Final
MICRO-ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Impact Study on Empowerment of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities
and Other Hardcore Poor through Micro-Enterprise Development
Programme
Chhaya Jha (HURDEC), Team Leader and
Development Management Institute Team
December 2014
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Acknowledgments
We thank the many women and men who have been working as micro-entrepreneurs over many
decades in Nepal and have provided immense lessons to the sector. We would like to specially thank
the respondents in the ten districts we conducted the survey in for their patience and their time.
We appreciate the inputs provided to the team by different informants both at district and central levels.
We are very grateful for the guidance of the National Program Director and to the guidance of others
from the Ministry of Industry.
Contributions of Ms Tara Gurung, Mr Padam Bhusal of DFAT, Heema Khadka, Nabina Shrestha and
Binda Magar from UNDP is also appreciated.
The commitment of MEDEP to contribute to the improvement of the lives of women, poor and the
excluded is inspirational. We sincerely value the inputs that the MEDEP staff provided to ensure the
accuracy and quality of the report. We are specially obliged to Ramji Neupane, NPM, MEDEP and
Sabita Dhakwa, Senior Institutional Development Specialist, MEDEP for their support and
management of the study.
We are grateful to all others in VDCs, municipalities, districts and in Kathmandu who shared their
experiences with us and provided us valuable insights. We sincerely acknowledge the support of all
those who directly or indirectly supported us in this study.
Chhaya Jha, Team Leader
Rajendra Giri, Executive Director, Development Management Institute
ii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ix
List of Annexes ......................................................................................................................................x
List of Boxes........................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xiii
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................xiv
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Context ........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2
Study Objectives .........................................................................................................................................2
1.3
Theory of Change and Operational Frameworks of GESI Impact Study ....................................................2
1.4
Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................3
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.5
Survey ............................................................................................................................................3
Qualitative methods.......................................................................................................................4
Respondent's Profile ....................................................................................................................................5
1.5.1
1.5.2
1.5.3
Respondent's Profile: Programme (Treatment) Group .................................................................5
Respondent Profile: Non- Programme (Control) Group ............................................................... 8
Comparison of respondents and MEDEP project beneficiaries ....................................................9
1.6
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 10
1.7
Organisation of the Report ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.
GESI in the Policy and Institutional Context of MEDEP .....................................................11
2.1
National Commitments for GESI .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2
GESI in Micro-enterprise related Policies ................................................................................................. 11
2.3
Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA) .......................................................... 13
2.4
GESI in MEDEP Policies .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.5
GESI Institutional Analysis of MEDEP .................................................................................................... 15
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2.6
Financial Allocation Analysis ................................................................................................................... 24
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4
3.
MEDEP ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Business Development Service Provider Organisations (BDSPOs) ............................................ 18
District Micro-enterprise Group Associations (DMEGA) .......................................................... 20
GESI in human resource and personnel management of NMEFEN ........................................... 23
GESI in human resource and personnel management of NEDC ................................................. 23
DCSI and CSIDB......................................................................................................................... 23
MEDEP ....................................................................................................................................... 24
District Microentrepreneurs Group Association (DMEGA) ....................................................... 25
Business Development Service Providing Organisations (BDSPO) .......................................... 26
National Micro-entrepreneurs Federation of Nepal (NMEFEN) ................................................ 27
GESI Profile of Micro-entrepreneurs of MEDEP .................................................................28
iii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
3.1
Caste/ethnicity profile of total project beneficiaries .................................................................................. 28
3.2
Active, Seasonally active and Inactive Status of Micro-entrepreneurs ..................................................... 29
3.3
Micro-entrepreneurs making income above and below poverty income line ............................................ 31
3.4
Enterprise category with caste/ethnicity and sex disaggregation .............................................................. 33
4.
Impact of MEDEP on Micro-entrepreneurs ..........................................................................33
4.1
Overall household profile of respondents .................................................................................................. 33
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.2
Changes in Assets and Services (Livelihood Empowerment) of MEDEP Micro-entrepreneurs ............... 40
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11
4.2.12
4.2.13
4.2.14
4.2.15
4.2.16
4.2.17
4.2.18
4.2.19
4.2.20
4.2.21
4.2.22
4.2.23
4.3
iv
Training and capacity building ................................................................................................... 72
Building voice and influence through group membership ........................................................... 74
Participation in DDC/VDC meetings .......................................................................................... 77
Access to VDC/DDC budgets ...................................................................................................... 79
Ability to demand services ........................................................................................................... 80
Networks/linkages ....................................................................................................................... 81
Capacity to access different source of funds ............................................................................... 82
Response of family to increased voice of women ........................................................................ 82
Change in level of respect received ............................................................................................. 85
Recommendations for voice and ability to influence domain ...................................................... 87
Changes in the Rules of the Game ............................................................................................................ 88
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.4.9
5.
Type of Micro enterprise ............................................................................................................. 40
Enterprise category-function and sector ..................................................................................... 41
Operational and non-operational micro-enterprises .................................................................. 42
Source and amount of investment in micro-enterprises .............................................................. 43
Sources of credit .......................................................................................................................... 44
Savings ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Enterprise Selection .................................................................................................................... 48
Decisions regarding selection of enterprise ................................................................................ 49
Services provided to micro-entrepreneurs by MEDEP ............................................................... 50
Access to finance ......................................................................................................................... 52
Raw materials.............................................................................................................................. 55
Technology and equipment.......................................................................................................... 55
Common Facility Centres ............................................................................................................ 57
Access to Market ......................................................................................................................... 58
Increase in income ...................................................................................................................... 58
Women in trading sector ............................................................................................................. 64
Women's participation in decision making in selected enterprise management issues ............... 64
Major challenges experienced by micro-entrepreneurs .............................................................. 65
Gender/caste/ethnicity/poverty based constraints ....................................................................... 65
Shifts in food security of MEDEP beneficiaries .......................................................................... 66
Change in assets .......................................................................................................................... 67
Changes in sanitation levels, and awareness of diseases ............................................................ 68
Recommendations for assets and services domain ...................................................................... 70
Changes in Voice and Influence (social mobilisation empowerment) ...................................................... 72
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
4.3.9
4.3.10
4.4
Background information about Treatment Group respondents ................................................... 34
Background information about Control Group respondents ....................................................... 37
Knowledge and participation in policy formulation .................................................................... 88
Changes in social practices ......................................................................................................... 89
Mobility ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Changes in women's decision making power .............................................................................. 91
Labour, access and control profile ............................................................................................ 106
Work-burden and time poverty .................................................................................................. 106
Gender based violence .............................................................................................................. 109
Caste/language based discrimination ....................................................................................... 110
Recommendations for the Rules of the Game domain ............................................................... 111
Returning to the Conceptual Framework ............................................................................112
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
5.1
Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the livelihood changes of women, Dalits, Janajatis and
Hardcore poor .......................................................................................................................................... 112
5.2
Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the changes in voice and ability to influence of women,
Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor ......................................................................................................... 113
5.3
Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the changes in gender norms and discriminatory practices,
processes and policies ............................................................................................................................. 114
5.4
Dalits’ ability to benefit from the range of services being provided by MEDEP .................................... 116
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
Profile of Dalit micro-entrepreneurs......................................................................................... 116
Investment and loans ................................................................................................................. 116
Services ..................................................................................................................................... 117
Training ..................................................................................................................................... 117
5.5
Understanding policy and institutional changes due to MEDEP ............................................................. 117
5.6
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 118
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
Economic, social and political empowerment ........................................................................... 118
Challenges faced by entrepreneurs ........................................................................................... 120
Ability of Dalits to benefit from MEDEP services ..................................................................... 121
Policy level and structural changes for GESI ........................................................................... 121
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................122
7.
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................131
Annexes ..............................................................................................................................................133
v
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17
Figure 4.18
Figure 4.19
Figure 4.20
Figure 4.21
Figure 4.22
Figure 4.23
Figure 4.24
Figure 4.25
Figure 4.26
vi
Gender analysis profile: labour, access and control analysis by Tharu women ........................ 5
Respondent by caste/ethnicity and sex ...................................................................................... 6
Respondents by MEDEP phase (in percent) ............................................................................. 7
Caste/ethnicity and well-being profile ...................................................................................... 7
Distribution of control groups respondents by sex and caste/ethnicity ..................................... 8
Distribution of respondents of control group by poverty and caste/ethnicity ........................... 9
MEDEP Staff by management level and sex .......................................................................... 16
MEDEP Staff by caste/ethnicity, regional identity and sex .................................................... 17
MEDEP Staff by management level, caste/ethnicity, regional identity and sex ..................... 17
Diversity of staff of five BDSPOs .......................................................................................... 19
Staff diversity in DMEGAs ..................................................................................................... 22
Staff diversity by caste and ethnicity ...................................................................................... 22
Budget by domains of change ................................................................................................. 26
Budget by GESI category (Dadeldhura and Jumla) ................................................................ 27
Status of Active, Seasonally-Active and Inactive Micro-entrepreneurs .................................. 29
Status by sex (in percentage of number of persons within that group) ................................... 30
Profit level by sex ................................................................................................................... 31
Profit by sex (in percentage of number of persons) ................................................................ 32
Major sources of income of programme respondents (in percent) .......................................... 34
Education level of respondent’s family members ................................................................... 35
Percentage distribution of sample population (16 years and above) by occupation ................ 35
Main Reason for Female Household Head (in percent) amongst respondents ........................ 36
Source of income of control group respondents ...................................................................... 37
Education level of respondent’s family members ................................................................... 38
Percentage distribution of sample population (16 years and above) by occupation ................ 39
Major Reason for Female Household Head (in percent) in control group .............................. 40
Sector classification of micro enterprises of respondents ....................................................... 41
Sector classification of micro enterprises by caste/ethnicity, sex and poverty (in percentage) 42
Number of closed enterprises by phase of establishment (in numbers) .................................. 43
Distribution of closed enterprises by product/commodity (in %) ........................................... 43
Average investment (Rs.) in micro enterprise by source ........................................................ 44
Preference of Respondents for Lending Institution (in percentage) ........................................ 45
Distribution of respondents by saving status and by caste ethnicity and sex (in percent) ....... 46
Distribution of respondents by saving status and by caste ethnicity and poverty (in percent) 46
Saving status before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and sex (in percent) ...................... 47
Saving status before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty (in percent) ............... 47
Demand Driven Model MEDEP ............................................................................................. 48
Reason for selecting the enterprise (in percentage) ................................................................. 48
Participation of women in selection of micro-enterprise by social group and sex (in percent)49
Participation of women in selection of micro-enterprise by social group and poverty (in %) 50
Six major components of MEDEP enterprise development model ......................................... 50
Provision of services and their usefulness (in percent) ........................................................... 51
Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source for credit by
caste/ethnicity (in percent) ...................................................................................................... 54
Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source for credit by sex and by
poverty (in percent) ................................................................................................................. 54
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.27
Figure 4.28
Figure 4.29
Figure 4.30
Figure 4.31
Figure 4.32
Figure 4.33
Figure 4.34
Figure 4.35
Figure 4.36
Figure 4.37
Figure 4.38
Figure 4.39
Figure 4.40
Figure 4.41
Figure 4.42
Figure 4.43
Figure 4.44
Figure 4.45
Figure 4.46
Figure 4.47
Figure 4.48
Figure 4.49
Figure 4.50
Figure 4.51
Figure 4.52
Figure 4.53
Figure 4.54
Figure 4.55
Figure 4.56
Figure 4.57
Figure 4.58
Figure 4.59
Figure 4.60
Figure 4.61
Figure 4.62
Figure 4.63
Figure 4.64
Figure 4.65
Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment by caste
ethnicity and sex (in percent) .................................................................................................. 56
Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment by caste
ethnicity and poverty (in percent) ........................................................................................... 56
Usefulness of Common Facility Centres (in percent) ............................................................. 57
Average net earnings per month from micro enterprises (in Rs.) ........................................... 59
Per capita income (PCI) of treatment and control groups (in Rs.) .......................................... 60
Percent of women respondents stating increase in income by caste/ethnicity ........................ 61
Participation of women in use of income by sex and caste/ethnicity (in percent) .................. 61
Participation of women in use of income by poverty and caste/ethnicity (in percent) ............ 62
Change in women's decision making on use of income by caste ethnicity (in percent) .......... 63
Change in women's decision making on use of income by sex and by poverty (in percent) .. 63
Women's participation in enterprise related decision making (in percent) ............................. 64
Comparison of Treatment and Control (Improvement in food security after being
entrepreneur) by caste/ethnicity (in percent) ........................................................................... 66
Comparison of Treatment and Control (Food Security) by poverty (in percent) .................... 67
Average value of assets owned by households (NRs. '000) .................................................... 67
Use of improved cooking stove and access to safe drinking water (in percent) ...................... 68
Awareness of HIV/AIDS and Malaria (in percent) ................................................................. 69
Participation in training and its usefulness by sex (in percent) ............................................... 73
Participation in training and its usefulness by poverty (in percent) ........................................ 73
Member of other organisations and presence in meetings (in percent) ................................... 75
Voice raised on issues affecting women and presence in meetings (in percent) ..................... 76
Response on issues raised in meetings (in percent) ................................................................ 76
Reason for being members in organisations other than MEDEP (in percent) ......................... 77
Participation in DDC/VDC meetings by caste ethnicity (in percent) ...................................... 78
Participation in DDC/VDC meetings by sex and poverty (in percent) ................................... 78
Access to VDC/DDC budget allocation process by caste ethnicity (in percent) ..................... 79
Access in budget allocation by sex and by poverty (in percent) ............................................. 79
Raise voice in government offices for services by caste ethnicity (in percent) ....................... 80
Raise voice in government offices for services by sex and by poverty (in percent) ............... 81
Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family by
caste ethnicity (in percent) ...................................................................................................... 83
Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family by
sex and by poverty (in percent) ............................................................................................... 83
Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and cleaning by
caste ethnicity (in percent) ...................................................................................................... 84
Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and cleaning by
sex and by poverty (in percent) ............................................................................................... 85
Status of respect from family and community by caste ethnicity (in percent) ........................ 86
Status of respect from family and community by sex and by poverty (in percent) ................. 86
Status of change in social practices (in percent) ..................................................................... 90
Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock by caste ethnicity (in %) 91
Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock by sex and by poverty
(in percent) .............................................................................................................................. 92
Change in women's decision making on purchase of house by sex and by poverty (in percent)
................................................................................................................................................ 93
Change in women's decision making on food for family members by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................... 94
vii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.66
Figure 4.67
Figure 4.68
Figure 4.69
Figure 4.70
Figure 4.71
Figure 4.72
Figure 4.73
Figure 4.74
Figure 4.75
Figure 4.76
Figure 4.77
Figure 4.78
Figure 4.79
Figure 4.80
Figure 4.81
Figure 4.82
Figure 4.83
viii
Change in women's decision making on health treatment by caste ethnicity (in percent) ...... 95
Change in women's decision making health treatment by sex and by poverty (in percent) .... 95
Change in women's decision making on number of children by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................... 96
Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device by caste ethnicity (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................... 97
Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device by sex and by poverty
(in percent) .............................................................................................................................. 98
Change in women's decision making on children's education by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................... 99
Change in women's decision making on religious and social functions by caste ethnicity (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................. 100
Change in women's decision making on religious and social functions by sex and by poverty
(in percent) ............................................................................................................................ 100
Change in women's decision making on investment of assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................. 101
Change in women's decision making regarding household assets by caste ethnicity (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................. 102
Change in women's decision making regarding household assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................. 103
Change in women's decision making related with business assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent) ................................................................................................................................. 104
Change in women's decision making on use of labour by sex and by poverty (in percent) .. 105
Change in women's decision making on wage of labour by caste ethnicity (in percent) ...... 105
Change in women's decision making on wage of labour by sex and by poverty (in percent) 106
Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste/ethnicity and sex..................... 107
Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty .............. 108
Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty (Control)
.............................................................................................................................................. 109
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 2.10
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Well-being, sex and caste/ethnicity profile of programme respondents.................................... 6
Sample size of respondents of control group ............................................................................ 8
Comparison of respondents and MEDEP project beneficiaries ................................................ 9
Budget by activity type ........................................................................................................... 24
Budget by GESI category ....................................................................................................... 24
Budget by Domains of Change ............................................................................................... 25
DMEGA and Workplan Period for GESI analysis .................................................................. 25
Budget by activity type ........................................................................................................... 25
Budget by GESI category ....................................................................................................... 26
Budget of BDSPOs by activity type ........................................................................................ 26
Budget by GESI category ....................................................................................................... 27
BDSPO Budget by domains of change ................................................................................... 27
Budget of NMEFEN by activity type ...................................................................................... 28
Entrepreneurs by caste and ethnicity and sex (in percent) ...................................................... 29
Status by sex (in number of persons) ...................................................................................... 29
Status by poverty and sex (in percentage of number of persons) ............................................ 30
Status by caste/ethnicity and sex (in % of number of persons within that social group) ........ 31
Profit above Rs. 21,168 by caste ethnicity (in percentage of number of persons) .................. 32
Profit below Rs. 21,168 by caste ethnicity (in percentage of number of persons) .................. 32
Micro-entrepreneurs by enterprise sector (in percent) ............................................................ 33
ix
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
List of Annexes
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Annex 7:
Annex 8:
Annex 9:
Annex 10:
Annex 11:
Annex 12:
Annex 13:
Annex 14:
Annex 15:
Annex 16:
Annex 17:
Annex 18:
Annex 19:
Annex 20:
Annex 21:
Annex 22:
Annex 23:
Annex 24:
Annex 25:
Annex 26:
Annex 27:
Annex 28:
Annex 29:
Annex 30:
Annex 31:
Annex 32:
Annex 33:
Annex 34:
Annex 35:
Annex 36:
Annex 37:
Annex 38:
Annex 39:
Annex 40:
Annex 41:
Annex 42:
Annex 43:
Annex 44:
Annex 45:
x
Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 133
Theory of Change for GESI Impact Study ............................................................................ 143
Note on Statistical Design of Study ...................................................................................... 144
Field work details .................................................................................................................. 148
List of Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews ......................................... 151
List of policies reviewed ....................................................................................................... 152
List of organisations and documents reviewed ..................................................................... 152
Sample distribution by district (Treatment) .......................................................................... 153
Sample distribution by project phase (Treatment) ................................................................ 155
Sample distribution by district (Control) .............................................................................. 156
GESI analysis of selected policies ........................................................................................ 158
GESI analysis of MEDPA Operational Guidelines ............................................................... 166
GESI analysis of BDSPO documents.................................................................................... 175
GESI analysis of DMEGA documents .................................................................................. 188
GESI analysis of NMEFEN documents ................................................................................ 201
List of MEDEP annual workplan activities categorised from a GESI perspective ............... 204
Average income by source (Treatment) ................................................................................ 209
Education Status of Respondent Family by Poverty (Treatment) ......................................... 211
Education Status of Respondent Family (Treatment) ........................................................... 212
Drop-out Status of Respondent Family (Treatment) ............................................................. 213
Reason for female household head (Treatment) .................................................................... 214
Average income by source (Control) .................................................................................... 215
Education Status of Respondent Family by Poverty (Control) ............................................. 217
Education Status of Respondent Family (Control) ................................................................ 218
Drop-out Status of Respondent Family (Control) ................................................................. 219
Reason for female household head (Control) ........................................................................ 220
Type of Micro-Enterprises (Treatment) ................................................................................ 221
Number of male and female in women group (Treatment) ................................................... 222
Classification of micro-enterprises (Treatment).................................................................... 223
Micro-enterprises by function (Treatment) ........................................................................... 225
Number of closed Micro Enterprises by project phase (Treatment) ..................................... 226
Preference for lending institutions (Treatment) .................................................................... 227
Saving status (Treatment) ..................................................................................................... 228
Reason for selecting enterprise (Treatment) ......................................................................... 230
Participation of women in enterprise selection (Treatment) ................................................. 231
Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source ............................... 232
Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment (Treatment) 234
Usefulness of Common Facility Centre (Treatment) ............................................................ 235
Test for difference of mean values of "treatment" and "control" groups .............................. 236
Number and percentage of households below and above poverty level PCI ........................ 237
Participation of women in use of income by poverty and caste/ethnicity (in percent)
(Treatment) ........................................................................................................................... 239
Change in women's decision making on use of income (Treatment) .................................... 240
Average number of persons engaged in micro-enterprises ................................................... 242
Food sufficiency from own production ................................................................................. 244
Roof of house ........................................................................................................................ 246
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 46:
Annex 47:
Annex 48:
Annex 49:
Annex 50:
Annex 51:
Annex 52:
Annex 53:
Annex 54:
Annex 55:
Annex 56:
Annex 57:
Annex 58:
Annex 59:
Annex 60:
Annex 61:
Annex 62:
Annex 63:
Annex 64:
Annex 65:
Annex 66:
Annex 67:
Annex 68:
Annex 69:
Annex 70:
Annex 71:
Annex 72:
Annex 73:
Annex 74:
Annex 75:
Ownership of goods (Treatment) .......................................................................................... 248
Ownership of goods (Control) .............................................................................................. 250
Toilet facility at home ........................................................................................................... 251
Awareness on health (Treatment) ......................................................................................... 252
Participation in training (Treatment) ..................................................................................... 253
Member of other organization and presence in the meeting (Treatment) ............................. 255
Voice raised on women issue and presence in the meeting (Treatment) ............................... 256
Response on issues raised in the meeting (Treatment) .......................................................... 257
Reason for being members in organization other than MEDEP (Treatment) ....................... 258
Participation in DDC/VDC meetings (Treatment) ................................................................ 259
Access in budget allocation (Treatment) ............................................................................... 261
Raise voice in government office on necessary services (Treatment) ................................... 263
Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family
(Treatment) ........................................................................................................................... 265
Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and sanitation
(Treatment) ........................................................................................................................... 267
Status of respect from family and community (Treatment) .................................................. 269
Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock (Treatment) ........... 271
Change in women's decision making on purchase of house (Treatment) .............................. 273
Change in women's decision making on food for family members (Treatment) .................. 275
Change in women's decision making on health treatment (Treatment) ................................. 277
Change in women's decision making on number of children (Treatment) ............................ 279
Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device (Treatment) ........... 281
Change in women's decision making on children's education (Treatment) ........................... 283
Change in women's decision making on religious and social function (Treatment) ............. 285
Change in women's decision making on investment of assets (Treatment) .......................... 287
Change in women's decision making on increased household assets (Treatment) ................ 289
Change in women's decision making on increase of business assets (Treatment) ................ 291
Change in women's decision making on use of labour (Treatment)...................................... 293
Change in women's decision making on wage of labour (Treatment) .................................. 295
Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP (Treatment)........................................... 297
Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP (Control) ............................................... 298
xi
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
List of Boxes
Box 4.1:
Box 4.2:
Box 4.3:
Box 4.4:
Box 5.1:
xii
Access to finance arrangements of MEDEP ........................................................................... 52
Changes after MEDEP ............................................................................................................ 75
Benefits of increased linkages ................................................................................................. 82
Shifts in level of respect received ........................................................................................... 85
Overview of strength of voice of different social groups ...................................................... 113
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
List of Abbreviations
ADB/N
Agriculture Development Bank Nepal
APSO
Area Support Office
BC
Brahman Chhetri
BDSPOs
Business Development Service Providers Organizations
CFC
Common Facility Centre
CTVET
Council for Technical education & Vocational Training
CSIDB
Cottage and Small Industry Development Board
DCSI
Department of Cottage and Small Industry
DDC
District Development Committee
DEIDC
District Enterprise Development Implementation Committees
DFAT
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
DMEGA
District Micro Entrepreneurs' Group Association
DPC
District Programme Coordinator
EDF
Enterprise Development Facilitators
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
GESI
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
GoN
Government of Nepal
GSIMIS
Gender and Social Inclusive Management Information System
ICS
Improved Cooking Stoves
ILO
International Labour Organization
KII
Key Informant Interview
MEC
Micro Entrepreneurs’ Cooperatives
MEDEP
Micro-Enterprise Development Programme
MEDF
Microenterprise Development Fund
MEDPA
Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation
MEGA
Micro Entrepreneurs' Group Association
MER
Micro-entrepreneur
MFI
Micro-Finance Institutes
MoI
Ministry of Industry
NEDC
National Entrepreneurship Development Center
NEX
National Execution Guidelines
NMEFEN
National Micro Entrepreneurs’ Federation Nepal
NPD
National Programme Director
NPM
National Programme Manager
OBC
Other Backward Class
PRA
Participatory Rural Appraisal
ToR
Terms of Reference
TYIP
Three Year Interim Plan
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
VDC
Village Development Committee
xiii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Executive Summary
The Government of Nepal (GoN) has adopted the Micro-Enterprise Development Programme
(MEDEP) model for poverty alleviation and has been replicating it within its Micro-Enterprise
Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA) programme currently covering 50 districts. MEDEP
has been contributing to the GoN's efforts on poverty reduction in rural areas through the development of
micro-entrepreneurs and employment generation since 1998. The programme, implemented by UNDP
through Ministry of Industry (MoI), targets people below the nationally defined poverty line, with
special focus on women and socially excluded groups, such as Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and
unemployed youths. MEDEP was started as a pilot programme in June 1998 in ten districts and by end
of third phase (July 2013), it had covered 38 districts representing, mountains, mid hills, Terai, across
all five regions of the country. The GoN has a plan to replicate it in all the 75 districts.
With MEDEP in its fourth phase (2013-2018), it was considered imperative by the donors, the
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), to analyse its contribution to addressing gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)
issues and for empowering women and excluded groups. The findings and the lessons learned from this
impact study will contribute and guide the interventions of MEDEP Phase IV and MEDPA.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study included:
a.
To assess the impact of the programme on the social, economic and political empowerment of
Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore poor in decision-making processes
at household and community level, entrepreneurs and institutional levels.
b.
To identify the challenges faced by entrepreneurs (Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and
other Hardcore groups) to expand their enterprises and recommend measures to address these
challenges.
c.
To assess whether the deprived groups particularly the Dalits are equally able/unable to benefit
from the range of services being provided by MEDEP and recommend measures to strengthen
their participation.
To analyse the policy level and structural changes due to the MEDEP intervention to promote
Gender and Social Inclusion.
To recommend how gender and social inclusion interventions can be strengthened in MEDEP
and MEDPA.
d.
e.
THE THEORY OF CHANGE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The theory of change of the GESI impact study built up on MEDEP's vision, goal and objectives. The
Theory of Change was that the problem of unequal power relations and existing discriminatory
practices create different levels of barriers for women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and the
Hardcore poor in building assets and capacities to access resources and opportunities and in having a
voice to influence service providers and make them accountable. The existing formal and informal
policies and social practices create institutional barriers that determine who will have access to what
resources and enjoy what benefits. If interventions address these constraints i.e. build up assets and
services, enhance voice and ability to influence and make informal and formal policies and practices
more equitable, there will be improved GESI mainstreaming in micro-enterprise development
xiv
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
programmes, leading to empowerment of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and the Hardcore
poor and resulting in their empowerment and reduction of inequality in society and state structures.
Thus the framework for the study focused on identifying the contribution of MEDEP: i. to improve the
access of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and Hardcore poor to assets, opportunities and
services; ii. to building up the ability of the target group to claim their rights and influence decisions
that affect their lives; iii. to changing the “rules of the game”, both formal and informal.
METHODOLOGY
The study administered a survey in 10 districts covering 583 (programme group) and 288 (nonprogramme) respondents. It conducted around 20 focus group discussions covering the 10 districts and
key informant interviews at both district and central levels. It used the GESI analysis framework to
analyse policies, institutions, programmes and budgets of MEDEP, BDSPO, DMEGAs, NMEFEN and
NEDC.
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings of the study, aligned with the study objectives are presented below.
Economic, social and political empowerment
Economic empowerment
Increase in income: There has been strong evidence of increase in income of women and men
entrepreneurs. MEDEP has provided opportunities for independent earning to very disadvantaged
women. Sixty-nine per cent of women stated that there has been an increase in their income. Women,
who were dependent on their husbands even for their own pocket money, have now been able to share
the household expenses. While there have been gender and caste/ethnic disparities, all across the board
have enhanced their earnings.
Gender and social differentials: Men have a higher level of earning than women. The Hardcore have
expectedly the lowest net earning. Comparatively non-hardcore poor have higher participation in
training, access to budget, access to finance than the Hardcore poor.
Per capita income (PCI). The PCI of the treatment group is higher by 55.5 percent from the PCI of the
control group. But within the PCI of the treatment group there are social and ecological disparities. The
average PCI of MEDEP project beneficiaries is NRs 44253. The (hill) Brahman/Chhetri, hill
Indigenous groups and the non Hardcore have a PCI higher than this average while the groups with
PCI lower than this average include the Madhesi Dalits, Muslims, Other Madhesi Caste and the Terai
Indigenous - all groups of the Terai. Of the 30 percent households below the poverty line of Rs 21,168,
56 percent are Other Madhesi groups. The mean difference between treatment and control groups is
found to be statistically significant at five percent level of significance.
Stronger role of women in enterprise related decision making: Women are actively participating in
decision making with respect to activities from the selection of enterprise to use of profit from micro
enterprise.
Improved Savings: “MEDEP’s active role to encourage savings from group members has contributed
to increased capacity at the local level to mobilise savings”. Fifty-eight percent of respondents reported
that they initiated savings habits after becoming a member of MEDEP.
xv
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Improved food security: MEDEP has contributed to increased food self sufficiency both in terms of
increased production from own land and with increased capacity to purchase food grains to meet
household food requirements. Differences existed between social groups with the Dalits experiencing
this benefit the least.
Increased value of assets: On an average the value of assets per household of treatment group was 115
percent higher than that of control group. The value of assets of non Hardcore group of the project
beneficiaries was higher than of the Hardcore. Average value of assets owned by households of
treatment group was NRs 1,562,000 while that of the control group was NRs 726,000 only. Value of
assets owned by hill Dalits was the lowest at NRs 745000 while the households with higher value of
assets were of terai Janajati, hill Brahman/Chhetri, Muslims, Other Madhesi Caste group and of men.
Social empowerment
Increased confidence: Access to information and exposure to various issues enhanced the
confidence of the target group, esp women and they became members of other community
based organizations (CBOs) in the area. 57 percent treatment group responses compared to
39 percent control group women became group members. Of these Hill Dalit women were
the highest.
Increase in status: Increase in women’s income, financial contribution to household expenses and
ability to work with outsiders (e.g. suppliers) has made a great difference in their status and has led to
increased value for their opinions and views within families. Janajati and Dalit women experienced
this less compared to other social groups. Male members of non Hardcore poor groups listen more to
their women. Non Hardcore poor have gained higher respect from family and community.
Strengthened women's voice: Above 90 percent of women reported that they are able to influence
household decisions with husbands and family gatekeepers listening to their voice. Seventy-five percent
of women stated that their participation in decisions regarding use of income was high. Male Members
of the Family Listen and Implement Women’s Suggestions.
Enhanced ability to influence decisions: Women have a major say in decisions both at family and
community levels after MEDEP.
Increased awareness of health and education: Increased understanding about health care and
significance of education enabled the micro-entrepreneurs to spend their increased income on children’s
health and education. This was true across all social groups.
Changing social norms and discriminatory practices: Due to the overall change in Nepal's context,
there has been lessening of discriminatory practices such as child marriage, menstrual exclusion and
veiling. Change has also enabled women to become more mobile and a few Dalit project beneficiaries
to attempt food and beverage related enterprises. Some forms of gender based violence have decreased
across social groups, though other forms still exist. The practice of dowry was perceived to have
increased by all the Terai groups.
Decrease in caste-based discrimination: There has been some slight change in this form of
discrimination after Dalits joined MEDEP. 6 percent respondents shared that they are permitted to enter
households. Amongst Dalits, Hill Dalits experienced better change compared to Madhesi Dalits.
xvi
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Political empowerment
Increased network: Women, especially those who were the first beneficiaries of MEDEP, have been
able to increase their network and become members of different groups.
Improved participation: Project beneficiaries participate more in VDC/DDC meetings after joining
MEDEP. Responses of before and after joining MEDEP demonstrate high differences: from 2 percent
to 43 percent women and from 12 percent to 64 percent men.
Strengthened capacity to claim services: Almost eighty percent of women respondents reported that
their ability to demand services and claim their rights from government offices was high.
Inputs in rules and regulations of micro-enterprise organisations in districts/VDC: 34 percent men
and 17 percent women were consulted. Those who were not consulted were the Other Madhesi caste
group, Muslim and Terai Janajati women and men.
Challenges faced by entrepreneurs
The challenges experienced by women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore groups to
expand their enterprises is summarised below:
Limited access to finance: Inadequate working capital is a major challenge and had affected business
expansion of the micro-entrepreneurs across groups. Dalits and women faced relatively higher
constraint on expansion due to inadequate working capital. Gender based constraints limits women's
access to finance and hence constrains them in their choice of businesses.
Inadequate product development and marketing mechanisms: The different constraints of the target
group of MEDEP in terms of finance, experience, access to information, credit, training opportunities,
business partners and new market entry impact their ability to have vibrant micro-enterprises. Weak
backward and forward linkages affect the growth of enterprises of all, more specifically women and
the Hardcore poor due to their additional vulnerabilities. MEDEP's efforts to address these kinds of
structural barriers have been insufficient to propel the micro-enterprises into high profit.
Gender biased division of labour: The household work burden results in women having limited
opportunities to become full time entrepreneurs. Traditional division of labour with women being
responsible for the private and men for the public domain is still widely prevalent. Household work is
primarily women's responsibility and becoming an entrepreneur has not necessarily changed that, even
though there has been an increase in the support of men for such tasks in some social groups.
Time poverty: Women's time poverty is a major challenge for their growth as entrepreneurs. Time
pressure has increased by more than double for treatment group (34 percent) compared to control group
(12.5 percent). The kind of enterprise which can yield higher results may require more time and
undisturbed, dedicated attention or time away from home. These are not possible for women, especially
younger women due to their multiple responsibilities. With high male migration, women experience
time shortages to work on both on-farm and off -farm. Reproductive tasks like child care, cooking,
cleaning are time consuming and community management of such tasks have not been accepted or
support provided. This time poverty leaves women with less time for learning and/or exploring business
prospects.
xvii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Tension in family and break-up: 14 percent respondents of treatment group reported of family breakup while only 9 percent respondents of control group said so.
Ability of Dalits to benefit from MEDEP services
Dalits benefited from training and services as much as others: Dalits were able to benefit from the
services and training that MEDEP provided as much as the other target groups. Hill Dalits had more
opportunities for training compared to Madhesi Dalits. Dalit men had higher participation in training
and development of TOPE, TOSE and technical skill development training than the women.
Dalits have not had comparable income benefits as others: There was a higher dependency of Dalits
on village money lenders and a higher percent of Dalits had not experienced an increase in income from
enterprises.
Policy level and structural changes for GESI
Policy influencing of MEDEP has resulted in micro-enterprise becoming a part of the industrial policy
framework in Nepal. Gender responsive provisions in the Industrial policy such as 35 percent
exemption for women in the registration fee, special fund for women and other such directives have
created a positive policy environment for women entrepreneurs.
MEDEP has succeeded in establishing that a targeted approach is necessary in micro-enterprise.
Specifying that a certain percentage of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and Hardcore poor are
to be the project beneficiaries, it demonstrated that directives for inclusion of such groups was essential.
It has additionally demonstrated that structures and mechanism need to ensure that the voice of the
excluded is included e.g. by establishing a structure such as the DMEGA which is composed of the
target group itself. Its modality of service provision through local service providers has shown how
women, the poor and the excluded can access services.
Human resource and personnel policies are not evenly GESI responsive across institutions. Very rarely
are gender (beyond maternity leave) and caste specific aspects addressed in human resource
arrangements.
Skills and competencies on GESI are inadequate of staff of concerned organisations and need further
attention and investment.
Financial allocation analysis from a GESI perspective indicates that the budget of MEDEP and its local
partners are focused on providing services to the target group. A key gap in the financial allocation was
for interventions to address deeply embedded discriminatory patriarchal and social practices and for
working on addressing these barriers in a systemic and structural manner.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the discussions in the previous chapters and the fey findings, conclusions and
recommendations are presented below. All the six recommendations are relevant for the three key
actors: MoI/GoN, UNDP and DFAT but their role is different. MoI/GoN has to ensure that the policy
directive for the implementation of these recommendations is in place, UNDP is responsible for the
effective implementation of these directives and DFAT for quality assurance and GESI responsive
performance.
xviii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Conclusion 1: MEDEP has contributed significantly in improving livelihoods - active microentrepreneurs across social profiles, have improved income levels and are able to spend on health,
education and sanitation but progressing beyond subsistence level enterprises is challenging.
Opportunities for an alternative occupation have been provided to a group which had previously never
had this chance. Dalits, women, the hard-core poor had never before been able to raise the required
resources, equipment or even the courage to take such risks that a micro-enterprise demands. Support
to address different kinds of barriers e.g. space, finance, technology, linkages with market have all
facilitated this. "Children, both girls and boys, go to school. All of us have better access to health care
as we can now pay for it." (FGD responses).
Due to inadequate resources and other barriers such as limited access to finance, marketing support,
gender and caste based discriminatory practices, it has been challenging for women, Dalit, Janajati and
Hardcore poor micro-entrepreneurs to move out of subsistence level easily. There is usually no
additional assistance from Government organisations and hence there is dependency on MEDEP and
its staff for any kind of support.
Recommendation 1: A critical analysis of market and strengthening the range of services based on
social realities, should be provided to women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor microentrepreneurs by MEDEP/MEDPA.
MEDEP is providing or facilitating access to a range of services like access to markets, information
about raw material and technology, design inputs and product development. But this has been
insufficient till now for developing sustainable and growth oriented MEs. Twenty-one percent
enterprises have closed down and many others have generated marginal income.
The three main pillars of micro-enterprises development i) identification of activities ii) nurturing of
entrepreneur skills and iii) ensuring access to range of services and inputs (like access to finance and
market information; provisions of inputs for design and product development; introduction of
marketing linkages etc.) and creating enabling conditions, all need to be further strengthened by
MEDEP/MEDPA. A more thorough analysis of market and ways to reach them for the different social
and economic groups of women and men have to be identified and supported.
The MEDPA operational guidelines outline the different steps to be taken to support the programme
beneficiaries. At each step specific interventions to address needs and interests of women, Dalits,
Janajatis and the Hardcore poor should be taken. The preliminary survey must be informed by a gender
and social relations analysis. Based on this, the services to the micro-entrepreneurs must be adjusted and
delivered e.g. assessment of raw materials availability must include a disaggregated analysis of access of
women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor to the available raw materials (Annex 12 provides detailed
suggestions for mainstreaming GESI in the MEDPA Operational Guidelines).
Measures to improve access to finance (e.g. through MFIs) have not been adequate enough for this
target group to access higher level of finances to enable proper growth. Key issues of access to finance
and market require further work and innovative strategies (e.g. the cooperatives being promoted by
MEDEP need to be more widespread, the MoUs with the central banks may hopefully lead to improved
results). These measures too need to consider the social differences of the micro-entrepreneurs and
which group and which gender may experience additional issues. Banks need to become familiar with
the obstacles women, poor and excluded micro-entrepreneurs experience and learn how to meet their
specific needs.
xix
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Conclusion 2: Voice of women, across social and geographic groups, has increased due to their ability
to earn an income and contribute to household financial expenses but deeply embedded patriarchal
values still persist and impact women's growth as entrepreneurs.
There are various opportunities for women and the excluded now to access information, training,
capacity building processes especially through groups and cooperatives. Their views are heard more
and opinions respected. "Even my husband sometimes asks for my opinion on different household and
agriculture matters. Now I feel that I am being heard and respected" Madhesi women reported the
highest increase in the respect they received after joining MEDEP. But deep-seated structural issues
are challenging to raise a voice against - hence many traditional practices have to be accepted and
followed like gender biased work division, managing the micro-enterprise along with other
responsibilities; staying within the frame of responsibilities and tasks set by family and society.
Recommendation 2: Identify GESI barriers of women, including of different social groups, and develop
activities into each step of programme implementation of MEDEP/MEDPA to address them.
Social mobilisation component of MEDEP's cycle requires improved integration of GESI aspects.
Micro-level initiatives for the awareness and sensitisation of women, Hardcore poor and Dalits is
specially necessary. Advocacy activities with family members and husbands will support women to
dedicate time to their enterprises as a professional. At the moment, for many, it is a work to be done in
times snatched after all caring/cooking responsibilities are completed.
This has to be changed as without working professionally women will not be able to ensure the growth
of their enterprises. This will also provide wider options as choice of enterprises many times are limited
for women by the amount of time they can work on it, how can they manage work and caring
responsibilities and what is typically accepted as women's work.
GESI demands a very systematic analysis of barriers as this informs the strategies and activities to be
adopted by the programme. While MEDEP has been doing some assessment during its social
mobilisation stage, the depth and coverage is inadequate. To understand the barriers these groups
experience, it is necessary to look at and think through several aspects a. barriers at
household,/community level caused by practices, beliefs, values, traditions at family and community
levels which constrain women, the poor and excluded from accessing resources, opportunities and
services for micro-enterprise development; b. substantive evidence reflecting status of women, poor
and the excluded to illustrate the situation of the target group to inform strategies and activities; c.
policy analysis to identify the impact of existing policies on women, poor and the excluded and the
potential to transform existing relations of inequality; d. review of formal institutional structures and
processes to understand how responsive these are to the needs and issues of the excluded; e. analysis
of programming and budgeting to identify how much of the budget allocation and expenditure is on
activities to address the three domains of change; and f. assess informal institutions and the barriers caused
by income, social and welfare characteristics of the target group. Recommendation 2 in the main report
provides in detail the required level of analysis, what to do and suggestions on how to do it.
Conclusion 3: There have been changes in the formal and informal rules of the game but
MEDEP/MEDPA policies and interventions do not address such issues explicitly and do not provide
directives for systematic work on changing the informal rules of the game i.e. the existing gender and
social norms.
xx
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Women's mobility is much higher, women being engaged in micro-enterprises and dealing with male
suppliers is accepted, Dalits making and selling ice-cream, Madhesi Dalit women baking bread is being
promoted. Social practices like menstrual exclusion, dowry, early marriage, untouchability and other
such discriminatory issues which constrain MEDEP's target group from participating and benefitting
fully from MEDEP's interventions have decreased.
While MEDEP has had an impact and made progress in shifting social norms, there still exist
discriminatory practices which constrain women, Dalits and other excluded groups from working fully
and with dedication on their enterprises. Gender equality and social inclusion is always a work-inprogress as while some issues are addressed, others arise which block the development and growth of
women and the excluded. Hence a keen eye has to be always maintained and a continuous effort to
assess, analyse and revise strategies are necessary.
Recommendation 3: Social issues need to be addressed systematically by formal and informal policies,
institutions and interventions as part of the regular activities and process of MEDEP and MEDPA's
service delivery.
Directives for gender specific support and for provision of measures to address gender and caste-based
discrimination are necessary. Institutional arrangements, budget allocations and expenditures and
monitoring/reporting all need to be GESI responsive for which policies and guidelines are required. The
training of staff including the courses run by CTEVT need to be GESI responsive and practical. SIYB
modules require to be implemented with GESI inputs. Tax incentives by Government of Nepal to
organisations working on such issues and to micro-enterprises led by women or Dalits are needed.
MEDEP/MEDPA, to address the socio-cultural barriers and the weaknesses in the policy framework or
delivery system, need to revise/strengthen policies, programme activities, resource allocations,
institutional arrangements and staff incentives, as well as the monitoring and reporting systems. Key
steps at policy, institutions, planning and budgeting, monitoring and reporting are required.
