 8.1 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................39 References Annexes Terms of References

(44)

REFERENCES

(45)

ANNEXES

i

ANNEXES Annex-1 Name of Sample Roads of Baseline Survey and Impact Study of RAIDP, 2006/07

and 2011

SN District Name of Road Original place of sample (VDC)

Control VDC

1 Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda Chhatre Deurali Khari 2 Kaski Rakhi-Mijure Road

Kalika Sardikhola

3 Syangja Rangkhola-Biruwa

Rangbang Kitchnas

4 Rasuwa Kalikasthan- Dhunge Bhorle Dhaibung 5 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang Tupche Kalyanpur Makawanpur Kulekhani- Humanebhanjayang Kulekhani Chhatiwan 7 Palpa Banstari Jhadewa

Chitrungdhara Foksingkot

8 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi

Pragatinagar Jahada

9 Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha Gangoliya Gajedi 10 Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk

Patariya Patna

11 Rautahat Himalibas-Auriya Auraiya Mathiya 12 Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol Hajariya Sundarpur 13 Mahottari Matihani-Pipara-Brahmapur Matihani Suga Bhawani 14 Siraha Siraha-Mirchaiya Sarshwor Sikron 15 Dhanusa Janakpur-Khariyani Mansinghpatti Benga 16 Udayapur Ghaighat-Beltar-Chatara Beltar Rauta 17 Kailali Kutiya-Matiyari Beladevipur Urma 18 Bardiya Rajapur Ring road Dhadhawar Daulatpur 19 Banke MRM-Tirthiya Sonpur Titihiriya Sonapur 20 Salyan Khanga Hospital -Simkharka Khalanga Karagithi

Annex -2 Orientations Program for Baseline and Impact Study

SN Cluster

No

Cluster districts Venue for

Orientation

Date of Orientation

1 1 Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke, Bardiya,

Salyan, Dang, Surkhet

Nepalgunj 17 October, 2011

(2068/6/30)

2 4 Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa,

Siraha, Udayapur, Bara, Parsa, Saptari

Bardibas 30 October, 2011

(2068/7/13)

3 3 Rasuwa, Kaski, Makawanpur, Nuwakot,

Syangja, Dhading Tanahu

Hetauda 3 November, 2011

(2068/7/17)

2 2 Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Palpa,

Pyuthan, Arghanchi, Gulmi

Palpa 8 November, 2011

(2068/7/22)

Persons to be participated in orientations

1. All SDCs of the respective cluster

2. SSDC of the respective cluster

3. Local Development Officer from orientation organizing district

4. Mr. Shambhu Prasad Kattel, SDE, RAIDP

ii

5. Dr. Binod Pokharel, Impact Study Consultant, RAIDP

6. Mr. Umesh Kumar Mandal, Baseline Survey Consultant, RAIDP

7. Enumerators two from each district

Annex-3 Population distribution by caste and ethnicity of sample households

Tarai Districts

Hill Districts

Groups Pop % Pop %

Project Area High Caste hill 141 13 417 54 Hill Dalits 7 1 46 6 Hill Janajati 165 15 309 40 Terai 242 22 0 0 Terai Dalit 327 30 0 0 Terai Janajati 78 7 0 0 Musalman 140 12 0 0 1100 100 772 100 Control area Hill high caste 48 12 71 27 Hill Dalits 3 1 32 12 Hill Janajati 64 16 154 59 Terai 80 20 0 0 Terai Dalit 127 32 6 2 Terai Janajati 21 5 0 0 Musalman 54 14 0 0

397 100 263 100

Annex 4 No of Vehicles before and after the RAIDP Road

District Roads

Jeep/car/ Taxi

Bus/minibus

Trucks/mini-trucks

Tractors

Motorcycles

Non-motorized vehicles

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 3 3 1 2 2 5 4 8 70 175 70 111

Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 0 0 9 12 7 14 48 61 10 51 96 128

Banke Titihiriy-Sonapur 0 3 5 9 8 11 39 51 17 23 67 87

Salyan Khalangga 1 2 2 4 1 2 13 9 20 25 0 0

Kapilvastu Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok 2 0 2 2 8 11 35 43 25 32 80 79

Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 2 3 6 10 12 14 54 65 40 54 64 90

Nawalparasi Daldle-Dhauwadi 2 21 7 10 1 2 19 38 34 40 59 93

Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 4 10 6 11 6 8 8 6 41 51 4 0

Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 6 5 0 0

Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 2 1 2 2 12 22 14 20 36 44 2 1

Syangja Rangkhola-Biruwa 0 4 3 6 10 13 1 1 2 7 0 0

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 4 5 6 10 2 37 0 4 20 26 0 6

Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang 1 0 2 4 10 14 1 0 30 100 0 0

iii

Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 2 7 3 0 5 5 5 4 13 34 0 0

Rautahat Auriya-Himalibas 1 1 0 1 5 7 18 20 40 50 100 116

Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol 0 0 5 7 4 6 10 12 7 14 103 197

Mahottari Matihani-Pipara 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 1 11 1 82 44

Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 3 0 6 7 4 8 33 35 67 117 110 333

Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0 0 3 7 3 6 4 12 20 24 117 152

Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 8 17 66 89

Total 31 64 71 109 106 190 315 392 517 890 1020 1526

increase % 52 35 44 20 42 33 Source: Districts Records, RAIDP Office Records, 2011, Traffic Survey and FGD, 2011 Note: Non-motorized Vehicles includes bicycle,animal cart, Rickhaw. Annex 4a Traffic Unit by Roads

Types of Traffic

Districts

Roads Jeep Motorcycle

Bus/ Minibus

Light truck

Trucks upto 10 tonnnes

Tractor Bicycle Tanga/

Carriage Rickshaw Cart

N N N N N N N N N N Kailali Khutiya-

Matiyari 3 87.5 6 6 3 12 50 0 0 60 227.5 Bardiya Rajapur Ring

Road 0 25 36 18 6 90 57 0 0 78 310 Banke Titihiriy-

Sonapur 3 12 24 15 3 75 38 0 1 60 231 Salyan Khalangga 2 13 12 3 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 43.5 Kapilbastu Sibalawa-

Labni-Lakhanchok 0 16 6 15 0 64.5 29.5 0 0 120 251

Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 3 27 30 18 6 97.5 34 0 2 120 337.5

Nawalparasi Daldle-

Dhauwadi 21 20 30 3 0 57 37.5 0 0 108 276.5 Palpa Banstari-

Jhadewa 10 25.5 33 12 0 9 0 0 0 0 89.5 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-

Dhunge 0 2.5 3 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 1 22 6 30 0 27 0.5 0 0 0 86.5 Syangya Rangkhola-

Biruwa 4 21 18 19.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 64 Dhading Bhimdhunga-

Lamidanda 11 13 30 55.5 0 6 0 0 0 0 115.5 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-

Mehang 0 50 12 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 Makwanpur Kulekhani-

Humanebhanjyang 7 17 0 7.5 0 6 0 0 0 0 37.5

Rautahat Auriya-Himalibas 2 25 3 10.5 0 30 24 6 0 114 214.5

Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol 0 7 21 6 6 18 95 0 0 42 195

Mahottari Matihani-Pipara 0 3 0 0 0 1.5 5 6 0 198 213.5

Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 0 88.5 21 9 6 52.5 161 0 0 66 404

Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0 12 21 6 6 18 62 0 0 168 293

Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar 3 8.5 12 3 0 3 40 0 0 54 123.5

Total 70 495.5 324 262.5 36 582 633.5 12 3 1188 Source:Trafic Survey, 2011 and FGD, 2011

iv

Annex Table 5 Nearest all season road distance from the sample HHs in project area (mean)

District Name of Road Distance

(km) Trips in months

Travel time per trip (hrs)

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 1.69 9.80 0.39

Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.53 20.67 0.10

Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 2.07 23.87 0.37

Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 1.58 23.20 0.27

Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 13.60 5.07 1

Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 4.20 6.67 0.95

Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 1.59 15.80 0.28

Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 4.60 7.53 0.83

Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 0.89 28.47 0.21

Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 5.27 5.93 1.25

Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 4.02 14.47 0.75

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 1.16 24.00 0.24

Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 2.77 10.07 0.41

Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 7.08 8.87 1.16

Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 2.00 9.20 0.44

Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 1.61 11.40 0.35

Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 3.12 11.60 0.5

Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 4.00 2.00 1

Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 11.43 2.87 1

Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 9.53 3.00 0.95

Total Average 4.14 12.31 0.62 Source: Field Survey, 2011

Annex Table 6 Nearest bus stop distance from the sample HHs in project area (mean) District Name of Road Distance Trips in months Travel time per trip