Existing policies like the Micro-Enterprise Policy, Technology Fund Guidelines need to explicitly
address the constraints of women and the excluded, and mandate action to address them. They should
cover the three domains of change and aim to improve the assets, capabilities and voice of women, the
poor and excluded. The constitution, policies, rules, procedures of NEDC, NMEFEN, BDSPOs and
DMEGA should mainstream GESI and bring changes in all three domains for women, poor and the
excluded. Institutionally, desks/units/sections/ departments with specific responsibility on gender
equality and social inclusion should be located within the MOI, Departments, MEDEP/MEDPA,
NEDC, NMEFEN, BDSPOs, and DMEGAs. This should be adequately resourced and mandated to
provide technical support for addressing GESI issues. There should be programmatic activities and
budget allocations that specifically address the issues experienced by women and people of excluded
groups. Activities (e.g. sustained dialogue and advocacy) must also be developed and implemented to
address the informal institutions that violate the human rights of women, the poor and the excluded and
negatively impact micro-enterprises. Strategies to work with the advantaged, men and boys for
changing of values and attitudes should be included. The existing monitoring and reporting system
of MEDEP needs to be improved to include disaggregated data on outputs, outcomes and development
results linked to the three domains of change. The disaggregation level should also be revised to reflect
the population diversity and government definitions regarding excluded social groups. Reporting
should reflect progress against the three domains of change and analyse with disaggregation so that
informed decisions can be made by the policy makers. Recommendation 4 in the main report provides
details on the above.
xxi
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Conclusion 4: MEDEP has not recognised that sexual and gender minorities, persons living with
disability or even women headed households are sub-groups of the existing project beneficiaries and
hence there are no special measures for these disadvantaged groups.
None of the policy or implementation directives or practical processes of MEDEP address the issues of
social groups such as sexual and gender minorities, persons with disability and women headed
households. There is a missing recognition that these groups are also sub-groups of the existing project
beneficiaries. These social groups require special attention due to the nature of their exclusion. For
sexual and gender minorities, using opportunities to work as micro-entrepreneurs in itself could be a
challenge. Market biases could result in inability to secure supplies or sell produce at correct prices.
For persons living with disability, assistive devices, appropriate micro-enterprises, adapted training
methodologies would be necessary but there was no evidence that such measures were being taken by
MEDEP/MEDPA. Specific issues of women headed households, unfortunately could not be identified
in this study but the heavy work burden, the control over distance by husbands and the limited abilities
to make informed choices about micro-enterprises and its management, are aspects which were not
explicitly dealt with in MEDEP/MEDPA's guidelines and strategies.
Recommendation 4: MEDPA Operational Guidelines should integrate issues of sexual and gender
minorities, persons living with disability and of women headed households.
MEDPA Operational Guidelines should integrate issues of sexual and gender minorities, persons living
with disability and of women headed households so that the regular activities of the programme can
identify the specific issues of these groups and address them. Part 2 of the Operational Guidelines about
the target group should include these groups and define them clearly. The skills of staff need to be
appropriately enhanced to work with such diverse groups of clients.
Conclusion 5: Relevant service providing institutions need deeper understanding and high levels of
responsive skills to address deeply complex issues of GESI impact on micro-entrepreneurs of different
social profiles.
The related institutions from Ministry of Industry, relevant Departments to DMEGA, have been
working on gender and inclusion issues without proper training or capacity strengthening. Due to its
targeting, MEDEP/MEDPA ensures participation of women, Dalits, Janajatis and the Hardcore poor.
What was found inadequate were the tools, competencies, skills and systems which would ensure that
a mapping of the existing status of women, the poor and socially excluded, based on disaggregated
qualitative and quantitative data would be done along with an assessment of the available evidence. A
systematic analysis of existing policies, formal institutional structures and processes, and informal
institutions to understand how exactly social inequities based on gender, caste, religion, ethnicity and
location impact the micro-enterprises, was not an integral part of the process. This impacts different
aspects of the programme functioning.
Recommendation 5: Develop a GESI capacity strengthening plan, including GESI mainstreaming
implementation guidelines, covering different levels and audiences.
A capacity strengthening plan to enhance skills and competencies of staff and to strengthen the
organisational systems of the different organisations linked with MEDEP/MEDPA is required. This
will need to be part of the MEDPA Operational Guidelines so that it is not treated in isolation and is
accepted as a mandatory part of the working process.
xxii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Capacity strengthening should address aspects of tools, skills, staff and infrastructure, structures,
systems and roles.1 Work at all these four levels will ensure a systematic integration of GESI in the full
MEDEP/MEDPA cycle. The points made for recommendations 2 and 3 also contribute to capacity
strengthening with improved systems, specific location of GESI responsibility and use of GESI
responsive tools.
Decision makers and staff skills need to be enhanced so that a GESI lens can be applied by all to
whatever work they are doing. For staff, issues like motivation, values, commitment and also initiative
need to be addressed for both technical and personal change. A core group of GESI trainers and resource
persons (both from government and non-government organisations) need to be developed at both
national and district levels. This trained pool can then act as trainers, facilitators, technical support
persons for the entire MEDEP/MEDPA operations at national and district levels.
With the gradual phasing out of MEDEP and full implementation of MEDPA, it will be all the more
essential for skills enhancement at all levels due to the limited capacities of government systems and
officers to address process related GESI issues.
Conclusion 6: Gender based norms limit options of women to work on more profitable microenterprises and thus MEDEP has had limited impact on substantive transformation of gender and
power relations.
Despite the broader shifts in the social context of women and improved gender situation, there are
various constraints which inhibit women's growth as a micro-entrepreneur. Many women cannot work
because of their family responsibilities, many need to work within a social construct framework which
positions them as the primary home maker and family care taker and manage a secondary role as a
micro-entrepreneur. This basic constraint in itself limits women's abilities to do well and have a microenterprise which can be highly profitable. While examples exist that this can be achieved, as some
women micro-entrepreneurs have demonstrated (one has even received an international award), it
cannot be done by all, without special support and transformation in approach and thinking.
The findings of this study indicated high participation and decision making power of women. But till
now women have usually been limiting themselves to micro-enterprises which were not affecting men
or making such high incomes that men would be strongly involved in the management of and decisions
about the income. Hence it is essential that a second generation of gender and inclusion issues be
identified and addressed.
Recommendation 6: Transformative interventions need to be built into the MEDEP/MEDPA
programme for more equitable outcomes for women and other excluded groups.
Interventions that work at the cusp of social and physical space can be transformative. 2 These are
required for women especially due to inherent gender based constraints existing in Nepali society, like
inability to travel alone and far due to safety concerns, inability to take higher risks due to lack of means
for collateral, limited capacities to take informed decisions regarding complicated enterprises and low
literacy capacities to manage leading to lack of confidence and self-esteem.
1
2
see Potter and Brough's Conceptual Framework of Capacity Building
see Inclusion Matters - Advance copy by World Bank, 2014 for more discussion on this
xxiii
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Inclusion in physical spaces can be deepened through improvements in security and services. Advocacy
and formal measures to promote security (e.g. travel and accommodation support for groups of women
to travel together, accommodation support for Dalits who are refused accommodation during field
work) are required. Strong measures by government to sanction VDCs/DDCs which tolerate abuse of
women in any form can gradually improve the situation for women though this would require a multisectoral and multi-ministerial intervention.
MEDEP/MEDPA is attempting to weaken gender stereotypes in both the domestic and public spheres
by creating micro-entrepreneur role models but this is insufficient for the women to graduate from
survival level type of enterprises to growth oriented enterprises. For this the different constraints need
to be well handled. Women's “capacity to aspire” as well as the attitudes of others towards them need
to be addressed through complementary supportive measures.
CONCLUSION
MEDEP has positively impacted the lives of its target beneficiaries. Women, Dalits, Indigenous
Nationalities and the Hardcore poor have all improved income and the quality of their lives with the
support of MEDEP.
MEDEP has made extensive and in-depth efforts to address different issues from policy to providing
tools for economic growth to poor women and the excluded. Recognising barriers caused by socioeconomic realities, it has adopted a process of social mobilisation and invested in strengthening
capacity through training and information about micro-enterprises, working space for the Hardcore
poor, promoting different measures for increasing access to finance and other aspects required for
enterprise development. With such opportunities and with the changing context in Nepal, women have an
improved voice and are able to influence decisions at family and community levels, Dalits are experiencing
lower levels of caste-based discrimination. There has been an increase in income which has been invested
in improving children's education and health and an increase in the status of the project beneficiaries. These
are all very worthwhile contributions of MEDEP.
Structured and systematic interventions to assess and address the deeply embedded patriarchal and
social values that create constraints for women, poor and the excluded are necessary as are improved
mechanisms to support for the full enterprise chain. Only with such support will the women, Dalits,
Indigenous Nationalities and the Hardcore poor will be able to grow beyond subsistence levels to
manage growth oriented enterprises. For MEDEP to deliver its intended outcome of poverty reduction
for women, poor and the excluded, careful work needs to be done in future to ensure that all policies,
strategies and activities are addressing along with the livelihoods, aspects of voice and for changing
unequal gender relations and discriminatory social practices constraining the growth of the target group
effectively.
xxiv
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
1.
Introduction
1.1 Context
Micro-Enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP) has been contributing to the Government of
Nepal’s (GoN) efforts on poverty reduction in rural areas through the development of microentrepreneurs and employment generation since 1998. The programme, implemented Ministry of
Industry (MoI) with technical support of United Nations Developmetn Programme (UNDP) and
differetn donors, targets people below the nationally defined poverty line, with special focus on women
and socially excluded groups, such as Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and unemployed youths.
MEDEP was started as a pilot programme in June 1998 in ten districts and by end of third phase (July
2013), it had covered 38 districts representing, mountains, mid hills, Terai, across all five regions of the
country.
The fourth phase of MEDEP started from August 2013 and will be implemented until July 2018. The
Government of Nepal (GoN) has adopted the MEDEP model for poverty alleviation and has been
replicating it within its Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA) programme
approved by Council of Ministers and currently covering 50 districts. The GoN has a plan to replicate
it in all the 75 districts. MEDEP IV Phase aims to build the capacity of GoN to implement MEDPA
effectively.
MEDEP has adopted a Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) approach which includes minimum
representation of 60 percent women (in MEDEP phase IV the target is increased to 70 percent), 40
percent Indigenous Nationalities, 30 percent Dalits, and 60 percent unemployed youths and other
deprived sections of the communities. MEDEP has also adopted the principle of ensuring 'two third of
positions by Women, Dalits and Indigenous Nationalities in all decision-making' positions in the
organisations such as Micro-Entrepreneurs Associations and Business Development Service Providing
Organisations (BDSPOs) promoted by MEDEP. Further, MEDEP has also adopted a Gender and Social
Inclusive Management Information System (GSIMIS) database system and has applied these tools for
internal verification of achievements of results by the entrepreneurs themselves.
An impact assessment study was commissioned by the Ministry of Industry (MoI) and the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2010 for systematic analysis of the changes brought in
the socio-economic conditions and livelihoods of its beneficiaries and how they benefited from microenterprise operations. The study found that a larger percentage of women entrepreneur families (74.6%)
had moved out of poverty as compared to men entrepreneur families (69.5%).
The study also showed that women’s role in decision-making increased in the form of representation of
women entrepreneurs in community institutions, participation in community/social work, holding
decision-making positions in political parties, participation in VDC/municipalities meetings and ability
to raise voices in VDC/DDC meetings. However the study overlooked analysis of the magnitude of
change brought by the MEDEP intervention.
With MEDEP in its fourth phase, it was considered imperative by the donors, the Australian Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), to analyse
its contribution to addressing GESI issues and for empowering women and excluded groups. The
1
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
findings and the lessons learned from this impact study will contribute and guide the interventions of
MEDEP Phase IV and MEDPA.
This report is the final report of the study and is based on secondary document review, policy, institution
and financial allocation analysis, survey in ten districts and consultations with target groups and
stakeholders from community to national levels.
1.2 Study Objectives
The objectives of the study as stated in the Terms of Reference (ToR) (refer Annex 1 for the ToR)
included:
a.
To assess the impact of the programme on the social, economic and political empowerment of
Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore Poor3 in decision-making processes
at household and community level, entrepreneurs and institutional levels.
b.
To identify the challenges faced by entrepreneurs (Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and
other Hardcore Poor groups) to expand their enterprises and recommend measures to address
these challenges.
c.
To assess whether the deprived groups particularly the Dalits are equally able/unable to benefit
from the range of services being provided by MEDEP and recommend measures to strengthen
their participation.
d.
To analyse the policy level and structural changes due to the MEDEP intervention to promote
Gender and Social Inclusion.
e.
To recommend how gender and social inclusion interventions can be strengthened in MEDEP
and MEDPA.
1.3 Theory of Change and Operational Frameworks of GESI Impact Study
The study built up on MEDEP's vision of a dynamic micro-enterprise development sector, goals of
poverty reduction of low income families and capacity strengthening of service providers and objectives
of development of micro-entrepreneurs and creation of sustainable service delivery mechanism for
micro-enterprises.
The Theory of Change for empowering Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and the Hardcore
poor4 through micro-enterprise is presented in Annex 2 (refer Inception Report for details). Conceptual
and Operational frameworks of the GESI impact study focused on identifying the contribution of
MEDEP: i. to improve the access of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and Hardcore poor to
assets, opportunities and services (i.e how has MEDEP contributed to building the livelihood security
by improving their income, health and education indicators through micro-enterprise development); ii.
to building up the ability of the target group to claim their rights and influence decisions that affect their
lives (i.e how has MEDEP contributed to enhancing the capability of women, Dalits, Indigenous
Nationalities and Hardcore poor to claim their entitlements, to engage with, influence and hold
Defined by MEDEP as people of any caste/ethnicity (those who cannot meet the costs of food items) having per capita income less than
Rs. 12,700 (60% of NRs 21,168 required to meet cost of food items to provide 2,226 calorie energy) (source: Pre-bid meeting briefing
by MEDEP)
4 Persons with disability were not clearly specified in the target group of MEDEP and hence their issues were not addressed.
3
2
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
accountable institutions concerned with their lives and their micro-enterprises; how has it strengthened
their capacities to fight against gender and caste based violence); iii. to changing the “rules of the game”
(as manifested in informal and formal policies, values, beliefs, behavior, and social practices (i.e how
has MEDEP contributed to improving policies, regulations and legislation and shifting informal norms
and practices (at all levels) to make them more responsive for women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities
and Hardcore Poor; how has it changed mindsets regarding violence against women and about
untouchability).
The GESI analytical framework was applied to analyse policies impacting MEDEP and the microentrepreneurs' organisations like DMEGA. The budgets of MEDEP, BDSPO and DMEGA 5 were
reviewed from a GESI perspective to identify how much of the financial allocation were for activities
which could be categorized as i. specific and targeted (i.e. providing direct benefits for a specific
group); ii. supportive and responsive (i.e. for creating an enabling environment) and lastly iii. neutral
(that is assuming that these specific social groups would benefit too from general interventions).
The existing gender and power relations impacting micro-enterprises, revealed by who does the work
(labour), who has access to what resources and who has decision making power, who experiences
violence and caste/ethnicity based discrimination which constrain women, Dalits and Indigenous
Nationalities were mapped to identify how MEDEP has contributed to shifts in existing gender and
power relations.
1.4 Methodology
The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods, a survey using enumerators and qualitative
tools such as focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
1.4.1
Survey
By the end of third phase (July 2013) MEDEP had covered 38 districts representing Mountain, Hills
and Terai across all the five development regions of the country. 44,587 households of beneficiaries of
MEDEP were the basic population based on which the numbers for the survey were selected, using
statistical techniques.
A survey covering 583 micro-entrepreneurs from among direct beneficiaries of programme support
(treatment group) and 228 sample from non-programme implemented groups (control group) was
conducted.
The sampling design ensured that all five regions, eco-regions and three MEDEP phases were covered.
The name list of beneficiaries provided by MEDEP was used as a frame. Three stage sampling technique
was used. At the first stage , sampling units were the project districts. The second stage sampling units
were Rural Market Centers (RMCs) and at the third stage (ultimate stage) project beneficiary
households were the sampling units. At the first stage 10 MEDEP districts were selected purposively,
based on a set of criteria taking all districts as the sampling frame. At the second stage, cluster sampling
technique was used. The sampling frame was the name list of RMCs and sampling units were the
RMC/its division. For this, RMCs were considered as clusters. To select the cluster, name list of all
RMCs along with their size within selected districts was prepared and two clusters were selected from
each district by using probability proportion to size. For the large RMC, it was divided into two or three
5
Budget and workplans of MEDEP, 2 BDSPOs, 7 DMEGAs and of NMEFIN were reviewed.
3
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
sub-divisions according to its size and each sub-division was considered as a cluster. Households were
drawn from the list of clusters of the selected RMC/its division by using systematic random sampling
mechanism after constructing sampling frames of the selected RMCs (Annex 3 for note on statistical
design).
To increase the coverage and to meet the objectives of social inclusion (gender, caste and ethnicity), the
frames of households were constructed according to the caste/ethnicity and gender. By arranging the
name list in ascending order of caste/ethnicity and gender the proportion of respective gender and
caste/ethnicity according to the population was maintained.
Based on statistical values, the required sample size was calculated to be 380. Taking 1.5 as adjustment
for the design effect, the required sample size was estimated to be 570. The actual number of sample
households (treatment group) was 583 which exceeded this number. This sample size was taken only
from program implemented group (treatment group). To compare the results from the programme
beneficiary group (treatment group) a a sample size of 228 was taken to represent the control group.
This number is slightly lower that 50% of the sample size of treatment group.
Selection of Control Group
The selection of sample households of the control group was based on two stage sampling technique.
In the first stage VDCs were selected purposively in the selected sample districts of treatment sample.
It was ensured that the selected VDCs had similar socio economic condition as that of project VDCs
at the time of MEDEP intervention. The additional condition imposed was that the selected VDCs
(control) had not benefited from any donor assisted project. After the VDCs were selected the sample
size was distributed according to the ethnic groups approximately in the ratio of the treatment group
(about 50% was targeted but the actual control sample was less than that mainly due to the difficulty
and longer than anticipated time taken to identify the control VDCs for the sampling process to select
the control groups). The households were selected randomly from the list prepared in the VDCs for
the sampling purpose. The control group respondents were not micro-entrepreneurs but simply
women and men respondents. Refer Annex 4 for field work details.
1.4.2
Qualitative methods
Qualitative methods included Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and key informant interviews with
women and men micro-entrepreneurs. Husbands of entrepreneurs, local leaders at the community level,
Enterprise Development Facilitators (EDFs), Business Development Service Providing (BDSPOs),
district level micro-entrepreneurs' organisations (DMEGA), District Enterprise Development
Committees (DEDC), MEDEP project staff including from Area Support Offices to the central office,
and local government bodies. A PRA tool to map changes in gender relations and the differences due
to the project, was used with women in their FGD.
4
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 1.1 Gender analysis profile: labour, access and control analysis by Tharu women
Source: Field work, 2014
Meetings were conducted with Ministry of Industry, Department of Cottage and Small Industry, Cottage
and Small Industry Development Board and Coulcil for Technical Education and Vocational Training
(CTEVT) (refer Annex 5 for list of FGDs, KIIs and meetings/consultations).
Policy analysis from a GESI perspective was done of GoN's mandates for micro-enterprise and policies
that direct MEDEP's work (refer Annex 6 for list of policies documents reviewed). Institutional analysis
of MEDEP, and of BDSPOs and DMEGAs of the study districts was done. Information and documents
about the functions of these organisations, the location of responsibility for addressing GESI within the
organisations, the GESI integration in job descriptions and the social diversity of the personnel was
collected and reviewed (refer Annex 7 for the list of organisations and the documents reviewed). The
annual work-plans of MEDEP (from 2011-2013), of one year of BDSPOs and DMEGA were reviewed
for assessing which activities supported the target groups in what way.
1.5 Respondent's Profile
The details of the treatment and control group respondents is presented below.
1.5.1
Respondent's Profile: Programme (Treatment) Group
Of the 583 respondents of the study, 72 percent of the respondents were women and 28 percent men.
Caste/ethnic group wise, the highest percent of respondents were from Hill Brahman/Chhetri (32.4%),
followed by 27 percent of Hill Indigenous Nationalities (Janajatis).6 The hill Dalits were 17 percent,
Terai Janajatis were 12 percent, Madhesi Dalit were 9.6 percent, Other Madhesi Caste Group 1.5 percent
and Muslims, 0.9 percent. Refer Annex 8 for sample distribution by district and by caste ethnicity, sex
and poverty.
6
Madhesi Brahman Chhetri and Newars, who were initially part of the survey respondent profile, were dropped due to very small
numbers. Newars are taken as separate group within the hill Janajatis due to their advanced indicators which masks the disparities
within the Janajati group. But for this study since the Newars in the sample size were minimal and MEDEP does not disaggregated its
project beneficiaries within the hill Janajatis group, this disaggregation has been done only for staff profile discussions.
5
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Table 1.1
Well-being, sex and caste/ethnicity profile of programme respondents
Household characteristic
Description/Sample size [number (%)]
Districts covered (10 districts,
583 samples)
Sindhupalchowk 69 (12%), Jumla 27 (5%), Terhathum 71 (12%), Parbat 74 (13%),
Salyan 28 (5%), Dadeldhura 66 (11%), Sunsari 97 (17%), Mahottari 19 (3%),
Nawalparasi 83 (14%), Kailali 49 (8%)
Geographical distribution
Mountains 10 percent, Hills 50 percent, Terai 40 percent
Well-being
Hardcore poor 15 percent, Non-Hardcore Poor 85 percent
Caste/ethnicity
Hill-Dalit 17 percent, Terai-Dalit 10 percent, Hill-Janajati 27 percent, Terai-Janajati
12 percent, Hill-Brahmin/ Chettri 32 percent, Muslims 1 percent, Other Madhesi
Caste 2 percent
Sex of Respondents
Women 72 percent, Men 28 percent
Note: For the categorisation of social groups, the terminology accepted by GoN is followed: Madhesi Dalit instead of Terai Dalit; Other
Madhesi Caste/Other Backward Class instead of Other Madhesi
Source: Survey, 2014
Amongst the social groups, women of the Terai Indigenous group were the highest (93%), followed by
Other Madhesi Caste Group (77.8%), Madhesi Dalit (78.6%) and Hill Dalits (59.2%). The Muslim
women were the lowest (40%).
Figure 1.2 Respondent by caste/ethnicity and sex
93
Female %
Male %
79
78
70
72
69
60
59
41
40
31
30
22
21
28
7
Hill Dalit
Source: Survey 2014
Madhesi
Dalit
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
Overall
BC: Brahman/Chhetri
The majority of the respondents were of the third phase of MEDEP (41.5 percent). There were 39.6
percent from the second phase and 18 percent from the first phase.
6
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 1.3 Respondents by MEDEP phase (in percent)
100
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
67
54
4442
52
51
45
41
36
41
34
24 25 21
23
14
22
16
11
5
40 40
38
20
4042
19
10
By Social Group
By Sex
Overall
Non-hardcore Poor
Hardcore Poor
Female
Male
Other Madhesi Caste
Muslims
Hill BC
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
00
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
42
32
27
4341
By Poverty
Total
Source: Survey 2014
Refer Annex 9 for sample distribution by project phase and by caste ethnicity, sex and poverty.
The proportion of different caste/ethnic groups within each well-being group (Figure 1.4) shows the
distribution of Hardcore and non Hardcore poor within the social groups.
Figure 1.4 Caste/ethnicity and well-being profile
26
Hardcore poor %
Non-Hardcore poor %
22
14
11
9
3
Hill Dalit
6
4
1
1
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
Source: Field Survey 2014
Terai
Indigenous
0
Hill BC
1
Muslims
0
1
Other Madhesi
Caste
BC: Brahman/Chhetri
The proportion of different caste/ethnic groups within sex of respondents shows that only among
Muslims the percent of men is higher than women.
7
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Other details
60 percent of the respondents had mobiles. Only 14 percent Madhesi Dalit women owned a mobile
while 70-80 percent Brahman/Chhetris and the Janajatis did. 85 percent respondents were Hindus and
10 percent Buddhists. The rest were Muslims, Christian and others.
1.5.2
Respondent Profile: Non- Programme (Control) Group
The distribution of sample households (control) is shown in the figure below (Refer Annex 10 for
sample distribution of control group by district and by caste ethnicity, sex and poverty). There is no
gender classification in control group because there are no entrepreneurs as in treatment group, only
women and men respondents.
Of the 228 respondents of the control group, 56 percent were women. The Other Madhesi Caste had the
lowest share of female respondents (43%) followed by Hill Indigenous (49%) and Hill –
Brahmin/Chhetris (49%). The Terai Indigenous group had the highest share of female respondents
(73%), followed by Hill Dalits (64%) and Madhesi Dalit (57%).
Table 1.2
Sample size of respondents of control group
Male
Strata
Female
Sample
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Hill Dalit
19
36
34
64
53
23.2
Madhesi Dalit
9
43
12
57
21
9.2
Hill Indigenous
18
51
17
49
35
15.4
Terai Indigenous
8
27
22
73
30
13.2
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
42
51
40
49
82
36.0
Other Madhesi Caste
4
57
3
43
7
3.1
100
44
128
56
228
100.0
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Figure 1.5 Distribution of control groups respondents by sex and caste/ethnicity
73
Female %
64
57
43
49 51
49 51
57
43
Male %
56
44
36
27
Hill Dalit Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous Hill BC
Other Madhesi CasteTotal
Source: Field Survey, 2014
8
BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Poverty dimensions of control group respondents
Of the total number of respondents an overwhelming majority (71%) were non-hardcore poor with only
21 percent representing the hardcore poor. The Terai Indigenous had the lowest share of Hardcore poor
respondents (23%) followed by Hill – Brahmin/Chhetris (24%) and Madhesi Dailts (24%). The Hill
Dalits had the highest share of hardcore poor respondents (43%), followed by Other Madhesi Caste
(29%) and Hill Indigenous (26%). The smallest difference between hard and non Hardcore poor was
among hill Dalit respondents.
Figure 1.6 Distribution of respondents of control group by poverty and caste/ethnicity
Hard-core poor %
Non hard-core poor %
76
77
74
76
71
71
57
43
26
24
Hill Dalit
23
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Terai
Indigenous
24
Hill BC
29
29
Other
Madhesi Caste
Total
BC: Brahman/Chhetri
The control group did not have any Muslim respondents and hence the comparative discussion for this
group was not possible. Even amongst the programme respondents the Muslim sample was small (only
five of whom two were women). The Other Madhesi Caste group too did not have a large sample size
- only nine in the treatment and seven in the control group.
1.5.3
Comparison of respondents and MEDEP project beneficiaries
Reflecting the selected districts population profile and MEDEP's overall project beneficiaries, there was
a high percent of Brahman Chhetris amongst the respondents. Other caste/ethnic groups also had a fair
representation, apart from Muslim and Other Madhesi Caste groups.
Table 1.3
Comparison of respondents and MEDEP project beneficiaries
Programme
Control
MEDEP's Database figure
(as of May 2014) (in percent)
Hill Dalits
16.8
23.2
18
Madhesi Dalit
9.6
9.2
6.39
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
32.4
36.0
31
Hill Janajati
26.6
15.4
30
Terai Janajati
12.2
13.2
7
Other Backward Class (OBC)/
Other Madhesi Caste
1.5
3.1
7
Muslims
0.9
0
1.12
Hardcore Poor
15
29
54
Non Hardcore Poor
85
71
42
Caste/ethnicity
Survey Sample Size (in percent)
Source; MEDEP database, Survey details, 2014
9
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The above table indicates that there were some differences in the caste ethnic profile of the respondents and
the MEDEP project beneficiaries especially in Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste groups. There is also
a difference in the Hardcore and non Hardcore poor sample and MEDEP beneficiaries.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
There were a number of limitations experienced by the study. The ToR had asked for only two
component experts in the national team which resulted in limited skills availability within the team
itself. A major limitation was the lack of demand by the ToR of a qualified statistician and data analyst
in the team. This meant that the comparative analysis of survey data for higher level conclusions7 was
not possible.
Additionally, the control group used was not completely reflective of the profile of the respondent's
group since they had to be selected at random in the areas of interview. The control group were not
micro-entrepreneurs but just local women and men of the socialgroups covered under the treatment
group.
The information about programme respondents used during the statistical design was inadequate
resulting in changes at the field level of the respondents selected. Many had moved way or were not
available. There were differences in the numbers of respondents as a result.
A key limitation also was the lack of complete baseline information about project beneficiaries with
MEDEP. The study depended upon the difference between control and treatment group responses to
address this gap.
1.7 Organisation of the Report
This chapter provides a brief overview to the study and the methods followed, underlining the
qualitative and quantitative processes adopted. Chapter 2 describes the policy and institutional context
of micro-enterprise in Nepal and of MEDEP. Chapter 3 presents a disaggregated analysis of the microentrepreneurs information available from MEDEP's database. Chapter 4 shifts to the local level and to
what is the core of the study to assess what change has occurred in the livelihoods of the microentrepreneurs of different social groups and gender. This chapter draws on the survey data to look at
change down to the household level. In Chapter 5 the links between the three domains of change are
presented and forms the basis for the conclusions and recommendations in Chapter 6.
7
The study would have benefited from an analysis of whose live improved the most and whose enterprise was most profitable amongst
the different social groups. But that was not possible as it would require minute review of all data ensuring its accuracy, fixing a score
for each variable, determining class intervals for each variable and then scoring each social and income group and gender.
10
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.
GESI in the Policy and Institutional Context of MEDEP
2.1 National Commitments for GESI
The overall policy and legal framework for gender equality and social inclusion is positive in Nepal.
Positive provisions in the Interim Constitution,8, Government of Nepal (GON)’s Three Year Interim
Plan (TYIP) (2007-2010), Three Year Plan (2010-2013) and Approach to the Thirteenth Plan, establish
the fundamental rights of women, Dalits, Madhesis, Muslims, Adivasi Janajatis (Indigenous
Nationalities)9, sexual and gender minorities, and persons with disability. The Gender Equality Act
(2006) has repealed and amended 56 discriminatory provisions of various Acts and has incorporated
provisions to ensure women's rights. The 2007 amendment to the Civil Service Act has provided 45
percent seat reservation to excluded people and backward regions10. The Blended Block Grant
Guideline (2010) of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) allocates a 35
percent targeted fund for women (10%), children (10%), and disadvantaged communities (15%) in the
District Development Committees (DDC), Village Development Committees (VDCs) and
municipalities. Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Act (May 2011) declared untouchability
a legal offence. Inclusive rules ensured 33 percent representation of women in the Constituent Assembly
of Nepal.
Nepal is signatory of various human rights instruments such as Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), Convention
to Eliminate Racial Discrimination (CERD) and Convention for Persons Living with Disability. ILO
Convention 169, ratified by Nepal in 2007, ensures rights of indigenous nationalities about their
ownership and tenure right to land and water resources. UN Security Council Resolutions such as
UNSCR 1325 and 1820 provide directives to address gender based violence and for protection of
women rights during conflict. Thus there exists a strong national and international policy mandate for
gender equality and social inclusion in Nepal.
2.2 GESI in Micro-enterprise related Policies
A review of policies such as the Industrial Enterprises Act, 1992, Micro Enterprise Policy 2064
(2007), Industrial Policy, 2067 (2010) indicates that policies developed in recent years are attempting
to address GESI in some ways.
Industrial Enterprises Act
The Industrial Enterprises Act does not recognise issues of women and other excluded groups at all
and all its provisions are more supportive for middle and large size enterprises. The Micro-Enterprise
policy11 is more GESI sensitive and reinforces the strong linkage between micro-enterprises and
livelihood improvement of the poor, women, Dalit, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi and other
backward communities. It mandates that special priorities be provided to the targeted group specified
Interim Constitution: Section 3: Fundamental rights: Article 13 states: No one will be discriminated against on the basis of religion, caste,
ethnicity, gender, language (pg 4); for women, Dalit, Adivasi Janajati, Madhesi, and socially or culturally discriminated groups
affirmative actions can be taken, (pg 5).
9 This report has used the terminology Janajatis and Indigenous Nationalities interchangeably
10 The Civil Service Amendment provisions for: women (33%), Janajati (27%) Madhesi (22%), Dalits (9%), persons with disabilities (5%),
and backward regions (4%), while filling vacant posts through free competition.
11 MEDEP had also contributed to the development of this policy (Source: Annual Report , MEDEP, 2012)
8
11
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
by GoN and their capacity strengthened. But it fails to direct clearly the integration of GESI in the
proposed legal and institutional mechanisms and infrastructures, establishment, management and
operation process of micro-enterprises or to make the market environment more GESI responsive. The
Industrial Policy provides special priority to women in the establishment and operation of microenterprises ("Special provisions shall be made to attract talented and creative youth and women in
micro enterprises, cottage and small industries through Business Incubation centre; Provisions shall
be made for making available loans in simple and easy manner from banks and financial institutions to
women entrepreneurs engaged in micro, cottage and small-scaled industries"). It includes a section on
special provisions for women which has some very progressive directives. Representation of women
from different social backgrounds is made mandatory in policy formulation processes for any industrial
enterprise. An exemption of 35 percent in the registration fee is provided if an industry is registered in
the name of a woman. Women are provided with an exemption of 20 percent in the fee for patent,
design and trademark and other such registrations. Special priority to women, a separate fund for women
entrepreneurship, gender analysis and assessment are all provided for. While these are all very
progressive policy directives, a gap exists that there are no specifications for any concrete action to
address socio-cultural and political barriers of women, poor and the excluded to develop as microentrepreneurs.
Monetary Policy for Fiscal Year 2013/14
The monetary policy has provisions for women under deprived sector lending, for rural areas and for
branchless and mobile banking services.12 Priority to districts with very limited financial access has
been emphasised and corporate social responsibilities of BFIs have been highlighted.
These provisions can support access of women, poor and the excluded to finance. A key aspect would
be the effective implementation of these provisions and monitoring as required.
Technology Development Fund Guidelines
The Technology Development Fund Guidelines, 2070 (2012-13) establishes a fund for new and
alternate technology which can be accessed by the micro-entrepreneurs. The roles and responsibilities
of the fund do not integrate GESI aspects e.g. it states new technology need to be
developed/standardised but does not specifically add that technology which can be GESI responsive,
particularly women friendly, need to be researched, developed and promoted. The composition of the
executive committee to decide about the technology funds has provisioned for representation of at least
one woman from related universities. There needs to be inclusion of representatives from excluded
social groups through their identity based organisations. The guidelines do not direct for addressing of
GESI issues in any of the other provisions such as formation of sub-committees, evaluation of proposals
or in monitoring.
12
"Project credit up to Rs. 5,00,000 provided by BFIs to micro-enterprises promoted by women will be included in deprived sector lending
and provision will be made to insure such credit"."High priority has been given to expand inclusive access to finance by the NRB. As a
result, new micro finance institutions have come into operation and BFIs have expanded their branches in rural areas, and started
branchless and mobile banking services. However, considering still inadequate financial access to rural areas and low-income
groups, priority is given to extending financial access to rural and remote areas. Likewise, financial literacy has also been taken as an
integral part of enhancing access to finance." "Since the financial system contributes to the sustainable development, BFIs will be
encouraged to conduct activities related to environment and corporate social responsibility."
12
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Women Entrepreneurship Development Fund Guidelines
The government's initiative to have a separate fund with guidelines for women entrepreneurship
development is to be appreciated. The Women Entrepreneurship Development Fund Guidelines
(Karyabidhi), 2069 (2012) provisions for collateral free loan to women13 with low interest rates and
has ensured representation of women in the executive and management committee. The functions of
the executive and management committee include facilitating establishment of women's enterprises and
promoting women to do micro-enterprise. It has not specified that socio-cultural gender-based
constraints experienced by women should be identified and addressed. Also it has not recognised that
other social variables such as caste/ethnicity, age and location can create multiple barriers for women
to become successful entrepreneurs. The committee needs to be made responsible to develop innovative
measures to support such women. Refer Annex 11 for GESI analysis of selected policies.
2.3 Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA)
The government's micro-enterprise programme, MEDPA, which is internalising the MEDEP model,
has developed a five year Strategic Plan (approved July 2013) and Operational Guidelines (approved
January 7, 2014).
These documents have clearly specified the target group and have many other positive provisions. The
key principles of the strategic plan include targeting and inclusion, pro-poor public-private partnerships
and programme interventions have pro-poor capacity building amongst others. The objective of the
Operational Guidelines has provisions such as the basket fund at the district level, evaluation of the
GESI policy of applicant organisations and representation from socially excluded groups (women,
indigenous nationalities) in local level committees.
The lack of direction to BDSPOs for conducting gender and social relations analysis, inadequate
integration of GESI in the roles and responsibilities of the different committees, lack of specific
guidance to ensure that specialised training and appropriate technology reaches women and men of
different social groups and ensures representation in monitoring committees, are some areas which
require strengthening. For example the roles and responsibilities of Microenterprise Development Fund
(MEDF) states that MEDF must "Prepare and implement annual programme of the Fund and ensure
value for money" but does not direct that this annual programme should be GESI responsive. The Fund
is asked to submit reports regularly "Prepare regular programme progress report, financial and audit
report of the Fund" but again is not directed to do so with disaggregation and analysis from a gender
and inclusion perspective. Additionally there has to be more of an explicit effort to ensure that women
move to micro-enterprises which have higher returns and that specific sectors which are not allowed for
Dalits due to caste-based discrimination are promoted (e.g. food and beverage sector). A clear
identification of income, location, gender, caste and ethnicity based barriers for women and the
excluded in developing micro-enterprises is necessary so that interventions to address them can be
integrated into programme components.
Refer Annex 12 for a detailed GESI analysis of MEDPA Operational Guidelines.
13
In field level interviews, people stated that this has not been well implemented. Only in Parbat was there an instance when Rs two
crores was accessed by women from this fund @ six percent interest. (field interviews, June 2014)
13
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.4 GESI in MEDEP Policies
MEDEP, being a Ministry of Industry programme, is bound by Government of Nepal and MoI's policies
and being a NEX executed programme of UNDP, works within the framework of UNDP policies.14 The
performance indicators of outcome, outputs and activity results demand disaggregation by gender and
social groups and have separate gender equality related indicators, which is excellent. A gap is in the
lack of indicators related with addressing discriminatory social practices constraining the enterprise
development of women and other excluded groups and an explicit indicator on increase in income of
women micro-entrepreneurs.
MEDEP has adopted a GESI responsive targeting approach and the 14 guiding principles that it follows
has a specific direction for applying “Gender and Social Inclusion” at policy, institutional and
programme levels by directly targeting Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities, Muslims, Other
Backward Class (OBCs/Other Madhesi Caste Groups) and specially disadvantaged groups.15 As a
result, MEDEP has specified targeting based on income poverty having per capita income of NRs.
21,168, representation of women has to be 60 percent (70% in Phase IV), 30 percent of poor Dalits, 40
percent of poor Indigenous Nationalities ensuring representation of Nepal's eco-regions (Mountains,
Hills and Terai) and 60 percent unemployed youth of poor income families.
MEDEP has directed that all associations and committees must have appropriate women and social
group representation, which has ensured that women, Dalits and Indigenous Nationalities occupy 60
percent, 21 percent and 36 percent respectively of decision-making positions in 36 DMEGAs across the
country.
The different guidelines (e.g. Common Facility Centre guideline) also address GESI aspects e.g. CFCs are
for those who do not have space to run their enterprise and provides support to the Hardcore poor to have a
common place for training, raw material collection, production, storage and marketing. CFCs are also
resources which the group can use to raise funds. CFC guidelines has mandated that all the centres must
have child care facilities, drinking water and toilets, without which they will not be approved.
Enterprise Development Facilitators Training Curricula
MEDEP has ensured that professionals for the sector like Enterprise Development Facilitators (EDFs)
are developed. The directives for EDFs mandates women and social group representation amongst
them. The EDF curriculum16 in its GESI module discusses the GESI concepts but a limitation is in its
practical application. Skills and tools which the EDFs could use while working with the different target
groups (e.g. to identify barriers, to integrate GESI in business plans) are not part of the course. GESI is
also not integrated into the different modules which results in EDFs not learning effectively about how
to mainstream it into their different functions.17
MEDEP's interventions are designed to address the UNDAF outcome ‘Vulnerable groups have improved access to economic
opportunities and adequate social protection’ and the CPAP outcome ‘Government has improved capacity to design, execute and
manage economic development programmes and strategies’ through increased capacity to design, implement and monitor a multipartner supported microenterprise development programme (source Annual Reports, 2012, 21013)
15 Annual Progress Report, 2012, MEDEP/UNDP and MoI
16 CTEVT conducts a 15 month course for EDFs (which was also developed due to MEDEP's influence). Of the 25 modules for the
course, one module is on GESI. This is divided into five sections with one section on gender concepts, second on HIV and AIDs, third
on legal advocacy, fourth on social inclusion and fifth on rights based approach.
17 None of the EDFs met in the field by the team leader and component experts had been through this course or received any orientation
on GESI by MEDEP.
14
14
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
A key gap in MEDEP's policy mandate is a recognition that the different target groups (e.g. women,
Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities, youth) have different barriers and that the same approach may not
enable each social group to benefit equally from the opportunities and resources created by MEDEP.
Conclusion: The policy analysis of government documents reveals that the micro-enterprise sector has
been considerably strengthened by MEDEP's work. GESI issues have yet to be fully integrated into
government mandates for micro-enterprise development. MEDEP, with clear targeting mandates, has
been addressing GESI aspects due to the very nature of its beneficiaries. There is space for MEDEP to
identify the non-economic enterprise related barriers such as discrimintory gender norms and social
practices, which constrain women, Dalits and other excluded groups from benefiting more from the
interventions of MEDEP and from micro-enterprise development.
2.5 GESI Institutional Analysis of MEDEP
Institutional arrangements, the location of responsibility for GESI, and institutional culture and attitudes
of staff can greatly determine the access of women, the poor and excluded to MEDEP's services.
Following the GESI analytical framework and as per the ToR, various human-resource-related issues
are assessed in this section to understand the GESI responsiveness of MEDEP institutions. The
institutional analysis covers the BDSPO and DMEGA of the sample study districts18 and MEDEP.
2.5.1
MEDEP
GESI in human resource and personnel management
MEDEP as a NEX programme of UNDP, follows the NEX guidelines in its human resource
management. The NEX guidelines details out the ToRs of National Programme Director (NPD) and
National Programme Manager (NPM), the recruitment process and also staff benefits and facilities.
The duties and responsibilities of the NPD and NPM as described in the NEX guidelines, while being
comprehensive otherwise, do not direct them to ensure that GESI issues are addressed in all the aspects
of the programme execution, implementation and operation.
The ToRs in the project document of MEDEP Phase IV of the NPD and NPM, the 5 Component
Managers, Chief Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist and the Senior Institutional Development
Specialist all have stated a task of ‘ensuring that MEDEP activities are planned and implemented in a
gender sensitive and inclusive manner and that all partners are trained in GESI’. Specific GESI tasks
linked to the responsibilities of the different positions are not included. The required experiences and
skills for these positions do not specify a basic understanding of GESI. Despite the targeted approach
of MEDEP, there is no GESI specialist/officer in the central team.
From a GESI perspective, NEX guidelines have ensured that there is representation of a gender specialist in
the NEX recruitment committee and in the Project recruitment committee (if there is a project gender
specialist) but the ToRs of the two committees do not mandate that GESI aspects be addressed by the
committee in the full recruitment process. The Gender Parity Action Plan of 2014 cover some of these
18
Information of all DMEGAs and BDSPO were not available to the study team, despite follow-up. This report covers the following: Staff
profile of MEDEP (Central and area offices), BDSPO staff of five districts (Jumla, Mahottari, Nawalparasi, Sindhupalchowk,
Terathum), BDSPO Board profile of four districts (Dadeldhura, Mahottari, Sindhupalchowk, Sunsari) and DMEGA staff of eight
districts (Dadeldhura, Jumla, Kailali, Mahottari, Parbat, Salyan, Sindhupalchowk, Sunsari), DMEGA Board profile of three districts
(Jumla, Parbat, Sunsari)
15
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
missing aspects. During the recruitment process of staff , the UNDP Workforce Diversity Policy 2009.
is followed which provides direction for promoting an inclusive workforce. The UNDP guideline for
panel members for interviews is also mandatory to implement.
Sixty days of maternity leave is provided to women staff with full time service contract. There is no provision
specified for child care, breast feeding and flexible hours.19 While the NEX guidelines do not have provision
for such facilities, workforce diversity plans direct for affirmative action during recruitment and provide
gender specific support.
The Performance Appraisal Report has a section on performance on gender related dimensions of the
job description.20
Diversity Profile of MEDEP staff
A disaggregation of 79 staff of MEDEP (covering 21 staff at the centre office and 58 in the eight Area
Support Offices in districts21) indicates that there are 23 percent women and 77 percent men. There are
no women in senior (top) management. Typically there are more women at the mid level management
and administration22 (Figure 2.1). There are three women at NPPP III23 level: Senior Monitoring and
Evaluation Specialist, Senior Instutional Capacity Development and Strategy Specialist and Area
Programme Support Manager.
Figure 2.1 MEDEP Staff by management level and sex
Source: MEDEP staff list; analysis by study team. 2014
National Execution Guidelines, Updated Version July 2001 (provided to the study team by MEDEP)
Discussion with staff are still to be held by the study team to understand the effectiveness of this
21 Staff data of MEDEP is as provided by MEDEP in May 2014. The Area Support Offices are in Biratnagar, Lahan, Heatuda, Kathmandu,
Pokhara, Gorahi, Birendranagar and Dhangadi.
22 The posts categorised under different levels by the study team is: senior level management (2): CTA 1, NPM 1; mid level management
(14): ASPM 7, component manager 4, admin and finance manager 1, senior monitoring and evaluation specialist 1, and senior
institutional development and strategy specialist 1; Admin (49): Admin Assistant/Office Secretary 1, SAFA 2, MISS 1, MISA 4, MDS
16, GSS 15, C&DS 1, AFA 8, AEDS 1; and drivers (13) and messenger (1) are included in other support staff (14).
23
In the UNDP NEX system, NPPP III level staffs are considered as senior staff involved in managerial work particularly in MEDEP
19
20
16
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Almost 50 percent of the staff are hill Brahman/Chhetri (with six percent women); 11 percent are
Newars24 (4% women); 20 percent Hill Janajati (6% women) and Madhesi Brahman/Chhetris 2.5
percent. Other Backward Class (Madhesi Other Caste) are only five percent. There are no Madhesi
Dalits and Muslims (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 MEDEP Staff by caste/ethnicity, regional identity and sex
43
Female %
Male %
14
6
3
Brahman
Chhetri Hill
3
Brahman
Chhetri
Madhesi
6
4
Dalit Hill
4
Janajati (Hill
except Newar)
8
3
Janajati
(Newar)
3
4
1
Janajati (Terai)
Other
Madhesi Caste
Source: MEDEP staff list; analysis by study team
The senior and middle management level has predominantly staff from hill Brahman/Chhetri and Newar
groups. Administration level has apart from the hill Brahman/Chhetri, four percent hill Dalit women
(Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3 MEDEP Staff by management level, caste/ethnicity, regional identity and sex
64
Senior level management
50
Mid level management
50
Admin
43
37
Other support staff
21
14
767
0
F%
4
6
78
2
M%
F%
M%
F%
7
M%
Brahman
Chhetri Hill
F%
Brahman
Chhetri
Madhesi
Dalit Hill
14
7 7 76
2 0
M%
Janajati (Hill
except Newar)
F%
M%
Janajati
(Newar)
7
4
4
2
4
F%
M%
F%
M%
Janajati (Terai) Other Madhesi
Caste
Source: MEDEP staff list; analysis by study team
24
The caste/ethnic disaggregation used here is what has been used now by different Ministries (e.g. MoHP for its NDHS Further Analysis)
and Social Inclusion Action Group (SIAG) for its workforce diversity analysis. The difference from MEDEP's categorisation is that
Newars are included within Hill Janajati group by MEDEP while now-a-days, they are being separated as their indicators are high and
influence the indicators of other hill Janajati groups. We suggest that in future this be done by MEDEP also and hence have preferred
to follow this level of disaggregation where information was available.
17
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Overall the staff profile analysis indicates that MEDEP has made efforts to be representative but there
is room for improvement for better representation of women, especially in higher positions and of
certain social groups, to be representative of the population profile of the districts they are working in.
MEDEP Enterprise Development Facilitators (EDFs)
Out of total 713 EDFs, 541 were available for MEDEP and MEDPA programmes in November 2013.
Of these there were 311 women and 230 men, Indigenous Nationalities 161, Dalit 127, Muslim 2 and
other 251.25 Further disaggregated details (e.g. sex disaggregation within the different social groups)
are unavailable but women EDFs of Madhesi social profiles are insufficient and hence difficult to find
(as shared by President , BDSPO, Mahottari).
2.5.2
Business Development Service Provider Organisations (BDSPOs)
Findings below are based on the information provided by the BDSPOs of different districts.26
GESI in human resource and personnel management of BDSPOs
BDSPOs are crucial for creation of new entrepreneurs according to the specified target group of
MEDEP i.e. women, the Hardcore poor, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other excluded groups.
Hence it is essential that these organisations be GESI responsive and integrate GESI in their planning,
programming, budgeting, monitoring and reporting.
Most of the reviewed BDSPOs have objectives that mention “discrimination and untouchability on the
basis of sex and caste shall be opposed”. Likewise, the goal, mission and vision stated in constitution
have included terms like “women and poor” and “marginalized groups”. Some of the BDSPOs’
reviewed (e.g. Save the Earth of Sunsari and SEEDS of Dadeldhura) work under a Constitution that
does not very explicitly direct them to work on GESI issues.27
For being more specific in implementation, a few BDSPOs (e.g Deurali Society, Tehrathum) have
adopted “GESI internalization” as one of its core values. Almost all BDSPOs have mandatory provision
of representation of women and marginalized groups in their executive committee. A further provision
for women and the marginalized at decision making level within the executive committee, would have
strengthened the commitment of BDSPOs formally to gender equality.
Some BDSPOs (e.g. SEEDS) have very sensitive gender related provisions in their administration
policy. SEEDS has approved criteria, prioritising women and people from excluded groups in its
membership and it has very sensitively provisioned for breast feeding time for women employees with
small children. Women are prioritised for capacity development opportunities. Gender sensitive
behaviour is a criteria for staff performance evaluation, which is excellent. Save the Earth has included
gender equity as a cross-cutting issue and has identified gender as an organisational value but its theory
Annual Report 2013, MEDEP/UNDP and MOI
BDSPO (Sustainable Enterprise and Environment Development Working Awareness Center- SEEWAC/ Nepal; Tehrathum
BDSPO (Deurali Society); Mahottari BDSPO (Rural Community Development Service Council-RCDSC); Nawalparasi BDSPO
(Resource Center for Enterprise Development Nepal or Udhyam Bikas Shrot Kendra; Sindhupalchowk BDSPO/ Sindhu Development
Center (SIDEC); Jumla BDSPO (Panch Tara Yuba Samrekshak Manch); Sunsari BDSPO (Save the Earth Foundation International);
Dadeldhura BDSPO (Social Environment and Enterprise Development Society/Nepal- SEEDS Nepal); Information was not sent in by
the other BDSPOs to the study team despite follow-up.
27 Constitution, SEEDS and Save the Earth, Organisational Profile, Save the Earth and Administration Policy of SEEDS
25
26 Kailali
18
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
of change needs to integrate GESI explicitly. nor is GESI integrated in written in the
responsibilities.
staff
BDSPOs, while practically working on GESI issues, have not yet mainstreamed GESI activities across
all the ToRs of their staff. The need for candidates to possess relevant GESI knowledge and skills have
not been integrated into the ToRs. Additionally, there are no provisions of gender and social inclusion
sensitisation trainings, workshops and conferences for enhancing capability of appointed staffs.
Progress reports of BDSPOs report on activities conducted but there is limited analysis of shifts in
gender and other social power relations (refer Annex 13 for detailed analysis of the BDSPO documents).
Diversity in BDSPO Executive Committee
During the course of this impact study, four BDSPO’s provided information about their Executive
Board members and five BDSPO’s provided information about their staffs. Hence the analysis below
is based on the above information only.
There are 36 Executive Committee members altogether in four BDSPO executive committees.28 Fortytwo percent are women and 58 percent men. A dominance of hill Brahman Chhetri with almost 45
percent (19% women) is seen. With two Terai districts covered, there is a presence of Madhesi Dalit at
11 percent, Terai Janajati at 14 percent (6% women) and Other Backward Class/Other Madhesi Caste
at 14 percent (6% women).
Diversity of staff of five BDSPOs
A disaggregation of 3229 staff of BDSPOs30 indicates that there are 31 percent women and 69 percent
men. The proportion of presence of women at management level and field level are almost the same
(30~32 percent).
Diversity of BDSPO staff by social group and sex is presented below (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4 Diversity of staff of five BDSPOs
16
19
16
Female %
6
6
3
Brahman
Chhetri Hill
Dalit Hill
19
Male %
3
Dalit Madhesi Janajati (Hill
except Newar)
6
3
Janajati
(Newar)
3
Janajati (Terai)
Other
Madhesi Caste
Source: Analysis by study team
SEEDS Dadeldhura, Save the Earth Sunsari, RCSDC Mahottari, and SIDEC Sindhupalchowk
Covering five staff in management level, five in admin and 22 under field level staff
30 Jumla (seven staff), Mahottari (five staff), Nawalparasi (six staff), Sindhupalchok (seven staff), Terathum (seven staff)
28
29
19
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
There are almost 35 percent staff from Hill Brahman Chhetri (BC), 22 percent from Hill Dalit, almost
19 percent from OBC/Other Madhesi Caste, nine percent from Hill Janajati (except Newar), 9 percent
from Janajati (Terai), three percent Janajati (Newar) and three percent Madhesi Dalit.
Of the five staff in management level, men of Brahman Chhetri hill dominate (40 percent). The
administration staff is diverse with one each of Brahman Chhetri Hill woman, Dalit Hill man, Janajati
(Hill except Newar) woman and a man and an OBC man.
There are 22 staff at the field level. Men of Hill BC, Hill Dalit and OBC are18 percent each. Percentage
of Hill BC women is 14 whereas Hill Dalit women and Janajati (Terai) men are nine percent each.
Madhesi Dalit women, Janajati (Hill except Newar) men and Janajati (Terai) women are five percent
each.
Hence there is a diversity amongst the BDSPO staff. Of the ones reviewed, there is a gap in women
from Other Madhesi Caste/Other Backward Class group. Muslims are also not reflected, maybe because
the districts did not have a Muslim population.
2.5.3
District Micro-enterprise Group Associations (DMEGA)
Information of DMEGAs covering human resource issues and staff diversity was sent in by DMEGAs of
Dadeldhura, Kailali, Parbat, Jumla, Mahottari, Nawalparasi, Salyan, Sindhupalchowk and Sunsari. Some
information has been analysed below (refer Annex 14 for detailed analysis of the DMEGA documents).
GESI in policies, human resource and personnel management of DMEGAs
The constitution of DMEGAs give special focus on enterprise development, employment generation
and poverty reduction. The objectives of almost all DMEGAs mention “operation of programs will be
focused towards socially and economically marginalized communities, poor, Dalits, Janajatis etc.
However, much of the attention is given to promote entrepreneurship and develop enterprises. The
“gender and social inclusion guidelines” of BDSPOs of Tehrathum and Mahottari are exemplary
examples of GESI sensitive policy documents.
In the structure and composition of executive committee as well as management teams, women and
socially excluded groups have significant presence since DMEGAs are representatives of the project
beneficiaries, who are already a targeted group.
A District Programme Coordinator (DPC) is fully responsible under DMEGA to oversee the whole
programme. The ToR of the DPC does not integrate GESI in the responsibilities and does not mandate
that the DPC ensure that GESI aspects are mainstreamed in all aspects of the programme
implementation and in staff management. Skills and qualifications in the ToR do not demand even basic
understanding of GESI. While various training and capacity building interventions have been done for
DMEGA staff by MEDEP, there have been minimal GESI training or coaching.31 In the staff regulations,
all DMEGAs have a “benefits and services” section. DMEGAs in Nawalparasi and Dadeldhura have
an innovative policy provision which provides privilege to women staffs against harsh transfers. In
geographically challenging areas, women staff may face several social as well as security problems.
Keeping this in mind, the policy directs women to have transfers always near their family home.
31
As shared during the field visit of study team by DMEGA staff
20
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Initiatives taken by some DMEGA to recognise women based enterprises through ‘best women
entrepreneur of the year’ award are excellent. But there is an absence of investing in capacity
strengthening of staff on GESI - GESI sensitization trainings are not reflected in the work plans
reviewed.
DMEGA Executive Committees
DMEGA executive committees are formed by the women and men entrepreneurs of MEDEP,
representing the Micro-entrepreneurs groups. Thus these executive committees are important forums
for the micro-entrepreneurs to have a voice.
There are 51 Executive Committee members altogether in three DMEGA executive committees32.
Forty-five percent are women and 56 percent men. A dominance of Hill Brahman Chhetri with almost
32 percent (12% women) is seen. There are 26 percent of Hill Dalit at and 18 percent Janajati (Hill
except Newar), Terai Janajati are 14 percent (all women) and OBC four percent (all men). Percentage
of Newar is only two (probably because the districts do not have Newari population). DMEGA
Executive Committee members demonstrate diversity.
Staff diversity in DMEGAs
A disaggregation of 60 staff 33of eight DMEGA34 indicates that there are 42 percent women and 58
percent men. Typically there are more women at the field level (56%). 35 Women and men at the
administration level are equal. There are less women in management level (26%) with no presence at
support (e.g. driver, messenger) levels (Figure 2.5). This indicates that most women are now getting
opportunities as Enterprise Development Facilitators (which is to be appreciated) but not as District
Programme Coordinator and Business Development Counselor (posts which demand higher
qualifications and experience)36.
Jumla (11), Parbat (19), and Sunsari (21). Information of executive committees was provided by only these three DMEGAs
Covering 23 staff under management level, 10 admin, 25 field level, and 2 under support staff
34 Dadeldhura 7 (F3, M4), Jumla 7 (M7), Kailali 6 (F4, M2), Mahottari 7 (F2, M5), Parbat 10 (F6, M4), Salyan 8 (F2, M6), Sindhupalchowk
8 (F6, M2), Sunsari 7 (F2, M5) (F: female, M: male)
35 The posts of DMEGA categorised under different levels by the study team is: management level: District Programme Coordinator,
Senior Enterprise Development Facilitator, HDO, Enterpreneur Development Consultant, Business Development Counselor, Field
level: Enterprise Development Facilitator, A-EDF; Admin: Office Assistant, Finance and Admin Assistant, DBA\AFA, Database/Admin
and finance Assistant, Database assistant and AFA, AFA/DBA, AFA; and messengers are included in other support staff.
36
At present there are four categories of EDFs working in MEDEP. 15 months Technical SLC course passed level 2, skill test (by
experiences) passed through National Skill Tresting Board (NSTB) under CTEVT level 2 and 3 and non skill tested. As per CTEVT and
Public Service Commission policy EDF level 2 is Non Gazetted Class II Technical and level 3 is Non Gazetted Class I Technical. Since DPS
and BDC positions are of officer level EDFs should pass skill test level 4. At present MEDEP has made temporary provision of a candidate
having Bachelors Degree in development field with minimum of five years experiences are eligible for DPC and BDC positions since
CTEVT/NSTB and MEDEP are in the process of developing Occupational Profile (OP) for level 4. Once this OP is approved and EDF level
3 undergo skill test of level 4 many women and excluded will have opportunity to get into these positions.
32
33
21
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 2.5 Staff diversity in DMEGAs
Female %
Male %
100
74
50
56
50
44
26
Management level
Admin staff
Field level staff
Other support staff
Source: Analysis by study team
Amongst the staff, there is a dominance of hill Brahman Chhetris with 43 percent (18% women), again
maybe a reflection of both the districts covered which may have a higher population of Brahman
Chhetris and also of the historical advantage of the group. Eighteen percent are Hill Dalit (8% women),
12 percent Terai Janajati (7% women), 10 percent OBC, eight percent Janajati (Hill except Newar),
three percent each of Madhesi BC and Janajati (Newar), two percent Madhesi Dalit. So there is diversity
though there is an absence of Muslims.
At management Brahman/Chhetris (predominantly of hill origin) dominate (75%). Janajati (Newar) and
OBC are 12.5 percent each. In admin staff too, out of 10 staff, Hill BrahmanChhetris are the highest
(40%). Hill Dalit and OBC are each 20 percent and Janajati (Hill except Newar) and Janajati (Terai)
(each 10%).
At the field level, of 25 staff, Hill Dalit are 32 percent whereas Hill BrahmanChhetris are 24 percent
followed by Terai Janajati (20%). Representation of Janajati (Hill except Newar) and OBC are same
(each 8%), Madhesi Brahmin/Chhetri and Madhesi Dalit's are four percent each.
In support staff category there are only men from hill Brahman Chhetri (Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6 Staff diversity by caste and ethnicity
43
40
Management level
Admin staff
Field level staff
17
12
16
10
12
4 4
F%
M%
BC
Hill
M%
BC
Madhesi
F%
16
10
4
M%
Dalit
Hill
Source: Staff list of DMEGAs, analysis by study team
22
20
16
4
F%
4
8
F%
10
4
4
4
M%
F%
M%
Dalit
Janajati Hill
Madhesi (ex. Newar)
M: Male, F: Female
Janajati
(Newar)
F%
10
4 4
9 8
M%
M%
Janajati
(Terai)
OBC
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.5.4
GESI in human resource and personnel management of NMEFEN
National Micro Entrepreneurs’ Federation Nepal (NMEFEN) is a federated entity of district based
District Micro Entrepreneurs’ Group Association and promoted by Micro Enterprise Development
Programme (MEDEP) and the Ministry of Industry. As an apex body, it has focused most of its activities
in policy advocacy, planning arrangements and capacity building for the sustainability of its member
enterprises. The vision, mission and goal stated in the constitution have given high priority to policy
advocacy and institutional networking among enterprises through enhanced partnerships and strategies.
The federation has envisaged taking a leadership role in directing enterprises towards business success
through reliable and affordable mechanisms of exploring and expanding markets. Further provisions to
safeguard enterprises operated by disadvantaged groups from market shocks and at the same time to
enhance knowledge and skills necessary for business success, would support the vulnerable within the
micro-entrepreneurs (refer Annex 15 for detailed analysis of the NMEFEN documents). The Terms of
Reference (ToRs) of staffs have yet to integrate GESI.
2.5.5
GESI in human resource and personnel management of NEDC
National Entrepreneurship Development Center (NEDC) is a federated entity of 21 Business
Development Services Providing Organizations (BDSPOs) promoted by MEDEP.
Of its twelve objectives, an objective mentions “to foster self-reliance among socially excluded groups
like ultra-poor, women, Janajatis, Dalits, conflict affected people etc”. All other objectives are focused
on enterprise development, providing services and trainings. However, the goal, mission and vision are
not explicitly GESI responsive.
The executive committee members of NEDC are representatives from ten BDSPOs of the five
development regions of Nepal. There is a provision for an additional executive member from among the
women, Dalit, Janajatis. The inclusiveness of executive committee largely depends on the nominations from
BDSPOs. There are no provisions specifying diversity in the representatives to be sent by BDSPOs. There
is need to explicitly define GESI roles and responsibilities of the executive committee.
A clause on staffs code of conduct obliges staffs to “follow the gender and inclusion norms”, These
gender and inclusion norms need to be further defined. The Terms of Reference (TORs) of staff also
require to integrate GESI functions.
2.5.6
DCSI and CSIDB
The Government Officers of the Department of Cottage and Small Industry (DCSI) and Cottage and
Small Industry Development Board (CSIDB) comprise 11 women and 30 men (22 Hill
Brahman/Chhetri (BC), five Hill Indigenous Nationalities, two Dalits, two Madhesi Dalits).37
Conclusion: The institutional analysis of MEDEP, BDSPO and DMEGA reveals that some
organisations are ahead in having a diverse workforce and in having GESI sensitive human resource
policy provisions (e.g. SEEDS). Some BDSPOs have provided for child care, breast feeding and
safety/security issues of women. None of the organisations reviewed have provisioned for addressing
37 Annual
Report 2013, MEDEP/UNDP and MOI
23
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
caste-based discrimination experienced by Dalits e.g. identifying measures to ensure that Dalit staff do
not experience humiliation while seeking accommodation during field visits.
There is effort to have staff diversity however, more effort is required to increase women’s
representation in senior positions. There is over representation of hill Brahman/Chhetri in decision
making positions and an absence of Muslims. The caste/ethnicity profile of course has to be reflective
of the district population profile (which this study has not done since it was beyond its scope).
2.6 Financial Allocation Analysis
2.6.1
MEDEP
Financial allocation analysis38 from a GESI perspective was conducted of a number of work-plans39. A GESI
analysis of the financial allocation of MEDEP's annual work plan of the years 2011-201340 indicates that 72
percent budget (over the three years) was programme related and 28 percent for administration.
Table 2.1
Budget by activity type
Activity Type
Programme
Administration
Total
Budget in US$
9,511,376
3,627,785
13,139,161
Percent
72.39
27.61
100.00
Source: Annual workplans of MEDEP 2011-2013, analysis by study team
Of the 72 percent, 65 percent of the programme budget was GESI responsive (33 percent was specific
i.e. directly benefiting the different target groups of MEDEP and 32 percent was supportive i.e.
contributing to developing an enabling environment for the target group) and 35 percent neutral (refer
Annex 16 for details of the activity categorisation). This is to be expected as MEDEP is targeted to
women and the excluded. The issue is to further identify how much of this budget is spent on activities
directly benefiting women and people of different social groups.41
Table 2.2
Budget by GESI category
GESI Category
GESI specific
GESI responsive
38 This
Budget in US$
3,172,161
2,997,591
Percent
33.35
31.52
financial allocation analysis is a tool that is used for identifying the GESI responsiveness of the allocated budget. This tool is
different from the Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) practice of Government of Nepal and can be applied as a sub-activity of
GRB. The MoF's GRB guidelines directs categorisation of all expenditure items in the Ministry budget into three categories, (direct,
indirect and neutral) based on the following five indicators of gender responsiveness: i. participation of women in planning and
implementation (20%); ii. capacity building (20%); iii. secured benefits to, and control of women (30%); iv. increased access to
employment and income earning opportunities (20%); and v. qualitative improvements in women’s time use and reduced workload
(10%). This study has not applied this tool as it i. applies to gender only and does not include social inclusion aspects; ii. is more
appropriate for an assessment of the whole process of planning and programming rather than just a specific focus on the financial
allocations. Financial Allocation analysis tool has been used in various assessments in Nepal (e.g. GESI Reflected in Child Health
and Family Health Planning, FHD, CHD and NHSSP, 2013; Sectoral Perspectives of Gender and Social Inclusion sponsored by WB,
ADB and DFID, 2012) and South and South-East Asia (in Maldives, Indonesia, Philippines).
39 These included the following: MEDEP 2011-2013 and Aug-Dec 2013, 2 BDSPO (Dadeldhura 2013 and Jumla from 2012-2014); 7
DMEGAs (Dadeldhura: 2011-2013, Jumla: 2014 (April-June), Kailali (2013- July-Dec), Parbat 2013, Salyan 2013, Jan-June 2014,
Sindhupalchowk 2014, Sunsari 2013) NMEFEN 2012 to 2014
40 Actual expenditure during the period of Jan-July (from 2013 AWP, Phase III) is considered by MEDEP as a plan (allocation) for that
period. The allocation of August-December (Phase IV) reflected the AWP of 2013.
41 It was challenging for the study team to do this as details of the specific budget were not available in the work-plans. It would require
further detailed sub-activity level information to know who e.g. were the participants in a specific training and would require breaking
up of the allocated budget to calculate what percentage was for a specific group.
24
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Neutral
Total
3,341,624
9,511,376
35.13
100.00
Source: Annual workplans 2011-2013, analysis by study team
The financial allocation analysis indicates that MEDEP's work is focused on improving assets. Ninety
percent of the 72 percent GESI responsive budget is spent on this domain and nine percent on the rules
of the game domain (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3
Budget by Domains of Change
Domains of Change
Budget in US$
Percent
5,559,529
29,363
580,860
59,74,402
90.11
0.48
9.41
100.00
Access to services
Voice
Rules of the Game
Total
Source: Annual workplans 2011-2013, analysis by study team
The financial allocation analysis indicates that MEDEP's targeted approach is ensuring that women,
poor and the excluded access the resources and opportunities of the programme. An areas of
improvement identified is a better balance in addressing the domains of change. Both capacity to
identify issues and influence decisions and also to address policies and gender norms are important for
lasting change in the lives of the programme beneficiaries.
2.6.2
District Microentrepreneurs Group Association (DMEGA)
The workplans of seven DMEGAs were reviewed from a GESI perspective. The districts and the time
period are provided below (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4
DMEGA and Workplan Period for GESI analysis
DMEGA
Period
Dadeldhura
2011, 2012, 2013
Jumla
2014 (Apr-June)
Kailali
2013 (July-Dec)
Parbat
2013
Salyan
2013, 2014 (Jan-June)
Sindhupalchok
2014
Sunsari
2013
Source: Study team, 2014
A GESI analysis of the financial allocation of DMEGA indicates that 67 percent budget was programme
related and 33 percent for administration. In Parbat and Sindhupalchok 100 percent of the budget
provided to the study team was programme related.
Table 2.5
Budget by activity type
Activity Type
Budget in NRs
Percent
Programme
24,085,827
66.96
Administration
11,882,746
33.04
Total
35,968,573
100.00
25
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Source: DMEGA documents, analysis by study team, 2014
Of the 67 percent, 97 percent of the programme budget was GESI responsive (43 percent was specific
i.e. directly benefiting the different target groups of DMEGA and 54 percent was responsive/ supportive
i.e. contributing to developing an enabling environment for the target group) and only three percent
neutral. Out of the seven districts Dadeldhura has highest (83 percent) and Sindhupalchok has the lowest
(13 percent) GESI specific budget.
Table 2.6
Budget by GESI category
GESI category
Budget in NRs
Percent
GESI specific
10,416,298
43.25
GESI responsive
13,045,529
54.16
624,000
2.59
24,085,827
100.00
Neutral
Total
Source: Analysis by study team, 2014
The financial allocation analysis indicates that DMEGA’s work is focused on improving assets. Eighty
three percent of 67 percent program budget is spent on this domain and eight percent on the rules of the
game and nine percent on voice domain.
Figure 2.7 Budget by domains of change
Voice
9%
Rules of
Game
8%
Access to
services
83%
Source: Study team, 2014
2.6.3
Business Development Service Providing Organisations (BDSPO)
The workplans of two BDSPOs (Dadeldhura and Jumla)42 were reviewed from a GESI perspective,
which indicates that 72 percent budget was programme related and 28 percent for administration.
Table 2.7
Budget of BDSPOs by activity type
Activity Type
42
Budget in NRs
Percent
Programme
6,220,185
71.64
Administration
2,461,891
28.36
The workplan of 2013 of Dadeldhura BDSPO and three years workplan (from 2012-14) of Jumla's BDSPO were reviewed.
26
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Total
8,682,076
100.00
Source: Analysis by study team, 2014
Of the 72 percent, about 99 percent of the programme budget was GESI responsive (80% was specific
i.e. directly benefiting the different target groups of BDSPO and 19 percent was supportive i.e.
contributing to developing an enabling environment for the target group) and only about one percent
neutral. Out of the two districts Dadeldhura has highest (98%) with the remaining two percent as GESI
supportive and Jumla has 67 percent GESI specific budget.
Table 2.8
Budget by GESI category
GESI category
Budget in NRs
Percent
GESI specific
5,008,140
80.51
GESI responsive
1,174,824
18.89
37,221
0.60
6,220,185
100.00
Neutral
Total
Source: BDSPO documents, analysis by study team, 2014
Figure 2.8 Budget by GESI category (Dadeldhura and Jumla)
Neutral
1%
Jumla
GESI
responsive
2%
Neutral
0%
Dadeldhura
GESI
responsive
32%
GESI
specific
67%
GESI
specific
98%
Source: Analysis by study team, 2014
The financial allocation analysis indicates that BDSPO’s work is focused on improving assets. Ninety
six percent of 72 percent program budget is spent on this domain and one percent on the rules of the
game and two percent on voice domain.
Table 2.9
BDSPO Budget by domains of change
GESI category
Budget in NRs
Access to services
Voice
Rules of the Game
Total
Percent
5,959,988
96.39
136,638
2.21
86,338
1.40
6,182,964
100.00
Source: Analysis by study team, 2014
2.6.4
National Micro-entrepreneurs Federation of Nepal (NMEFEN)
A GESI analysis of the financial allocation of NMEFEN's annual workplan of the years 2012-2014
indicates that 97 percent budget (over the three years) was programme related and three percent for
administration.
27
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Table 2.10 Budget of NMEFEN by activity type
Activity type
Budget in NRs
Programme
Administration
Total
Percent
14,379,350
96.71
489,553
3.29
14,868,903
100.00
Of the 97 percent, 100 percent of the programme budget was GESI responsive. 100 percent budget was
supportive i.e. contributing to developing an enabling environment for the target group.
Budget by Domains of Change
The financial allocation analysis indicates that NMEFEN’s work is focused on improving rules of the
game. Eighty percent of 97 percent programme budget is spent on this domain and 13 percent on access
to services and seven percent on voice domain, which is a good reflection of the mandate of an
organisation like NMEFEN. NMEFEN is supposed to represent DMEGA's and hence its work has to
be on changing policies.
3.
GESI Profile of Micro-entrepreneurs of MEDEP
The information from MEDEP's database (of May 2014) about the micro-entrepreneurs (MERs) was
reviewed to identify which women and which men are active, semi-active and inactive MERs.
Additionally to understand the levels of profit made, the assessment of the active micro-entrepreneurs
was further analysed to identify who have made a profit of above or below of Rs 21168 (the per capita
income considered to be the poverty line). This was analysed and linked to category of enterprises to
understand better how the enterprises impacted the income potential of the women and men of different
social groups. This section discusses the findings from the data analysis and supports the analysis of the
survey findings (presented in the next chapter). While by July 2014 MEDEP had more than 70,000
micro-entrepreneurs, the database provided to the study team had information of 53373 microentrepreneurs. This is what was used for this review.
3.1 Caste/ethnicity profile of total project beneficiaries
The caste/ethnicity disaggregation of the 53,373 responses in the MEDEP data base43 indicates that
there are almost 31 percent MERs from the hill Brahman/Chhetri social group (with 20.4% women),
followed by 30 percent of hill Janajati (21.4 % women). Hill Dalits are 18 percent and Terai Janajati
and Other Backward Class (OBCs)/Other Madhesi Caste, around seven percent.
This profile needs to be compared to the population profile of the 38 districts44 MEDEP is working in and
within that the population profile of the low income and Hardcore poor families that MEDEP targets.
The figures represent the number of project beneficiaries upto May 2014, the month of the start of this study. The number of project
beneficiaries vary with each succeeding month as additions are made.
44 MEDEP works in six mountain, 17 hill and 15 Terai districts. In the FWR it covers 4 districts, in MWR 11, WR- 5, CRl - 11 and ER - 7.
The details are: Far Western development Region: Darchula (M), Baitadi, Dadekdhura (H) nd Kailali (T); Mid-Western Region: Jumla,
Kaliot (M), Dailekh, Rukum, Salyan, Rolpa, Surkhet, Pyuthan (H), Bardiya, Banke, Dang (T), Western Region: Myagdi, Baglung,
Parbat (H), Central Region: Rasuwa, Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha (M), Nuwakot, Ramechhap, Sindhuli, Kavrepalanchowk (H),
Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusha (T),; Eastern Development Region: Udaypur, Terhathum (H), Sunsari, Siraha, Saptari,
Morang, Jhapa (M=mountain, H= hill, T=Terai). The population profile of these regions and districts are varied and hence to
understand the context better this further analysis would be good. It was beyond the scope of this study.
43
28
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Table 3.1
Entrepreneurs by caste and ethnicity and sex (in percent)
Caste and ethnicity
Men
BC Hill
Women
Total
10.07
20.42
30.49
BC Madhesi
0.12
0.38
0.50
Dalit Hill
5.99
11.60
17.59
Dalit Madhesi
1.81
4.58
6.39
Janajati Hill
8.17
21.45
29.62
Janajati Terai
1.70
6.04
7.73
Muslim
0.43
0.70
1.12
Other Backward Class
2.52
4.05
6.56
Others
0.00
0.01
0.01
Total
30.79
69.21
100.00
Source: MEDEP database May 2014, analysis by study team
3.2 Active, Seasonally active and Inactive Status of Micro-entrepreneurs
A large portion of the micro-entrepreneurs are active. Of the 53,373 responses in the database, almost
34,000 (64%) are active. 7892 (15%) are seasonally-active and 11494 (21.5%) are inactive.45
Table 3.2
Status by sex (in number of persons)
Sex
Inactive
Seasonally Active
Active
Total response
Men
3,161
2,425
10,850
16,436
Women
8,333
5,467
23,137
36,937
Total
11,494
7,892
33,987
53,373
Source: Analysis by study team, 2014
Amongst the inactive ones, women are 16 percent (8,333 women) while men are only six percent and
amongst the seasonally-active ones, women are 10 percent (5,467 women), men only five percent.
Amongst the active ones, women dominate at 43 percent (Figure 3.1), a result probably also of their
higher presence amongst micro-entrepreneurs (MERs).
Figure 3.1 Status of Active, Seasonally-Active and Inactive Micro-entrepreneurs
43.35
20.33
15.61
5.92
Inactive
Men %
Women %
10.24
4.54
Semi Active
Active
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
45
The inactive group may include migrated, deaths and forceful stop due to natural calamity figures. These sub-figures were not provided
to the study team.
29
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
But the picture is different when women are compared within the women group and men within the
male group. Sixty-six percent men are active while only 62 percent women are so. A slightly higher
percentage of women are inactive (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Status by sex (in percentage of number of persons within that group)
66.01
62.64
Men %
19.23
22.56
14.75
Inactive
Women %
14.80
Semi Active
Active
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
Status of "activeness" by poverty and sex indicates that a lower percentage of women of extreme poor,
poor and lower middle class group are active compared to the men of that group (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3
Status by poverty and sex (in percentage of number of persons)
Inactive
Poverty
Semi Active
Active
Men %
Women %
Men %
Women %
Men %
Women %
Extreme poor
20.84
26.17
16.40
16.63
62.76
57.20
Poor
16.35
17.22
11.63
11.96
72.02
70.82
Lower Middle Class
23.66
32.45
21.07
21.14
55.27
46.41
Middle Class
14.29
2.94
14.29
14.71
71.43
82.35
Upper Class
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
Total
19.23
22.56
14.75
14.80
66.01
62.64
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team
Caste/ethnicity-wise the picture is shown in Table 3.4 a higher percentage of women are inactive in hill
Dalit, OBC and Muslims group. In the semi-active category, Madhesi Brahman/Chhetri women are
more semi-active than their men while amongst Muslims it is men again who are better off. Amongst
the active, except for hill Brahman Chhetri and hill Janajati group, women are behind the men of their
social group, with the highest gender gap existing in the Madhesi Brahman Chhetri group.
30
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Table 3.4
Status by caste/ethnicity and sex (in % of number of persons within that social group)
Caste and ethnicity
Inactive
Semi active
Active
Men %
Women %
Men %
Women %
Men %
Women %
BC Hill
23.69
24.13
17.66
16.75
58.65
59.12
BC Madhesi
29.69
35.82
6.25
14.43
64.06
49.75
Dalit Hill
16.13
24.58
11.13
12.58
72.74
62.83
Dalit Madhesi
12.02
14.37
10.16
14.82
77.82
70.81
Janajati Hill
20.26
22.51
15.14
13.75
64.60
63.74
Janajati Terai
24.20
25.70
12.71
18.19
63.09
56.11
Muslim
7.02
16.71
26.32
18.33
66.67
64.96
Other Backward Class
8.86
13.43
13.63
11.21
77.51
75.36
Others
0.00
33.33
0.00
33.33
0.00
33.33
Total
19.23
22.56
14.75
14.80
66.01
62.64
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
The data regarding which women and which men are active indicates that women of Dalits, OBC and
Muslim group are more inactive. The causes behind this are not available directly from the database but
will be discussed in the next chapter on the findings of the survey.
3.3 Micro-entrepreneurs making income above and below poverty income line
Regarding the profit status, almost 40% women are below the Rs 21,168 income line while it is only 14
percent men who are so (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 Profit level by sex
39.46
29.82
16.73
Above or = 21168
Men %
13.99
Women %
Below 21168
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team
When women and men are compared within their own group, men are again found to be better off they are almost 50 percent above Rs. 21,168 while women are around 39 percent (Figure 3.4).
31
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 3.4 Profit by sex (in percentage of number of persons)
51.46
49.03
38.88
41.00
Men %
Women %
Above or = 21168
Below 21168
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
Women are behind men almost consistently across all social groups in making a profit above Rs 21,168.
Other Backward Class and Muslims as a social group are being able to earn the highest while hill Dalits
are the ones earning the lowest.
Table 3.5
Profit above Rs. 21,168 by caste ethnicity (in percentage of number of persons)
Caste and ethnicity
Men %
Women %
Total %
BC Hill
48.24
39.84
42.61
BC Madhesi
56.25
51.24
52.45
Dalit Hill
48.33
28.46
35.23
Dalit Madhesi
41.45
36.55
37.94
Janajati Hill
47.63
41.00
42.83
Janajati Terai
42.21
38.55
39.35
Muslim
56.14
58.49
57.60
Other Backward Class
66.87
51.27
57.25
Others
0.00
66.67
66.67
Total
49.03
38.88
42.01
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
Across almost all caste/ethnic/social groups, it is the women making less profit. Women of OBC and
hill Dalits group seem to have the lowest profit.
Table 3.6
Profit below Rs. 21,168 by caste ethnicity (in percentage of number of persons)
Caste and ethnicity
Men %
Women %
Total %
BC Hill
42.83
51.20
48.43
BC Madhesi
40.63
45.77
44.53
Dalit Hill
40.17
62.33
54.78
Dalit Madhesi
49.12
47.65
48.06
Janajati Hill
39.30
48.66
46.08
Janajati Terai
51.38
54.22
53.60
Muslim
39.04
36.39
37.40
Other Backward Class
28.67
39.69
35.47
Others
0.00
33.33
33.33
Total
41.00
51.46
48.23
Source: MEDEP database, analysis by study team, 2014
32
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
3.4 Enterprise category with caste/ethnicity and sex disaggregation
MEDEP follows the enterprise categorization as directed by MoI's policies. According to MEDEP's
database (July 2014), it was the agriculture sector which was the preferred enterprise category of the
MERs: 54 percent of the MEDEP MERs were in Agro Based enterprise; 19 percent in Forest Based; 14
in Artisan Based; 2 in Tourism Based; 6 in Service Based; and 5 in Others. 37 percent women and 17
percent men were in agro-based enterprises, with women of all three social grouping used by MEDEP
(Dalit, Indigenous and Others)46 being the highest in this category. There is no and minimal presence
of Dalits and Indigenous in the tourism and service categories.
Table 3.7
Micro-entrepreneurs by enterprise sector (in percent)
Enterprise sector
(APSO-Wise Value in %)
Total % of MERs
Dalit
Indigenous
Others
W
M
T
W
M
T
W
M
T
W
M
T
Agro based
37
17
54
4
8
12
6
13
19
7
15
22
Forest based
13
6
19
1
3
4
2
5
7
2
5
8
Artisan based
10
4
14
1
2
3
2
3
5
2
4
6
Tourism based
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Service based
4
2
6
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
Others
3
2
5
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Total
68
32
100
7
16
23
12
25
36
13
28
41
Source: MEDEP MIS, 2014
This reflects the dependency of the project beneficiaries on a sector they are familiar with - agriculture.
4.
Impact of MEDEP on Micro-entrepreneurs
This chapter is based on the survey data collected from ten districts, covering approximately 800
programme and non-programme respondents and qualitative data collection in seven districts and in
Kathmandu. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were held with community level
women and men micro-entrepreneurs, their husbands, EDFs, BDSPOs, DMEGA, MEDEP project staff,
local government bodies, CSIDB, DSCI, and MoI.
4.1 Overall household profile of respondents
Some details about the respondents are provided in Chapter 1 in the section on respondent's
profile. Other details are presented here in order to provide an understanding about the
background of the respondents.
46
MEDEP uses only three disaggregation groups: Dalits, Indigenous and Others. In this section we have followed that pattern (not the full
disaggregation of different social groups with regional identity like Hill Dalits and Madhesi Dalits, Other Madhesi Caste, used in other
sections of the report) as this information was provided by MEDEP MIS staff.
33
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.1.1
Background information about Treatment Group respondents
Average income by source
The major source of income of respondents (treatment group) was micro enterprises including retail
shops and tailoring (34%), followed by remittance (26%), agriculture including sale of live animals
and products (13%), service (8%), business (4%) and others (including driving, tractor operation,
pension, and art making (15%). The following Figure 4.1 shows the major sources of household income
of the sample households earned within the period of one year preceding the survey.
Figure 4.1 Major sources of income of programme respondents (in percent)
Business
4%
Other
15%
Micro
enterprise
34%
Service
8%
Agrricuture
13%
Remittance
26%
The average annual household income of the sample respondents has been estimated to be Rs. 256,667.
Among the different caste/ethnic groups, Hill Brahmin/Chhetri have the highest income (NRs.
296,520), followed by of Hill Dalit (NRs. 253,975) and the lowest is of Madhesi Dalit (NRs. 199,048).
Micro enterprise is the highest source for all caste/ethnic groups, except Madhesi Dalit for whom the
highest source is Service (Refer Annex 17 for household income by source).
Education level of Respondents’ Family
Majority (37%) of the family members were in grade 5 to 10 with girls being more than boys in this
group. 29 percent were literate and with primary level education. Only one percent of the family
members had a master degree and above and 14 percent were illiterate. Majority of the Hill Dalits, Hill
and Terai Janajatis, and Hill Brahmin/Chettris were in grade 5–10, while majority of Madhesi Dalit,
Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste were literate and at primary level. The highest level of education of
Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste was School Leaving Certificate (SLC) with none pursuing higher
secondary and above. Also Hill Dalit and Hill Janajati did not have family members with a master
degree or above. There were minimal gender differences but girls were higher in the primary level
category and boys being higher in the SLC category. Refer Annex 18 and Annex 19 for details of
education status of men and women respondents respectively.