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 4.87 2.40 0.92

Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.53 20.67 0.1

Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 2.90 15.87 0.57

Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 2.48 21.20 0.41

Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 13.93 5.07 1

Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 5.33 6.47 0.92

Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 0.46 23.67 0.1

Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 4.60 7.53 0.83

Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 9.97 12.07 1

Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 5.40 5.80 1.05

Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 0.69 26.53 0.12

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.19 24.00 0.03

Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 2.59 11.53 0.52

Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 1.77 16.20 0.33

Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 5.00 9.20 1

Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 1.27 14.73 0.25

Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 4.40 2.93 0.80

Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 4.93 5.40 0.88

Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 1.40 8.00 0.25

Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 10.20 2.80 0.95

Total average 4.1 12.1 0.6 Source: Field Survey, 2011

v

Annex: 7 Distribution of land by household and road Name of Road Landless .01 to .49 .50 to .99 1 and above HH 1 Khutiya-Matiyari 3 7 10 20 2 Rajapur Ringroad 8 7 5 20 3 Titiriya-Soanpur 1 7 10 2 20 4 Hospital-Simkharka 13 6 1 20 5 Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 2 9 1 8 20 6 Madhauliya-Bhutaha 13 6 1 20 7 Daldale-Dhobidi 12 6 2 20 8 Bastari-Jhadeba 2 13 3 2 20 9 Kalikasthan-Dhunge 8 8 4 20 10 Rakhi-Mijure 13 5 2 20 11 Biruwa-Rankhola 2 9 5 4 20 12 Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 17 3 20 13 Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 8 5 7 20 14 Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 16 4 20 15 Auriya-Himalibas 6 9 3 2 20 16 Karmiya-Hathiwon 11 4 5 20 17 Matihani-Pipra 5 9 4 2 20 18 Janakpur-Kharihani 13 3 4 20 19 Mirchaiya-Siraha 8 2 10 20 20 Gaighat-Chatara 10 7 3 20 Total 18 209 99 74 400


Annex: 8 Area and Production of Paddy

Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed district

Name of road

Area (ha) HH Production (quintal) Area (ha) HH

Production (quintal)

Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 17.81 12 350.00 4.23 4 109.00

Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 4.75 14 169.30 1.85 4 50.00

Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 4.14 10 174.00 1.79 2 76.00

Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.00 0 0.00 1.95 5 43.00

Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 7.61 14 302.00 2.15 4 98.00

Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 10.30 13 312.00 8.13 5 324.00

Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 3.51 11 171.00 1.40 5 40.50

Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 1.45 7 19.50 0.20 1 4.00

Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 6.37 11 236.00 1.30 4 47.50

Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 5.45 15 145.50 1.95 4 31.50

Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 1.20 8 38.50 2.60 4 53.00

Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 5.75 14 161.50 2.02 4 70.00

Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 4.75 14 122.00 1.75 4 27.50

Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 8.94 14 217.20 2.02 4 37.60

Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 10.76 15 227.00 3.09 5 100.00

Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 14.95 14 677.00 5.23 5 238.00

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 1.38 6 25.50 0.90 5 16.50

Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 20.41 15 595.00 5.75 4 291.00

Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 5.75 12 181.50 1.50 5 41.50

Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 8.22 10 74.40 7.09 3 46.40

Total 143.49 229 4198.90 56.87 81 1745.00

vi

Annex: 9 Area and Production of Maize

Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed district Name of road

Area (ha) HH


Area (ha) HH






















Total 54.92 165 1065.66 21.53 49 316.52

Annex: 10 Area and Production of Wheat


Name of road

Area (ha) HH Production (quintal) Area (ha) HH






















Total 52.22 122 1008.29 23.12 54 515.58

vii

Annex: 11 Area and Production of Millet Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed

district Name of road

Area (ha) HH Production (quintal)

Area (ha) HH


Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




















Total 14.84 60 207.54 7.03 26 84.91

Annex: 12 Area and Production of Potato

Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed district Name of road


Area (ha) HH






















Total 6.47 81 582.65 2.72 26 237.60

viii

Annex: 13 Area and Production of Mustard Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed


Area (ha) HH


Area (ha) HH






















Total 23.44 94 120.15 8.50 32 41.65

Annex: 14 Area and Production of Pulses


Name of road


Area (ha) HH






















Total 41.54 62 149.40 8.32 20 50.75

ix

Annex: 15 Area and Production of Vegetables Project Area villages Control villages Surveyed


Area (ha) HH

Production (quintal) Area (ha) HH






















Total 10.31 279 628.16 4.26 94 161.61

Annex Table 16 Number of Poultry farms in project Area and control areas District Program Villages Control Villages Kailai 60 Bardia 0 Banke 0 Salyan 0 Palpa 150 Rupandehi 10 3 Kapilbastu 0 Nawalparasi 0 Syangja 2 Kaski 3 Makawanpur 2 Dhading 45 Rasuwa 55 Nuwakot 10 Rautahat 4 Sarlahi 6 Siraha 0 Mahottari 0 Dhanusa 0 Udayapur 20 367

x

Annex: 17 Local wage rate for various works by gender

Wage rate Program Wage rate control District Type of labor Male Female Male Female

Danusa Agriculture labor 250 250 300 300 Construction labor 300 300 300 300 Skilled labor 600 - 500 Palpa Agricultural labor 300 150 250 125 Construction labor 250 225 150 300 Skilled labor 500 - 400 - Makawanpur Agriculture labor 200 200 200 150 Construction labor 400 400 300 200 Skilled labor 500 - 400 - Porter Rs. 2 per kg Rs. 2 per kg - - Dhading Agri. Labor 400 300 150 100 Construction labor 400 300 350 100 Skilled labor 600 - 500 - Kailai Agri labor 200 200 160 160 Construction labor 250 250 200 200 Brick factory 200 200 180 180 Skilled labor 500 - 400 - Rupandehi Agri labor 200 200 200 250 Construction labor 500 250 300 250 Skilled labor 600 - 500 - Trade labor - - 200 150 Kapilbastu Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200 Construction labor 450 250 450 250 Skilled labor 600 - 600 - Industrial labor - - 300 300 Udayapur Agri. Labor 300 150 250 150 Construction labor 350 350 250 200 Skilled labor 500 - 500 - Kaski Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200 Construction labor 400 200 200 200 Skilled labor 700 - 400 - Mahottari Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200 Construction labor 300 300 300 300 Skilled labor 600 - 500 - Syangja Agri.labor 200 150 300 150 Construction labor 250 150 300 300 Skilled labor 400 - 600 - Trade labor 500 300 Salyan Agri. Labor 300 200 300 300 Construction labor 300 250 300 300 Skilled labor 500 - 450 - Bardiya Agri. Labor 200 200 150 150 Construction labor 200 200 250 300 Skilled labor 400 - 400 - Banke Agri. Labor 150 150 150 150 Construction labor 200 200 200 200 Skilled labor 400 - 400 - Nawalparasi Agri. Labor 300 250 280 300 Construction labor 350 400 350 400 Skilled labor 500 - 500 - Trade & industry labor 500 400 500 400 Rasuwa Agri. Labor 250 250 150 150 Construction labor 250 500 250 300 Skilled labor 600 - 400 - Rautahat Agri labor 100 100 100 100 Construction labor 200 - 200 - Skilled labor 400 - 400 - Road labor 250 - - - Siraha Agri labor 250 250 250 250 Construction labor 300 300 300 300 Skilled labor 500 - 500 - Sarlahi Agri labor 200 200 350 350 Construction labor 300 300 350 350 Skilled labor 500 - 400 - Industrial labor 500 450 - - Nuwakot Agri labor 200 200 200 200 Construction labor 300 300 250 250 Skilled labor 500 500 500 500

xi

Annex Table 18 Type and Number of Business Centres small scale enterprise Districts Project Area Control Area