34
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.2 Education level of respondent’s family members
35
30
38 37
Male %
14 14 14
Illiterate
Female %
Total %
29 29
11
Literate and Class 5 to 10
Primary Level
9 10
SLC
6 7 6
Twelve (10+2)
2 3 3
Graduate
1 1 1
Master and
Above
Source: Field Survey, 2014
The average school dropout ratio of the sample population is 72 percent. Among the caste/ethnic groups,
the highest dropout ratio is of Other Madhesi Caste (79%), followed by Hill Janajati (75%). The lowest
is of Hill Brahmin/Chettris (70%). Overall the dropout of men (73%) is slightly higher than that of
women (72%). Within the different caste/ethnic groups, the highest dropout rate of men is among
Muslims (46%) and of women is among Terai-Janajati (67%). Refer Annex 20 for detail.
Occupation of sample population
Majority of the sample population (16 years and above) are involved in agriculture (22%), followed by
enterprise(17%), student (14%) and foreign labor (13%), and wage earning (8%). Similar pattern of
prime occupation is seen among men and women population. Between men and women, while a higher
percent of men compared to women are involved in agriculture, more women compared to men are
involved in business, as student and foreign labor.
Figure 4.3 Percentage distribution of sample population (16 years and above) by occupation
Senior citizen
Unemployed
4%
2%
Pensioner
1%
Agriculture
22%
House work
5%
Foreign Labor
13%
Student
14%
Private
Business
4%
Others
2%
Govt. Service
4%
Wage earner
8%
Enterprise
17%
Skilled labor
4%
Source: Field Survey, 2014
35
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Among the different caste/ethnic groups, majority of hill Dalits (24%) and Other Madhesi Caste (37%)
are involved in business; Madhesi Dalits in wage earning (23%); hill Janajatis (25%), terai-Janajatis
(24%), hill Brahmin/Chhetris (21%) and Muslims (47%) in agriculture.
Between hardcore poor and non-hardcore poor, a higher percent of men hardcore-poor compared to
non-hardcore poor are involved in agriculture and as student. A higher percent of non-hardcore poor
compared to hardcore poor is involved in business and foreign labour.
Female headed household amongst respondents
Among the overall respondents, there were 14 percent women headed households in the treatment group
and 10 percent in the control group. The main reason for female household head was husband outside
home followed by being widow and the lowest reason cited was separation from husband. According
to men respondents, being widow was the main reason. Among the caste/ ethnic groups, there was no
response by Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste. For the rest of the groups, husband outside the home
was the main reason, except for Madhesi Dalit, who attributed women being widow as the main reason.
While for hardcore poor the main reason was women being widow followed by divorce; for nonhardcore poor the main reason was husband outside home with no attribution to divorce.
Figure 4.4 Main Reason for Female Household Head (in percent) amongst respondents
Husband outside home
75
50
53
50
30
25
55
51
40
34
29
33
30
35
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 21 for details.
Note: BC: Brahman/Chhetri
By Sex
By Poverty
Overall
Non-Hardcore
Hardcore
Male
Female
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
20
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
27
50
43
42
Hill BC
73
36
Widow
Overall
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.1.2
Background information about Control Group respondents
Average income by source
The major source of income is agriculture, followed by service, driving, remittance, business, livestock
sale and others (livestock products sale, wages, retail shop, tractor operating, and art making).
Figure 4.5 Source of income of control group respondents
Livestock sale
7%
Others
11%
Agriculture
31%
Business
8%
Remittance
10%
Driving
11%
Service
22%
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Among the different caste/ethnic groups, Hill Janajati reported the highest family income (NRs.
186,957) majority of which came from service followed by agriculture, followed by Other Madhesi
Caste (NRs. 174,429) the primary source of which was remittance; and the lowest was of Madhesi Dalit
(NRs. 102,548) the major source of which was service followed by others. Refer Annex 22 for detail.
Men (NRs. 149,033) stated slightly higher income than that of women (NRs. 148,966). Also the income
of non-hardcore poor (NRs. 294,578) was significantly higher than that of hardcore poor (NRs. 48,997).
Education level of Respondents’ Family (Sample Population)
Majority (33%) of the family members of the respondents were in grades 5 to 10, followed by literate
and primary level at 32 percent. While only one percent of the family members have master degree and
above, 20 percent are illiterate. Majority of the Hill Dalits, Terai Janajatis, and Hill Brahmin/Chettris
are pursuing education of grade 5–10, while majority of Madhesi Dalit, Hill Janajatis and Other Madhesi
Caste are literate and pursuing primary level. Also Hill Dalit, Madhesi Dalit and Hill Janajati do not
have family members with Master degree and above. The highest qualification of Hill Janajati is SLC.
While majority of men and hardcore poor responded that most of their family are pursuing education
of grade 5 to 10, followed by literate and primary level; women and non-hardcore poor responded that
most of their family members are literate and pursuing primary level, followed by class 5 to 10. Refer
Annex 23 and Annex 24 for details of education status of men and women respectively.
37
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.6 Education level of respondent’s family members
36
33
31 32
Male %
33
Female %
Total %
30
26
20
15
9
8
9
4
Illiterate
Literate and Class 5 to 10
Primary Level
SLC
3 4
Twelve (10+2)
2
1 2
Graduate
1 1 1
Master and
Above
Source: Field Survey, 2014
The illiteracy rate of women was higher in the control group compared to the treatment group.
The average school dropout ratio of the sample population is 92 percent. Among the caste/ethnic groups,
the highest (97%) dropout ratio is of Madhesi Dalit and Hill Janajati, followed (95%) by Hill Dalit and
Other Madhesi Caste. The lowest is of Hill Brahmin/Chettris (88%). Overall the dropout of women
(93%) is slightly higher than that of men (92%). Within the different caste/ethnic groups, the highest
dropout rate of men is among Hill Janajati (51%) and of women is among Madhesi Dalit (47%). Refer
Annex 25 for detail.
Occupation of sample population
Families of majority of the sample population (16 years and above) are involved in agriculture (26%),
followed by house work (20%), as wage earner (12%) or student (12%). Men responded that majority
of the family members are involved in agriculture, followed by wage earning and foreign labor. Women
stated that majority of the family members are involved in housework, followed by agriculture, student
and wage earning.
38
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.7 Percentage distribution of sample population (16 years and above) by occupation
Senior citizen
4%
Unemployed Others
2%
3%
Agriculture
26%
House work
20%
Foreign Labor
8%
Student
11%
Private Business
1%
Govt. Service
2%
Wage earner
12%
Enterprise
7%
Skilled labor
4%
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Among the different caste/ethnic groups, majority of hill Dalits (27%), Madhesi Dalits (36%), HillBrahmin/Chhetri (28%) and Other Madhesi Caste (30%) are involved in agriculture; Terai Janajati in
wage earning (33%); hill Janajatis (22%) in agriculture and housework.
Majority of hardcore-poor are involved in agriculture (38%), followed by housework (15%), wage
earning (14%) and student (11%); majority of non-hardcore poor are involved in house work (22%)
followed by agriculture (21%), 11 percent in wage earning and student and foreign labor (10%).
Reason for female household head
Among the overall respondents and non-hardcore poor, the main reason for female household head was
husband outside home followed by being widow, separated from husband, and others. None of the
respondents attributed divorce as a reason. Women, Hill Brahmin/Chhetri and hardcore poor attributed
mainly husband outside home, followed by being widow as the only reasons. All of Terai Janajati
respondents attributed husband outside home as the reason for female headed household. For Madhesi
Dalits, the reason was equally split between husband outside home and widow. It is only among Hill
Janajati that the main reason was women being widow, followed by husband outside home and others.
For Hill Dalits the reason was primarily husband outside home followed equally by women being
widow and separated from husband.
39
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.8 Major Reason for Female Household Head (in percent) in control group
Husband outside home
Widow
100
70
65
60
50 50
61
50
30
25
20
61
60
50
40
35
30
28
17
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
By Sex
By Poverty
Overall
Non-Hardcore
Hardcore
Male
Female
Hill BC
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
0
Overall
Note: BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Refer Annex 26 for details.
4.2 Changes in Assets and Services (Livelihood Empowerment) of MEDEP
Micro-entrepreneurs
In this chapter, the range of ways in which MEDEP has affected the
livelihoods of its project beneficiaries is discussed. The analysis is
based on an assessment of changes in well-being, gender and casteethnicity and the interplay of these factors. We also look at time-based
differences between different phases of MEDEP, where they are
significant. In particular we focus on how individual micro-enterprises
contributed to changes in livelihoods and access to basic economic
security. This is primarily drawn from the differences in responses by
treatment and control respondents.
4.2.1
Type of Micro enterprise
About 92 percent of enterprises are individual with the remaining enterprises being operated on group
basis (Annex 27). The entrepreneurs belonging to the Hardcore poor group are relatively more involved
in group enterprises (11%) as compared to non Hardcore poor group (8%). MEDEP supports Hardcore
group by providing access to Common Facility Centres (CFCs) which is critical for the Hardcore poor
to start micro enterprise given their limited capacity to invest in plant, equipment and physical facilities
(refer below for more discussion on CFCs). Among Hardcore poor male indigenous nationalities have
the highest share of 13.3 percent out of the total enterprises of the strata. Among the caste/ethnic groups
13.9 percent of hill Dalits men are engaged in group enterprises. On an average women groups are
relatively larger with 7.3 members as compared to 4.9 members in men's groups.
40
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
On an average 62.4% of the enterprises were operated on a year round basis whereas the rest (37.6%)
were not operated for the whole year which could be due to seasonal nature of production or other
factors including time constraints. . The male operated enterprises were mostly operated throughout the
year (71.7%) compared to that only 58.5% of the total women run enterprises were operated throughout
the year (Annex 28).
4.2.2
Enterprise category-function and sector
Most of the entrepreneurs belong to the category of primary producers (72%). On an average across the
total number of entrepreneurs less than five percent were processors, 5.4 percent belonged to the
category of traders including retailers/wholesalers and exporters. Service providers (tailors, beauty
parlor, restaurant and hotel operators) constituted 4.7 percent. Dhaka weavers constituted 0.2 percent.
About 13 percent were involved in more than one function such as primary producer-processor, and
producer-processor-trader. Overall about 11 percent men and 2.2 percent women entrepreneurs were
processors. Among different caste/ethnic groups Dalits were more into processing enterprises (15%)
compared to other groups (Annex 29). This shows the low significance of value adding activities
through product processing and marketing which results in comparatively lower returns to micro
entrepreneurs.
The sector classification shows that agriculture sector dominates with 59.6 percent of entrepreneurs
engaged in this particular sector followed by 10 percent in traditional skill based, 10 percent in agriforest based (beekeeping) and nine percent in service based, 6.1 percent in forest based and five percent
in others category (Annex 30) (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9 Sector classification of micro enterprises of respondents
Agri+Forest based Others
(Bee keeping)
5%
10%
Service based
9%
Agriculture based
60%
Traditional skill
based
10%
Forest based
6%
Source: Field Survey 2014
Of the sample respondents, 42 percent men and 49 percent women were in agriculture. Above 90
percent of the Dalit respondents (61% Madhesi Dalits and 30% hill Dalits) were in agriculture; 87
percent of the Janajatis; 51 percent of the Brahman/Chhetris; 100 percent of the Muslims and 89 percent
of Other Madhesi Caste were in agriculture (Figure 4.10).
41
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.10 Sector classification of micro enterprises by caste/ethnicity, sex and poverty (in percentage)
Agriculture based
Forest based
Traditional skill based
Service
Bee keeping
Skill related
100
89
74
66
63
63
60
62
60
51
47
34 34
31
0 000
By Caste Ethnicity
3
By Sex
12
4 4
1
1010 9
6
4
By Poverty
10910
8
4
Overall
00000
13
8
6
4
Non-Hardcore
3
7989
Hardcore
22
Other Madhesi Caste
2
4
Muslims
10
Male
11
Female
10
4
17
17
Hill BC
2
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
3
869
Terai Indigenous
910
4 4
2
0
17
16
15
9
Overall
Source: Field Survey 2014
4.2.3
Operational and non-operational micro-enterprises
A total of 120 enterprises out of the total sample of 583 were not in operation. The distribution of closed
enterprises by phase of establishment shows that the maximum number 77 (64.2%) were enterprises
established in the second phase (Annex 31). This has been the case across all ethnic groups, male and
female entrepreneurs, and Hardcore poor and non Hardcore poor (Figure 4.11). The probable reason
could be that the period coincided with the height of the insurgency in the country, a situation that was
least favourable for access to inputs and services.
42
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.11 Number of closed enterprises by phase of establishment (in numbers)
2
8
7
By Caste Ethnicity
8
9 10 9
By Sex
26
17
4
2
Non-Hardcore
3
22
15
Hardcore
11
15
Male
7
Female
0
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
0
17
Terai Indigenous
10
5
62
26
16
Hill BC
18
Hill Indigenous
7
0
77
67
Overall
First Phase
Second Phase
Third Phase
By Poverty
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
The distribution of closed enterprises by product type shows that Agarbatti (incense sticks) constitutes
the highest share (19%) followed by vegetable production (11%), mushroom production (9%),
beekeeping/honey production (8%), and snacks (7%).
Figure 4.12 Distribution of closed enterprises by product/commodity (in %)
19.2
9.2
7.5
2.5 2.5
0.8 0.8
2.5
0.8 1.7
1.7 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
3.3 3.3
1.7 1.7 0.8
2.5 2.5
Bindi
Agarbatti (incense Sticks)
Agriculture
Bag Making
Bakery
Bamboo Product
Bee Keeping
Allo
Candle
Chalk Industry
Snacks
Dhaka Weaving
Electronic Mechanical work
Fish production
Carpet
Ginger Production
Goat Raising
Gundri (Straw Mat)
Lapsi farming/product
Retail shop
Rice Mill
Dairy
Mushroom
Sewing
Soap Production
Vegetable
Others
3.3
6.7
10.8
8.3
Source: Field Survey 2014
4.2.4
Source and amount of investment in micro-enterprises
On an average Rs. 31,378 was invested by entrepreneurs in micro enterprise with a loan component of
37 percent. Highest investment of own money is unsurprisingly by men, Brahman/Chhetri social group
and the non Hardcore poor. The highest dependence on loan is of Hill Dalits. MEDEP has been the
43
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
highest source of finance for Madhesi Dalits. The sampled Muslim respondents were using either their
own money or were supported by MEDEP.
Figure 4.13 Average investment (Rs.) in micro enterprise by source
Own
24,193
23,570
MEDEP
19,355
15,787
4,400
798
5,556
7,783
5,631
2,578
2,764
11,665
4,080
2,003
3,902
3,619
By Caste Ethnicity
By Sex
By Poverty
Overall
Non-Hardcore
Hardcore
Male
Muslims
Hill BC
0
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
12,345
8,399
7,661
2,738
Madhesi Dalit
13,370
13,200
Female
2,784
16,094
Other Madhesi Caste
12,479
11,612
10,164
8,340
6,740
6,261
Hill Dalit
18,198
16,222
12,037
11,115
Credit
22,509
Overall
Source: Field Survey 2014
4.2.5
Sources of credit
The various sources of loan included primary cooperative societies mainly saving and credit
cooperatives, micro finance institutions (MFIs), saving groups, banks/finance companies and village
money lenders. The saving groups were the main source for about 34 percent of the sample respondents,
followed by village money lenders (20%), saving and credit cooperatives (16%), MFIs (14%) and
banks/finance institutions (14%) (Figure 4.14).
MEDEP's active role to encourage savings from group members has contributed to increased capacity
at the local level to mobilise savings. Some of the groups have graduated into Savings and Credit
Cooperatives, thus improving access to financial services in the rural areas. Average interest paid was
17.5%. Women of hill Dalit group paid the highest (27%) interest as they mainly borrowed from MFIs.
Gender differences exist in selection of institution for accessing loan. Saving and credit groups,
cooperatives were women's preference for accessing finance while for men the saving and credit group
and the village money lender were the main sources (Figure 4.14).
44
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.14 Preference of Respondents for Lending Institution (in percentage)
Co-operatives
Micro-finance
Saving & credit group
57
50
39
50
39
Bank/Finance
50
50
38
34
33
29
36
33 33
34
29
By Caste Ethnicity
15 15
12
13 13
8
20
16 1517 16
14
14
13
By Sex
By Poverty
Overall
0
Non-Hardcore
000
13 13
Hardcore
10
Male
0
Terai Indigenous
0
Hill Indigenous
0
Madhesi Dalit
0
14
10
Female
14
8
7
Hill Dalit
15
Other Madhesi Caste
17
25
21
21
19
15
Hill BC
19
7
Village/money lender
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 32 for details.
Other Madhesi Caste and Terai Indigenous groups prefer cooperatives while Madhesi Dalits have
accessed banks. The hill Dalits access funds from village moneylenders the most while
Brahman/Chhetris access most from saving and credit groups. Micro-finance Institutions (MFIs) are
the least preferred of the available options across all social groups.
Women, especially those who started in the first phase of MEDEP, have been able to increase their
network and become members of different groups. This enables them to access finance more easily than
their male counterparts since many of these groups target women. MEDEP supported in group
formation, which they consider as instrumental in getting any type of training/machinery/funding
support not only from MEDEP but from any other organization/projects such as CSIDB and I/NGOs,
even from VDCs.
Due to lack or limited finance, many micro-entrepreneurs have been unable to expand their enterprise. This
is particularly true with respect to working capital. Overall 42 percent of respondents reported that inadequate
working capital affected their micro enterprise expansion. Among the caste/ethnic groups mainly hill Dalits
and hill indigenous and Hardcore poor faced the problem in relatively higher terms. Around 32 percent of
both women and men entrepreneurs experienced inadequacy of working capital. Dalits and women faced
relatively higher constraint on expansion due to inadequate working capital.
4.2.6
Savings
Most of the respondents (58%) reported that they initiated saving habits after becoming a member of
MEG. Among those who initiated saving practices after MEDEP were mostly from Muslim (100%),
Madhesi Dalit (82%) and Other Madhesi Caste group (78%). Refer Annex 33 for details.
45
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
In 68 percent of the cases, saving was found to be initiated and continued by women. Women from
Terai Indigenous (86%), Madhesi Dalit (78%) and Hill Indigenous (73%) community reported the
highest incidence of savings.
Figure 4.15 Distribution of respondents by saving status and by caste ethnicity and sex (in percent)
Saving Regularly
78
67
87
86
78
69
75
Saved by female member
100 100100 100
100 100 100 100
93
92
88
85
Saved by male member
77
88
80
85
82
84
68
67
61
61
79 82 80
77
5050
39
33
22
33
31
25
14
18
12
7
0
M
F
M
Hill Dalit
32
23
F
M
F
M
F
M
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
F
0
M
Hill BC
0
F
0
M
Muslims
F
M
Other
Madhesi
Caste
F
All
Total
Total
Note: M: Male, F: Female
Figure 4.16 Distribution of respondents by saving status and by caste ethnicity and poverty (in percent)
Saving Regularly
Saved by male member
Saved by female member
100 100
89
100 100 100
100
100
86
73 73
58
88 86
83 82
78
86 86
82
75 77 77
76
72
42
37
27
22
28
14
17
24
NHC
Hill Dalit
HC
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
46
NHC
HC
NHC
HC
25
23
NHC
HC
68
33
32
NHC
All
14
0
HC
80
67
63
59
54
81
NHC
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
HC
NHC
Hill BC
000
0
0
HC
NHC
HC
Muslims
Note: HC: Hardcore poor, NHC: Non-hardcore poor
Other
Madhesi
Caste
Total
Total
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Non Hardcore poor (81.1%) reported slightly higher incidence of savings than Hardcore poor (76.7%).
Figure 4.17 Saving status before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and sex (in percent)
Before MEDEP
82
100
After MEDEP
100
86
82
75
69
64
68
56
53
47
44
36
58
58
50
50
5149
5149
42
42
58
42
33
31
25
18
18
14
0
M
F
Hill Dalit
M
F
M
F
M
F
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
M
F
Hill BC
M
0
F
Muslims
M
F
M
Other
Madhesi
Caste
F
Total
All
Total
Note: M: Male, F: Female
Figure 4.18 Saving status before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty (in percent)
Before MEDEP
100
After MEDEP
86
82
80
73
64
63
62
54
46
36
39
37
57
61
58
50
50
52
48
43
42
27
20
71
39
58
42
29
18
14
00
0
HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC All
Hill Dalit
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Hill BC
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
Total
Total
Note: HC: Hardcore poor, NHC: Non-hardcore poor
47
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Women from the FGD groups unanimously reported that, forced saving gave them financial strength.
Most of them reported to have started their savings as the saving credit group, which in many cases was
turned to a cooperative.
4.2.7
Enterprise Selection
MEDEP follows a demand driven approach to support sustainable micro enterprises in the rural areas. This
integrated approach considers three main aspects, availability of resources at local level, (potential), peoples'
needs and demands and the market demand for the products or services (Figure 4.19).
Figure 4.19 Demand Driven Model MEDEP
Source: MEDEP Documents
The reasons given for selection of enterprises are consistent with the approach followed by MEDEP
(Figure 4.20). Product demand, availability of raw materials at local level, and traditional skill constitute
the main reasons for the selection of enterprise.
Figure 4.20 Reason for selecting the enterprise (in percentage)
11
24
16
4
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
2
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 34 for details.
48
2222
20
19
0
2423
21
1916
0
0
36
34
28
24
13
By Sex
27
1819
By Poverty
34
27
20
18
Overall
17
26
32
Female
13
35
30
Other Madhesi Caste
27
32
28
Muslims
32
28
23
17
Hill BC
36
35
Non-Hardcore
56
51
Hardcore
60
Availability of raw materials at local level
Based on traditional skill
High demand
Others
Male
80
Overall
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
In the case of Dalits and hill indigenous groups relatively higher proportion are involved in enterprises
that are based on traditional occupational skills such as blacksmith (Aran), leather works and tailoring
for Dalit men and women and traditional Allo fibre extraction and weaving and bamboo products in
case of indigenous groups (as shared during field visit by the micro-entrepreneurs). This to an extent
can be regarded as the traditional stereotypical division of enterprises by gender, and caste/ethnicity.
MEDEP has supported all micro-entrepreneurs to select enterprises suitable for their circumstances.
These people, especially the women had never been entrepreneurs. It was the encouragement of
MEDEP that enabled a woman member of DMEGA Sunsari to start something which had not much
acceptance in the community, a beauty parlour. Madhesi Dalit women making bread and the men
making ice-cream, was made possible with support of MEDEP. Tharu women making woollen small
carpets in Sunsari, Dalit men establishing a musical band, poultry farming among Dalits in Parbat are
some enterprises selected by the target beneficiaries. Tailoring and knitting of Dhaka are the enterprises
where more women are involved in Parbat. Women are equally active in cash crops such as ‘ginger’
and vegetable production. They support their family enterprise such as dairy products/collection center
and fish farming.
4.2.8
Decisions regarding selection of enterprise
Overwhelming majority (about 70%) women stated that they participated in the selection of the microenterprise. Only five percent women stated that they did not. While 58 percent men stated that women
participate in decisions regarding enterprise selection, 74 percent women claimed that women
participate in such decisions. While 90 percent of Brahman/Chhetri women believed that women
participated in such decisions, only 35 percent of Madhesi Dalit women believed so (Figure 4.21). Refer
Annex 35 for details.
Figure 4.21 Participation of women in selection of micro-enterprise by social group and sex (in percent)
100
No
Limited
85
100 100
91
100
81
74
71
High
57
49
62
35
5050
42
38
29
14
2
M
0
F
Hill Dalit
20
16
13
M
3
0
F
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
M
69
58
53
43
37
63
3
0 0
F
M
0
F
M
0
F
Hill
Terai
Hill
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
26
13
9
8
4
24
M
00
F
Muslims
0 0
0 0
M
F
5
2
M
Other
Madhesi
Caste
F
All
Total
Note: M: Male respondent, F: Female respondent
There was no difference in the Hardcore and non Hardcore poor responses (Figure 4.22).
49
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.22 Participation of women in selection of micro-enterprise by social group and poverty (in %)
100
No
80
Limited
High
56
42
HC
NHC
Hill Dalit
70
42
27
25
19
0
0
2
00
HC
NHC
HC
NHC
HC
Madhesi
Dalit
69
69
53
3
Source: Field Survey, 2014
4.2.9
75
53
47
20
17
13
100
83
79
70
60
20
20
100
90
4
NHC
10
0
HC
25
26
14
3
NHC
Hill
Terai
Hill
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
000
0
0 0
0 0
HC
NHC
HC
NHC
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
3
6
HC
NHC
5
All
Total
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor; NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Services provided to micro-entrepreneurs by MEDEP
MEDEP through the local organisation, the BDSPO, identifies the target groups (as per MEDEP's
criteria) after a process of household survey and orientation/interactions. Different training and capacity
building interventions (such as the TOPE/TOSE/TOEE/TOGE) training, support for selection of
enterprise, access to finance, provision of equipments and appropriate technology) provide necessary
support to the new micro-entrepreneurs for establishing and running an enterprise. There are six major
components of MEDEP (Figure 4.23).
Figure 4.23 Six major components of MEDEP enterprise development model
Source: MEDEP
50
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The Business Service Providing Organisations (BDSPOs) selected are qualified non–governmental
organisations with the capacity to implement the programme components at the grass root level. The
outreach and depth of services greatly depends on the financial support from MEDEP in the form of
annual budget allocation for micro-entrepreneur (ME) creation. The provision of services and their
usefulness indicates the effective delivery of services to entrepreneurs.
Except for market management, more than 80 percent programme respondents appreciated the
usefulness of most of the services (Figure 4.24). Training about how to start enterprises, how and where
to access finance, how to manage business, support by EDFs were all appreciated. The preparation of
business plan is critical for the initiation of micro enterprise (as the BDSPOs are basically involved in
the creation of new micro entrepreneurs). Basic entrepreneurship training (TOPE/TOSE) provides the
needed skill to prepare a business plan for enterprise on the part of the potential entrepreneurs.
Appropriate technology supports include provision of beehives, sewing machines and equipment on
grant basis. In the post-creation phase the DMEGAs have been assigned the role on scaling up of
business through the continued provision of business counselling and other linkages. The role of
DMEGAs have been expanded to include scale up support through technology, advanced training,
marketing and facilitating linkages with financial institutions. Efforts are also made to revive the sick
(inactive) enterprises through individual and group counselling conducted by the EDFs.
Figure 4.24 Provision of services and their usefulness (in percent)
77 77
85 84
94 93
Business counseling
80
Price information
87
Market management
82 82
Access to micro credit
89 88
Technical skill training
90 90
Appropriate technology
94 93
Entrepreneurship
training/business plan
Social mobilization
94 93
Usefulness of service
Linkage with input suppliers
Received as per need
Source: Field Survey 2014
According to respondents of Focus Group Discussions and key informants, women, Dalits, Janajatis
and hard-core poor have benefitted highly from the range of services provided by MEDEP.
51
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.2.10 Access to finance
MEDEP facilitates access to finance for new and existing micro-entrepreneurs but this is a major
concern still for many. Since most of MEDEP's target group are women, poor and excluded, they are
historically disadvantaged financially and have no assets against which to raise finance. Women,
experience gender based constraints with no collateral for loans (despite the Government guidelines, it
is very difficult for women to raise money without collateral). The poor (e.g. like the Dalits in Sunsari)
just do not have a credit history or the required assets for any finance institute or moneylender to lend
to them. The formation of groups has facilitated the provision of collateral free loans on group liability
basis through the MFIs. However, the coverage of MFIs in interior parts of the districts both in the hills
and terai remains limited. In addition the lending procedures are also not considered friendly by poor
borrowers because of the high interest rates charged and repayment schedules that are not practical in
case of enterprises that take some time to generate profits.
MEDEP's efforts to ease access to finance in MEDEP and MEDPA
In the first phase MEDEP had partnered with Agriculture Development Bank, Nepal (ADB/N) to
provide credit to micro entrepreneurs which helped in improving access to credit. It was however not
continued in later phases as ADB/N priorities had changed. The problem with MFI's is their limited
coverage in the rural areas, high interest rates ranging from 18-27 percent per annum, and limit on
borrowing on group guarantee basis (collateral free). The credit needs for expansion beyond the limit
requires collateral in the form of land. Survey results showed that on an average only 26 percent of total
family owned land has been registered in women's name. Hence, in most cases women need the support
of and have to depend on their spouses to access loans from financial institutions. Moreover for women
(as reported in FGDs), it is necessary to get the signature of their men before these financial institutes
approve loans to them, reinforcing the patriarchal structure of society where the women have to be
dependent on men.
Box 4.1:
Access to finance arrangements of MEDEP
MEDEP in the past has made an agreement with Agricultural Development Bank to disburse credit to the
micro-entrepreneurs through its branch offices. This strategy was very effective and most of the microentrepreneurs were in access to credit as per the demand of investment into their enterprise. The agreement
with Agricultural Development Bank couldn’t be continued due the changes in the organizational
restructuring in the bank. Afterwards, MEDEP went for individual partnership approach with different banks
according to their availability and interest to work with MEDEP in MEDEP III Phase where MEDEP made
agreement with 45 organizations including Nirdhan Bank, Far Western Gramin Bikas Bank, Mid-Western
Gramin Bikas Bank, Bageshwori Bikas Bank, Sangrila Bikas Bank, Vijaya Bikas Bank, FORWARD FINGO,
Central Gramin Bikas Bank. More than 60 percent micro-entrepreneurs in the case of accessible areas have
access to financial services. But for the growing enterprises for which larger loan volume is required which is
not usual practice in deprived sector lending. So, scale up loan above Nrs. 1 lakh up to 5 lakh remain a challenge
for micro-entrepreneurs.
Financial Service Providers are mostly concentrated in accessible areas more specifically in terai and inner
terai. Financial accessibility in hill and high hill is still very hard for micro-entrepreneurs who are operating
their enterprises. Realizing this fact, MEDEP encourages potential Micro-Entrepreneurs’ Group (MEGs) to
promote cooperatives. Cooperatives are found MEs friendly in terms of access to financial services. MEs can
52
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
mobilize their savings and to some extent meet their initial demand of investment. For the growing enterprises
MEs need larger volume of loan that the savings cannot meet.
Realising the importance of micro-enterprise development sector, Central Bank of Nepal has incorporated a
clause (Clause 105) in Monetary Policy 2014 to prioritize MEDEP promoted cooperative to provide wholesale
loan from apex organizations, i.e. RSRF. Moreover, Ministry of Industry with technical support from MEDEP
has entered a five years agreement (2013 – 2017) with Nepal Rastra Bank to provide wholesale loan to microentrepreneurs promoted cooperatives.
So far MEDEP has promoted 208 cooperatives where 13 thousand members are affiliated. Fifteen cooperatives
of them are already in access to the RSRF (Rural Self Reliance Fund) of Nepal Rastra Bank. MEs have already
received loan amount Nrs. 300 million from RSRF.
With the aim to expand the outreach of financial services, MEDEP is supporting Ministry of Industry/
Department of Cottage and Small Industry and Cottage and Small Industry Development Board (CSIDB) to
enter long term agreement with central level banking organisation which have nationwide coverage and can
extend the financial services to micro-entrepreneurs promoted by MEDEP and MEDPA. In this context, the
MoU has been developed consisting of multi stakeholders affiliation including Civil Bank, Mega Bank, Clean
Energy Development Bank, Mahila Sahayatra Laghu Bitta Bikas Bank, Rastriya Sahakari Bank, Nirdhan
Utthan Bank, Nepal Federations of Savings and Credit Cooperative Ltd.. The agreement between
MEs’associations and the banks are approved and being implemented with strong commitment of both sides to
ensure financial services to the potential micro-entrepreneurs.
Source: MEDEP, 2014
Participation of women in decisions regarding finance
Forty-seven percent responses were that women's decision making for access to financial resources was
very low before MEDEP. But after MEDEP only two percent stated that women's participation was low
in decisions. Only 1.3 percent had said very high before MEDEP - this changed to 30 percent after
MEDEP. Six percent had said high, this changed to 59 percent after MEDEP; 45 percent who had said
low changed to eight percent. The responses indicate a major difference before and after MEDEP, with
women having a major say in decisions after MEDEP.
Highest change was among the hill Dalits, from 61 percent to one percent saying very low before and
after MEDEP, and from zero to 44 percent stating very high before and after MEDEP. Fifty percent
women had said very low and 45 percent low. This changed to 58 percent high and 28 percent very high
after MEDEP (Figure 4.25).
53
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.25 Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source for credit by
caste/ethnicity (in percent)
100
Very low
Low
High
Very High
88
80
73
80
71
65
61
54
49
44
47
43
49
42
35
59
56
53
47
45
42
37
33
30
25
16
4
0
B
7
2
1
A
Hill Dalit
5
3
0
B
A
B
Madhesi
Dalit
20
13
12
8
5
20
17
12
8
5
A
0
B
A
0
6
1
0
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
7
B
1
00
A
0
B
Hill
Brahman/
Chhetri
9
6
0 00
A
Muslims
1
00
B
2
A
B
Other
Madhesi
Caste
A
All
Note: B=Before, A=After
For hardcore poor, it changed from 42 percent very low and 53 percent low to 78 percent high after
MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 48 percent very low and 44 percent low to 55
percent high to 35 percent very high after MEDEP (Figure 4.26).
Figure 4.26 Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source for credit by sex and
by poverty (in percent)
Very low
High
Low
Very High
61
58
51
45
78
59
47
45
46
39
11
34
41
13
3
2
B
A
Female
23
B
A
Male
Refer Annex 36 for details.
54
4745
35
30
6
1
2
B
41
A
Both
B
4
7
A
Hard Core
7
B
8
1
2
A
Non Hard Core
By Poverty
Note: B=Before, A=After
30
9
11
9
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
48
44
42
28
59
55
53
6
2
1
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.2.11 Raw materials
MEDEP enterprises mostly depend on raw materials available locally from agriculture and forest
resources. The majority of entrepreneurs are engaged in primary production including vegetables,
mushroom, honey production and traditional crafts based on use of locally available resources. MEDEP
has emphasized on promotoion of micro enterprises that are based on forest resources which are
accessible to the poor most notably utilizing Allo (Himalayan nettle), Lokta, Chiuri and Kaulo for
value added activities.
About 21 percent of the respondents reported that they were facing the problem on supply of raw
material (backward linkage). Among the caste/ethnic groups 44 percent of the Madhesi Dalits reported
having the problem of supply of raw materials. Almost equal percent of men (21%) and women (20.6%)
reported having this problem. The main problems related to raw material supply for both women and
men included difficulty in transportation, non availability in the local market, high cost of inputs, and
source scarcity (e.g. of honey bees).
The respondents shared that they are able to access the required raw materials themselves. For women
this has meant an increase in mobility and in skills of negotiating with dealers and suppliers e.g. Madhesi
Dalit women in Mahottari travel in a group to neighbouring India to purchase the necessary materials
for preparing bangles. One of the constraints faced by small producers is their inability to procure
necessary raw materials in bulk. This is with respect to inputs that are imported and are not available
locally. The traders in major commercial centres supplying the inputs deal in large quantities that MEs
are unable to procure because of their limited capacity to procure as well as the scale of their production.
4.2.12 Technology and equipment
The entrepreneurs have benefited from appropriate technology support from MEDEP. About 62 percent
have received machine/equipment as grant. About 66 percent men and 61 percent women have received
machines as grant. Among the disadvantaged groups 100 percent of the Muslims and 89 percent of
Other Madhesi Caste have received this support. Among women, 100 percent of Muslims and Other
Madhesi Caste received machines as grant while Hill- Janajati women were the lowest recipients of this
support. Among men, Muslim men were the highest recipient, while Other Madhesi Caste men were
the lowest. About 85 percent of the entrepreneurs reported that they had received training on the
operation of the machine/equipment. About 15 percent respondents shared that the technical training
was either not provided or not adequate. Some dropouts with closed enterprises (e.g. in herbal soap
making) reported that the training was too short.
However, the backstopping support services on the appropriate technology was considered inadequate.
Only 16 percent of those receiving appropriate technology support reported that backstopping services
were made available by MEDEP when needed.
Participation of women in the decisions regarding purchase of machinery and equipment indicate that
58 percent of women and men respondents believed that women had high participation in such
decisions; 28 percent believed they had a limited role and only 14 percent believed they had no role. 62
percent women felt they had a strong role while only 50 percent men felt so. Caste/ethnic differences
existed with 50 percent hill Dalit men believing that women did not have a role in such decisions while
80 percent Brahman/Chhetri women believed that women had high decision making power for such
issues (Figure 4.27).
55
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.27 Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment by caste
ethnicity and sex (in percent)
100 100
No
86
Limited
80
72
High
68
50
5050
55
53
50
47
40
5050
50
30
2423
19
1517
1414
9
3
0
F
Hill Dalit
M
F
M
F
M
15
14
0
F
M
F
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Hill
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
Source: Field Survey, 2014
27
28
20
14
11
5
2
0
58
43
31
31
M
62
60
59
00
M
F
Muslims
0 0
0
M
F
M
Other
Madhesi
Caste
F
All
Total
Note: M: Male respondents; F: female respondents
Differences between Hardcore and non Hardcore group also existed (Figure 4.28).
Figure 4.28 Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment by caste
ethnicity and poverty (in percent)
100
No
89
Limited
86
80
75
High
75
73
66
56
55
42
40 40
20
58
57
50
48
52
50
35
29
28
25
20
16
9
20
11
8
0
26
25
0
2
17
11
0
28
15
14
28
14
8
000
0
0 0
0
HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC HC NHC All
Hill Dalit
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Hill
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 37 for details.
56
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor; NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Total
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.2.13 Common Facility Centres
Common Facility Centres (CFCs) are one of the innovative practices introduced to support the Hardcore
poor who have limited investment capacity to purchase machine and equipment and also lack working
space at their residence. These CFCs may imply anything from grant for machinery and equipment to
physical facilities such as buildings as common working facilities. CFC guidelines have specified toilet
and child care spaces to be included in buildings.
Out of the total active entrepreneurs 152 (33%) reported having the access to CFCs in their village out
of which 114 (75%) were using the CFCs. Overall 29 percent of those using CFCs considered these to
be highly useful, 60 percent considered them to be useful whereas 11 percent considered them not that
useful. About 48 percent of hill Dalits reported CFCs to be highly useful. Dalits, being short of space
and finance to purchase equipments, are obviously finding this support very helpful. Women and
Hardcore poor have found them more useful than men and the non Hardcore (Figure 4.29). Refer Annex
38 for details.
Figure 4.29 Usefulness of Common Facility Centres (in percent)
Very useful
Useful
Not useful
100
78
75
75
66
60
57
47
47
37
36
25
17
By Caste Ethnicity
16
13
29
13
11
11
0
By Sex
Hardcore
0
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
9
8
5
Male
17
Female
18
14
32
25
Other Madhesi Caste
25
By Poverty
Overall
38
Non-Hardcore
50
Hill BC
48
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
With MEDEP providing support with CFC, technology and equipments, there are numerous examples
of micro-entrepreneurs establishing enterprises which they otherwise would never have contemplated.
e.g. unemployed Dalit male youth in Sunsari were supported for furniture making with equipments
which they have set-up in a Common Facility Centre (CFC). Similarly Madhesi Dalit women started a
bread making micro-enterprise in Mahottari using an oven established in a CFC. They have a ready
market as already shop keepers have been seeking their products. A group of Madhesi Dalit men in
57
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Mahottari have been supported with ice-cream making machine and this has enabled around 15 of them
to earn a regular income (though there were complaints because without a generator and with high loadshedding they are unable to make optimal use of the facility). In Sunsari a group of Tharu women have
been able to earn good money using the loom provided by MEDEP. A CFC provides them the space to
work from a common centre. Women have received several sewing machines and weaving machines,
which they have control over, in the community facility centre in Parbat, where they gather and work
in a group. They have also received sewing machines from CSIDB at 60 percent discount, which was
instrumental in expanding their sewing enterprise. It was possible only because they were associated in
the sewing group, which was formed with the support and initiation of MEDEP.
The use of such equipment by people who become inactive was raised. For instance, some microentrepreneurs are no more active in Dhaka production but they have received the handloom. In
Sindhupalchowk, some people who had received the equipment support are no longer involved in the
enterprise and the equipment has remained idle. Efforts to ensure re-use of the equipment has not been
adequate.
4.2.14 Access to Market
Assessing market possibilities is almost the first step of MEDEP's service delivery cycle. Various
entrepreneurs shared that MEDEP has supported them for their products to reach Kathmand u for
sale there and also for export to foreign countries. But mostly the products developed were sold by
the women and men themselves in nearby communities. For women, many times their own group
members were the clients e.g. for bangles. The ice-cream produced by Madhesi Dalit men in
Mahottari was sold in neighbouring India by the vendors using cycles, bought with support of
MEDEP. But there exists a market problem for processed food products such as juice, potato chips.
The micro entrepreneurs mostly sell their products directly to local consumers as reported by 68 percent
of the respondents. About 18 percent of the entrepreneurs sold to local traders (wholesalers/retailers).
Saugat Grihas, the retail outlets managed by DMEGAs (with MEDEP support) and at the central level
by NMEFEN, were the main outlet for less than one percent of the ME because they have limited
capacity to market the products of micro entrepreneurs.
Marketing was raised as an issue by both the service providers and DMEGA. As production costs are
high, the products of the MEDEP project beneficiaries are priced higher leading to a disadvantage in a
competitive market. The products of MEs except a few products for example allo and herbal soaps,
have yet to become popular outside the production areas, because of issues related to product quality,
packaging and quality assurance for food products (testing and certification).
Only 25 percent respondents had an agreement with traders. Hill indigenous, hill Dalits, and hill
Brahman/Chhetris ranked lowest in terms of contract with buyers. Twenty-six percent women
entrepreneurs had contracts which was slightly higher than the percent of men entrepreneurs (24%). Of
those who reported to have contract with buyers, about 56 percent had contract with two buyers, 32
percent with just one trader, 12 percent with three traders and less than one percent with more than three
buyers. Most (79%) reported that were receiving a fair price from the traders to whom they sold their
produce.
4.2.15 Increase in income
58
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The entrepreneurs are making reasonable net earnings (profit) from their enterprises,47 averaging an
earning of Rs. 5,965 per month from their micro enterprise (Figure 4.30). Men have a higher level of
earning than women. The Hardcore have expectedly the lowest net earnings. Amongst caste/ethnic
groups, surprisingly the Muslims and Madhesi Dalits have higher earnings than the others.
All
Overall
By Poverty
Non-Hardcore
By Sex
Figure 4.30 Average net earnings per month from micro enterprises (in Rs.)
Male
Hardcore
Female
Other Madhesi Caste
5,965
6,570
2,152
7,496
5,326
5,722
By Caste Ethnicity
Muslims
9,100
Hill BC
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
6,235
5,924
5,449
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
7,409
5,296
Source: Field Survey, 2014
All the women and men entrepreneurs met expressed that their income was higher after joining MEDEP.
For many, especially women and Dalits, it was the first time that an opportunity for a micro- enterprise
was possible. This was a shift from their previous work as lowly paid farm labourers. For some Dalit
men it was an alternative to migration to India though there were some voices (e.g. in Mahottari) that
working in India would have helped them earn and save more. A musical band in Sunsari employs 16
people (all men) who are able to run their households using their traditional skills of singing and music.
According to respondents in Dadeldhura, income has increased by 25-30 percent of the people after
they joined MEDEP.
The following graph shows that income of participating households on an average is higher by 55.5
percent as compared to the "control" group. The difference in the per capita income (PCI) of Dalits
between treatment and control is very high. This indicates that MEDEP was able to impact on the
income of the most disadvantaged group that have so far remained at the bottom of the social and
economic caste hierarchy in Nepal. But there are social and ecological disparities in the PCI of the
47
Net earning is estimate of just one month of enterprise operation (this indicates efficiency of enterprises). The enterprise may not run for
the whole year..
59
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
treatment group. The average PCI of MEDEP project beneficiaries is NRs 44,253 whereas that of
control group is Rs. 28,451. The mean difference between treatment and control groups is found to be
statistically significant at five percent level of significance (Refer to results of mean difference tests in
Annex 39). The Hill Brahman/Chhetri, Hill Indigenous groups and the non Hardcore have a PCI higher
than this average while the groups with PCI lower than this average include the Madhesi Dalits,
Muslims, Other Madhesi Caste and the Terai Indigenous - all groups of the Terai.
The analysis of poverty alleviation contribution of MEDEP, shows that overall 30 percent households
are below the poverty line of NRs 21,168. Among caste/ethnic groups 56 percent Other Madhesi, 35
percent Terai Janajati, 31 percent hill Janajati, 30 percent hill Dalits, 25 percent Madhesi Dalits, 27
percent Brahman/Chhetris and 20 percent Muslim households are below the income line . The control
group has higher percentage of households (54.8%) below the poverty line. The contribution of MEDEP
in poverty alleviation is evident since the majority of the beneficiary households who were below
poverty level have already crossed the poverty level PCI threshold (Annex 40).
Figure 4.31 Per capita income (PCI) of treatment and control groups (in Rs.)
Treatment
50,172
44,730
43,820
32,123
19,678
Control
51,811
44,253
42,104
35,370
37,738
33,803
30,542
28,395
29,212
28,451
23,977
18,890
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
Hardcore
Non-Hardcore
Overall
8,403
7,696
(122.7)
(70.1)
(26.5)
(44.1)
(48.4)
(NA)
(7.6)
(-8.4)
(37.3)
(55.5)
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
By Poverty
Overall
Note: Number in parenthesis is percentage difference between treatment and control group
Women, who were dependent on their husbands even for their own pocket money, have now been able
to share the household expenses and pay for children’s stationeries through the income from their
enterprise. Sixty-nine percent women stated that there had been an increase in their income, the lowest
was of hill Janajati while the highest was of Muslims.
60
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.32 Percent of women respondents stating increase in income by caste/ethnicity
Overall
68.6
Other Madhesi Caste
85.7
Muslims
100
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
64.3
Terai Indigenous
75.6
Hill Indigenous
58.6
Madhesi Dalit
88.9
Hill Dalit
70
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Increase in women's income has made a great difference in their status and has led to increased value
of their opinions and views. People have become more aware about health and education and thus
income earned was spent on children's health and education. Some have been able to invest in land and
jewellery.
Women's decision making about use of income
Before MEDEP, only about two percent responses were that women’s decision making was very high
with regards to use of income. This changed to 40.5 percent after MEDEP. 39 percent had said very
low, 41 percent low and 17 percent high. This changed after MEDEP, to only 1.3 percent very low, 5.8
percent low and 52 percent high.
Before MEDEP, less than 20 percent women had said high (16%) and very high (0.6%) which changed
to more than 90 percent as high (52%) and very high (39%) after MEDEP (Figure 4.33).
Figure 4.33 Participation of women in use of income by sex and caste/ethnicity (in percent)
No
Limited
100
High
89
86
80
71
67
71
71
71
5050
50
50
40
31
21
12
22
1414
7
M
19
3
F
Hill Dalit
M
1
F
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
M
29
19
10
0
F
M
75
64
60
51
46
76
74
10
4
4
F
M
16
10
10
1
0
F
Hill
Terai
Hill
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
M
00
F
Muslims
0
M
22
5
3
0
F
Other
Madhesi
Caste
M
20
F
All
Total
Note: M: Male respondents; F: female respondents
61
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
About 30 percent hardcore poor and 41 percent non-hardcore poor had said very low which translated
to 68 percent and 50 percent high for hardcore poor and non-hardcore poor respectively (Figure 4.34).
Figure 4.34 Participation of women in use of income by poverty and caste/ethnicity (in percent)
100
No
Limited
High
90
87
87
81
80
76
75
75
74
71
60
60
60
57
57
40
43
38
38
25
20
20
20
18
13
12
5
0
HC
NHC
Hill Dalit
21
20
HC
0
NHC
Madhesi
Dalit
HC
7
0
NHC
HC
2
3
NHC
HC
2
NHC
Hill
Terai
Hill
Indigenous Indigenous Brahman/
Chhetri
Source: Field Survey, 2014
13
11
4
20
000
0
00
0
HC
NHC
HC
NHC
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
6
5
HC
NHC
5
All
Total
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor; NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Refer Annex 41 for details.
Among the caste ethnic groups, only about 6 percent Hill Dalits and 13 percent of other groups had said
high to women's decision making, with no one saying very high among Madhesi Dalits, terai
Indigenous, Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste. This changed to more than 47 percent for all except
Other Madhesi Caste (25%) as high and 40 percent for Madhesi Dalits, 28 percent for terai Indigenous,
20 percent for Muslims and 75 percent for Other Madhesi caste as very high after MEDEP (Figure 4.35
and Figure 4.36).
62
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.35 Change in women's decision making on use of income by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
80
Very High
75
52
53
51
46
47
43
40 38
37
52
52
48
45
39
63
60
58
44
41
38
44
40
41
39
38
41
30
0
B
0 0
A
B
Hill Dalit
1 1
0 0
A
B
Madhesi
Dalit
A
B
A
B
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
17
13
13
4 44
3
25
20
15
13
63
28
23
18
0
4
0
A
0 0
B
Hill BC
0
A
B
Muslims
2 1
0 00
A
B
Other
Madhesi
Caste
6
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.36 Change in women's decision making on use of income by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
68
53
52
43
40
44
39 3738
55
52
41
39
52
50
45
41
39
41
41
39
41
30
20
16
B
5
1
A
Female
19
14
8
1
17
2
22
B
A
Male
6
1
B
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
B
17
11
1
A
18
3
2
A
Hard Core
B
5
A
Non Hard Core
6
1
2
1
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 42 for details.
63
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
On employment MEDEP intervention has been successful to create additional employment
opportunities for the participants. On an average an enterprise has created 2.8 full time family
employment including the entrepreneur and 2.3 hired jobs. Similarly, 2.4 family members and 3.3 hired
workers have found employment on a seasonal basis (Annex 43).
4.2.16 Women in trading sector
Women face challenges in participating in trading businesses (trade sector). More than 12 percent
female entrepreneurs compared to less than one percent male entrepreneurs reported problems related
to participation in trading. The specific problems cited included:
•
Lack of proper training (to conduct trading businesses)
•
Low literacy (difficulty in book keeping/accounting)
•
Social problem (not favourable to women participation in trading activities)
•
Caste problem (low acceptability)
•
Household work load (cooking, child care etc)
•
Difficult to contact other traders and suppliers in the markets (mobility constraints)
•
Difficult to get price information
•
Financial problem
4.2.17 Women's participation in decision making in selected enterprise management issues
Women are actively participating in decision making with respect to activities from the selection of
enterprise to use of profit from micro enterprise (Figure 4.37). Male control over decisions regarding
large items is still a reality in Nepal and thus impact women's decision making in some items namely
machinery and equipment, where they had the lowest response to women's participation in decision
making. Some aspects have been dealt with in above sections (e.g. selection of enterprise, use of income,
machinery and equipment), others are discussed below.
Figure 4.37 Women's participation in enterprise related decision making (in percent)
No
Limited
High
80.9
77.3
75.2
71.5
70.4
69.3
58
25.5
23.3
28.1
14.2
13.9
5.2
Selection of
enterprise
6.3
Purchase of Purchase of
raw material machinery &
equipment
Source: Field Survey, 2014
64
5
Production
18.7
4.1
Product sale
24.2
4.3
Product
pricing
20
4.8
Use of income
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.2.18 Major challenges experienced by micro-entrepreneurs
At the enterprise level micro entrepreneurs are facing several problems to sustain their enterprises. With
high male migration, women experience time shortages to work on both on-farm and off -farm,
additionally, there is a shortage of labour.
Micro enterprises are mainly catering to the local market. The small scale of production results in low
income resulting in lack of interest of many. There are issues regarding the product quality and its
assurance for product penetration in markets beyond the local level. MEDEP has been supporting
different types of enterprises mostly without a commodity value chain focus. There have been
successful entrepreneurs notably in allo yarn making and weaving, Chyuri herbal soap making,
beekeeping, bamboo, vegetable production, and services such as beauty parlour, and tailoring. The
value chains of Allo and Chyuri herbal soap are good examples of strengthened backward and forward
linkages benefiting a large number of collectors of raw materials, processors and traders.48 Among
enterprises which closed, incense sticks, candle making, dalmoth, chalk making, and tika making ranked
high. These enterprises failed primarily because of non availability of raw materials at the local level.
Inadequate orientation/training, limited capacity to invest in technology, inadequate working capital
and, input/raw material supply constraints hampered scaling up of enterprises. The forward linkages
were weak as demonstrated by the limited contacts of producers/processors with traders. Women
entrepreneurs face problems in taking up trading business as their management capacities are weak and
there are other social constraints of free mobility for making the necessary contacts that are essential
for the trading business.
4.2.19 Gender/caste/ethnicity/poverty based constraints
Women experience many constraints: mobility as social norms constrain them from travel to places a
little far to purchase materials or to market; work-burden and time poverty as with many household
responsibilities, they are forced to select enterprises that will enable them to manage both family and
enterprise tasks. They do not have time to focus completely on the business due to multiple
responsibilities. Inability to access finance independently and high interest rates are big deterrents for
the women to grow in their business. Socio-cultural barriers which demand that women get approval
and permission from family gatekeepers such as men and mothers-in-law to move ahead (with varying
degree of control depending on ethnicity) result in women being controlled and confined to enterprises
which are socially permitted by family and society.
Dalits experience caste-based discrimination in the selection of enterprises as they are unable to work
in the food and beverage sector. People may-not purchase such products from a community considered
untouchable. There are certain groups experiencing poverty who, despite rigorous effort,
There are certain groups (e.g. Majhi community) experiencing poverty, who despite rigorous efforts
from MEDEP, they could not be included as micro-entrepreneurs. Due to extreme poverty, they do not
have resources to experiment or take risk while an enterprise is developed and established.
MEDEP does not have specific interventions to address the social barriers (mobility constraints, social
practices like physical and social restrictions, menstrual exclusion, dowry) experienced by women
48
Refer to MEDEP reports (www.medep.org.np) on Value Chain Analysis-Allo (February 2010), and Value Chain Analysis-Chyuri Herbal
Soap (December 2010)
65
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
(including single women), Dalits or Janajatis in improving their businesses or the income barriers of
the extreme poor. EDFs and BDSPOs too are not adequately oriented on GESI or on how to address the
specific barriers of the different target groups.
4.2.20 Shifts in food security of MEDEP beneficiaries
MEDEP has contributed to increased food self sufficiency both in terms of increased production from
own land and with increased capacity to purchase food grains to meet household food requirements.
Almost 37 percent programme respondents (treatment) stated they were self sufficient in food while 22
percent of non-programme (control) group stated so. The highest difference between treatment and
control groups was found amongst Madhesi Dalit, Other Madhesi Caste and Terai Janajatis (Figure
4.38). The mean difference between treatment and control groups in food self sufficiency is statistically
significant at five percent level of significance.
Figure 4.38 Comparison of Treatment and Control (Improvement in food security after being
entrepreneur) by caste/ethnicity (in percent)
96
Yes
86
91
91
88
83
No
68
82
67
66
55
54
48
46
45
54
52
34
32
33
18
17
10
46
14
12
9
4
T
C
Hill Dalit
T
C
Madhesi Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
T
C
Hill
Indigenous
T
C
Terai
Indigenous
T
C
Hill BC
T
C
Other Madhesi
Caste
T
C
All
Note: T: Treatment, C: Control
The difference between Hardcore and non Hardcore poor of treatment group was minimal while it was
very high in the control group with only 9 percent of Hardcore poor stating they were food self sufficient
while 29 percent non Hardcore poor stated so (Figure 4.39).
66
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.39 Comparison of Treatment and Control (Food Security) by poverty (in percent)
Yes
92
No
88
86
57
56
54
44
43
14
8
Treatment
46
Control
Treatment
Hard Core
12
Control
Treatment
Non Hard Core
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Control
All
Note: T: Treatment, C: Control
Geographic differences demonstrate that in each ecological region food security of project beneficiaries
has improved. Food self sufficiency from own production (% of HH) is 45 percent in the Terai
(treatment group - it is 20% in control group), 31 percent in the mountain (treatment group - it is 20%
in control group) and 30 percent in the hills (treatment group - it is 25% in control group) (Annex 44).
The mean difference between treatment and control groups in terms of increase in food self sufficiency
after being entrepreneur is statistically significant at five percent level of significance.
4.2.21 Change in assets
On an average the value of assets per household of treatment group was Rs. 1,561,800 which was 115
percent higher than that of control group (Rs. 725,520). The asset ownership situation (including land,
livestock and durable goods) of treatment group was higher than that of the control group across all
categories (Figure 4.40). The overall difference in asset ownership between treatment and control
groups has been found to be statistically significant at five percent level of significance.
Figure 4.40 Average value of assets owned by households (NRs. '000)
Treatment
Control
2,793
2,405
2,299
2,061
1,756
1,705
1,499
1,005
745
325
1,212
1,171
950
924
694
596
891
824
879
1,562
726
349
302
By Caste Ethnicity
By Sex
By Poverty
Overall
Non-Hardcore
Hardcore
Male
Female
Other Madhesi Caste
Muslims
Hill BC
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
0
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
67
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The households of programme respondents had better quality houses. Only about 14 percent of these
households had houses of thatched roofs while it was 28 percent in the control group (Annex 45). Men
and women entrepreneurs invested in land, buildings and other assets with the increased income.
Overall 23 percent of beneficiaries (21% male and 23% female) reported using increased income from
micro enterprise on house construction. Dalits benefited from increased acquisition of assets. Among
Madhesi Dalits 44 percent reported using increased income on house construction (48% women and
29% men stated so). Among treatment group the ownership of colour TV was 54 percent and that of
mobile phones was 89 percent (Annex 46). In comparison only 22 percent of the control households
had colour TV sets and 17 percent owned mobile phones (Annex 47).
4.2.22 Changes in sanitation levels, and awareness of diseases
There has been significant impact on sanitation with the proxy measurement of toilet facilities, clean
drinking water, and the use of improved cooking stoves (ICS). Among both the treatment group and
control group about 88-90 percent had access to toilet facility (Annex 48). About 66 percent of treatment
group had access to safe drinking water whereas 56 percent of control households had access to safe
drinking water (Figure 4.41). The mean difference between treatment and control groups in the access
to safe drinking water is statistically significant at 10 percent. Hill Dalits and hill indigenous have
relatively benefited more compared to other ethnic groups in terms of access to safe drinking water.
Similarly, treatment group had relatively higher adoption of ICS (24%) as compared to control group
(18%). The mean difference between treatment and control groups in the access to ICS is statistically
significant at five percent. Use of ICS contributes to reduced indoor pollution that mainly affects the
rural women.
Figure 4.41 Use of improved cooking stove and access to safe drinking water (in percent)
Improved Cooking Stove
100
84
90
83
86
Safe Drinking Water
81
77
65
66
64
57
56
52
50
40
26
11
T
C
Hill Dalit
27
25
25
02
00
T
C
T
15
C
17
10
7
3
T
C
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
13 14 14 10
0
T
C
Hill BC
T
Source: Field Survey, 2014
68
Note: T: Treatment, C: Control
14
24
18
00
C
Muslims
By Caste Ethnicity
20
T
C
Other
Madhesi
Caste
T
C
Hardcore
T
C
NonHardcore
By Poverty
T
C
Overall
Overall
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The participating households have comparatively higher level of awareness of HIV/AIDS and malaria
as compared to the control group (Figure 4.42). However, the difference in HIV/AIDS awareness is not
statistically significant between treatment and control groups whereas in the case of malaria the mean
difference between treatment and control groups is significant at 10 percent level of significance. This
contributes positively to the MDG 6 which targets combating HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other diseases.
Refer Annex 49 for details.
Figure 4.42 Awareness of HIV/AIDS and Malaria (in percent)
Awareness of HIV/AIDS
96
66
60
68
100
95
77
73
71
63 63
57
52
51
76
Awareness of Malaria
82
75 73
67
65
63
78
71 72
64
7575
6161
69
64
7374
6663
40
33
29
00
T
C
Hill Dalit
T
C
T
C
T
C
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
T
C
Hill BC
T
Muslims
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
C
T
C
Other
Madhesi
Caste
T
C
Hardcore
T
C
NonHardcore
By Poverty
T
C
Overall
Overall
Note: T: Treatment, C: Control
Conclusion: MEDEP has contributed considerably to changes in the access to assets and services of
women and other target group beneficiaries and to their livelihood improvement. Most have a higher
income after joining MEDEP and also when compared to the control group thus a visible impact on
increasing income has taken place. The income earned has been spent on improved health, education of
children and better sanitation (with toilets) which achievements have also contributed to the MDGs.
There is a strong focus on creation of entrepreneurs by MEDEP. Support for forward and backward
linkages needs further attention. Most micro-enterprises are at subsistence level with issues of grading,
packaging and marketing. Marketing linkages require a lot of attention.
Access to finance is an issue with the process of micro-finance institution not friendly and access to
collateral not gender and poor responsive. Dependency on village money lenders to access credit for is
still prevalent. It was difficult for micro-entrepreneurs to compete with others, as they did not have the
capital to invest and ensure that their products were of the quality at a price that consumers expect.
It was found that women were engaged in enterprises like sewing, bangle making and men in furniture
making which seems a continuation of the traditional division of labour. However, this has enabled the
women to comfortably transition from home to the micro-enterprise sector and has given them the
opportunity to learn the skills of managing an enterprise for their growth. They may require future
interventions which would push them to access more resources and opportunities.
69
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.2.23 Recommendations for assets and services domain
-
The sustainability of micro enterprises created by MEDEP will depend to a large extent on the
market linkages with actors higher up in the value chains of the commodities. Presently, such
linkages are weak, with limited contractual arrangements between producers and the traders
(retailers, wholesalers), exporters and large processors. There is a clear absence of a commodity
and subsector focus although in cases like Allo processing and Herbal soap making (using Chyuri
butter as main ingredient), value chain interventions from MEDEP have successfully
strengthened the backward and forward linkages. There are some enterprises such as agarbatti
(incense sticks) that are promoted without establishing proper market linkages, thus making such
enterprises less viable. By working backwards from the final market whether domestic or export,
MEDEP should support enterprises to improve the product quality as per market demand. It will
be difficult for micro enterprises to sustain in the competitive markets in the absence of a focus
on the final market.
-
There has been relatively less emphasis on the availability of raw materials and inputs at the local
level as the basis for selection of enterprises. Dependence on imported inputs has resulted in
products of micro enterprises being uncompetitive in many cases. The selection of enterprises
should be done only after proper assessment of the resources available at the local level through
resource surveys. This requires proper orientation to the EDFs (considering the staff turnover of
partner BDSPOs) to ensure that sustainable enterprises are developed based on locally available
resources with less reliance on imported inputs.
-
Working capital constraint has been hampering business expansion for micro entrepreneurs
particularly constraining women, Dalits both in hill and the terai. The specific credit needs of the
disadvantaged Dalit women should be addressed by linking them with financial institutions with
the access to collateral free loans on group guarantee basis. While MEDEP has been making
various efforts to address the issues of access to finance, specific focus to the more vulnerable
within the target groups is necessary.
-
As most micro entrepreneurs have no agreement with traders, there is a need for developing
contractual buy back arrangements especially in the case of high value crops. Expansion in
production activities should be built around such producer-trader/processor linkages. However,
the lack of legal framework on "Sub-Contracting Rules/By-Laws" under the Industrial
Enterptises Act has been one of the policy constraints in this regard. An enactment of the rules
relating to subcontracting is expected to be made by the Government which will greatly facilitate
the implementation of buy back contracting arrangements.
-
Input suppliers constitute an important part of the value chains. To address the constraints on
availability of inputs, micro entrepreneurs should be linked with input suppliers. Producers
groups should be encouraged and facilitated to procure the inputs on the basis of combined
demand of the groups such as herbal soap producers (for various imported ingredients) for
savings in transportation costs.
-
The technical backstopping should be strengthened through linkage with equipment
manufacturers. The entrepreneurs should be able to receive services locally for the repair and
70
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
maintenance of the equipment. The provision of appropriate technology should be done through
the local equipment manufacturers to the extent possible with built in provisions for the repair
and maintenance services as per the need. MEDEP should extend support on capacity
enhancement of equipment manufacturers in this regard. The skills of local women and men of
disadvantaged groups for such manufacturing should be strengthened.
-
MEDEP services are organized and provided based on a sequential approach for micro enterprise
development, which is excellent and should continue. But at times enterprises are promoted
without proper skill training and even without using the right ingredients during the hands on
training sessions. Such practices by service providers must be avoided and quality of training
should be maintained.
-
MEDEP through BDSPOs and DMEGAs should adopt a flexible approach to provide the services
that will help enterprises to be competitive in the markets, and to scale up their businesses. Such
an approach should be based on specific needs of the enterprises to make them competitive.
Integrating micro enterprises into the wider market economy with linkages to other value chain
actors should be emphasized especially given the limited marketing contracts (forward linkages)
in the current situation. The local market focus may not be remunerative enough to provide the
necessary incentives to the potential and existing micro entrepreneurs. The long term
sustainability of micro enterprises will be enhanced through such market integration.
-
A large number of entrepreneurs were still at subsistence level. Higher capacity building,
networking and institutionalization of their enterprise for wider exposure, access and growth
would enable this target group to move beyond this stage although it is an acknowledged fact that
all micro entrepreneurs will not graduate to higher level. Potentials do however exist for micro
entreptreneurs to move to higher levels by accessing grants from other projects.
-
While it is to be appreciated that MEDEP has been able to provide opportunities to a group
which does not have the social or financial support to take risks, a finding of this survey is that
women entrepreneurs are earning relatively less than their male counterparts. Specific attention
thus has to be paid to identify ways in which women in the context they are in can be made to
work in more profitable full time enterprises rather than seasonal enterprises. Measures to address
the gender constraints of women in selecting and managing enterprises which can earn higher
profit should be identified, planned for and implemented.
-
It is understandable that a high percentage of the micro-enterprises are in the agriculture sector,
a sector this target group is familiar with. Ways to link these with other ongoing improvements
in the agriculture sector (of improved seeds, fertilizer use, commercial products, improved
livestock, fodder and grass) is necessary so that the profit margins can increase.
71
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.3 Changes in Voice and Influence (social mobilisation empowerment)
INCREASING
VOICE,
INFLUENCE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
4.3.1
In this chapter the key elements that are considered are the
inputs by MEDEP to enhance capacity and voice of the microentrepreneurs, the relationships between MEDEP's impact on
changing voice of project beneficiaries and the types of response
that voice gets. Voice is determined by a range of factors
including caste and ethnic group, gender and class. How
confident women and men feel to express their voice depends
on their social relationships with others, their own sense of selfworth, their confidence in their knowledge of their rights and
entitlements, and their levels of expectation that there is anyone
listening and responding to what they are saying.
Response is very important. There is no point in having a voice
to which no-one responds and no change or difference is made
to the outcome as a result of raising a voice. A critical element
of effective voice is having the right knowledge to be able to
challenge and uphold rights, and the skills to be able to articulate
this knowledge and ensure that the rules of the game support the
entitlements of the individual. This chapter explores whether
there are changes in the rules of the game at home and
community levels as a result of this voice-knowledge and skillsresponse relationship. Shifts in rules of the game as a result of
working with MEDEP are further explored in the next chapter.
Training and capacity building
Various training packages have been taken by the active micro-entrepreneurs. Most have been linked
to enterprise development and this has facilitated skill strengthening of how to handle enterprises, how
to access materials and produce, price products and market them.
Participation of men has exceeded participation of women in all types of trainings except development
of Training of Existing Entrepreneurs (TOEE), Training of Growing Entrepreneurs (TOGE) and
Institutional Development training, which covered a smaller number of participants. A similar pattern
was with Hardcore and non Hardcore Poor. Most have also found these training inputs useful (Figure
4.43 and Figure 4.44).
72
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.43 Participation in training and its usefulness by sex (in percent)
9389 90
93 90
89
89
8586
Male
89 86
85
43
3638
8 1111
P
U
9
1211
P
U
P
Development of Development of
TOPE, TOSE
TOEE, TOGE
Source: Field Survey, 2014
8 1111
U
9
15
U
Institutional
development
P
All
41
3436
12
11
P
Technical skill
development
Female
U
8 10
18 9
P
11
U
Empowerment Observation Your
Note: P: Participation (Yes), U: Usefulness
There were not many differences between non-Hardcore and Hardcore respondents regarding the
usefulness of the training (Figure 4.44).
Figure 4.44 Participation in training and its usefulness by poverty (in percent)
91
90
86
9190
86
848786
8487
Hard Core
86
Non-Hard Core
All
4038
30
21
18
P
U
9 11
P
U
P
Development of Development of
TOPE, TOSE
TOEE, TOGE
Source: Field Survey, 2014
21
18
9 11
U
Technical skill
development
37
36
30
9 11
9 11
P
U
Institutional
development
6
P
U
1110
P
9
12
11
U
Empowerment Observation Your
Note: P: Participation (Yes), U: Usefulness
Refer Annex 50 for details.
Trainings however have been largely limited to technical aspects. Need and demand of the trainings on
empowerment and institutional development were quite intense from the field. During the
empowerment trainings, most of the women respondents requested for gender trainings together with
their spouse, expecting that with the trainings, their spouse will be more supportive towards them and
their enterprise.
73
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Majority of all caste/ethnic groups have participated in technical skill development training. But in
institutional training there was no participation of Muslim women and Madhesi Dalit, Muslim and Other
Madhesi Caste men was zero. Participation in empowerment training is highest of Muslim women and
Terai Janajati men while lowest of Hill Janajati women with no participation of Other Madhesi Caste
men.
According to the respondents, different capacity building events have supported them in increasing their
confidence and their ability to source raw materials, access service providers and work as microentrepreneurs. There are many programs from different organisations and line agencies which have also
contributed to an increase in knowledge and skills of the women and other excluded social groups.
Though there is considerable improvement on women’s outreach to various organizations and raising
their voice for genuine concerns, the respondents still felt that the ‘empowerment’ trainings were not
adequate. They reported that, all they have achieved is through ‘learning by doing’.
The respondents who participated reported that the most effective among all the trainings were the
exposure visit as it provided them the opportunity to learn and share from like minded people and
enterprise. Among men and women, participation of men (15%) is comparatively higher than that of
women (8%). Participation in observation tour is highest of Terai Janajati men and Hill Dalit women
and no participation of Muslim and Other Madhesi Caste men and women. Such visits were the platform
to interact with the people facing similar challenges and to understand their coping mechanisms. This
knowledge remained instrumental in expanding their enterprise and for boosting up their confidence.
Training and capacity building for addressing socio-cultural barriers, advocacy with men and other
family members or with community leaders has been limited - only in Dadeldhura were there examples
shared of joint gender training of women and men.
4.3.2
Building voice and influence through group membership
Being a member of a group has enabled women, Dalits, Janajatis and the others to benefit from the
discussions that occur in monthly meetings and from the different training and interactions that are
organised. These have expanded their horizons and enabled them to absorb and understand how to work
on things for which they did not have direct experience e.g. being organised, working in a team,
managing raw materials and resources with discipline.
The women who were largely confined to household chores before MEDEP had little access to different
information sources. Once they joined MEDEP, they received both knowledge and exposure on various
dimensions through different means. This enhanced their confidence and they became members of other
community based organisations (CBOs) in the area such as saving and credit groups and cooperatives.
They gained confidence to participate more meaningfully in groups they were already part of. The
increased membership in groups provided them more opportunity to participate in various local,
national and sometimes international forums.
74
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Box 4.2:
Changes after MEDEP
“I was always occupied in household chores before I joined MEDEP. But now, I am the member of saving credit
group, cooperative and water users group. Now I know many people and organisations and also that many
organisations are there to help us out. I am also invited to various social forums and to meetings of government
bodies. Now I do not have to look for the organisations, but they look for me. All this happened after MEDEP,”
Bindra Devi Shahani vegetable producer, Nawalparasi
Figure 4.45 Member of other organisations and presence in meetings (in percent)
Member in other organisation
Regular participation in meetings
Occasional participation in meetings
Generally absent in meetings
100
92
88
82
81
75
75
71
69
65
59
82
78
61
57
80
69
66
58
57
46
35
29
33
28
25
24
19
17
9
By Caste Ethnicity
By Sex
3
1
By Poverty
Overall
1
Non-Hardcore
Hardcore
2
1
0
Male
00
Female
0
Other Madhesi Caste
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
1
Muslims
2
1
0
Hill BC
8
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
3
20
19
17
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 51 for details.
The respondents also mentioned that they are able to voice their opinions and interests within and
outside the households much more now than before, after their engagement with MEDEP. 44 percent
of the respondents from the treatment group mentioned that they raise their voice on women’s issues,
while only 17 percent of the control group mentioned this. Interestingly, women from Madhesi Dalit
community were the ones with the highest response (54.5%) about raising issues. There was only a
slight difference between the non Hardcore poor and the Hardcore poor (44.8% and 42.2%
respectively).
75
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.46 Voice raised on issues affecting women and presence in meetings (in percent)
Voice raised on women issue
Occasional participation in meetings
Regular participation in meetings
100
Listen only
80
63
60
55
11
Other Madhesi Caste
Muslims
By Caste Ethnicity
By Sex
7
6
5
Overall
8
00
Hill BC
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Madhesi Dalit
2
29
Non-Hardcore
13
9
44
27
24
Hardcore
12
4
45
32
25
21
16
Hill Dalit
33
29
28
Male
33
47
42 42
46
44
41
8
64
53
48
38
67
61
Female
54
48
72
69
63
By Poverty
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 52 for details.
Across social groups, issues raised by women are heard and acted upon (Figure 4.47).
Figure 4.47 Response on issues raised in meetings (in percent)
Nobody listens
Listen and make decisions accordingly
93
84
Listen but do not make decisions
100
82
86
80
84
82
80
67
81
58
28
By Caste Ethnicity
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 53 for details.
76
7
6
By Sex
10
6
By Poverty
7
13
Overall
0
Non-Hardcore
0
14
Hardcore
0
12
Male
6
13
Female
3
Other Madhesi Caste
3
14
Muslims
7
14
Hill BC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
3
12
Terai Indigenous
14
Hill Indigenous
16 16
Overall
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
After their association with MEDEP, their level of confidence considerably increased as 54 percent of
the respondents reported this as the primary reason behind them joining other organisations and groups.
Interestingly, 100 percent Muslims, 75 percent Other Madhesi Caste, 64.3 percent Terai Indigenous and
63.6 percent Madhesi Dalits pointed to ‘increased confidence’ as the primary reason behind joining
others after MEDEP. Women from Muslims (100%), Other Madhesi Caste (85.7%), Madhesi Dalit
(63.9%) and Terai Indigenous (60.5%) expressed highest increase in confidence.
Figure 4.48 Reason for being members in organisations other than MEDEP (in percent)
Increased confidence
Support from family
Other women participate
Available facilities
Others
100
75
65
64
64
54
54
57
51
54
42
By Caste Ethnicity
By Sex
3
1617
10
1
By Poverty
1618
10
1
Overall
28
22
17
Non-Hardcore
6
31
Hardcore
11
1
Male
00
Other Madhesi Caste
0000
27
22
1313
Female
1313
Muslims
0 2
1
1617
11
4
Hill BC
7
Terai Indigenous
02
26
2219
16
Hill Indigenous
1816
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Dalit
1717
11
0
Overall
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Refer Annex 54 for details.
Access to information was impacted by the length of linkage with MEDEP and also ethnicity e.g. a
group of Tharu women in Sunsari were far more informed about different aspects of MEDEP's working,
about VDC budget and how to access it than a group of Madhesi Dalit women who had started only 6
months ago with MEDEP. There were also gender differentials in access to information as men with
their higher mobility than women, had higher access to information than women of their particular
community and area.
4.3.3
Participation in DDC/VDC meetings
The respondents shared that their participation in the meetings with various stakeholders have
significantly increased after MEDEP. For instance, five percent of the respondents mentioned that they
participated in VDC/DDC meetings before MEDEP, it increased to 50 percent after MEDEP. Among
the women, it increased from 2 to 43 percent before and after MEDEP respectively. Whereas Madhesi
Dalit men reported the maximum variation on the response on this attribute before and after MEDEP
(0 to 66.7%), among women, Hill Brahman/Chhetri reported maximum variation (56.4%) followed by
77
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Other Madhesi Caste group (50%). Forty-eight percent of the non Hardcore poor and 28 percent of the
Hardcore group reported that they participated in such meetings. There is a considerable variation in
the treatment and control group with 50 percent respondents of the treatment group and only 16 percent
of the control group participating in VDC/DDC meetings (Annex 55).
Figure 4.49 Participation in DDC/VDC meetings by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
87
Low
High
Very High
71
68
62
50
53
5050
56
52
46
44
41
35
33
31
26
13
7
B
00
A
0
B
Hill Dalit
7
0
A
B
A
11
0
B
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
39
37
33
15
8
6
00
29
29
34
30
27 29
30
15
12
9
43
35
A
00
B
Terai
Indigenous
13
12
9
64
A
B
Hill BC
4
1
0
A
B
Other Madhesi
Caste
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.50 Participation in DDC/VDC meetings by sex and poverty (in percent)
Very low
69
Low
High
74
Very High
62
62
60
51
47
42
42
40
35
31
29
39 37
33
30
24
8
2
B
A
Female
5
B
4
A
Male
1
B
A
All
78
15
B
4
2
2
A
Hard Core
B
4
1
A
Non Hard Core
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
13
12
11
2
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
16
13
12
21
39 37
33
21
15
9
38
36
35
1
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.3.4
Access to VDC/DDC budgets
Access to VDC/DDC budget of the micro-entrepreneurs has increased significantly after their joining
MEDEP. Whereas only seven percent of the respondents reported that they had access to VDC/DDC
budget before MEDEP, this increased to 43 percent after MEDEP. In the control group, it was limited
to 21 percent of the respondents. Looking at the gender disaggregated data, men seem to have higher
access (62%) against women (48%). But percentage change on access to budget before and after
MEDEP is significantly higher for women as compared to men. Access to budget however is still lower
for Hardcore poor (35.6%) compared to non Hardcore poor (49%) (Annex 56).
Figure 4.51 Access to VDC/DDC budget allocation process by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
77
68
56
41
35
59
54
50
47
46
42
42
38
43 43
41
36
35
30
26
24
51
43
29
29
26 27
3640
34
20
14
10
3
00
B
A
0
0
B
Hill Dalit
8
6
6
84
0
A
B
A
Source: Field Survey, 2014
4
8
B
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
14
9
A
4
0
B
Terai
Indigenous
A
6
2
0
B
Hill BC
13
12
7
A
B
Other Madhesi
Caste
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.52 Access in budget allocation by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
63
74
Very High
59
59
56
50
3840
33
38
37
31
36
34
8
41
B
A
Female
B
A
Male
2
B
15
2
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
40
36
34
28
13
12
6
2
34
21
14
7
42
37
26
23
11
44
40
B
9
7
2
1
2
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
13
12
6
2
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
79
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
4.3.5
Ability to demand services
Before MEDEP, 34 percent and 52 percent responded that they had very low and low capacity,
respectively, to demand services from government service providers when service delivery was
ineffective or inadequate. After MEDEP 54 percent and 24 percent respondents stated high and very
high respectively about their ability to go to service providers when such situations arise to demand
services. There were zero responses on very low. Amongst social groups, the highest "very low"
response before MEDEP were of the hill Dalits while after MEDEP the highest "very high" response
was of Madhesi Other Caste group who had 14 and 57 percent very low and low response earlier.
While 22 percent men had responded to very low, 39 percent women had responded that they had very
low capacity to demand services before they joined MEDEP. This changed to 55 percent and 22 percent
women stating high and very high capacity while for 53 percent and 28 percent men stated so. 50 percent
Hardcore and 31 percent non Hardcore poor had said very low before MEDEP. This changed to 48
percent and seven percent high and very high after MEDEP for the Hardcore and 55 percent and 27
percent for the non Hardcore.
Figure 4.53 Raise voice in government offices for services by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
67
59
59
61
59
63
57
55
51
49
57
39
38
29
34
30
29
29
29
28
22
21
B
0
12
0
0
A
Hill Dalit
B
22 24
22
0
B
14
15
14
14
13
11
0
0
A
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
80
10
0
A
12
34
29
17
12
4
54
52
49
B
2
0
A
Terai
Indigenous
0
B
0
A
Hill BC
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
B
1
0
A
Other Madhesi
Caste
0
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.54 Raise voice in government offices for services by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
55
52
Low
53
53
High
Very High
55
55
54
52
50
54
52
48
46
39
39
34
34
31
28
24
27
24
22
24
22
22
24
22
19
18
14
13
9
13
9
1
1
0
B
A
Female
1
0
B
A
Male
2
0
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
B
7
0
0
A
Hard Core
B
1
0
A
Non Hard Core
0
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 57 for details.
4.3.6
Networks/linkages
These have increased considerably after the women, Dalits and the others became micro-entrepreneurs
through MEDEP. e.g. MEDEP provided training and a grinding machine to the coffee cooperative in
Melamchi. The group then received seedling support from the agriculture office and equipment support
from the Japanese government.
As cooperatives have been formed, capacity has increased to approach different organisations for
resources and services such as financial institutions for loans and line agencies for services.
The respondents give credit to the group working approach of MEDEP for the wider linkage and
exposure they have been enjoying after joining MEDEP. They believe that the group has given them a
feeling of solidarity and an identity. They are recognized and invited by other organisations for various
trainings, sharing etc not as an individual, but as a member of the group.
There were examples shared in focus group discussions of women who were able to negotiate with raw
materials dealers and suppliers, something that they had not done before. They had also accessed VDCs
and other offices for support (in form of equipment and budget). Women were managing their own
enterprises and were responsible for purchasing, pricing, sale and hence had improved their capacity to
engage with different suppliers and service providers.
81
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Box 4.3:
Benefits of increased linkages
“After joining MEDEP, we initiated a saving credit group, which provided me reliable backup for finances
whenever I needed it. At that time I didn’t know that this group would give me so much leverage in the future.
Now, I am a member of a cooperative, women group and the President of MEGA. I have received two sewing
machines and advanced training from Gharelu. I am invited in VDC/DDC meetings, in other learning sharing
platforms, trainings and workshops organised by I/NGOs. I am now giving employment to 8 people in my own
enterprise.” Narmaya Poon, Parbat district.
4.3.7
Capacity to access different source of funds
Most of the respondents reported that with their association to saving/credit group and cooperatives,
access to finance improved over a period of time for them. Only 15 percent of the respondents reported
access to finance before MEDEP, but 84 percent did so after MEDEP. Forty-eight percent of the control
group respondents had access to different sources of finance. Though access to finance was higher
(90%) for men than women (81%), percentage change in this attribute before and after MEDEP is much
higher for women.
Interestingly, highest change in access to finance was reported by Other Madhesi Caste (100% for both
men and women) followed by hill Dalit men (86.7%). Among women, Madhesi Dalit (91%) reported
highest access. Again, the non Hardcore poor reported much higher access (70.6%) compared to
Hardcore poor (59.2%).
4.3.8
Response of family to increased voice of women
The income from their enterprises has enabled women to negotiate a little with their family and husband
on selected issues and with improved status within households they are able to influence decisions.
Women reported that the male members of their family listen and also implement their suggestions now
much more (24%) than they did before MEDEP (89%). It is limited to 48 percent among the control
group. The highest variation in this attribute was reported by Other Madhesi Caste group women
(Annex 58).
82
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.55 Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family by
caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
100
Very High
75
70
68
67
67
55
46
38
59
57
55
54
61
42
42
42
30
29
20
19
13
11
2
11
14
0
B
14
11
7
13
0
A
Hill Dalit
11 13
A
B
4
A
Source: Field Survey, 2014
14
17 19
11
0
A
27
11
4
B
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
13
13
2
0
B
23
20
B
Terai
Indigenous
4
3
0 00
A
Hill BC
0
B
A
2
B
A
Other Madhesi
Caste
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.56 Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family by
sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
76
64
63
60
57
61
59
61
58
59
61
59
32
18 20
11
5
B
27
26
27
2
Female
4
1
B
A
Male
2
B
17
17 19
9
4
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
17
15
11
10
3
A
20
17 19
15 18
27
20
B
2
4
4
A
Hard Core
B
11
4
1
A
Non Hard Core
2
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
83
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Before MEDEP, it was only three percent very high and 21 percent high respondents stating that
husband and male members supported in child caring, cooking and household management. After
MEDEP this changed to 25 percent very high and 60 percent high respondents stating this. The most
dramatic change seems to have occurred in the Madhesi Dalit and Other Madhesi Caste group.
The FGD discussions had indicated that women have not been able to voice about their household work
burden or to get male members to share it (apart from some ethnic groups where men were traditionally
working with the women in household management) as much as would enable them to work more
professionally on their enterprises. "Men don't go to the kitchen - you expect me to go and cook?" was
the reaction of a Madhesi Dalit man in an FGD in Mahottari.
The responses of men and women were similar to this question. Before MEDEP, 61 percent women
stated that the support was low while 44 percent men had stated so. After MEDEP, this changed to 60
percent women and 63 percent men stating it was high. 26 percent women and 11 percent men stating
very high.
Refer Annex 59 for details.
Figure 4.57 Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and cleaning by
caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
81
73
Low
High
70
Very High
83
67
61
57
60
51
50
47
40
52
42
60
50
37
33
29
24
23
17
10
3
B
15
12
8
3
0
A
Hill Dalit
B
12
0
A
21
8
8
4
17
15
B
0
0
A
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
84
18
B
4
8
17
11
9
Terai
Indigenous
B
0
A
Hill BC
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
16
13
9
2
A
25
21
0
B
3
0
A
Other Madhesi
Caste
2
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.58 Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and cleaning by
sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
61
Low
63
60
High
Very High
61
61
60
60
57
60
60
52
44
26 22
21
25
25
21
22
22
28
26
26
16
16
12
3
3
B
13
11
A
Female
B
A
Male
2
B
Both
B
4.3.9
A
Hard Core
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
9
4
0
A
13
11
9
3
16
15
13
0
25
21
21
B
3
1
A
Non Hard Core
2
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Change in level of respect received
Women also reported a significant shift in the level of respect they received by their family and society
before (21%) and after MEDEP (90%). Madhesi women reported maximum variation in this attribute
(83.4%).
Box 4.4:
Shifts in level of respect received
“Before joining MEDEP, my role in the household was limited to cleaning, cooking and taking care of my
husband and children. At times I even felt like I was just a maid and no one cared about me or listened to me;
not even my children. My children even said that I was illiterate and knew nothing. But now, I know how to
read and write and how to do simple calculations. I am the member of different groups and cooperatives in the
village. People call me for meetings and I get to know many things through the participation in those meetings.