Shops Small enterprise Shops Small enterprise

Dhanusa 20 5 18 6 Palpa 200 188 4 0 Makawanpur 22 2 0 0 Dhading 25 53 3 0 Kailai 210 67 39 0 Rupandehi 20 13 15 5 Kapilbastu 15 1 5 0 Udayapur 90 40 7 2 Kaski 23 3 2 0 Mahottari 130 10 9 0 Syangja 10 2 6 1 Salyan 141 3 1 0 Bardiya 200 20 3 0 Banke 112 9 6 2 Nawalparasi 26 5 7 6 Rasuwa 6 57 5 0 Rautahat 85 16 8 5 Siraha 82 60 15 20 Sarlahi 37 6 2 0 Nuwakot 25 4 3 3

Annex 19 Number of people employed in local level business centers District Project area Control area Dhanusa 48 35 Palpa 800 0 Makawanpur 49 0 Dhading 156 6 Kailali 535 35 Rupandehi 66 39 Kapilbastu 25 5 Udayapur 260 10 Kaski 39 2 Mahottari 180 10 Syangja 24 14 Salyan 51 1 Bardiya 515 3 Banke 180 10 Nawalparasi 153 28 Rasuwa 78 10 Rautahat 181 20 Siraha 274 75 Sarlahi 88 4 Nuwakot 58 12 Total 3760 319

xii

Annex 20 Number of visit to loan taking institution Trips Project Area Control Area

No % No %

1 time 10 62.5 3 60

2 Times 4 25 0 0

3Times 0 0 1 20

4 times 0 0 1 20

More than four 2 12.5 0 0

Total 16 100 5 100 Annex 21 Number of Project Affected Family

HHs Percent

yes 105 35.00

No 195 65.00

Total 300 100.00 Annex 22 Type of Effects

HHs Percent

Giving land 89 84.76

Damage main structure 3 2.86

Damage minor structure 11 10.48

Other asset loss 2 1.90

Total 105 100.00 Annex 23 Compensation received or not ?

No Percent

yes 36 34.29

No 69 65.71

Total 105 100.00 Annex 24 Use of support

No Percent

Use of economic support

Home expense 33 91.67

House mentainance 3 8.33

Total 36 100.00

(46)

TERMS OF REFERENCES

0

Government of Nepal Ministry of Local Development

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)

RURAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION PROJECT (RAIDP)

Terms of References For

Consultancy Services for Impact Study

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Government of Nepal (G0N) has received development grant and credit of 45 million U.S. $ to

implement the Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP), with additional financial assistance from the International Development Association (IDA). A Part of this additional financial assistance is to be used for consultancy services for hiring individual consultant for baseline survey to monitor the socio-economic impact in participating districts.

1.2 The RAIDP- Additional Finance (AF) is a continuation to the Rural Access Improvement and

Decentralization Project (RAIDP) started at 2005 and aims to support the completion of remaining works in the existing twenty (20) project districts and scale up the project to ten (10) additional districts. It also aims the good practices and positive lessons learned from implementation of the prevailing RAIDP. The primary objective of RAIDP-AF is to provide beneficiary rural communities with improved and sustainable physical access to economic opportunities and social services. The project comprises of: a Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) Improvement Components :Sub-components are:

(i) All season rural roads; (ii) Dry season rural roads (iii) Rural roads maintenance, (iv) Trail bridges construction at national level, (v) Demand-driven community Infrastructure and Support (vi) River Crossing Structures.

b Capacity Building and Advisory Services (CBAS) Component :Sub-components are: (i)

Training/Workshops (ii) Institutional Strengthening (iii) Planning (iv) Baseline survey & Socioeconomic Impact Monitoring Study (v) Implementation Support.

1.3 The participating districts grouped in four clusters are as follows

Cluster I: Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Salyan, Surkhet and Dang; ClusterII: Puthan, KapiIvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Palpa, Gulmi and Arghakhanchi; Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syanga, Tanhun, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makwanpur; Cluster IV: Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha, Saptari and Udyapur.