Even my husband sometimes asks for my opinion on different household and agriculture matters. Now I feel
that I am being heard and respected” Kailashi, Nawalparasi district.
According to the women, violence also decreased even though the ones experiencing violence did not
have the capacity or the voice to fight against it individually. The next section provides more discussion
regarding gender and caste-based violence.
Refer Annex 60 for details.
85
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.59 Status of respect from family and community by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
79
Low
High
86
Very High
75
71
68
67
55
54
50
46
42
43
37
35
26
12
2
B
11
7
0
A
B
Hill Dalit
11
11
4
4
29
11
2
A
14
0
A
5
0
B
Madhesi Dalit Hill Indigenous
14
13
12
8
0
B
Source: Field Survey, 2014
27
26
14
21
18
18
18
64
58
57
55
A
B
Terai
Indigenous
14
8
02
0
A
0
B
Hill BC
3
0
A
0
B
A
Other
Madhesi Caste
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
There were 64 percent responses of increase in respect from family and community after MEDEP when
it was only 26 percent before MEDEP. 58 percent responses before MEDEP were of low respect which
reduced to only eight percent after MEDEP (Figure 4.60).
Figure 4.60 Status of respect from family and community by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
68
67
65
Very High
63
64
58
59
58
64
58
53
44
38
35
14
9
2
3
0
A
B
A
Male
4
0
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
14
14
13
8
7
6
1
17
15
14
13
Female
86
27
26
26
28
24
19
B
30
27
26
B
A
Hard Core
B
3
0
A
Non Hard Core
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
8
7
2
2
0
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
In focus group discussion, the Dalit group shared that the level of discrimination had reduced and with
an increase in status as a micro-entrepreneur, the treatment of society towards them had improved. But
there were no examples shared with the team where Dalit micro-entrepreneurs fought for their right not
to be discriminated. Many shared examples where they still experience some kinds of discrimination
but have not been able to raise a voice against it.
In Dhangadi, it was shared that Kamaiyas and Kamlaris, former bonded labourers of Tharu community,
had gained higher voice and identity in their community as MEDEP beneficiaries.
While the shifts due to the micro-enterprise has led to an increase in voice and influence, which is to be
greatly appreciated, women have not been able to raise a voice against deeper issues like the number of
children to have (the team met many women waiting for sons even after having a number of children
especially if all the previous ones were daughters), higher education opportunities and marriage age of
girls. This indicates that their voice regarding deep structural issues is not yet very strong.
Conclusion: There have been many changes in the capacity of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities
and the Hardcore poor to recognise their issues and have a voice. The improvement is across social
groups, poverty groups and women/men of different backgrounds. The shifts in before and after
MEDEP responses are remarkable. Despite this, there is a gap in the ability of these groups to ensure
that their enterprises are of a more profitable nature, that they can negotiate further with family for
dedicated time to manage enterprises more professionally and for decision making power regarding
their reproductive health. The time invested to prepare micro-entrepreneurs requires a considerable
period especially when working with a social group which has been historically disadvantaged, is
voiceless and almost asset less. The social mobilisation process and the training provided by MEDEP
has achieved much but would achieve much more if components to address deeply embedded structural
issues like gender based violence and caste based discrimination, were integrated and dealt with at each
step (refer Annex 12 on GESI review of MEDPA Operational Guidelines for details on possible ways
to do this).
4.3.10 Recommendations for voice and ability to influence domain
The data presented in this chapter indicate many positive changes, which is excellent. Hence all the
measures being taken by MEDEP need to continue. Alongwith them a few changes would result in
improved empowerment of women and the excluded.
-
Trainings were found to be largely limited to technical issues. Trainings on gender empowerment,
institutionalisation and capacity building were found to be inadequate. These need to be
improved.
-
There exists a need to provide training for gender empowerment to both women and men as many
times even when women are aware of their rights, their men at times do not support them. To
overcome this deep rooted patriarchal mindset, more gender sensitisation trainings for both
spouses is required.
-
Time poverty was found to be still high among the women entrepreneurs despite the increased
support of family for household tasks. This suggests that more creative ways are required for
managing reproductive work and also more advocacy with men and family members for better
sharing of work.
-
Gender related training was also found to be equally essential for other stakeholders, particularly
the government counterparts such as officials of DEDIC and DDC.
87
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
-
As networking and participation in various meetings/forums was found to be an effective method
of learning, exposure and capacity building, the learning sharing forums should be initiated and
institutionalized. Mechanisms for learning from each others’ experiences and success stories
need to be established and regularly held.
-
There has to be a sufficient lag period between the first training and selection of enterprise. As
most of the target population are going to be the entrepreneurs for the first time in their lives,
they need more incubation period to think, reflect and decide. This time is also vital for the
necessary negotiations within family and with community especially for women so that they can
select enterprises which can have higher profit.
-
Integration of gender issues in social mobilisation would further enhance the possibilities of the
women micro-entrepreneurs growth. MEDEP has clear targeting but assessment of the capacity
of women and men to influence and make service providers related with their micro-enterprises
accountable is not explicitly assessed or addressed. With specific measures to address the precise
issues of the different social groups, would facilitate their social mobilisation empowerment.
-
Extra effort and additional incentives/support system is needed to cater to the needs of pro-poor,
women and Dalits. For instance, women with small children and no support for child care are
bound to experience higher difficulties than others. The extreme poor cannot afford to attend
seven days long training programmes as they struggle for survival. This is a complex situation
which many development projects struggle with. But if this target group is to be engaged in the
programme, some practical measures, suitable to the context, need to be developed in
consultation with the poor and other stakeholders.
4.4 Changes in the Rules of the Game
CHANGING
RULES OF
THE GAME
Knowledge of rights and entitlements is a key element of building
the capability of individuals and particularly for those who are poor
and excluded. The study was interested to assess whether the mode
of delivery of MEDEP was transformative through building the
capacity of the poor and excluded to know about their rights, to
address discriminatory social practices and violence and to
contribute to micro-enterprise related policy formulation. It also
assessed the shifts in the decision making power of women.
Changing the rules of the game requires: 1) knowledge of what entitlements there are; 2) there is
capacity to act upon this knowledge and to drive through changes; and 3) there are responsive people
and institutions prepared to listen, act and respond with changes to the rules of the game. This section
assesses the impact of MEDEP on the engagement of the target group in policy formulation (which is
indicative of a shift in the mindset of policy makers and positions the people as partners) and shifts in
discriminatory social practices, violence and decision making power of women. Differences in
responses of treatment and control groups have been understood to be indicative of MEDEP's
contribution.
4.4.1
88
Knowledge and participation in policy formulation
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
There were 87.7 percent of programme respondents who responded in the affirmative about knowledge
required for becoming a micro-entrepreneur. The lowest number of responses were from the Terai
Janajati group at 79 percent and highest by hill Brahman/Chhetri at 93 percent. Above 90 percent of all
other social groups also responded positively indicating a high level of knowledge regarding microentrepreneur related criteria.
A higher percentage of men (92%) were better informed than women (85%). Amongst both women and
men, the least informed were the Terai Janajati women and men but both Muslim and hill Dalit men
were well informed. Also Hardcore poor at 90 percent were better informed than the non-Hardcore poor
at 87 percent.
There were 36 percent who were consulted during the development of micro-enterprise plans in
districts/VDC. Highest responses were of hill Dalit at 51 percent and hill Brahman/Chhetri group at
48.7 percent and the lowest of Other Madhesi Caste group at zero percent. Other responses included
Muslims at 40 percent, Hill Indigenous at 31.4 percent, Terai Janajati at 16.9 percent and Madhesi Dalit
at nine percent, indicating the lowest participation of Madhesi Dalits in such processes.
Thirty percent women and 53 percent men were consulted. No Muslim and Other Madhesi Caste group
women were included, only six percent Madhesi Dalit women were consulted. Highest number of
women participating in such discussions were from Brahman/Chhetri social group. Amongst men, the
lowest inclusion was of Terai Janajati and Madhesi Dalit (at 20% and 25%) and highest of Muslim men
at 67 percent, followed by 64 percent Brahman /Chhetri men.
Forty percent non Hardcore and 19 percent Hardcore poor were included in such discussions. Both
Hardcore and non Hardcore Other Madhesi Caste group and Muslims were not consulted. Eighty-two
percent non Hardcore Brahman/Chhetri were consulted.
Twenty-two percent stated that they were consulted while preparing rules and regulations of microenterprise organisations in districts/VDC. Highest participation was of Brahman/Chhetri group at 37.2
percent. Muslims and Other Madhesi Caste groups were not consulted at all while Madhesi Dalits were
consulted only minimally at 1.8 percent. Hill Dalit groups at 31.6 percent, Hill Janajati at 13.5 percent
and Terai Janajati at 5.6 percent participated.
Thirty-four percent men and 17 percent women were consulted. No Other Madhesi Caste group, Muslim
and Terai Janajati women and men were consulted. 55 percent Brahman/Chhetri men, followed by 37.5
hill Dalit men and only eight percent Madhesi Dalit men were included in such discussions. Amongst
women also it was women of Brahman/Chhetri group whose participation was highest at 30 percent,
hill Dalit women (27 percent) Hill Janajati women at 11 percent. Twenty-three percent non Hardcore
and 16 percent Hardcore participated, amongst them 40 percent non-Hardcore Brahman/Chhetri and 28
percent Hardcore Brahman/Chhetri, 35 percent non Hardcore poor hill Dalits and 13 percent Hardcore
hill Dalits got the opportunity to participate in such policy formulation discussions.
The above data indicates that there was only a small percentage which could participate in the various
level of enterprise related policy formulations and of those who got this opportunity, selected social
groups were at an advantage. There was disparity within the people who could influence such policy
level rules.
4.4.2
Changes in social practices
89
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Various social practices followed by women and men in the community and within families are
discriminatory and constrain the development of women, poor and the excluded. This section presents
findings regarding the changes in such social practices.
Ninety-eight percent of the respondents of the control group stated that there has been a decrease in the
practice of women having to do parda (veiling); 91 percent respondents said that there was decrease in
child marriage, 80 percent believed that the practice of menstrual exclusion (Chhaupadi, a social
tradition practiced mainly in Western part of Nepal which prohibits women from participating in
normal family activities during menstruation) had decreased. Only 46 percent stated that the practice
of dowry has decreased. Some respondents believed the practices had increased: dowry (30.5%
respondents thought so), child marriage (4%), chhaupadi (3%), parda (2%). More than 95 percent of
the respondents of the treatment group stated that all the social practices (chhaupadi, child marriage,
parda) had decreased except dowry (which only 64.5% respondents said had decreased). The number
of respondents of the treatment group who believed that there had been an increase in such practices
was lower than the control group respondents, except for the practice of dowry, which they believed
had become even more widespread.
Figure 4.61 Status of change in social practices (in percent)
95
95
80
98
97
91
65
46
32
31
17
0
5
3
3
2
4
5
1
1
2
0
23
Increased
Decreased
No change
4
Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control
Chhaupadi
Child marriage
Parda
Dowry
Source: Field Survey, 2014
4.4.3
Mobility
Mobility constraints for women has reduced. In case of micro-enterprise related requirements or if
related with the care of children, women are not constrained anymore in their movement. But women's
movement is still controlled and they need the permission of the men and other family members in case
of any movement which has not been previously approved by the family. Girls are still not allowed to
attend secondary schools when these are at a distance from their homes.
Social restrictions: For 94 percent of respondents, there has been decrease in social restrictions, while
five percent reported no change and one percent said it has increased. The highest decrease in social
restriction has been reported by Terai Indigenous (98.5%) followed by hill Dalits (98%) with none
reporting of increase in such restriction. Other caste/ethnic groups have reported some increment in
social restrictions with highest increase reported by the Muslims (20%). While 96 percent women and
89 percent men reported decrease in social restriction, about one percent women and three percent men
reported increase in such restrictions. Among women, the highest reduction in social restriction was
reported by Muslim women (100%) followed by Terai Indigenous women (98.4%) and Hill Dalit
women (98.2%). 95 percent of non-hardcore poor and 90 percent hardcore poor reported decreased
90
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
social restrictions, with one percent each sharing increase and eight percent of hardcore poor and four
percent of non-hardcore poor reporting no change in social restriction.
Control Group: For 82 percent of respondents, there has been decrease in social restrictions, while
about 18 percent reported no change and about one percent said it has increased. The highest decrease
in social restriction was reported by Other Madhesi Caste (100%), while 70–87 percent of remaining
groups reported decrease with only Madhesi Dalits (7%) reporting increase. While 84 percent women
and 79 percent men reported decrease in social restrictions, about one percent women and no men
reported increase in such restrictions. 81 percent of non-hardcore poor and 84 percent hardcore poor
reported decreased social restriction, with one hardcore poor and none of non-hardcore poor sharing.
4.4.4
Changes in women's decision making power
Decision making capacity of women, including those of disadvantaged groups, has increased together
with financial independence and high exposure (refer section 4.3). Level of respect and response women
receive within the household and in the community has improved after they became micro-entrepreneurs
- they receive respect (man-samman and are addressed as entrepreneur (an udhyami)as someone's wife or
mother. As women no longer have to be dependent on their husband for petty household expenses, they
have started taking decisions regarding minor issues. However, for major decisions, they still are
dependent on their husbands though there have been major shifts.
Sale and purchase of livestock
Majority (77%) women responses were that women’s decision making was very low (35%) and low
(43%) before MEDEP. This changed to only five percent very low and seven percent low after MEDEP.
While only one percent and five percent had said high and very high before, after MEDEP 52 percent
women responses were high and 36 percent very high.
Figure 4.62 Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock by caste ethnicity (in %)
Very low
77
Low
High
Very High
75
63
60
52
46
42
43
38
B
19
9
5
A
Hill Dalit
0
B
42
35
33
40 4040
2
2
A
B
6
9
8
0
A
B
2
0
A
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
43
4040
38
20
21
22
13
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
52
47
45
32
19
8
0
36
34
29
19
49
46
B
25
20
36
35
21
77
0
A
Hill BC
B
0
0
A
Muslims
0
B
1
00
A
Other
Madhesi
Caste
57
B
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
91
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.63 Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock by sex and by poverty
(in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
65
52
52
52
45
43
39
36
35 31
30
36
43
42
37
36
35
52
49
49
39
36
35
25
24
21
21
21
18
18
12
9
5
2
1
B
A
Female
7
5
54
B
A
Male
3
1
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
B
56
5
57
1
1
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 61 for details.
Highest change was among the Other Madhesi Caste, from about 75 percent to zero percent saying low
before and after MEDEP, and from 25 percent to 62.5 percent high and with zero to 37.5 percent stating
very high before and after MEDEP. 45 percent women had said very low and 46 percent low. This
changed to 54 percent high and 34 percent very high after MEDEP. Only about 2 percent hardcore poor
and one percent non-hardcore poor said very high which changed to 76 percent high and 10 percent
very high for hardcore poor and 51 percent high and 38 percent very high for non-hardcore poor. Before
MEDEP more than 80 percent women said very low and low which changed to 86 percent high and
very high after MEDEP. Similarly, more than 70 percent hardcore poor and non-hardcore poor said
very low and low which changed to more than 80 percent hardcore poor and non-hardcore poor saying
high and very high after MEDEP.
Purchase of house
Before MEDEP 34 percent women shared very low, 39 shared low, 25 percent high and about two
percent very high which changed to only six percent and eight percent very low and low respectively,
and 50 percent and 37 percent high and very high respectively.
92
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.64 Change in women's decision making on purchase of house by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
57
54
50
48
50
48
42
39
38
34
36
34
32
31
37
34
25
40
41
34
27
23
23
39
36
39
37
34
25
22
14
9
6
3
1
B
A
Female
8
6
55
B
2
A
Male
B
1
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
68
67
B
2
1
A
Hard Core
B
2
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 62 for details.
Among the caste/ethnic groups, more than 50 percent of all groups said very low and low decision
making power, which changed to more than 60 percent high and very high after MEDEP. Similarly
about 76 percent women said very low and low to 85 percent high and very high after MEDEP.
Surprisingly, the decision making was relatively more for hard-core poor (41%) as high than nonhardcore poor (22%) which changed to 57 percent and 48 percent as high for hardcore and non-hardcore
poor respectively.
Food for family members
In comparison to other indicators, women had more negotiating power while deciding about food for
family members as before MEDEP 39 percent said high and 4.5 very high which changed to 45 percent
as high and 52 percent very high after MEDEP.
93
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.65 Change in women's decision making on food for family members by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
63
55
51
46
47
52
56
55
52
45
43
42
39
35
37
37
38
36
21
19
4
1
B
A
Female
21
18
5
3
39
35
34
29
22
45
5
11
B
A
Male
5
12
B
0
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
21
B
21
4
3
A
Hard Core
B
5
12
A
Non Hard Core
12
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 63 for details.
Comparatively, hill Dalits’ decision making has improved as 25 percent said very low and 49 percent
low which changed to 1.4 percent and zero percent low after MEDEP. None of the respondents said
very high, this changed to about 61 percent after MEDEP. Before MEDEP about 59 percent women
said very low and low which changed to 96 percent high and very high after MEDEP.
With regards to the poverty cluster, MEDEP’s interventions seem to have made better impact for the
non-hardcore poor compared to hardcore poor. The responses have changed from five percent very high
for hardcore poor to 34 percent and from four percent to 56 percent very high for non-hardcore poor.
Health treatment
Twenty percent responses were that women's decision making was very low before MEDEP. This
shifted to only 0.2 percent after MEDEP. Only 3.6 percent had said very high before MEDEP - this
changed to 52 percent after MEDEP. 36.3 percent had said high, this changed to 45 percent after
MEDEP; 40 percent who had said low changed to 2.5 percent.
94
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.66 Change in women's decision making on health treatment by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
59
54
52
36
36
38
39
33
28
35
30
52
51
48
4849
46
45
45
4040
3537
22
19
63
60
58
51
75
Very High
40
36
38
20
20
20
25
20
16
0
0
B
6
3
A
4
2
B
Hill Dalit
4
4
0
A
B
Madhesi
Dalit
3
0
A
0
B
6
3
01
A
B
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
0
A
0
B
Hill BC
0
A
0
B
Muslims
4
00
A
0
B
Other
Madhesi
Caste
3
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.67 Change in women's decision making health treatment by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
71
57
43
40
36
3
0
B
A
Female
4
02
B
A
Male
3
03
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
27
20
6
3
B
40
40
36
39
38
20
18
52
45
40
36
39
37
21
52
52
47
54
20
Hard Core
40
36
20
4
11
A
45
B
0
4
3
A
Non Hard Core
03
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 64 for details.
95
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Highest change is among the hill Dalits, from 30 percent to zero percent saying very low before and
after MEDEP, and from zero to 52 percent stating very high before and after MEDEP. 21 percent
women had said very low and 40 percent low. This changed to 43 percent high and 54 percent very high
after MEDEP. For hardcore poor, it changed from 20 percent very low and 39 percent low to 71 percent
high and 27 percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 20 percent
very low and 40 percent low to 40 percent high to 57 percent very high after MEDEP.
Number of children
Twenty-six percent responses were that women's decision making was very low before MEDEP. This
shifted to 4.5 percent after MEDEP. Twelve percent had said very high before MEDEP - this changed
to 47 percent after MEDEP. Twenty-six percent had said high, this changed to 42 percent after MEDEP;
37 percent who had said low changed to seven percent.
Figure 4.68 Change in women's decision making on number of children by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
55
50
49
47
4346
42
38
36
27
25
23
38
37
13
7
Female
26
B
A
Male
37
26 26
24
13
12
1010
7
5
B
7
5
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
25
12
68
4
A
30
27
42
40
38
39
26 26
26
12
B
47
B
7
5
4
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 65 for details.
More than 55 percent of all caste/ ethnic groups said very low and low which changed to more than 75
percent high and very high except for Muslims. In case of Muslims 60 percent have very low, 20 percent
low, 20 percent high and none said very high. After MEDEP, this which changed to zero percent very
low, 60 percent low, 40 percent high and still no very high. 26.5 percent women had said very low and
36 percent low. This changed to only four percent very low and seven percent low. Similarly, about 25
percent said high and 12 percent very high, which changed to 43 percent high and 46 percent very high.
About 30 percent hardcore poor said very low and 27 low which changed to 55 percent high and 26
96
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
percent very high. Similarly, 25 percent non-hardcore poor said low and 38 percent low which changed
to 40 percent high and 50 percent very high. This reflects better impact on non-hardcore poor compared
to hardcore poor.
Use of family planning methods
Before MEDEP, women’s decision making power on the use of family planning methods was as
follows: 27 percent very low, 28 percent low, 33 percent high and 12 percent very high. This remarkably
changed to 51 percent very high, 42 percent high and only six percent low and one percent very low.
Figure 4.69 Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device by caste ethnicity (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
60
62
57
53
44
34
31
30 30
50
47
50
49
45
37
35
32
32
30
21
12
51
50 50
42
33
32
33
28
27
27
23
19
14
50
40
40
29
17
60
22
17
13
12
8
2
B
4
0
A
Hill Dalit
B
2
0
A
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
B
2
A
Hill
Indigenous
2
B
6
12
0
A
Terai
Indigenous
B
A
Hill BC
00
B
0
0
A
Muslims
0
B
1
0 0
A
Other
Madhesi
Caste
B
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
97
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.70 Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device by sex and by poverty
(in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
55
42
37
13
7
2
0
A
Female
32
27
Male
13
B
12
6
5
2
1
A
33
28
27
33
29
26
11
6
4
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
33
12
11
42
40
33
33
28
27
28
25
B
51
4748
41
31
29
27
54
51
52
B
6
1
1
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 66 for details.
More than 43 percent of all caste/ ethnic groups said their decision making power was very low and
low which changed to more than 80 percent for all after MEDEP except Muslims and Other Madhesi
Caste. In case of Muslims 40 percent have very low and 60 percent low which changed to 40 percent
low and 60 percent high. While in case of Other Madhesi Caste, 33 percent very low and 17 percent
low shifted to 50 percent low and 50 percent high to 50 percent very high after MEDEP. Twenty-seven
percent women said had very low and 29 percent low decision making power which changed to 41
percent high and 52 percent very high. Thirty-three percent hardcore poor had very low and 27 percent
low and 26 percent non-hardcore poor had very low and 29 percent low. This changed to 55 percent
high and 32 percent very high for hardcore poor and 40 percent high and 54 percent very high for nonhardcore poor.
Children's education
Before MEDEP, women’s decision making power was as follows: 51 percent very low (20%) and low
(31%) and 49 percent high (28.4%) and very high (20.2%). This changed to 95 percent high (44%) and
very high (51%) and only five percent very low and low (3%).
98
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.71 Change in women's decision making on children's education by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
53
Very High
53
52
51
51
51
45
45
44
45
43
41
34
34
33
31
28
31
28
31
28
30
27
2223 21
20
20
20
21
20
21
20
20
20
14
4
0
B
A
Female
B
A
Male
5
4
1
22
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
3
2
B
4
1
0
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 67 for details.
Highest change is among the Terai Indigenous from 28 percent to zero percent saying very low before
and after MEDEP, and from two percent to 56 percent stating very high before and after MEDEP.
Twenty percent women had said very low and 34 percent low. This changed to 45 percent high and 51
percent very high after MEDEP.
For hardcore poor, it changed from 21 percent very low and 34 percent low to 52 percent high and 41
percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 20 percent very low and
31 percent low to 43 percent high and 53 percent very high after MEDEP. These reflect that the
population who earlier had very low and low power got changed to high and very high.
Religious and social functions
Thirty-one percent responses were that women's decision making was very low before MEDEP. This
shifted to only one percent after MEDEP. Only 2.3 percent had said very high before MEDEP - this
changed to 35 percent after MEDEP. Fifteen percent had said high, this changed to 55 percent after
MEDEP; 52 percent who had said low changed to nine percent.
99
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.72 Change in women's decision making on religious and social functions by caste ethnicity (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
86
Very High
86
68
61
51
46
41
58
54
50
41
34
26
4
1
B
7
4
0
A
B
Hill Dalit
A
B
Madhesi
Dalit
0
A
0
B
14
15
14
5
3
A
0
B
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
20
9
5
1
0
35
31
16
18
11
6
4040
20
17
12
4040
37 33
28
28
27
55
52
49
38
11
54
53
0
A
0
0
B
Hill BC
0
A
00
B
Muslims
2
A
1
B
Other
Madhesi
Caste
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Figure 4.73 Change in women's decision making on religious and social functions by sex and by poverty
(in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
68
59
54
52
36 33
30
55
52
51
31
53
52
55
52
38
35
32
31
35
31
27
16
10
2
Female
2
B
2
A
Male
Refer Annex 68 for details.
15
15
9
3
1
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
13 18
9
8
2
A
18
15
14
0
B
100
53
B
2
1
A
Hard Core
B
A
Non Hard Core
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
9
2
1
1
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
More than 60 percent of all caste/ ethnic groups had very low and low decision making power which
changed to more than 70 percent high and very high after MEDEP. 30 percent women had said very
low and 52 percent low. This changed to 54 percent high and 36 percent very high after MEDEP. For
hardcore poor, it changed from 27 percent very low and 53 percent low to 68 percent high and 18
percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 32 percent very low and
52 percent low to 53 percent high to 38 percent very high after MEDEP.
Investment of asset
Thirty-eight percent responses were that women's decision making was very low before MEDEP. This
shifted to only two percent after MEDEP. Only two percent had said very high before MEDEP - this
changed to 35 percent after MEDEP. Fifteen percent had said high, this changed to 54 percent after
MEDEP; 46 percent who had said low changed to nine percent.
Figure 4.74 Change in women's decision making on investment of assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
64
56
53
46
44
38
35
35
46
45
39
38
35
54
52
51
47
37
54
38
38
35
32
21
15
15
14
9
1
A
Female
2
2
B
A
Male
15
15
8
3
2
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
12
9
8
3
2
B
15
B
3
2
A
Hard Core
B
9
2
2
2
A
Non Hard Core
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 69 for details.
More than 60 percent of all caste/ethnic groups had very low and low decision making power which
changed to more than 80 percent high and very high after MEDEP, with highest change in other
Madhesi Caste (100% low changed to 86% high and 14% very high). Thirty-seven percent women had
said very low and 47 percent low. This changed to 53 percent high and 35 percent very high after
MEDEP. For hardcore poor, it changed from 32 percent very low and 51 percent low to 64 percent high
and 21 percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 39 percent very
low and 45 percent low to 52 percent high to 38 percent very high after MEDEP.
101
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Household assets
Similar to the above indicator, 37 percent responses were that women's decision making was very low
before MEDEP. This shifted to only one percent after MEDEP. Only one percent had said very high
before MEDEP - this changed to 39 percent after MEDEP. 16 percent had said high, this changed to 53
percent after MEDEP; 46 percent who had said low changed to seven percent.
Figure 4.75 Change in women's decision making regarding household assets by caste ethnicity (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
100
67
65
60
54
51
49
45
48
45
38
37
33
33
47
45
42
37
51
53
50
45
46
4040
35
39
37
33
20
22
21
15
12
11
0
B
1
4
A
Hill Dalit
0
B
0
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
102
2
A
20
22
14
B
8
2
0
A
B
7
0
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
16
12
3
A
20
B
13
A
Hill BC
0
B
0
0
A
Muslims
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
0
B
1
00 0
A
Other
Madhesi
Caste
1
B
A
All
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.76 Change in women's decision making regarding household assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
68
53
37
46
45
43
39
37
36
53
50
50
46
44
37
53
52
46
42
38
39
37
31
22
16
17
16
17
9
1
2
1
B
A
Female
2
B
1
A
Male
3
1
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
16
9
7
5
16
B
7
1
1
A
Hard Core
B
7
1
1
A
Non Hard Core
1
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 70 for details.
More than 60 percent of all caste/ethnic groups had very low and low decision making power which
changed to more than 80 percent high and very high after MEDEP. Thirty-seven percent women had
said very low and 46 percent low. This changed to 53 percent high and 37 percent very high after
MEDEP. For hardcore poor, it changed from 31 percent very low and 50 percent low to 68 percent high
and 22 percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 38 percent very
low and 45 percent low to 50 percent high to 42 percent very high after MEDEP.
Business assets
Forty-four percent responses were that women’s decision making was very low, 41 percent low, 13
percent high and two percent very high before MEDEP. This shifted to only one percent low, seven
percent low, 44 percent high and 48 percent very high. Thus, MEDEP interventions have had a major
effect under this indicator.
103
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.77 Change in women's decision making related with business assets by sex and by poverty (in
percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
62
55
52
46
44
45
40
4442
40
48
44
44
41
47
46
41
40
48
44
44
41
35
27
8
2
B
2
0
A
Female
B
A
Male
3
1
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
13
12
9
7
5
3
2
15
13
13
12
B
7
3
2
A
Hard Core
B
7
2
1
A
Non Hard Core
1
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 71 for details.
Highest change is among the hill Dalits from 53 percent to zero percent saying very low before and
after MEDEP, and from one percent to 65 percent stating very high before and after MEDEP. 44 percent
women had said very low and 42 percent low. This changed to 46 percent high and 45 percent very high
after MEDEP. For hardcore poor, it changed from 35 percent very low and 47 percent low to 62 percent
high and 27 percent very high after MEDEP; and for non-hardcore poor, it changed from 46 percent
very low and 40 percent low to 41 percent high and 52 percent very high after MEDEP.
The decision making of women regarding use of labour and their wages was before MEDEP very low
(46% very low and 45% low). After MEDEP this changed to 52 percent high and 37 percent very high.
104
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.78 Change in women's decision making on use of labour by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
61
53
52
50
47
45
45
42
43
4645
52
51
51
4546
43
4645
38
37
37
34
24
12
10
7
3
1
1
B
A
5
2
1
B
Female
A
4
42
A
B
Both
1
A
Hard Core
10
8
1
1
B
A
1
B
Non Hard Core
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
10
8
1
B
Male
12
10
8
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 72 for details.
Figure 4.79 Change in women's decision making on wage of labour by caste ethnicity (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
Very High
100
75
68
60
56
59
55
49
44
25
6
B
0
33
A
Hill Dalit
6
B
A
Madhesi
Dalit
Source: Field Survey, 2014
B
8
25
22
7
0 0
A
B
34
30
16
2 1
54
4544
40
37
25
21 19
2 0
4745
40
38
21 21
48
63
60
59
52
A
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
B
1 1
4
A
Hill BC
13
0
0 00 0
B
0
A
Muslims
25
0 0
B
A
Other
Madhesi
Caste
10
10
1 1
B
A
All
Note: B: Before, A: After, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
105
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.80 Change in women's decision making on wage of labour by sex and by poverty (in percent)
Very low
Low
High
56
54
46
45
Very High
54
47
12
1
B
12
7
3
1
A
Female
Male
42
1
B
A
Both
By Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2014
11
10
9
1
A
13
10
10
2
B
38
34
34
9
4544
44 44
43
36
54
51
52
4544
39
76
B
2
1
A
Hard Core
B
34
10
10
1
1
A
Non Hard Core
1
B
A
All
By Poverty
Note: B: Before, A: After
Refer Annex 73 for details.
4.4.5
Labour, access and control profile
The results of the labour, access and control discussions facilitated with the women and men
entrepreneurs indicated some findings which were different from the survey findings. Household work
was identified as completely the women's domain. Women's decision making was restricted to the
household and children's small expenses. Larger expenses were not where women could influence
strongly, ultimately the men made the final decision. There had been shifts since women became
entrepreneurs with men helping when needed and women being able to move around for enterprise
related tasks.
4.4.6
Work-burden and time poverty
The traditional division of labour with women being responsible for the private and men for the public
domain is still widely prevalent. Household work is primarily the women's responsibility and becoming
an entrepreneur has not necessarily changed that, even though there has been an increase in the support
of men for such tasks (see section 4.3). There are slight changes in responsibility with women also going
for meetings, when in case of need the husbands help out in some social groups e.g. the Janajatis where
traditionally there was less of a divide about these activities but in most cases it is accepted that women
will manage all their household responsibilities and then work on the micro-enterprise related tasks. If
there would be a high impact on the household responsibilities because of the enterprise, the women
would be forced to leave the micro-enterprise.
106
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Production work of enterprises which are women's are completely done by women. This is of course
required as it also helps them to learn the business and improve their skill. But in one example in
Mahottari, the women were also helping the men in their enterprise e.g. for making ice-cream, the
ingredients had to be prepared at home before it was brought to the CFC for setting in moulds. The
women were doing all this work (it was taken for granted that they would do all that was needed at
home), in fact the women were appreciating that the men were keeping awake nights since due to loadshedding the setting could only be done at night! This indicates the deeply held belief about gender
based division of labour is still strong with the community.
MEDEP has not yet been able to devise ways to ensure that these mind-sets would be revised.
Unconsciously changes are occurring but the multiple responsibilities and time poverty do push women
into enterprises which can be handled in the left over "leisure" time that they have.
Time pressure
49 percent responses said that time pressure has decreased and 17 percent shared there has been no
change while 34 percent said that it has increased. For all caste/ ethnic groups, time pressure has
increased by some percentage (14–52%). The highest increase in time pressure has been reported by
hill Dalit (52%) and the highest decrease in time pressure has been reported by terai Indigenous (83%).
50percent of women responded decreased time pressure, 15 percent said no change while 35 percent
shared increased time pressure. Forty-five percent of hardcore poor and 50 percent of non-hardcore
poor reported decreased time pressure, 37 percent hardcore poor and 13 percent non-hardcore poor
reported no change and 18 percent hardcore poor and 37 percent non-hardcore poor reported increased
time pressure.
Figure 4.81 Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste/ethnicity and sex
100
Increased
Decreased
81
80
86
83
Same
67
57
54
50
44
39
42
4038
30
22
19
18
13
F
Hill Dalit
35
32
2827
20
47
33
50
35
33
15
14
49
34
21
18
15
14
17
8
0
M
5050
47
45
M
F
3
0
M
F
M
F
Madhesi
Hill
Terai
Dalit
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
0
M
F
Hill BC
M
0 0
F
Muslims
0
0
M
F
Other
Madhesi
Caste
M
F
Total
Both
All
Note: M: Male, F: Female
107
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.82 Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty
Increased
Decreased
Same
100
100
88
82
80
72
71
53 55
48
48
33
41
37
36
30
26
HC
NHC
Hill Dalit
38
37 37
2930
0
2
HC
NHC
Madhesi
Dalit
0
HC
NHC
HC
16
20
16
34
18
13
10
2
NHC
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
49
29
13
0
50
45
22
13
8
52
HC
NHC
Hill BC
000
0
0 0
0
HC
NHC
HC
NHC
Muslims
Other
Madhesi
Caste
HC
17
NHC Both
Total
All
Note: HC: Hardcore poor, NHC: Non-hardcore poor
Refer Annex 74 for details.
Control Group
49.5 percent responses said that time pressure had decreased and 38 percent shared there had been no
change while 12.5 percent said that it had increased. For all caste/ethnic groups, time pressure had
increased by some percentage (4–27%). The highest increase in time pressure was reported by terai
Indigenous (27%) and the highest decrease in time pressure was reported by Other Madhesi Caste
(71%). Fifty percent of women responded decreased time pressure, 35 percent said no change while 15
percent shared incresed time pressure. Thirty-seven percent of hardcore poor and 55 percent of nonhardcore poor reported decreased time pressure, 51 percent hardcore poor and 33 percent non-hardcore
poor reported no change and 13 percent hardcore poor and 12 percent non-hardcore poor reported
increased time pressure.
108
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Figure 4.83 Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP by caste ethnicity and poverty (Control)
100
Increased
70
Decreased
67
65
Same
70
64
60
58
46
42
30
33
5050
42
37
NHC
Hill Dalit
0
HC
38
33
20 20
0
NHC
Madhesi
Dalit
HC
0
NHC
HC
NHC
Hill
Terai
Indigenous Indigenous
Source: Field Survey, 2014
13
12
12
HC
50
37
21 21 21
18 18
4
40
55
30
26
4
51
48
HC
NHC
Hill BC
000
000
0 0
HC
NHC
HC
Muslims
NHC
Other
Madhesi
Caste
12
HC
13
NHC Both
Total
All
Note: HC: Hardcore poor, NHC: Non-hardcore poor, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
Refer Annex 75 for details.
4.4.7
Gender based violence
Gender based violence has reduced across all the areas visited. People shared that the incidences of
GBV are high when men remain unemployed for an extended period of time. Now, as men have either
gone away for foreign employment or are engaged in enterprises, the cases of GBV are less. Women’s
income increase and contribution to household expenses has also supported the decrease in domestic
violence. There are however other forms of violence such as women trafficking and forcing the women
to go to gulf countries for employment. These are considered to be easier means of income earning.
Across interviews and meetings, the study team discovered that the micro-entrepreneurs were not
informed about the different policy provisions and response mechanisms that Government of Nepal has
established to address GBV. In Sunsari where the Women and Children Office has the "Women's
Shelter Home", Nepal Police has its "Women and Children Service Centre", district hospital has its
"One-Stop crisis Management Centre", there had not been any initiative taken to link the women with
these and at least inform them so that they could access the support if needed. It was similar in other
districts.
Physical torture: Majority – 97 percent of responses reported decrease in physical torture, with two
percent reporting increase and 1 percent no change. The highest progress has been reported by hill
Dalits with 99 percent reporting decrease followed by terai – Indigenous (98.5%) and hill BC (98%)
with no reporting. Though 98 percent of Madhesi Dalits also reported decrease, two percent shared
increase in such habits. The lowest progress has been noticed among Muslims – 80 percent decrease
and 20 percent increase in physical torture. 93 percent of hardcore poor and 98 percent of non-hardcore
109
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
poor reported decrease and one percent hardcore poor and two percent non-hardcore poor reported
increase in physical torture.
Control Group: Majority – 96 percent of responses reported decrease in physical torture, with three
percent reporting increase and 1 percent no change. The highest progress has been reported by hill
Dalits and Other Madhesi Caste with 100 percent reporting decrease followed by hill BC (98.5%) and
hill indigenous (97%) with highest increase reported by Madhesi Dalits (15%). While 100 percent of
men reported decreased, 94 percent women reported decrease with four percent increase. Ninety-three
percent of hardcore poor and 98 percent of non-hardcore poor reported decrease and seven percent
hardcore poor and one percent non-hardcore poor reported increase in physical torture.
Psychological/ mental torture: Similar to physical torture, 97 percent of responses reported decrease
in psychological/ mental torture, with two percent reporting increase and one percent no change. The
highest progress has been seen among the hill Dalits with 99 percent reporting decrease in such practice,
with no increase reported. The other caste/ethnic groups reported some increase in such practice with
highest increase reported by the Muslims (20%). Ninety-seven percent of women reported decrease and
two percent reported increase in mental torture. Hardcore poor reported lower decrease (94% vs. 97.5%
non-hardcore poor) and increase (1% vs. 2% non-hardcore poor).
Control Group: Ninety-five percent of responses reported decrease in psychological/mental torture,
with four percent reporting increase and one percent no change. The highest progress has been seen
among the hill and Madhesi Dalits and Other Madhesi Caste with 100 percent reporting decrease in
such practice, with highest increase reported by the terai Indigenous (14%). Ninety-three percent of
women reported decrease and five percent reported increase in mental torture. Hardcore poor reported
lower decrease (92% vs. 96% non-hardcore poor) and higher increase (8% vs. 2% non-hardcore poor).
Verbal abuse: Ninety-seven percent of responses shared that verbal abuse decreased, with two percent
responded increase and one percent no change. 100 percent of Other Madhesi Caste reported decrease
in verbal abuse. Among the Dalits, 99 percent hill Dalits reported decrease and one percent increase
and 96 percent decrease and four percent increase in verbal abuse. The highest increase has been
reported by Muslims (20%). Ninety-seven percent of women reported decrease and two percent
reported increase in verbal abuse. Ninety-four percent and 97 percent of hardcore and non-hardcore
poor respectively reported decrease and one percent and two percent hardcore poor and non-hardcore
poor respectively reported increase in verbal abuse.
Control Group: Ninety-five percent of responses shared that verbal abuse decreased, with four percent
responded increase and one percent no change. Hundred percent of Other Madhesi Caste reported
decrease in verbal abuse. Among the Dalits, 98 percent hill Dalits reported decrease and no increase
and 81 percent of Madhesi Dalits reported decrease and 19 percent (highest among all) increase in
verbal abuse. Ninety-two percent of women reported decrease and five percent reported increase in
verbal abuse. Ninety-two percent and 96 percent of hardcore and non-hardcore poor respectively
reported decrease and eight percent and two percent hardcore poor and non-hardcore poor respectively
reported increase in verbal abuse.
4.4.8
Caste/language based discrimination
Untouchability aspects have not been directly addressed by MEDEP but there have been some
interventions to mix the groups or promte enterprises by Dalits in the dairy sector (e.g. in Salyan). The
level of discrimination has decreased overall due to the changed context of Nepal but it still exists and
110
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
impacts the enterprise selection of Dalits. In Kailali it was shared that members of mixed social groups,
work closely with Dalits. Beekeepers use same extractor and equipment to process honey without any
caste discrimination and that these have occurred after MEDEP. Language issues of Indigenous
Nationalities and Madhesis have not been adequately considered - training and all services are in Nepali
language.
Conclusion: MEDEP has been able to contribute to some important shifts in the prevalent socio-cultural
practices that discriminate against women and other excluded groups. In particular for women, the
ability to earn has made a difference in their ability to negotiate within home and in their status within
their community. This has resulted in improved behaviour towards them of family and community
members and a reduction in domestic violence.
MEDEP has adopted a targeted approach and due to that has been successful in reaching to the most
needy. Once these women and men come into the MEDEP fold there is no explicit intervention to
address socio-cultural barriers or gender/caste-based violence which can take different forms and which
impact the development of their micro-enterprises.
4.4.9
Recommendations for the Rules of the Game domain
Due to the changes in the socio-political context of Nepal, there have been major differences in this
domain. For the MEDEP beneficiaries to benefit further, the following suggestions are proposed:
-
Ensure a meaningful participatory process is mandated for any MEDEP/MEDPA related policy
development, including strategies/guidelines/procedures development or amendment
-
Integration of GESI issues into the social mobilisation process (as discussed above) with specific
measures to address identified barriers of different social groups, would enable a further
improvement in decision making power and reduction in violence against women, girls, Dalits
and others.
-
The GESI financial allocation budget analysis has indicated that a very limited amount of budget
has been spent in this domain. What has been spent has been more on higher level national
policies. With a significant and more defined expenditure on specific barriers caused by social,
gender, caste/ethnicity issues, a major shift can be made possible in the lives of women, Dalits,
Indigenous Nationalities and Hardcore poor of MEDEP's beneficiaries.
-
A very nuanced gender and social analysis to identify the second generation of issues constraining
women, poor and the excluded from benefiting optimally from MEDEP/MEDPA is needed.
There were no major differences in the responses of the treatment and control groups to issues
such as decrease in family conflict and neglect and different forms of violence. As these are very
subtle and sensitive issues which are manifested in many different ways, a detailed and supportive
analysis would discover the second generation of issues constraining the target groups from
developing further.
-
Specific provisions to support women manage the increased time pressure are also required.
111
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
5.
Returning to the Conceptual Framework
ACCESS to ASSETS
& SERVICES TO
SECURE
LIVELIHOOD
RULES OF THE GAME
VOICE,
INFLUENCE &
ACCOUNTABILITY
This chapter returns to the conceptual framework
that framed the study and looks at the outcomes.
As the previous chapters have demonstrated there
have been a range of effects on people’s
livelihoods as a result of MEDEP. There is clear
increase in income and decision making abilities,
across gender and social groups. The question
now is what are the summative gains and what
does this tell us for future action. This chapter
summarises the detailed findings of the preceding
chapters and highlights some of the key points. It
uses the three domains of change at project
beneficiaries level as well as policy and
institutional level to investigate where there has
been change and why and provides pointers for
the conclusions and recommendations presented
in the next chapter.
5.1 Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the livelihood changes of
women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor
The findings indicate that there were major contributions of MEDEP to livelihood changes of women,
Dalits, Janajatis and the Hardcore poor. MEDEP has contributed to food security (when compared to
control groups, the MEDEP project beneficiaries had better food self-sufficiency), improved quality of
life with better sanitation, houses and other facilities like mobile phones and TV (again MEDEP
programme respondents had a better profile of enjoying these than the control group respondents).
MEDEP's work with micro-entrepreneurs, providing training, skill-development opportunities,
technological support, equipment, even working space along with facilitating access to finance and
market, have all ensured that the project beneficiaries have an increased capacity to select and manage
micro-enterprises leading to improved income and skills. A major portion of the budget of MEDEP and
its service providers (BDSPOs) and DMEGAs is on assets and services, ensuring that livelihood related
issues are addressed.
With an investment of NRs 31,000 (average), the average income from micro-enterprises at NRs 87,503
has contributed to an increase in the per capita income (PCI) of participating households. The PCI was
almost 56 percent higher than those of non-participating households. The difference in the per capita
income of the Dalits in participating and non-participating households was high, indicating that the
Dalits benefited well from MEDEP.
Ninety-two percent of the enterprises were individual enterprises with only eight percent in groups.
Those in groups were primarily from the Hardcore poor group who were able to benefit from MEDEP's
Common Facility Centre support. This indicates that additional strategies for the Hardcore poor enables
them to participate in the programme more effectively.
112
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Almost 60 percent of the micro-enterprises were agro-based and 72 percent were primary producers.
Except for Brahman/Chhetris almost all other social groups were between 75-100 percent in agriculture.
More women than men are in this sector which is traditionally one with little profit. A high number of
enterprises were not registered. Almost 21 percent micro-enterprises were closed due to different
reasons. MEDEP data base also showed a high number of inactive and semi-active enterprises, with a
high percentage of women and Dalits in these categories.
Aspects such as these have constrained a higher level of improvement in assets and livelihood capacities
of the micro-entrepreneurs.
5.2 Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the changes in voice and
ability to influence of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor
From selection of enterprise to its management, women have a strong voice and have control over their
enterprises, its income and have a strong say in the use of the income. 75 percent women stated that
their participation in decisions regarding use of income was high. Amongst women, the lowest voice
was of Madhesi Dalit women. Both the Muslim women the survey covered believed that their voice
was strong.
Women have been participating in different groups, ensuring that their issues are raised and discussed,
much more than before they joined MEDEP. Forty percent stated high access to local government
budgets and the confidence to influence such decisions. Almost 80 percent responded that their
participation to demand services and claim their rights from government offices was high/very high.
This is remarkable as is the claim of above 90 percent women that they are able to influence household
decisions with husbands and family gatekeepers listening to their voice.
The differences in the access of women, Dalits, Janajatis and the Hardcore poor to different
opportunities to strengthen capacity and their ability to participate and influence meetings, local
government bodies and others are summarised below:
Box 5.1:
Overview of strength of voice of different social groups
WOMEN
Hill B/C: Highest participation in training; shift in access to VDC and DDC budget and respect from family
and community after MEDEP.
Muslims: have highest level of confidence, raising voice against women issues.
Hill Dalit women have highest membership in other organisations .
Other Madhesi Caste have highest shift in terms of access to finance and male members listening to
implement suggestion of women after MEDEP. Lowest in terms of membership in other organisations.
Terai Janajati women have the lowest responses in terms of raising voice; lowest shift in male members
listening to implement their suggestion and respect from family and community after MEDEP.
Hill Janajati: Lowest participation in training; in access to VDC and DDC budget and access to finance
after MEDEP.
113
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
DALITS
Hill Dalits have better membership in other organisations than Madhesi Dalits (46%); also more male
members among hill Dalits listen to women’s suggestion than Madhesi Dalits.
Madhesi Dalits have increased confidence and higher participation in training before and after MEDEP
than hill Dalits.
No difference in voice raised, access to budget and finance, respect from family and community between hill
and Madhesi Dalits.
INDIGENOUS NATIONALITIES
Hill Janajati have better membership in other organisations, better savings and more male members listen
to women, voice raised, access to finance, and respect from family and community than terai Janajati.
Terai Janajati have increased confidence and better shift in participation in training before and after
MEDEP than hill Janajatis
Nominal difference in access to budget between hill and Terai Janajatis.
HARDCORE, NON HARDCORE POOR
Higher percent of Hardcore are members in other organisations compared to non Hardcore poor
Non-hardcore poor have higher participation in training, access to budget, access to finance, male members
listening to women and gaining respect from family and community
These achievements have occurred without a very defined GESI responsive social mobilisation process.
Further steps in identifying and addressing issues impacting women and other excluded groups, would
ensure that the capacity of these groups to make others accountable and influence decisions impacting
their lives, could be strengthened.
5.3 Understanding the contribution of MEDEP to the changes in gender norms
and discriminatory practices, processes and policies
The changing social, political and legal context of Nepal has resulted in decrease of various social
practices which were discriminatory to women, Dalits and other excluded groups. While these have not
disappeared from society and different forms of discrimination are prevalent at times, respondents of
both control and treatment groups stated that practices like menstrual exclusion, child marriage, veiling
system practiced in the Terai in certain social groups had decreased; a higher number of MEDEP
respondents compared to the non MEDEP respondents, believed that these had decreased. Only the
practice of dowry according to the respondents had increased.
A most heartening decrease has been in physical, verbal, psychological violence against women which
above 95 percent control and treatment group respondents shared. Since there is hardly any difference
between the control and treatment group responses, this can be attributed to the changed context in
Nepal. But violence against women takes many forms and can be very insidious within households and
114
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
community. Hence dedicated efforts to identify what are the different forms of discrimination/violence
that exist and impact women micro-entrepreneurs need to be constantly monitored and addressed.
Some aspects of shifts in the rules of the game for women and the different social groups is summarised
below
Women
-
Seventeen percent women were consulted while preparing rules and regulations of microenterprise organisations in districts/VDC, with highest percent of women from hill
Brahman/Chhetris and none from other Madhesi, Muslim and Madhesi Dalit.
-
More than 94 percent women responded that chhaupadi, child marriage and parda system had
decreased but only 61 percent reported decrease and 35 percent reported increase in dowry
system. Hundred percent hill – Brahman/Chhetri women reported decrease in chhaupadi; 100
percent of Madhesi Dalit, Muslim and Other Madhesi Caste women reported decrease in child
marriage; 100 percent of Other Madhesi Caste and Madhesi Dalit women reported decrease in
parda system; highest decrease (50%) in dowry system was reported by terai-Janajati women (a
practice not really prevalent in their community).
-
In terms of psycho-social effects, more than 90 percent women have responded decrease in family
conflict and neglect, social restrictions and physical, verbal and mental abuse, whereas only about
80-89 percent responded decrease in family break up, husband’s drinking habit and only about
50 percent responded decrease in time pressure. Both the Muslim women reported decrease in
all aspects.
Dalits
-
Thirty-two percent of hill Dalits were consulted while preparing rules and regulations of microenterprise organisations in districts/VDC, with only marginal representation from Madhesi
Dalits.
-
More than 90 percent hill Dalits reported decrease in Chhaupadi with no increase; 100 percent
Madhesi Dalits responded decrease in child marriage with five percent hill Dalits responding
increase; 98 percent Madhesi Dalits reported decrease in parda system while 89 percent reported
increase in dowry.
-
Though there is not much difference in most of the psycho-social effects between hill and
Madhesi Dalits, hill Dalits have reported higher decrease in family neglect, social restriction and
all forms of abuse; and Madhesi Dalits have reported higher decrease in family conflict.
Surprisingly, decrease in time pressure and husband’s drinking habit was reported by Madhesi
Dalits. Hill Dalits reported about family break up.
Indigenous Nationalities
-
Hill Janajati were better represented than terai Janajatis in preparation of rules and regulations of
micro-enterprise organisations in DDC/VDC.
-
Ninety-seven percent hill Janajati reported decrease in chhaupadi; 97 percent Terai Janajati
responded decrease in child marriage; 94 percent Terai Janajati reported decrease in parda system
while 53 percent reported increase in dowry, both practices not really a part of their community.
115
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
-
Though there is not much difference in most of the psycho-social effects between hill and terai
Janajatis, terai Janajatis have reported higher decrease in family conflict and negligence, and
physical and mental abuse; and hill Janajatis have reported higher decrease in verbal abuse.
Decrease in time pressure, social restrictions, family breakup and husband’s drinking habit has
been reported by terai Janajatis.
Hardcore, non Hardcore poor
-
Non-hardcore poor were better represented than hardcore poor in preparation of rules and
regulations of micro-enterprise organisations in DDC/VDC.
-
Though there is not much difference in responses regarding social practices among hardcore and
non-hardcore poor, a higher percentage of non-hardcore poor have reported decrease in such
practices except for dowry which according to a higher percent of non-hardcore poor has
increased.
-
In most aspects non-hardcore poor have a higher decrease than hardcore poor. But the nonHardcore poor reported a higher increase than the hardcore poor regarding family neglect, social
restrictions and husband’s drinking habit.
5.4 Dalits’ ability to benefit from the range of services being provided by
MEDEP
One of the objective of this impact study was to assess the changes in the lives of Dalits through
MEDEP. Thus the sub-section below covers this aspect presenting the findings on the changes in the
lives of Dalits, including both Hill and Madhesi Dalits.
5.4.1
Profile of Dalit micro-entrepreneurs
There were 154 programme respondents from the Dalit community, of whom 66 percent were women.
Hill Dalits were 64 percent of the total Dalits covered. A high percentage were operating individual
enterprises but comparatively a high percent of Madhesi Dalits were also in group enterprises,
benefiting from the additional support provided by MEDEP. The enterprises of Dalits was
predominantly in the agriculture sector where Madhesi Dalits had a strong presence. Hill Dalits had a
high presence in the traditional skill category too.
5.4.2
Investment and loans
There were 105 responses regarding investment in micro-enterprises of Dalits respondents. On an
average above Rs 100,000 of own money was being invested by the micro-entrepreneurs but Dalits
invested a much lower amount of around Rs. 56,000. The average loan amount was around Rs.12,800
but Dalits took a much higher loan of around Rs. 87,000/-.MEDEP has supported them more than it has
the others by providing a support of Rs 56,385 when the average support was around Rs 10,559. But a
large amount of this support was for Hill Dalit women.
There was a high dependency of Dalits on village money lenders with almost 40 percent hill Dalits
depending on them when the average dependency was 20 percent. 34 percent Dalits stated that they had
not experienced an increase in income when on an average, about 29 percent had stated so - so a higher
percentage of Dalits have not been able to enjoy increased income from enterprises than the others.
116
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
5.4.3
Services
Majority of the Dalit respondents found the services as per need and appreciated the technology
support. More than 91 percent of hill Dalits and 87 percent of Madhesi Dalits obtained all the services
with highest service obtained by hill Dalits in terms of technical skill and by Madhesi Dalits in terms
of technical skill and proper technology. Market management was considered the least as per
requirements and hence the least useful.
Hill Dalit women obtained higher services in terms of preparation of business plan and technical skill
while men obtained highest service in terms of social mobilisation and business consultation. Highest
percent of both men and women found preparation of business plan to be as per need
Hill Dalits received less support regarding machines compared to Madhesi Dalits and received training
to operate it from MEDEP. Higher percent of Dalit men received machines compared to Dalit women.
Almost all Madhesi Dalit men received all the services and majority of Madhesi Dalit women received
the services with highest of them obtaining social mobilisation, business plan and business consultation.
Out of the services obtained, while highest percent women found preparation of business plan and
business consultation as per need, men found proper technology and technical skill as per need. A
slightly higher percent of women received machine compared to men. Those who received the machine
all of them found it easy to operate it and majority of them are operating well.
Only some Dalits with a higher percent of Hill Dalits, compared to Madhesi Dalits said that they used
the Community Service Center.
5.4.4
Training
Participation in training was relatively better for hill Dalits compared to Madhesi Dalits. Majority of
both Dalit groups participated in development of TOPE, TOSE and technical skill development training
and found it to be useful with Madhesi Dalits representing more than hill Dalits. Fewer percent of Dalits
participated in development of TOEE and TOGE and institutional development training and found them
to be useful with more hill Dalits’ participation compared to Madhesi Dalits.. Both hill Dalit and
Madhesi Dalit men had higher participation in training and development of TOPE, TOSE and technical
skill development training and found them useful compared to Dalit women. Both hill and Madhesi
Dalit women had better participation in development of TOEE and TOGE and institutional development
training compared to men. None of Madhesi Dalit men participated in development of TOEE and TOGE
and institutional development training.
5.5 Understanding policy and institutional changes due to MEDEP
MEDEP has made efforts to influence the policy environment for a more micro-enterprise responsive
industrial sector. From a GESI perspective it has succeeded to demonstrate that a targeted approach is
necessary and that working with local service providers to ensure services are more easily accessed by
women, the poor and the excluded is important.
By making provisions regarding representation in decision making forums and ensuring that
implementation guidelines address GESI issues, MEDEP has achieved in establishing working
modalities which are directly benefiting the target group.
117
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
An institutional structure which has representation of the micro-entrepreneurs themselves has ensured
that their voice is included in the decisions that affect the women, poor and the excluded. But the
sustainability of a structure such as DMEGA is challenging as there are limited sources of income for
it to run itself.
MEDEP's local institutional partners are trying for a diverse workforce and there is high representation
of women in most organisations though an improved social profile maybe needed in some. MEDEP
itself needs to make its workforce more diverse.
Human resource and personnel policies are not evenly GESI responsive across institutions. Very rarely
are gender (beyond maternity leave) and caste specific aspects addressed.
Skills and competencies on GESI are inadequate of staff of concerned organisations (DMEGA, BDSPO,
DSCI) and need further attention and investment
Financial allocation analysis from a GESI perspective indicates that MEDEP's budget is well used in
providing services to the different target groups of women, Dalits, Janajatis, Hardcore poor and youth.
It has not been possible to analyse how the resources are being used for specific groups within this
target group.
A key gap in the financial allocation is for interventions to address the ability of women, Dalits and
others to raise their voice against deeply embedded discriminatory social practices and for working on
addressing these barriers at a systemic, structural level. While there have been commendable shifts due
to the improvement in the ability of women, Dalits and others to earn an income, their empowerment is
still constrained by deeply held patriarchal and social values.
Building assets and livelihood capacities has resulted in improved voice of micro-entrepreneurs but
there is an absence of dedicated efforts to address such aspects systematically. Working with men and
the advantaged for changing mind-sets, with women to enhance their agency and with organisations to
revise rules and processes further with an explicit recognition of socio-cultural barriers, has to be a core
component of MEDEP and MEDPA's work in future.
Line agencies have not been sufficiently motivated to provide the necessary support e.g. raw materials,
market, technical support, to these target groups in a manner which is responsive to their requirements.
The extreme poor find it difficult to participate in training, interactions and other such event and just do
not attend. Alternative modalities are necessary for this kind of group and requires policy direction.
MEDPA Strategic Plan and Operational Guidelines specify the target group and outline steps and
modalities which ensure that women, Dalits, Janajatis and other excluded groups are located centrally
in the programme. Despite these positive provisions, there are gaps as the guidelines have not clarified
exactly what has to be done to address GESI issues at each step.
5.6 Key Findings
The key findings of the study, aligned with the study objectives are presented below.
5.6.1
118
Economic, social and political empowerment
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The study aimed to assess the empowerment of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other
Hardcore poor in decision-making processes at household and community level, entrepreneurs and
institutional levels. Some related key findings include:
Economic empowerment
Increase in income: There has been strong evidence of increase in income of women and men
entrepreneurs. MEDEP has provided opportunities for independent earning to very disadvantaged
women. Sixty-nine per cent of women stated that there has been an increase in their income. Women,
who were dependent on their husbands even for their own pocket money, have now been able to share
the household expenses. While there have been gender and caste/ethnic disparities, all across the board
have enhanced their earnings.
Gender and social differentials: Men have a higher level of earning than women. The Hardcore have
expectedly the lowest net earning. Comparatively non-hardcore poor have higher participation in
training, access to budget, access to finance than the Hardcore poor.
Per capita income (PCI). The PCI of the treatment group is higher by 55.5 percent from the PCI of the
control group. But within the PCI of the treatment group there are social and ecological disparities. The
average PCI of MEDEP project beneficiaries is NRs 44253. The (hill) Brahman/Chhetri, hill
Indigenous groups and the non Hardcore have a PCI higher than this average while the groups with
PCI lower than this average include the Madhesi Dalits, Muslims, Other Madhesi Caste and the Terai
Indigenous - all groups of the Terai.
Stronger role of women in enterprise related decision making: Women are actively participating in
decision making with respect to activities from the selection of enterprise to use of profit from micro
enterprise.
Improved Savings: “MEDEP’s active role to encourage savings from group members has contributed
to increased capacity at the local level to mobilise savings”. Fifty-eight percent of respondents reported
that they initiated savings habits after becoming a member of MEDEP.
Improved food security: MEDEP has contributed to increased food self sufficiency both in terms of
increased production from own land and with increased capacity to purchase food grains to meet
household food requirements. Differences existed between social groups with the Dalits experiencing
this benefit the least.
Increased value of assets: On an average the value of assets per household of treatment group was 115
percent higher than that of control group. The value of assets of non Hardcore group of the project
beneficiaries was higher than of the Hardcore. Average value of assets owned by households in (NRs.
'000) of treatment group was 1562 while of the control group it was NRs 726 only. Value of assets
owned by hill Dalits was the lowest at NRs 745000 while the households with higher value of assets
were of terai Janajati, hill Brahman/Chhetri, Muslims, Other Madhesi Caste group and of men
Social empowerment
Increased confidence: Access to information and exposure to various issues enhanced the confidence
of the target group, esp women and they became members of other community based organizations
(CBOs) in the area. 57 percent treatment group responses compared to 39 percent control group women
became group members. Of these Hill Dalit women were the highest.
119
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Increase in status: Increase in women’s income, financial contribution to household expenses and
ability to work with outsiders (e.g. suppliers) has made a great difference in their status and has led to
increased value for their opinions and views within families. Janajati and Dalit women experienced this
less compared to other social groups. Male members of non Hardcore poor groups listen more to their
women. Non Hardcore poor have gained higher respect from family and community.
Strengthened women's voice: Above 90 percent of women reported that they are able to influence
household decisions with husbands and family gatekeepers listening to their voice. Seventy-five percent
of women stated that their participation in decisions regarding use of income was high. Male Members
of the Family Listen and Implement Women’s Suggestions.
Enhanced ability to influence decisions: Women have a major say in decisions both at family and
community levels after MEDEP.
Increased awareness of health and education: Increased understanding about health care and
significance of education enabled the micro-entrepreneurs to spend their increased income on children’s
health and education. This was true across all social groups.
Changing social norms and discriminatory practices: Due to the overall change in Nepal's context,
there has been lessening of discriminatory practices such as child marriage, menstrual exclusion and
veiling. Change has also enabled women to become more mobile and a few Dalit project beneficiaries
to attempt food and beverage related enterprises. Some forms of gender based violence have decreased
across social groups, though other forms still exist. The practice of dowry was perceived to have
increased by all the Terai groups.
Decrease in caste-based discrimination: There has been some slight change in this form of
discrimination after Dalits joined MEDEP. 6 percent respondents shared that they are permitted to enter
households. Amongst Dalits, Hill Dalits experienced better change compared to Madhesi Dalits.
Political empowerment
Increased network: Women, especially those who were the first beneficiaries of MEDEP, have been
able to increase their network and become members of different groups.
Improved participation: Project beneficiaries participate more in VDC/DDC meetings after joining
MEDEP. Responses of before and after joining MEDEP demonstrate high differences: from 2 percent
to 43 percent women and from 12 percent to 64 percent men.
Strengthened capacity to claim services: Almost eighty percent of women respondents reported that
their ability to demand services and claim their rights from government offices was high.
Inputs in rules and regulations of micro-enterprise organisations in districts/VDC: 34 percent men and
17 percent women were consulted. Those who were not consulted were the Other Madhesi caste group,
Muslim and Terai Janajati women and men.
5.6.2
Challenges faced by entrepreneurs
The challenges experienced by women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore groups to
expand their enterprises is summarised below:
120
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Limited access to finance: Inadequate working capital is a major challenge and had affected business
expansion of the micro-entrepreneurs across groups. Dalits and women faced relatively higher
constraint on expansion due to inadequate working capital. Gender based constraints limits women's
access to finance and hence constrains them in their choice of businesses.
Inadequate product development and marketing mechanisms: The different constraints of the target
group of MEDEP in terms of finance, experience, access to information, credit, training opportunities,
business partners and new market entry impact their ability to have vibrant micro-enterprises. Only 25
percent respondents had an agreement with traders. Weak backward and forward linkages affect the
growth of enterprises of all, more specifically women and the Hardcore poor due to their additional
vulnerabilities. MEDEP's efforts to address these kinds of structural barriers have been insufficient to
propel the micro-enterprises into high profit.
Limited supply of raw materials: Overall 21 percent of the respondents faced the problem on supply
of raw material (backward linkage). Forty-four percent of the Madhesi Dalits reported this problem.
Reasons included: difficulty in transportation,
non availability in the local market, high cost of
inputs, and source scarcity (e.g. of honey bees).
Gender biased division of labour: The household work burden results in women having limited
opportunities to become full time entrepreneurs. Traditional division of labour with women being
responsible for the private and men for the public domain is still widely prevalent. Household work is
primarily women's responsibility and becoming an entrepreneur has not necessarily changed that, even
though there has been an increase in the support of men for such tasks in some social groups.
Time poverty: Women's time poverty is a major challenge for their growth as entrepreneurs. Time
pressure has increased by more than double for treatment group (34 percent) compared to control group
(12.5 percent). The kind of enterprise which can yield higher results may require more time and
undisturbed, dedicated attention or time away from home. These are not possible for women, especially
younger women due to their multiple responsibilities. With high male migration, women experience
time shortages to work on both on-farm and off -farm. Reproductive tasks like child care, cooking,
cleaning are time consuming and community management of such tasks have not been accepted or
support provided. This time poverty leaves women with less time for learning and/or exploring business
prospects.
Tension in family and break-up: Fourteen percent respondents of treatment group reported of family
break-up while only nine percent respondents of control group said so
5.6.3
Ability of Dalits to benefit from MEDEP services
Dalits benefited from training and services as much as others: Dalits were able to benefit from the
services and training that MEDEP provided as much as the other target groups. Hill Dalits had more
opportunities for training compared to Madhesi Dalits. Dalit men had higher participation in training
and development of TOPE, TOSE and technical skill development training than the women.
Dalits have not had comparable income benefits as others: There was a higher dependency of Dalits
on village money lenders and a higher percent of Dalits had not experienced an increase in income from
enterprises.
5.6.4
Policy level and structural changes for GESI
121
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Policy influencing of MEDEP has resulted in micro-enterprise becoming a part of the industrial policy
framework in Nepal. Gender responsive provisions in the Industrial policy such as 35 percent
exemption for women in the registration fee, special fund for women and other such directives have
created a positive policy environment for women entrepreneurs.
MEDEP has succeeded in establishing that a targeted approach is necessary in micro-enterprise.
Specifying that a certain percentage of women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and Hardcore poor are
to be the project beneficiaries, it demonstrated that directives for inclusion of such groups was essential.
It has additionally demonstrated that structures and mechanism need to ensure that the voice of the
excluded is included e.g. by establishing a structure such as the DMEGA which is composed of the
target group itself. Its modality of service provision through local service providers has shown how
women, the poor and the excluded can access services.
Human resource and personnel policies are not evenly GESI responsive across institutions. Very rarely
are gender (beyond maternity leave) and caste specific aspects addressed in human resource
arrangements.
Skills and competencies on GESI are inadequate of staff of concerned organisations and need further
attention and investment.
Financial allocation analysis from a GESI perspective indicates that the budget of MEDEP and its local
partners are focused on providing services to the target group. A key gap in the financial allocation was
for interventions to address deeply embedded discriminatory patriarchal and social practices and for
working on addressing these barriers in a systemic and structural manner.
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the discussions in the previous chapters and the fey findings, conclusions and
recommendations are presented below. All the six recommendations are relevant for the three key
actors: MoI/GoN, UNDP and DFAT but their role is different. MoI/GoN has to ensure that the policy
directive for the implementation of these recommendations is in place, UNDP is responsible for the
effective implementation of these directives and DFAT for quality assurance and GESI responsive
performance.
Conclusion 1: MEDEP has contributed significantly in improving livelihoods - active
micro-entrepreneurs across social profiles, have improved income levels and are able to
spend on health, education and sanitation but progressing beyond subsistence level
enterprises is challenging.
Opportunities for an alternative occupation have been provided to a group which had previously never
had this chance. Dalits, women, the hard-core poor had never before been able to raise the required
resources, equipment or even the courage to take such risks that a micro-enterprise demands. Support
to address different kinds of barriers e.g. space, finance, technology, linkages with market have all
facilitated this. "Children, both girls and boys, go to school. All of us have better access to health care
as we can now pay for it." (FGD responses).
122
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Due to inadequate resources and other barriers such as limited access to finance, marketing support,
gender and caste based discriminatory practices, it has been challenging for women, Dalit, Janajati and
Hardcore poor micro-entrepreneurs to move out of subsistence level easily. There is usually no
additional assistance from Government organisations and hence there is dependency on MEDEP and
its staff for any kind of support.
Recommendation 1: A critical analysis of market and strengthening the range of
services based on social realities, should be provided to women, Dalits, Janajatis and
Hardcore poor micro-entrepreneurs by MEDEP/MEDPA.
MEDEP is providing or facilitating access to a range of services like access to markets, information
about raw material and technology, design inputs and product development. But this has been
insufficient till now for developing sustainable and growth oriented MEs. Twenty-one percent
enterprises have closed down and many others have generated marginal income.
The three main pillars of micro-enterprises development i) identification of activities ii) nurturing of
entrepreneur skills and iii) ensuring access to range of services and inputs (like access to finance and
market information; provisions of inputs for design and product development; introduction of marketing
linkages etc.) and creating enabling conditions, all need to be further strengthened by MEDEP/MEDPA.
A more thorough analysis of market and ways to reach them for the different social and economic
groups of women and men have to be identified and supported.
The MEDPA operational guidelines outline the different steps to be taken to support the programme
beneficiaries. At each step specific interventions to address needs and interests of women, Dalits,
Janajatis and the Hardcore poor should be taken. The preliminary survey must be informed by a gender
and social relations analysis. Based on this, the services to the micro-entrepreneurs must be adjusted
and delivered e.g. assessment of raw materials availability must include a disaggregated analysis of
access of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor to the available raw materials (Annex 12 provides
detailed suggestions for mainstreaming GESI in the MEDPA Operational Guidelines).
Measures to improve access to finance (e.g. through MFIs) have not been adequate enough for this
target group to access higher level of finances to enable proper growth. Key issues of access to finance
and market require further work and innovative strategies (e.g. the cooperatives being promoted by
MEDEP need to be more widespread, the MoUs with the central banks may hopefully lead to improved
results). These measures too need to consider the social differences of the micro-entrepreneurs and
which group and which gender may experience additional issues. Banks need to become familiar with
the obstacles women, poor and excluded micro-entrepreneurs experience and learn how to meet their
specific needs.
Conclusion 2: Voice of women, across social and geographic groups, has increased due
to their ability to earn an income and contribute to household financial expenses but
deeply embedded patriarchal values still persist and impact women's growth as
entrepreneurs
There are various opportunities for women and the excluded now to access information, training,
capacity building processes especially through groups and cooperatives. Their views are heard more
and opinions respected. "Even my husband sometimes asks for my opinion on different household and
agriculture matters. Now I feel that I am being heard and respected" Madhesi women reported the
123
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
highest increase in the respect they received after joining MEDEP. But deep-seated structural issues are
challenging to raise a voice against - hence many traditional practices have to be accepted and followed
like gender biased work division, managing the micro-enterprise along with other responsibilities;
staying within the frame of responsibilities and tasks set by family and society.
Recommendation 2: Identify GESI barriers of women, including of different social
groups, and develop activities into each step of programme implementation of
MEDEP/MEDPA to address them
Social mobilisation component of MEDEP's cycle requires improved integration of GESI aspects.
Micro-level initiatives for the awareness and sensitisation of women, Hardcore poor and Dalits is
specially necessary. Advocacy activities with family members and husbands will support women to
dedicate time to their enterprises as a professional. At the moment, for many, it is a work to be done in
times snatched after all caring/cooking responsibilities are completed.
This has to be changed as without working professionally women will not be able to ensure the growth
of their enterprises. This will also provide wider options as choice of enterprises many times are limited
for women by the amount of time they can work on it, how can they manage work and caring
responsibilities and what is typically accepted as women's work.
GESI demands a very systematic analysis of barriers as this informs the strategies and activities to be
adopted by the program. To understand the barriers these groups experience, it is necessary to look at
and think through several levels. The table below provides the level, what to do and some suggestions
on how to do it.
S.N.
Level
Analysis of Barriers
How to do
1
Household,
Community
2
Status of
- Collect disaggregated data and substantive evidence to find - Review available data,
out the existing status of women, poor and excluded in the
progress reports etc,
women, poor
specific
community/work
area,
and
assess
areas
and
level
of
project/programme-related
and excluded
disparities
information
124
The analysis MEDEP does needs to be strengthened by the
- Gender and power analysis
following:
tools like labour, access and
- What practices, beliefs, values, traditions at family and
control profile, mobility maps,
community levels constrain women, the poor and excluded
etc.
from accessing resources, opportunities and services for
micro-enterprise development?
- What are the different rules, practices, divisions of labour,
social expectations, and differences in vulnerability and
mobility for women and men and for different caste/ethnic
groups? How have these impacted women, poor and the
excluded? How can they impact the micro-enterprise and the
micro-entrepreneur?
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
S.N.
3
4
5
49
Level
Analysis of Barriers
- What policies exist, and how have these impacted on women
Policy49
and men of different social groups and how will they impact
on the micro-enterprises of different categories?
- What new policy initiatives are being taken to address microenterprise sector issues, and what are the
gender/caste/ethnic/regional identity differentials in access
to/benefits from such initiatives?
- What micro-enterprise related policies have the potential to
transform existing relations of inequality, i.e. bring change in the
socially prescribed division of labour, in access to resources and
decision-making power between women and men, and between
people of excluded and non-excluded groups?
Formal
- What kind of institutional structures/mechanisms/processes
are there, and how responsive are they to the needs and
institutional
issues of the excluded (e.g. how representative are the
structures and
committees, project offices, other such bodies formed at
processes
local, district and national levels)?
- Is work on GESI specifically mentioned as a responsibility of
any of these different institutions or their constituent units?
- What kinds of structures/mechanisms exist to enable women
and the excluded to be part of the planning and monitoring
processes in the micro-enterprise sector?
- Human resource policies for recruitment, transfer, promotion,
staff performance evaluation: How diverse in the staff profile
in terms of gender, region, caste/ethnicity and other
variables? What provisions recognise the specific
issues/constraints of women, e.g. maternity leave, breast
feeding, flexible hours, security? How does the performanceevaluation system capture the efforts of staff on addressing
gender and inclusion issues?
- What is the working culture in the committees and offices?
How supportive is it for women, poor and excluded to work
comfortably? What is the behaviour of the non-excluded
towards these groups?
Programming As part of preparatory tasks before working on annual
and Budgeting programmes and plans, MEDEP/MEDPA should regularly
identify:
- What have been the main interventions in the microenterprise sector? How have these interventions affected
women and people from other excluded groups (e.g. how did
gender/caste/ethnic differentials support/constrain access to
opportunities from the interventions)? Did these interventions
have explicit inclusion goals and outcome indicators? Did
they have a M&E system that was sufficiently disaggregated
to track differential outcomes for different groups?
- What is the budget allocation and expenditure on activities to
address issues of women, poor and excluded?
How to do
- Review concerned
Government/DDC/VDC
policies/acts/regulations;
project/programme logframe,
operational guidelines/other
policy statements; other
guidelines partners’
logframes, project guidelines
etc
- Develop a disaggregated staff
profile of project office, partner
organisations, local
Government partner; user
groups formed by project;
- Review the job descriptions of
departments/divisions and
staff such as project manager,
planning officer, field
facilitator, M&E (and any other
relevant staff), and ToRs of
consultants and other teams.
- Facilitate interactions/
discussions with staff for
situations regarding working
environment
- Review the annual budget of
the Government agency,
programme/projects/partner
organisation;
- identify how adequately
activities are addressing GESI
issues budgeted for as a % of
the entire project cost. How
transformative are the
budgeted activities, and what
is the % of such activities?
- Review the M&E system and a
sample of periodic and special
reports and studies from the
main interventions in the sector.
Policy is understood here as a statement of intent, so it can be at macro, meso or micro level, and it can be formal (Government act or a
programme-level guideline/criteria) or informal, such as social practices/norms.
125
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
S.N.
6
Level
Informal
institutions
(kinship,
gender and
caste
systems)
Analysis of Barriers
How to do
- What are the income, social and welfare characteristics of the - Consultation/Interaction
groups identified as excluded in this sector that might present
barriers to access?
- What are the existing employment options in the sector, and
what barriers exist for women and other excluded groups in
terms of skill levels, mobility, social norms, etc.?
- Who has access to control over what resources in the sector?
Source; adapted from GESI Sectoral Monograph Series, WB?DFDI/ADB, 2011
Conclusion 3: There have been changes in the formal and informal rules of the game
but MEDEP/MEDPA policies and interventions do not address such issues explicitly
and do not provide directives for systematic work on changing the informal rules of the
game i.e. existing gender and social norms
Women's mobility is much higher, women being engaged in micro-enterprises and dealing with male
suppliers is accepted, Dalits making and selling ice-cream, Madhesi Dalit women baking bread is being
promoted. Social practices like menstrual exclusion, dowry, early marriage, untouchability and other
such discriminatory issues which constrain MEDEP's target group from participating and benefitting
fully from MEDEP's interventions have decreased. While MEDEP has had an impact and made progress
in shifting social norms, there still exist discriminatory practices in different forms which constrain
women, Dalits and other excluded groups from working fully and with dedication. Gender equality and
social inclusion is always a work-in-progress as while some issues are addressed, others arise which block
the development and growth of women and the excluded. Hence a keen eye has to be always maintained
and a continuous effort to assess, analyse and revise strategies are necessary.
Recommendation 3: Social issues need to be addressed systematically by formal and
informal policies, institutions and interventions as part of the regular activities and
process of MEDEP and MEDPA's service delivery.
Directives for gender specific support and for provision of measures to address gender and caste-based
discrimination are necessary. Institutional arrangements, budget allocations and expenditures and
monitoring reporting all need to be GESI responsive for which policies and guidelines are required. The
training of staff including the courses run by CTVET need to be GESI responsive and practical. SIYB
modules require to be implemented with GESI inputs. Tax incentives by Government of Nepal to
organisations working on such issues and to micro-enterprises led by women or Dalits are needed.
MEDEP/MEDPA, to address the socio-cultural barriers and the weaknesses in the policy framework or
delivery system, need to revise/strengthen policies, programme activities, resource allocations,
institutional arrangements and staff incentives, as well as the monitoring and reporting systems. Key
steps should include:
126
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
S.N.
Level
Responses
Process
- Ensure policies (e.g. Micro enterprise,
- Phrase objectives, outputs, activities and
Technological Fund), explicitly address the
indicators statements integrating microconstraints of women and the excluded, and
enterprise and GESI issues.
mandate action to address them.
- Review who will benefit – which women,
- The results planned in the MEDPA strategic
men, girls, boys (with caste, class, location,
plans/national and district logframes should aim
ethnicity, age disaggregation). What
to improve the assets, capabilities and voice of
assumptions are being made on women’s
women, the poor and excluded. They must
roles, responsibilities, time, access to and
address the formal and informal practices that
control over resources? On the capacity of
are inequitable and discriminatory, and must
the people from excluded groups?
aim to transform the existing structural
- Identify what procedures, criteria or ways of
framework that disadvantages women and/or
working can shift these patterns to be more
the excluded from profiting more from their
equitable? What incentives for sector staff
enterprises.
and the community can be built into the
- The constitution, policies, rules. procedures of
intervention and the operation of the
NEDC, NMEFEN, BDSPOs and DMEGA need
MEDEP/MEDPA programme to strengthen
aim to do as above and bring changes in all three
GESI mainstreaming?
domains foe women, poor and the excluded
1
Policy
2
Formal
- There should be desks/units/sections/
institutional
departments with specific responsibility on
structures
gender equality and social inclusion located
and
within the MOI, Departments, MEDEP/MEDPA,
processes
NEDC, MNMEFEN, BDSPOs, and DMEGAs.
This should be adequately resourced and
mandated to provide technical support for
addressing GESI issues.
- The terms of reference/job descriptions of all,
including senior management and technical
staff, should allocate responsibility to work on
GESI issues, integrating it into their
responsibilities.
- Efforts must be made to make the staff profile
inclusive, as far as possible, with women and
people from excluded groups in positions of
responsibility.
- The human-resources policies of recruitment,
promotion, capacity building should be gender
and inclusion sensitive, and the personnel
policies of all the organisations at different
levels, should support gender-specific
responsibilities.
- The staff performance evaluation system should
capture efforts made by staff to address gender
and inclusion issues.
- Identify GESI work responsibilities at
different levels; review existing mechanisms:
how are they addressing the identified
responsibilities – what has worked, why,
what has not, why not; identify through a
participatory process what existing
structures can take on GESI responsibilities
effectively, figure out what new skills and
approaches are needed and design
accordingly; Refer recommendation 5 for
suggestions regarding GESI related skills
- Review ToRs/JDs of departments
(DCSI)/divisions (CSIDB)/key staff to assess
level of GESI responsibilities; Revise and
add; Integrate into technical responsibilities
for the technical staff;
- Integrate recognition and incentives for staff
that are successful in improving GESI
outcomes.
- Review human resource policies: for
recruitment, identify issues constraining
applications from women and excluded
groups; adopt alternative strategies of
informing about vacancies through
networks, in local languages; Define ‘merit’
to include language skills, understanding of
local community cultures, etc.
127
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
S.N.
Level
Responses
3
Informal
- Activities (e.g. sustained dialogue and
institutions
advocacy) must also be developed and
implemented to address the informal institutions
that violate the human rights of women, the poor and the excluded and negatively impact microenterprises. Strategies to work with the
advantaged, men and boys for changing of
values and attitudes are necessary and have
often been very successful in bringing change.
4
Programmi - There should be programmatic activities and
budget
allocations
that
specifically
address
the
ng and
issues experienced by women and people of
budgeting
excluded groups (e.g. discriminatory practices,
unequal gender relations, caste-based
discrimination, community kitchen, community laundry). Budget should also be allocated for
activities that can create a supportive
environment to address gender/caste/ethnicity
and other dimensions of exclusion (e.g. training
of BDSPOs and DMEGA on GESI,
disaggregated information and analysis of
production inputs required etc). .
- Activities should ensure that all three areas of
change: i. livelihoods and ii. voice of women,
poor and excluded are enhanced, along with iii.
changing of inequitable social norms and formal
policies, are addressed. Sufficient budget
allocations must be made for these activities.
Livelihoods is the main mandate of MEDEP, but
the other two domains too require planned and
structured activities for the target group to
benefit fully from improvements in livelihoods.
- Estimate required resources, and include human
and financial resources for activities on gender
and inclusion awareness for women and men
and capacity building of women at the
community level and even within organisations.
- Include resources required to support childcare
responsibilities, field escort for security reasons
and other specific constraints/responsibilities
(such as community management of household
work - community laundry, community kitchen)
faced by women and by people of excluded groups.
- Allocate sufficient resources for genderbalanced staff, training and institutional capacity
building; include sufficient budget and time to
build linkages and for networking to strengthen
different interest groups.
- Implementation must ensure that planned activities
are executed and the budget allocated is spent.
128
Process
Through consultations and review of
previous efforts, identify what has blocked
implementation; what behavioural issues,
values, social norms have been a challenge.
Identify measures necessary to work with
women, poor and excluded and with the
family decision-makers, community leaders,
local leaders and ‘elites’, e.g. poverty
analysis with leaders, decision-makers;
sustained dialogue with men on masculinity;
advocacy campaigns against social ills like
dowry during the social mobilisation stage
and throughout the process n order to
improve the value of the girl child and to
ensure that the income earned from the
micro-enterprise is not all spent on dowry
Review programme activities and budget in
detail; assess the likely impact of each
activity on women, Dalits, Janajatis and the
Hardcore poor.
Ask whether these activities are addressing
the barriers identified. Will women, poor and
excluded access the resources and benefits
coming from this activity? What will be their
benefits? Will they get these directly? Will
these activities help to address the structural
issues constraining the progress of women,
poor and excluded, constraining the
development of their micro-enterprise ? Or
will they provide immediate benefits of
improving livelihoods? Identify the percent of
budget allocated to different activities
addressing the barriers, and assess whether
these will enable the groups to benefit
equally.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
S.N.
5
Level
Responses
Process
Monitoring - Strengthen M&E systems to collect
- Review the Management Information System
and
disaggregated data on outputs, outcomes and
of MEDEP/MEDPA to identify ways to link
reporting
development results linked to the three domains
the information collection, compilation and
of change
processing to the three domains of change.
- Revise and improve disaggregation level to
- Develop and establish categories within
reflect the population diversity and government
Others to specify further different social
definitions regarding excluded social groups.
groups such as Brahmans/Chhetris, Other
Madhesi Caste and Muslims. Reflect
- Ensure that the system is linked into
regional identities within the major social
management decision making and that the
groups of Dalits, Janajatis and
feedback loop to changes in implementation is
Brahman/Chhetris
robust
- Reporting should reflect progress against the
three domains of change and analyse with
disaggregation so that informed decisions
can be made by the policy makers
- NEDC, NMEFEN, BDSPOs, and DMEGA as
per their mandate need to report with
disaggregation and analysis
Source: Adapted from GESI Sectoral Monograph series, WB/DFID/ADB, 2011
Conclusion 4: MEDEP has not recognised that sexual and gender minorities, persons
living with disability or even women headed households are sub-groups of the existing
project beneficiaries and hence there are no special measures for these disadvantaged
groups
None of the policy or implementation directives or practical processes address the issues of social
groups such as sexual and gender minorities, persons with disability and women headed households.
There is a missing recognition that these groups are also sub-groups of the existing project beneficiaries.
These social groups require special attention due to the nature of their exclusion. For sexual and gender
minorities, using opportunities to work as micro-entrepreneurs in itself could be a challenge. Market
biases could result in inability to secure supplies or sell produce at correct prices. For persons living
with disability, assistive devices, appropriate micro-enterprises, adapted training methodologies would
be necessary but there was no evidence that such measures were being taken by MEDEP/MEDPA.