2. RATIONALE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural areas

by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that can increase the quality of life for the poor. It is believed that eliminating the isolation of populated areas with previously limited accessibility can provide the population greater and stable access to critical goods, as well as essential social services, such as medical facilities, schools, visit by

1

concerned officer, and health care. It also creates the opportunity for development of these services in their localities. Improved access to jobs provides opportunities for the poor to participate in the economy and thus they reap more benefits of growth. Transport access, by increasing the ability of the poor to travel to financial and urban centers, and reduced transport costs facilitates the access of the poor to agriculture inputs and resources such as capital and formal or informal trading links, reduced prices of goods and agriculture inputs, all of which can spur rural development efforts. Rural road improvements are also undertaken to promote agricultural development by increasing the production and marketing of agricultural products as well as shift in agriculture pattern to cash crops, particularly where lack of access had choked agricultural output or marketing facility. By alleviating constraints in the movement of agricultural products, farmers’ revenues can increase and agricultural and non-farm rural employment can also increase, contributing to a decline in poverty.

2.2 The empirical evidence at the macroeconomic level of the positive correlation between road improvements and GDP per capita growth is extensive1. Yet, the distributional impact of road projects, especially the impact on the poor, is less known. Previous efforts at assessing the impact of rural roads have typically been limited because of lack of available baseline data and control or comparison groups, making it difficult to disentangle the effects from the road improvements from those of other interventions and overall development of the economy2.

2.3 The proposed impact evaluation will be designed to estimate the counterfactual – namely, what would have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in two phases, the overall objective of the proposed study is to assess (i) the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of the RAIDP on target populations , individuals, households, and (ii) to determine the extent to which interventions under the RAIDP cause changes in the well being of targeted populations by examining how they change over time in communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared with those that do not (comparison groups).

2.4 The impact assessment phase of this study will comprise of the following steps: Review the project documents including baseline study undertaken previously under

original RAIDP. Revisit survey instruments. Development of evaluation methodology Undertaking of the impact survey Carrying out the descriptive and statistical analysis of the surveyed data in comparison

with the base line information. Organizing Workshops/Seminars for consultations with different governmental and

non-governmental stakeholders and experts. 2.5 The DoLIDAR/RAIDP-PCU now wish to hire an expert consultant to undertake the following

terms of reference relating to the implementation of the impact survey assessment study road sub-projects and community infrastructure projects completed in following twenty (20) districts groped in cluster as below:.

Cluster I: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan ClusterII: KapiIvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparas and, Palpa Cluster III:Rasuwa, Kaski, Syanga, , Dhading, Nuwakot and Mmakwanpur

Cluster IV:Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha, and Udyapur.

1 See, for example, Fan, Shenggen, Peter Hazell, and Sukhadeo Thorat, (1999) Linkages between Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty in Rural India, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. 2 See, for discussion, Baker, Judy (2000) Evaluating the Impacts of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: The Word Bank., and De Walle and Cratty (2002) “Impact Evaluation of Rural Road Rehabilitation Project.” Mimeo, World Bank.

2

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES 3.1 General

The general objectives of this consultancy service are to: Determine possible socioeconomic benefits of the RAIDP. This will in future help to, (i) adapt policy overtime as result of the evidence from the impact assessment, and (ii) support future funding request for rural access improvement

3.2 Specific . The specific objectives of this consultancy services are to:

(i) develop a scientific evaluation methodology and survey design to conduct statistical analysis to determine the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural roads improvement, and the extent to which RAIDP interventions cause changes in the well being of targeted populations overtime compared to those without project intervention;

(ii) conduct impact survey of a sample of individuals and households in areas that received RAIDP support (Project Areas), and on a small sample of households not receiving any kind of rural road improvement support from RAIDP or other sources (Control/Comparison Areas). The survey will be repeated with the same respondents- individuals and households –who had responded in the original baseline survey; and

(iii) conduct descriptive statistical analysis of the impact by comparing the baseline information with the results from this follow-up survey.

4. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: Review of the related documents The consultant will review the related documents of the projects including baseline study reports, remedial action plan and other related documents for the development of methodology to be adopted in impact survey. Task 2: Development of Study Methodology and Piloting

2.1 The Consultant will develop a detailed survey design and evaluation methodology. The methodology should be rigorous enough to ensure a sound statistical analysis of impact assessment, and draw statistically valid inference on the impact of rural roads on socioeconomic benefits to the communities.

2.2 The Consultant will visit the Project Areas and Control Areas as defined in the original baseline survey and refine survey questionnaires, if necessary. This will include ways of organizing and tabulating the information collected in electronic format. 2.3 Detailed indicators used for baseline and proposed for follow up surveys, as well as impact evaluation are provided in Annex 1. 2.4 The consultant shall prepare a detailed report on its survey design and evaluation methodology as described above. The report should include, but not limited to:

I. Detailed description of the Project and Control Areas to be surveyed II. Description of performance indicators to be used.

III. Draft survey questionnaire to be used. 2.5 Pilot the survey design and evaluation methodology developed for both the impact assessment study and road user satisfaction survey in a small sample of households and habitations with a view of refining them both before finalization and use in the main survey stage. A short report on the outcome of this pilot and the changes necessary shall be prepared.

3

Task3: Conducting follow-up Survey 3.1 Once the methodology is developed, tested, and accepted by the client, the Consultant shall

conduct a full-scale impact survey on selected Project and Control villages. 3.2 Undertake qualitative survey (e.g. focus group meetings) in a subset of the habitations to

gain additional insights and to verify/augment quantitative survey. 3.3 The impact survey should include a detailed survey of transportation, economic/income, and

social variables on both the project and comparison groups 3.3.1 Transportation variables should include accessibility index, transportation costs and times,

modal choice, a detailed survey of transport needs, preferences, and demands of the rural communities and household (See Annex 1.

3.3.2 Economic/Income Variables should include a detailed survey of economic activities in habitations, measuring agriculture productivity and non-agriculture employment, as well as prices of major commodities, income and expenditure of households (see Annex 1)

3.3.3 Social variables should include survey of availability and access of education and health facilities. .

3.4 The consultant shall submit in electronic form of the impact survey data. The data collected should be classified into habitation-level, household-level, and project-level database. The database should be easily searchable and accessible enough to conduct statistical analysis by the user. This should be in format compatible with the baseline survey data.

Task 4: Impact Evaluation The Consultant shall carry out a descriptive statistical analysis of the impact survey. This will include the following. 4.1 Compare the changes in both project and comparison groups how they rank with respect to

the indicators in Annex 1. 4.2 Conduct statistical correlation between selected socioeconomic variables on the one hand

and the level of current accessibility to motorized transport on the other. This will include a quantitative analysis of how limitations in accessibility contribute to rural poverty.

4.3 Prepare a report (maximum 30 pages including Annexes) detailing the findings of the analysis of the baseline and impact survey data to determine the true impact of the project interventions and draw lessons.

5 OUTPUTS AND REPORTS The consultant will deliver the following outputs.

Item No Due Date Remarks Inception Report, including work plan, detailed survey design and evaluation of methodology

5 (draft) 10 (final)

20 (Twenty) days from the effective date of the contract

Detailed methodology and work plan

Report on the pilot of the impact survey

5 (draft) 10(final)

40(Forty) days from the effective date of the contract

Impact Survey( Draft Report) 5 120(Hundred twenty) days from the effective date of the contract

Including electronic copy

Impact Evaluations Report (Final Report)

5 (draft) 10 (final)

180(hundred and eighty days) days from the effective date of the contract

Including electronic copy

4

6 DURATION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICE The consulting services for the proposed work shall be of Six (6) months period effective from date of contract 7 LOGISTICS The individual expert will be provided with an office space within the premises of RAIDP PCU office during data analysis period. 8 TAXATION The consultant is fully responsible for all taxes imposed by the relevant laws of Government of Nepal. 9 AGREEMENT The Consultant will be required to enter into an agreement with the RAIDP based on a Lump-Sum Contract for Consultant's Services and both parties before the commencement of the work shall sign such agreement. The consultant will be required to register in VAT after the signing of contract agreement. 10. PAYMENT SCHEDULE The consultant shall be paid as per following payment schedule:

i. 15 percent of the contract amount after signing the contract. ii. 15 percent of the contract amount after submission of inception report and

accepted by the client iii. 10 percent of the contract amount after submission of the report on pilot of the

impact survey and accepted by the client. iv. 25 percent of the contract amount after submission of the draft report and

accepted by the client. v. 35 percent of the contract amount after submission of the Final report and

accepted by the client. 11. REQUIRED QUALIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT 10.1 The individual consultant will be short listed with reference to the following minimum qualifications:

(i) Bachelor Degree in social sciences. The social sciences shall include Economics, Development Studies, Population Studies, Rural Development, Sociology/Anthropology, Geography and Human Geography. Master's degree in Sociology /Anthropology/ Transportation Engineering/Transportation Management/Transportation Economics will be preferable.

(ii) At least 7 years of work experience in the related field (iii) Completed at least one such similar nature of work 10.2 The consultant obtaining the highest score with reference to the evaluation criteria approved by the DoLIDAR ; shall be selected among the short listed consultants. 10.3 The number of points to be assigned to the assigned services shall be determined

considering the following two sub criteria : (a) Qualifications and relevant trainings – 30 Points (b) Experience in the related assignment– 70 Points

________________ Total = 100 Points

5

ANNEX 1 SURVEY INDICATORS Below are suggested indicators to be used by the consultant in carrying out the habitation and household surveys. The Consultant is free to suggest its own list of indicators. 1.1 Transport Indicators

(i) Number of trips taken outside village disaggregated by gender, income, and social status to various destination-- colleges/schools, hospitals/health centers, markets, government service office, and nearest city

(ii) Purpose of trips taken -- work, business, (iii) Time required to reach selected destinations (nearest city, market, school, health

center, work) (iv) Distance (and travel time) to the nearest all season road (v) Distance (and travel time) to nearest bus stop (vi) Passability Index – Number of weeks/months road is closed for motorized access. (vii) Vehicles per day (by type of vehicle) (viii) Frequency of bus service (ix) Frequency of auto rickshaws (x) Passenger fares (by mode of transport) (xi) Rate of truck-load of merchandize over a given distance (xii) Transport cost of farming inputs (seeds, fertilizers) (xiii) Transport cost of agriculture products (xiv) Ownership of motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles (xv) Agriculture Productivity Indicator (xvi) Produced quantities of crops (xvii) Output of key crops per unit of cultivated land (xviii) Amount of harvest sold in markets (xix) Use of fertilizers (xx) Use of herbicides (xxi) Use of pesticides (xxii) Use of improved seeds (xxiii) Use of farm equipment (tractors, machines) (xxiv) Farm-gate prices of key crops (xxv) Local market prices of key crops (xxvi) Unit price of farm inputs (xxvii) Number of people working on farm (xxviii) Agricultural day wage (xxix) Number of yearly visits of agricultural extension agent (xxx) Livestock ownership

1.2 Non-agriculture Activities Indicator (i) Number of stores in village (ii) Ownership of non-agricultural household enterprise (by type) (iii) Number of days worked outside farm

1.2 Income, expenditure, and entrepreneurship Indicator (i) Level and source of income (by gender) (ii) Expenditure composition (iii) Distance to markets (iv) Number of sellers/shops in nearest market

6

(v) Number of products available at market (vi) Price of key traded commodities (vii) Price of land (viii) Price of housing (ix) Land tenure (by gender) (x) Access to credit (by gender)

1.3 Education Indicators (i) Number of primary schools in village (ii) Primary school enrollment rate (by gender) (iii) Secondary school enrollment rate (by gender) (iv) Primary school dropout rate (by gender) (v) Distance to nearest primary/secondary school (vi) Qualification of teachers (vii) Rate of absenteeism of teachers (viii) Availability of school supplies

1.4 Health Indicators

(i) Distance to nearest health center/hospital (ii) Number of visits to health facilities (by age/gender) (iii) Days of work lost due to illness (iv) Immunization rate of children (v) Pregnant women receiving prenatal care (vi) Qualifications of medical staff (vii) Number of days present (viii) Availability of drugs and medical supplies (ix) Available hospital beds (x) Number of qualified doctors/health expert within the village

Trisuli Meghang Road, Nuwakot

Focus Groups in Banke

Photographs

Titiriya road in Banke

Orientation in Palpa

Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali

Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali

Impact Study Report March 20121

Documents

Transcript of Impact Study Report March 20121