Specific issues of women headed households, unfortunately could not be identified in this study but the
heavy work burden, the control over distance by husbands and the limited abilities to make informed
choices about micro-enterprises and its management, are aspects which were not explicitly dealt with
in MEDEP/MEDPA's guidelines and strategies.
Recommendation 4: MEDPA Operational Guidelines should integrate issues of sexual
and gender minorities, persons living with disability and of women headed households
MEDPA Operational Guidelines should integrate issues of sexual and gender minorities, persons living
with disability and of women headed households so that the regular activities of the programme can
identify the specific issues of these groups and address them. Part 2 of the Operational Guidelines about
the target group should include these groups and define them clearly. The skills of staff need to be
appropriately enhanced to work with such diverse groups of clients.
129
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Conclusion 5: Relevant service providing institutions need deeper understanding and
high levels of responsive skills to address deeply complex issues of GESI impact on
micro-entrepreneurs of different social profiles
The related institutions from Ministry of Industry, relevant Departments to DMEGA, have been
working on gender and inclusion issues without proper training or capacity strengthening. Due to its
targeting, MEDEP/MEDPA ensures participation of women, Dalits, Janajatis and the Hardcore poor.
What was found inadequate were the tools, competencies, skills and systems which would ensure that
a mapping of the existing status of women, the poor and socially excluded, based on disaggregated
qualitative and quantitative data would be done along with an assessment of the available evidence. A
systematic analysis of existing policies, formal institutional structures and processes, and informal
institutions to understand how exactly social inequities based on gender, caste, religion, ethnicity and
location impact the micro-enterprises, was not an integral part of the process. This impacts different
aspects of the programme functioning.
Recommendation 5: Develop a GESI capacity strengthening plan, including GESI
mainstreaming implementation guidelines, covering different levels and audiences
A capacity strengthening plan to enhance skills and competencies of staff and to strengthen the
organisational systems of the different organisations linked with MEDEP/MEDPA is required. This
will need to be part of the MEDPA Operational Guidelines so that it is not treated in isolation and is
accepted as a mandatory part of the working process.
Capacity strengthening should address aspects of tools, skills, staff and infrastructure, structures,
systems and roles.50 Work at all these four levels will ensure a systematic integration of GESI in the full
MEDEP/MEDPA cycle. The points made for recommendations 2 and 3 also contribute to capacity
strengthening with improved systems, specific location of GESI responsibility and use of GESI
responsive tools.
Decision makers and staff skills need to be enhanced so that a GESI lens can be applied by all to
whatever work they are doing. For staff, issues like motivation, values, commitment and also initiative
need to be addressed for both technical and personal change. A core group of GESI trainers and resource
persons (both from government and non-government organisations) need to be developed at both
national and district levels. This trained pool can then act as trainers, facilitators, technical support
persons for the entire MEDEP/MEDPA operations at national and district levels.
With the gradual phasing out of MEDEP and full implementation of MEDPA, it will be all the more
essential for skills enhancement at all levels due to the limited capacities of government systems and
officers to address process related GESI issues.
Conclusion 6: Gender based norms limit options of women to work on more profitable
micro-enterprises and thus MEDEP has had limited impact on substantive
transformation of gender and power relations
Despite the broader shifts in the social context of women and improved gender situation, there are
various constraints which inhibit women's growth as a micro-entrepreneur. Many women cannot work
50
see Potter and Brough's Conceptual Framework of Capacity Building
130
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
because of their family responsibilities, many need to work within a social construct framework which
positions them as the primary home maker and family care taker and manage a secondary role as a
micro-entrepreneur. This basic constraint in itself limits women's abilities to do well and have a microenterprise which can be highly profitable. While examples exist that this can be achieved, as some
women micro-entrepreneurs have demonstrated (one has even received an international award), it
cannot be done by all, without special support and transformation in approach and thinking.
The findings of this study indicated high participation and decision making power of women. But till
now women have usually been limiting themselves to micro-enterprises which were not affecting men
or making such high incomes that men would be strongly involved in the management of and decisions
about the income. Hence it is essential that a second generation of gender and inclusion issues be
identified and addressed.
Recommendation 6: Transformative interventions need to be built into the
MEDEP/MEDPA programme for more equitable outcomes for women and other
excluded groups.
Interventions that work at the cusp of social and physical space can be transformative. 51 These are
required for women especially due to inherent gender based constraints existing in Nepali society, like
inability to travel alone and far due to safety concerns, inability to take higher risks due to lack of means
for collateral, limited capacities to take informed decisions regarding complicated enterprises and low
literacy capacities to manage leading to lack of confidence and self-esteem.
Inclusion in physical spaces can be deepened through improvements in security and services. Advocacy
and formal measures to promote security (e.g. travel and accommodation support for groups of women
to travel together, accommodation support for Dalits who are refused accommodation during field
work) are required. Strong measures by government to sanction VDCs/DDCs which tolerate abuse of
women in any form can gradually improve the situation for women though this would require a multisectoral and multi-ministerial intervention.
MEDEP/MEDPA is attempting to weaken gender stereotypes in both the domestic and public spheres
by creating micro-entrepreneur role models but this is insufficient for the women to leap from survival
level type of enterprises to growth oriented enterprises. For this the different constraints need to be well
handled. Women's “capacity to aspire” as well as the attitudes of others toward them need to be
addressed through complementary supportive measures.
7.
Conclusion
MEDEP has positively impacted the lives of its target beneficiaries. Women, Dalits, Indigenous
Nationalities and the Hardcore poor have all improved income and the quality of their lives with the
support of MEDEP.
MEDEP has made extensive and in-depth efforts to address different issues from policy to providing
tools for economic growth to poor women and the excluded. Recognising barriers caused by socioeconomic realities, it has adopted a process of social mobilisation and invested in strengthening capacity
51
see Inclusion Matters - Advance copy by World Bank, 2014 for more discussion on this
131
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
through training and information about micro-enterprises, working space for the Hardcore poor,
promoting different measures for increasing access to finance and other aspects required for enterprise
development. With such opportunities and with the changing context in Nepal, women have an improved
voice and are able to influence decisions at family and community levels, Dalits are experiencing lower
levels of caste-based discrimination. There has been an increase in income which has been invested in
improving children's education and health and an increase in the status of the project beneficiaries. These are
all very worthwhile contributions of MEDEP.
Structured and systematic interventions to assess and address the deeply embedded patriarchal and
social values that create constraints for women, poor and the excluded are necessary as are improved
mechanisms to support for the full enterprise chain. Only with such support will the women, Dalits,
Indigenous Nationalities and the Hardcore poor will be able to grow beyond subsistence levels to
manage growth oriented enterprises.
For MEDEP to deliver its intended outcome of poverty reduction for women, poor and the excluded,
careful work needs to be done in future to ensure that all policies, strategies and activities are addressing
along with the livelihoods, aspects of voice and for changing unequal gender relations and
discriminatory social practices constraining the growth of the target group effectively.
132
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annexes
Annex 1:
Terms of Reference
Services Required: Impact study on empowerment of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore poor52 through Micro-Enterprise
Development Programme.
1. Background and Rationale
Gender equality and women's empowerment are key to national development and poverty reduction. However, wide gaps leading to gender inequality and
discrimination against women exist in all aspects of Nepalese society. Women have lower economic, educational, social and health status than that of men.
According to population census 2011, the female literacy rate is low (57%) as compared to male literacy rate (75%). The women's ownership of fixed asset is
19.71 percent. The Gender empowerment measure of Nepal is very low at 0.351. In fact, economic growth and social transformation have synergic impacts on
sustainable development. Micro- Enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP) has been contributing to the Government of Nepal’s (GoN) efforts on poverty
reduction in rural areas through the development of micro entrepreneurs and employment generation since 1998. The programme targets people below the
nationally defined poverty line, with special focus on Women and Socially Excluded Groups, such as Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities, Religious Minorities,
and Unemployed Youths. MEDEP was started as a pilot programme in June 1998 in ten districts and now by end of third phase(July 2013), it has covered 38
districts representing, Mountains, Mid Hills, Terai, across all five regions of the country.
MEDEP has successfully completed its First, Second, and Third Phases of the programme. The fourth phase started from August 2013 and will be implemented
until July 2018. The government of Nepal (GON) has adopted the MEDEP model for poverty alleviation and has been replicating it within its Micro-Enterprise
Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA) programme approved by Council of Ministers and currently covering 50 districts. The GoN has a plan to
replicate it in all the 75 districts. MEDEP IV phase will focus on building the capacity of Government to implement MEDPA effectively and the creation and
scaling up of entrepreneurs will be gradually shifted to the GoN agencies.
MEDEP has adopted a Gender and Socially Inclusive (GSI) approach which includes minimum representation of 60 percent women (in MEDEP phase IV the
target is increased to 70%), 40 percent Indigenous Nationalities, 30 percent Dalits, and 60 percent Unemployed Youths and other deprived sections of the
communities. MEDEP has also adopted the principle of acquiring 'two third of positions by Women and Dalits and/or Indigenous Nationalities in all decision52
Hardcore Poor of any caste/ethnicity (those who cannot meet the costs of food items to provide 2,326 calorie energy) having Per Capita Income less than Rs. 12,700 (60% of PCI NRs 21,168 as defined by Nepal
Living Standard Survey 2010/11 and after adjusting inflation of 2012)
133
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
making' positions. Further, MEDEP has also adopted a Gender and Social Inclusive Programme Planning and Monitoring (GSIPPME) database system and has
applied these tools for internal verification of achievements of results by the entrepreneurs themselves.
Nevertheless, there are many challenges specific to women’s entrepreneurs which include meeting their families' daily subsistence needs, low literacy rate,
patriarchal values and norms, inadequate information about services and resources available, their limited representation in user groups and committees,
linguistic barriers, lack of women friendly technology etc. Despite all these challenges, MEDEP has made substantial contributions to women’s empowerment.
As of July 2013, MEDEP has created more than 61,838 micro-entrepreneurs. Out of which women account for 68 percent and has generated employment for
more than 63,992 jobs (67% women) in the rural area.
Orientation on Gender and Social Inclusive Programme Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (GSIPPME) is provided to staffs and representatives from 36
District Micro Entrepreneurs' Group Associations (DMEGAs), 80 Micro entrepreneurs' Group Associations (MEGAs) and some cooperatives through uses of
spider web tools and effect tree tools for their planning and performance evaluation. As a result, 64 percent, 21 percent and 41 percent decision-making positions
of 36 DMEGAs are occupied by Women, Dalits and Indigenous Nationalities respectively. As a result, there has been an increase in inclusiveness of Muslims
and Dalits in the DMEGA executive structure, in receiving loan through strong initiation of DMEGA executives, in acquiring knowledge and skills and on
assessing gaps and making plans for fulfilling these gaps etc. Apart from this, there is also change in the local implementing partners' perceptions which creates
an environment that accepts women’s and Dalits leadership. For example, in Business Development Service Providing Organization (BDSPO), women
accounted for 50 percent of decision-making positions. Similarly, Dalits and Indigenous Nationalities occupied 15 percent and 30 percent of decision making
positions respectively.
MEDEP has also developed Enterprise Development Facilitators (EDFs) who are the frontline workers for facilitating micro-enterprise development at the
grassroots level. EDFs are developed through supporting (a) 15 months Technical School Leaving Certificate (TSLC) course on EDF, and (b) 1460 hours Fast
Track Course on EDF. MEDEP provides scholarship targeting 100 percent women from excluded groups.
An impact assessment study was commissioned by the Ministry of Industry and the United Nations Development Programme in 2011 for systematic analysis
of the changes brought in the socioeconomic conditions and livelihoods of its beneficiaries and how they have been benefited by operating micro-enterprise.
The study found that particularly on gender equality and social inclusion, a larger percentage of women entrepreneur families (74.6%) have moved out of
poverty as compared to men entrepreneur families (69.5%). The study also showed that women’s role in decision-making increased in the form of representation
of women entrepreneurs in community institutions, participation in community/social work, holding decision-making positions in political parties, participation
in VDC/municipalities meetings and ability to raise voices in VDC/DDC meetings. However the study had some limitations, including overlooking analysis of
the magnitude of change brought by the MEDEP intervention.
134
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Though an impact assessment study gives a glimpse of the changes brought by MEDEP programme to its beneficiaries, there has been no study that analyses
the impact of microenterprise development on the empowerment of Women and Socially Excluded Groups at large. With the MEDEP in its fourth phase of its
intervention, it is imperative to analyse its contribution to minimize Gender and Social Inclusion gaps and to empower Women and excluded groups in 15 years
of MEDEP interventions. It is aimed that the findings and the lessons learned identified by the study will contribute and guide the interventions of MEDEP
phase IV and MEDPA to uplift the socio-economic status of Women and Socially Excluded Groups.
2. Objectives of the study
One of the major focuses of MEDEP is socio-economic empowerment of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore Poor through MicroEnterprise Development. In this context, the study should focus on the following objectives:
-
To assess the impact of the programme on the social, economic and political empowerment of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other
Hardcore poor in decision-making processes at household and community level, entrepreneurs and institutional levels.
-
To identify the challenges faced by entrepreneurs (Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore groups) to expand their enterprises and
recommend measures to address these challenges.
-
To assess whether the deprived groups particularly the Dalits are equally able/unable to benefit from the range of services being provided by MEDEP
and recommend measures to strengthen their participation.
-
To analyse the policy level and structural changes due to the MEDEP intervention to promote Gender and Social Inclusion.
-
To recommend how gender and social inclusion interventions can be strengthened in MEDEP and MEDPA for sustainable enterprise development.
3. Scope of the Work
The scope of the work includes developing an inception report including work-plan for the assignment, preparing study tools including questionnaires and
guidelines for FGD, finalizing indicators, creating detailed research design including sampling design and identification of methodology in consultation with
MEDEP team etc.
-
Assess the contribution of the programme to increase household income of women and socially excluded groups that contribute to reduce their poverty.
(MDG 1), promote increased ratio of girls to boys in primary education due to increase in income from Women owned enterprises (MDG 2); promoting
gender equality (MDG 3); improvement in maternal and child health due to increase in income of women owned enterprises (MDG 5); increase in
135
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
awareness on HIV/AIDS and Malaria diseases (MDG 6) and improvement in women health through use of alternative energy that reduces health hazards
of women exposed to cooking food using fuel wood (MDG 7).
-
Analyse the policy level and structural changes that have occurred due to MEDEP intervention to promote Gender and Social Inclusion.
-
Examine the effectiveness of MEDEP modality for business development services to Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other hard-core groups
particularly in access to micro finance, appropriate technologies, markets, technical skills, business training and price information. In examining
effectiveness of MEDEP modality on women, ensure inclusion aspects are more prominently considered and the study does not just make conclusions
about women beneficiaries but also analyse how the overlay of traditionally marginalized groups affect on program impact.
-
Unfold the reasons why different groups are equally able/unable to benefit from the range of services being provided by MEDEP and recommend how
this can be addressed;
-
Identify any specific constraints faced by women micro-entrepreneurs who aspire to be involved in the trade sector and recommend how the constraints
can be overcome
-
Analyse the power relationship between men and women, the changing gender role transformation of women within households, community and market
place;
-
Analyse the access and control over resources of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other hard-core poor on production, marketing, distribution
and assets management;
-
To assess how the programme has contributed to reducing gender-based discrimination (e.g. violence against women, wage discrimination and other
forms of discrimination) at household, community and work place;
-
Assess gender and social inclusion sensitivity in Micro-entrepreneurs' organisations: Micro Entrepreneurs’ Cooperatives, Micro Entrepreneurs' Group
Association (MEGA), District Micro Entrepreneurs' Group Association (DMEGA), National Federation of Micro Entrepreneurs Association (NMEFEN)
and Business Development Service Providers Organizations (BDSPOs) and National Entrepreneurship Development Center (NEDC);
-
Assess Government perception (Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development, National Planning Commission, Department
of Cottage and Small Industry, Cottage and Small Industry Development Board, District Enterprise Development Committee and some Village
Development Committees) of Women Empowerment and Social Inclusion in Micro Enterprise Development and their role in adapting GESI principles
of MEDEP in MEDPA;
-
Recommend (i) ways of strengthening the understanding of GESI amongst related GoN members involved in the implementation of MEDEP and MEDPA
and (ii) integrating GESI in MEDPA.
136
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
-
Identify the challenges and opportunities women face in balancing their household chores including child care and running their enterprises; what
measures do women use in balancing their reproductive and productive functions.
-
Identify the lesson learned that can be carried forward in MEDEP phase IV and MEDPA; Recommend measures for facilitating policy making,
programming and budgeting and implementation processes for entrepreneurship development on the basis of the findings.
4. Study Methodologies
The team shall develop a research design compliant with the theory of change and will also complete the following activities after the signing of
the contract:
Review relevant documents and study reports in consultation with the UNDP/MEDEP team and develop a ‘theory of change’ for the impact study.
Review available MEDEP data, which should inform the development of a robust research design and the identification of appropriate study tools
Follow the UN, DFAT and Nepal Government’s gender and social inclusion policy.
-
Identify the methodology and concerned stakeholders (male, female micro-entrepreneurs from different social groups, heads of the households, VDC
secretaries, chambers of commerce, banks/microfinance organisations, micro-enterprise organizations, business service providers etc.) to collect required
information using tools such as gender sensitive PRA tools, focus group discussion, sample survey, interviews, community perception survey etc.
(a)
Conduct field visit (Covering all five development regions, three ecological zones and three previous MEDEP phases) in consultation with MEDEP
staff.
(b)
The team shall prepare and submit the draft report to MEDEP for their inputs and finalize the report.
5. Inputs from UNDP/MEDEP
The study team shall work under the direct supervision of National Programme Director through National Programme Manager. The team shall coordinate with
MEDEP management and UNDP for any support required during the study. While reviewing the document, UNDP will also provide feedback from M&E
aspect and the UN's experience on various thematic groups such as UN Gender Thematic Group and Social Inclusion Action Group which will strengthen the
137
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
study. MEDEP team in general and the Gender and M&E team in particular will assist the team by availing available database for the study design, selection of
sampling frame and the analysis of data.
6. Deliverables
The study team will produce a comprehensive impact study report on the empowerment of Women, Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities and other Hardcore poor
through Micro-Enterprise Development Programme. For this, the team shall produce the following deliverables:
-
An inception report, which builds a theory of change based on existing literature on gender and MEDEP; includes a solid study design/methodology
supporting the theory of change; and includes a detailed work plan for completing the study
-
A preliminary findings report, including a debrief on the report at the conclusion of the field work
-
A draft impact study report which will have incorporated comments on the preliminary report
-
Final impact study report, incorporating final comments from all stakeholders (GoN, MEDEP, UNDP, DFAT, Project Board members)
7. Time Frame and deliverables
Deliverables
Deadline
Inception report
March 3rd week
Draft Impact study report
April 4th week
Final report
May 2nd week
Part –B: Cost estimate/remuneration
As per UNDP/MEDEP’s Guidelines and Norms. The cost will includes the remuneration of experts, allowance, travel and meeting costs, stationary and printing,
and the other costs required.
Part –C: Qualification required (academic and working experiences in the relevant fields)
138
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
-
The consulting firm/organizations that would be interested to submit proposal should posses the following qualifications to be eligible for the assignment:
-
The consulting firm/NGO should be registered under Nepal Government and should provide the VAT registration certificate and updated clearance
certificate.
-
The consulting firm/NGO should be in existence or registered for at least 2 years as on the date of submission of the proposal.
-
Signed (original) and dated (latest) CVs of the consultants who meet the academic and professional experiences mentioned below.
The team will consist of an International Consultant working for a certain number of days & two national consultants with following expertise's for 45 days:
1.
The study will be led by the International Consultant, who will act as the team leader of this study. This International Consultant will be managed and
paid for by DFAT and the consulting firm need not take care of the cost of the International Consultant while preparing their financial proposal.
2.
The national study team will consist of two national consultants: Gender and Social Inclusion Expert and Economics/Enterprise development Expert. The
national team will report to the International Consultant and will work closely with her/him.
3.
Gender and Social Inclusion Expert should work on Gender and Social Inclusion aspects like analysis of gender role, power relationship between men
and women, access to and control over resources, empowerment, etc. The Economics/Enterprise Development expert should work on enterprise
development and economic empowerment.
4.
The Gender and Social Inclusion Expert should hold a Master’s Degree in Gender Studies or Sociology or Anthropology or Development Studies
(preference will be given to Ph. D.) with 10 years' experience in gender research and analysis. Economic Development Expert should have Master’s
Degree in Business management or Economics (preference will be given to Ph.D.) with 10 years research and analysis experience in enterprise and
economic development.
5.
S/he should be familiar with UNDP, DFAT and Government of Nepal's Gender and Social Inclusion policies and programming with a proven track record
on gender mainstreaming.
6.
S/he should have in depth knowledge of the legal, policy and institutional issues governing micro-enterprises.
7.
S/he should have proven experience in leading and managing an impact/evaluation study.
Submission Criteria
Interested organizations are requested to submit sealed technical and financial proposal separately in hard copy. Please note that the financial proposal will be
opened only after the selection of the technical proposal. The following is the suggested structure of the proposal:
139
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Cover page [1 page]
a)
Name and contact information of the organization
b)
List of proposed activities included in the proposal
1.
Organizational background [1.5 page max.]
a.
Past experience of the organization in the area of project evaluation providing, as well as experience working with the government and UN
organizations, if relevant [0.5 page]
b.
Brief account of the organization’s capacity to undertake the proposed activities, in terms of human resources and others, as applicable [0.5 page]
c.
Why is this organization best suited to perform the proposed activities? Mention main strengths and general comparative advantages [0.5 page]
2.
Description of proposed activities [0.5 page max. for each proposed activity]
–
Describe the activity defining its objective, key elements, related output, and coverage of target beneficiaries.
3.
Implementation strategy [0.5 page max. for each proposed activity]
–
Identification of human resources per activity, as well as potential partners and collaborators if applicable.
4.
Work plan and schedule of deliverables by activities [2 page max.]
–
Include a list of deliverables with due date
5.
Data/information analysis methods to be used
6.
Provide project study procedure that is gender and social inclusion sensitive.
Supporting Documents
The following documents should be submitted together with the hard copy of the proposal:
(a)
Proposal submission form;
(b)
VAT certificate
(c)
Audit reports including income and expenditure statements for the last two years.
140
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
(d)
Copy of by-laws (Memorandum and Articles of Association)
(e)
Copy of last annual report of the organization
(f)
Signed CVs of consultants who meet the academic and professional experiences
(g)
Signed CVs of consultants who meet the academic and professional experiences
(h)
At least two names, contact phone numbers, emails (if available) of donor/INGO/national NGO with whom the institution/professional firm has worked
in the past (Attach at least two recommendation letters)
(i)
Operational and technical part of the Proposal, including documentation to demonstrate that the Offer or meets all requirements
141
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Work Plan
The selected NGO//firm is required to prepare a work plan specifying time for implementation of different activities, person responsible for each activity and
target. However, the work plan will be finalized jointly by the selected NGO/firm and the MEDEP.
Table 3: Suggested format of the Work Plan
142
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 2:
Theory of Change for GESI Impact Study
143
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 3:
Note on Statistical Design of Study
Sample Plan
Study area and population
For any household survey the ultimate sampling unit will be the selection of household. By the end of third phase (July 2013) MEDEP has covered 38 districts
representing Mountain, Hills and Terai across the all five development regions of the country so that the population will be all households of beneficiaries of
this program.
Sampling frame and unit
For this study the name list of beneficiaries provided by MEDEP will be used as a frame. Three stage sampling techniques will be used. At the first stage the
sampling unit will be selection of district and at the second stage sampling unit will be selection of RMC and at the third stage (ultimate stage) households will
be the sampling unit.
Sampling design
Multistage (three stage) sampling techniques will be used for this study. For first stage 10 districts will be selected purposively. For this name list of all districts
will be the sampling frame. To select 10 districts different criteria like coverage of ecological regions, development regions and MEDEP phases will be
identified.
In the second stage, cluster sampling technique will be used. At this stage frame will be all the name list of RMC and sampling unit will be RMC/its division.
For this, RMC/Its division will be considered as cluster. To select the cluster, name list of all RMCs along with their size within selected districts will be made
and two clusters will be selected from each district by using probability proportion to size. For the large RMC, it will be divided two or three according to its
size and each sub division will be considered as a cluster.
The final selection unit, household will be selected from the list of selected clusters of the selected RMC/its division by using systematic random sampling
mechanism after constructing sampling frames of the selected RMCs.
To increase the coverage and to meet the objectives of social inclusion (gender wise, caste and ethnicity wise), the frame of households will be made according
to the ascending order of ethnicity and gender. After arranging the name list in ascending order of ethnicity and gender, it maintains the proportion of respective
gender and caste according to the population. To select the households systematic sampling technique will be used.
144
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
To carry out Systematic random sampling following steps will be used:
-
The sample size of each PSU will be computed (i.e. n for each selected wards)
-
Name list of households of selected PSU will be made and total number of households gives corresponding population size (i.e. N) for selected PSU.
-
To select a systematic sample of items within enumeration area, the sampling interval will be computed as:
K = Size of population / Size of sample required
= N/n
-
Then taking a random number between 1 and K, which determines the first member for the sample. Selecting every kth member after the random start
and doing this n-1 times determines the remaining n-1 members of the sample. The skipping pattern continues to pick up every kth member until getting
desired sample size within enumeration area.
Sample Size
Under the assumption of simple random sampling scheme the sample size is determined by using following formula:
𝑆=
𝑍 2 𝑃 (1 − 𝑃)
𝑒2
Where,
Z = Z value and which is determined by the level of accuracy desired
P = Proportion of similar past survey
e = maximum relative error for estimate (sampling error)
Considering:
Z = 1.96 (taking 95% as a confidence level)
P = 0.5 (To make the sample size more representative, 50% of mark value is assumed)
e = 0.05
145
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
After correcting for the finite population (44,587) and using above formula, the sample size is calculated to be 380. Taking 1.5 design effects, the sample size
will be 570. This sample size will be taken only from program implemented group (treatment group). To compare the result from the program implemented
area (treatment area), half of the sample size of treatment area i.e. 285 sample size will be taken from program not implemented area (control area).
Sample distribution by district (percentage of women within each group to be specified after review of relevant MEDEP data)
Jumla
Nawalparasi
Parbat
Kailali
Dadeldhura
Salyan
Mahottari
Sindhupalchowk
Sunsari
Total
28
78
65
49
65
27
19
69
98
Dalit
10
15
20
5
21
1
12
16
33
Treatment
Indigenous Nationalities
0
39
15
37
11
5
2
35
37
Other
18
24
30
6
34
20
4
18
28
Total
14
39
32
24
33
13
9
35
49
Dalit
5
7
10
2
10
1
6
8
16
Control
Indigenous Nationalities
0
19
7
19
5
3
1
18
18
Other
9
12
15
3
17
10
2
9
14
Terhathum
Total
73
570
12
145
33
215
28
211
37
285
6
72
16
107
14
105
District
Tools for Evaluation
Some of the major bases taken for finalizing survey tools are:
-
ToR of the Impact evaluation study (MEDEP and It's Interventions, Scope and Objective of the study)
-
Baseline Information available in MEDEP
-
General Indicators of Impact evaluation
-
Proposal submitted to MEDEP (Methodology, resources – budget, time, HR, sampling)
146
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Tools
1.
Survey Questionnaire for Treatment (570 Entrepreneurs of MEDEP)
2.
Survey Questionnaire for Control (285 Non Participants of MEDEP Program)
3.
FGD Checklists (10 Nos – 2 Nos. in each 5 districts, GESI and Enterprise expert will conduct)
4.
Key Informant Interviews (KII) with social / political leaders of survey districts (2 in each sample district)
5.
Case Study
147
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 4:
Field work details
Mobilization of field enumerators
A team of enumerators was mobilized for the surveys in the ten selected districts. For the quality assurance of the surveys potential candidates were screened
based on the different criteria that included:
-
Prior experience of field survey preferably of MEDEP
-
Experience on both quantitative and qualitative tools
-
Minimum Bachelors level of education
-
Selecting 50 percent women enumerators (actual share was higher)
-
Ensuring representation of Dalit and Indigenous Nationalities and relevant language skills
-
Preference given to those with the knowledge and experience on gender and social inclusion
-
Having the ability to work in the team and coordinate field activities
-
Having good communication and documentation skills
The enumerators were trained by team leader and component specialists for two days (26-27 June 2014) on the sampling procedures to be followed for both the
treatment and the control groups, and conducting household surveys using the structured questionnaires.53 The team of specialists visited seven out of the ten
sample districts where the enumerators were contacted and data collection work was monitored for ensuring the quality of the surveys.
Data tabulation and analysis
The household survey data collected from the field were tabulated using MSAccess by data entry assistants under the supervision of data analyst/statistician.
Upon completion of data entry cross tables were generated as per the need by using the software FoxPro.
53
The selected enumerators are 7 women and 4 men from differet districts: Ms. Noki Tamang , Nuwakot; Ms. Kamala Sunuwar, Dolakha;; Ms. Susma Bhatta, Lalitpur; Ms. Ishwori Lohani, Kathmandu. Ms. Kalpana
Khanal, Mahottari, Ms. Chadani Joshi, Pokhara, Ms. Renu Tamang, Nuwakot, Mr. Navraj Upadhaya, Bajhang; Mr. Laxman Sapkota, Kathmandu; Mr. Akash Bhattarai, Kaillai; Mr. Shiba Regmi, Kathmandu
148
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Survey instruments
The main survey instruments used for the impact assessment include the following:
1.
Household Survey using structured questionnaire for Treatment group (583 Entrepreneurs of MEDEP)
2.
Household Survey using structured questionnaire for Control group (228 Non Participants of MEDEP Program)
3.
FGDs using checklists (10 Nos – 2 Nos. in each 5 districts).
4.
Key Informant Interviews (KII) with social / political leaders of survey districts (2 in each sample district)
5.
Case Studies
Other details
-
A sample size of 567 and 248 questionnaires were taken for the field survey for the treatment and control group respectively in 10 sample districts
Whereas treatment group are the ones supported by MEDEP, control group are the ones with similar socio-economic characteristics as MEDEP’s target
group but not supported by MEDEP
Two RMCs were covered in each of the sample districts
Sample list was drawn from the entrepreneurs’ population provided by MEDEP in each of the sample districts and respective RMCs.
Ten enumerators were mobilized in the field for about 15 days on an average; though some districts took longer days than others depending on the sample
size of each district (Please refer to the sample distribution table)
All the enumerators are back from the field and data entry work has begun
Around 40 percent of the respondents had to be taken as substitutes due to unavailability of the respondents in the field.
Unavailability of the respondents is due to internal/external migration, marriage, change in RMCs and so forth
Most of the migrated population belong to the youth group
A substantial number of entrepreneurs were found to be inactive. Most of the inactive ones belonged to those group who were not driven by the motive
to become entrepreneurs, but were just attracted for training, equipment and other facilities from MEDEP
Community perception survey was also conducted by taking in-depth interviews with two key informants in each of the sample district
Focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted with male and female entrepreneurs in each of the sample districts.
FGD was also conducted among the officials of BDSPO/DMEGA and EDFs.
Interaction meeting was conducted with the stakeholders such as focal point of DDC, DEIDC, WDO and so forth
149
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Orientation to enumerators
Time
Field Schedule of Enumerators and Experts
Activities
Responsible
09:00 - 09:30
Introduction and Formalization
Bimal Pokharel
09:30 - 11:00
Presentation and Sharing on Concept
of GESI
Chhaya Jha
11:00 - 12:30
Sharing on Micro-Enterprises and
MEDEP Model
Bhimendra Katuwal
12:30 - 13:30
Lunch
DMI
10:30 - 12:30
Orientation on Questionnaire
Bhimendra Katuwal
12:30 - 14:30
Orientation on Questionnaire
Manorama Adhikari
14:30 - 15:00
Tea and Snacks
15:00 - 16:00
Understanding on Questionnaire
Participants
16:00 - 16:30
Logistics and District Allocation
Bimal Pokharel
Bhimendra Katuwal
10:30 - 13:00
Practical Testing of Questionnaire
Participants
Manorama Adhikari
13:00 - 13:30
Tea and Snacks
DMI
27-May-14
05-Jun-14
Enumerators
District
Starting Date
Ending Date
Noki Tamang
Mahottari
11-Jun-14
17-Jun-14
Kamala Sunuwar
Dadeldhura
10-Jun-14
24-Jun-14
Navaraj Upadhaya
Sunsari
10-Jun-14
25-Jun-14
Ishwori Lohani
Nawalparasi
11-Jun-14
22-Jun-14
Shiva Regmi
Teratthum
09-Jun-24
21-Jun-14
Susma Bhatta
Jumla
09-Jun-14
19-Jun-14
Susma Bhatta
Salyan
22-Jun-14
28-Jun-14
Noki Tamang/ Shiva Regmi
Sindhupalchowk
23-Jun-14
28-Jun-14
Roshan Poudel
Parbat
09-Jun-14
20-Jun-14
Akash Bhattarai/Laxman Sapkota
Kailali
14-Jun-14
22-Jun-14
Dadeldhura
12-Jun-14
16-Jun-14
Kailali
18-Jun-14
22-Jun-14
Parbat
15-Jun-14
22-Jun-14
Sindhupalchowk
24-Jun-14
28-Jun-14
Expert
06-Jun-14
Field visit of Chhaya Jha, Team Leader: June 11-12: Sunsari, June 13-14: Mahottari
150
.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 5:
List of Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews
District
Sunsari
FGD
KII/ Discussion
Women MERs (Tharu) (incl gender relations profile)
Community leaders
Men MERs (Dalit youth)
Local Development Officer, DDC
DMEGA Executive Committee members, DMEGA Staff
Social Development Officer, DDC
BDSPO and EDFs
Women and Child Officer
Area Support Office Manager and 3 Staff
Mahottari
Women MERs (Madhesi Dalit) (incl gender relations profile)
Women and Child Officer
Women MERs (Madhesi Dalit)
Representative of Cottage and Small Industries (Gharelu)
Men MERs (Madhesi Dalit)
Husbands of women MERs
DMEGA Executive Committee members, DMEGA Staff, EDFs
BDSPO and EDFs
Dadeldhura
Women MERs (Dalit) (incl gender relations profile)
Husbands of women MERs
Men MERs (Dalit)
DMEGA
BDSPO and EDFs
Dhangadi
Women MERs (Janajatis) (incl gender relations profile)
Husbands of women MERs
Men MERs (Dalit)
DMEGA
BDSPO and EDFs
Parbat
Women MERs (mixed group - Janajatis and Brahman/Chhetris) (incl gender relations
profile)
DMEGA
Men MERs ((mixed group - Janajatis and Brahman/Chhetris))
LDO
EDFs
Enterprise Focal Person, DDC
BDSPO and EDFs
APSO
Representative of Cottage and Small Industries (Gharelu)
151
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 6:
List of policies reviewed
National
National Micro-enterprise related and other relevant Policies/Acts
The Interim
Constitution of
Nepal (2006)
-
Annex 7:
The Industrial Enterprises Act, 1992
Micro Enterprise Policy 2064
Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA): Operation Guidelines, 2070
Technology Development Fund Guidelines, 2070
Women Entrepreneurship Development Fund Karyabidhi, 2069
Land Acquisition Act 1977
List of organisations and documents reviewed
Institution
Districts
Documents Reviewed
DMEGA
Dadeldhura
- 2011-2013 Annual plan
- Job description of DPC
Mahotari
- Staff diversity profile
Save the Earth
- Constitution
- Organization profile
SEEDS
- Quarterly Progress Reports 2013 (4)
- Constitution
- Admin and Financial policy
- Budget 2013
- Mission, Vision and Objectives
- Organization Profile
- Annual Workplans
- Performance Evaluation
System
- Staff ToRs
BDSPO
MEDEP
152
- Progress Report 2013
- Staff diversity profile
- Budget
- M&E templates
- Staff diversity profile
- Annual Reports
- ILO training manuals SIYB
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 8:
Sample distribution by district (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
District
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Sindhupalchowk
7
3
10
0
0
0
5
26
31
0
0
0
3
25
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
54
69
Jumla
1
9
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
7
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
16
27
Terhathum
13
2
15
0
0
0
9
18
27
0
0
0
12
17
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
37
71
Parbat
10
14
24
0
0
0
6
11
17
0
0
0
11
22
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
47
74
Salyan
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
7
9
0
3
3
5
10
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
21
28
Dadeldhura
8
12
20
0
0
0
3
11
14
0
0
0
12
20
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
43
66
Sunsari
1
0
1
7
31
38
10
6
16
4
21
25
1
3
4
3
2
5
1
7
8
27
70
97
Mahottari
0
1
1
2
9
11
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
17
19
Nawalparasi
0
14
14
3
2
5
10
24
34
1
8
9
4
16
20
0
0
0
1
0
1
19
64
83
Kailali
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
3
4
0
34
34
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
48
49
Total
40
58
98
12
44
56
46
109
155
5
66
71
58
131
189
3
2
5
2
7
9
166
417
583
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
153
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
District
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Sindhupalchowk
1
9
10
0
0
0
7
24
31
0
0
0
7
21
28
0
0
Jumla
2
8
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
17
0
Terhathum
1
14
15
0
0
0
3
24
27
0
0
0
0
29
29
Parbat
2
22
24
0
0
0
2
15
17
0
0
0
1
32
Salyan
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
9
9
2
1
3
3
Dadeldhura
7
13
20
0
0
0
5
9
14
0
0
0
Sunsari
0
1
1
4
34
38
4
12
16
0
25
Mahottari
0
1
1
1
10
11
0
3
3
0
Nawalparasi
2
12
14
0
5
5
3
31
34
Kailali
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
Total
15
83
98
5
51
56
24
131
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
154
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
0
0
0
15
54
69
0
0
0
0
0
4
23
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
67
71
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
69
74
12
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
23
28
20
12
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
34
66
25
0
4
4
0
5
5
2
6
8
10
87
97
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
18
19
2
7
9
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
76
83
4
4
30
34
3
4
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
42
49
155
8
63
71
36
153
189
0
5
5
2
7
9
90
493
583
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 9:
Sample distribution by project phase (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Phase
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
First
4
10
14
3
0
3
18
17
35
1
16
17
17
23
40
0
0
0
1
0
1
44
66
110
Second
23
20
43
3
27
30
13
43
56
3
33
36
11
53
64
0
0
0
0
2
2
53
178
231
Third
13
28
41
6
17
23
15
49
64
1
17
18
30
55
85
3
2
5
1
5
6
69
173
242
Total
40
58
98
12
44
56
46
109
155
5
66
71
58
131
189
3
2
5
2
7
9
166
417
583
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Phase
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC NHC T
First
1
13
14
0
3
3
6
29
35
1
16
17
1
39
40
0
0
Second
10
33
43
1
29
30
6
50
56
5
31
36
12
52
64
0
Third
4
37
41
4
19
23
12
52
64
2
16
18
23
62
85
Total
15
83
98
5
51
56
24
131
155
8
63
71
36
153
189
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
0
1
1
9
101
110
0
0
0
2
2
34
197
231
0
5
5
2
4
6
47
195
242
0
5
5
2
7
9
90
493
583
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
155
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 10: Sample distribution by district (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
District
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Other Madhesi Caste
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Sindhupalchowk
1
5
6
0
0
0
1
8
9
1
2
3
9
7
16
0
1
1
12
23
35
Jumla
2
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
6
4
10
Terhathum
2
2
4
0
0
0
5
6
11
0
0
0
9
1
10
0
0
0
16
9
25
Parbat
5
3
8
0
0
0
4
1
5
0
0
0
6
5
11
0
0
0
15
9
24
Salyan
3
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
0
0
0
5
8
13
Dadeldhura
3
12
15
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
8
17
25
Sunsari
1
0
1
1
6
7
1
0
1
3
3
6
5
7
12
1
0
1
12
16
28
Mahottari
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
1
1
0
9
9
Nawalparasi
1
0
1
8
6
14
2
1
3
1
2
3
7
4
11
3
1
4
22
14
36
Kailali
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
18
0
3
3
0
0
0
4
19
23
Total
19
34
53
9
12
21
18
17
35
8
22
30
42
40
82
4
3
7
100
128
228
M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
156
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
District
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Other Madhesi Caste
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Sindhupalchowk
3
3
6
0
0
0
2
7
9
0
3
3
8
8
16
1
0
1
14
21
35
Jumla
1
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
3
7
10
Terhathum
1
3
4
0
0
0
2
9
11
0
0
0
1
9
10
0
0
0
4
21
25
Parbat
2
6
8
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
2
9
11
0
0
0
4
20
24
Salyan
2
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
2
11
13
Dadeldhura
12
3
15
0
0
0
4
1
5
0
0
0
3
2
5
0
0
0
19
6
25
Sunsari
0
1
1
0
7
7
0
1
1
0
6
6
0
12
12
0
1
1
0
28
28
Mahottari
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
1
1
2
7
9
Nawalparasi
1
0
1
5
9
14
0
3
3
0
3
3
1
10
11
1
3
4
8
28
36
Kailali
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
11
18
2
1
3
0
0
0
10
13
23
Total
23
30
53
5
16
21
9
26
35
7
23
30
20
62
82
2
5
7
66
162
228
HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
157
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 11: GESI analysis of selected policies
Interim Constitution of Nepal (provisions for micro-enterprise, gender and social inclusion)
The Interim Constitution of Nepal has been divided into 24 Parts on different topics. The most relevant part was Fundamental rights part. The Interim constitution
has listed 21 fundamental rights; it is somehow silent on formation and operation of enterprise by any individual. In order to recognize rights of individuals to
be a part of micro-enterprise, additional policies, acts, rules and regulations need to be crafted in order to create a facilitative environment for fostering microenterprises.
Section in policy document
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part III, Article 18
Rights regarding employment
and social security
Every citizen shall have the right to employment
as provided for in the law.
The provision remains silent about enterprises which generate employment opportunities.
Women, labourers, the aged, disabled as well as
incapacitated and helpless citizens shall have the
right to social security.
Good that recognition of target groups have been identified. Still, the provision doesn’t
address and identify largely marginalized groups like Raute, Chepang etc
Part III, Article 19: Right to
property
Every citizen shall, subject to the existing laws,
have the right to acquire, own sell and otherwise
dispose of property.
Good to learn that state respects private property coming from legal means. Such
provisions shall help to retain monetary property within the country under prevalent
mechanism. The right to hold property can promote establishment of enterprises.
Part III : Rights of women
No woman discrimination
No violence against women
Further acts should be enacted keeping in mind that facilitates women to come out from
traditional domestic sphere of household chores only.
Both sons and daughters have equal rights to
ancestral property.
Part III: Rights to social justice
158
Women, Dalits, Indigenous ethnic groups,
Madhesi communities, oppressed groups, the
poor farmers and labourers, who are
economically, socially or educationally
background shall have the right to participate in
state structures on the basis of principles of
proportional inclusion
Good that disadvantaged social groups have been identified. Furthermore, other than
proportional inclusion, it is necessary to involve and mainstream these target groups to
holistic development discourses. All the development related works should prescribe
mechanism which ensures high participation and involvement of these groups as
proportional inclusion may help to uplift few representatives of these groups who already
have the capability of accessing state resources.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
The Industrial Enterprises Act, 1992
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Definition
Defines several words that have meaning
closest to industrial enterprises.
Include and define terms related to gender and inclusion. Special provisions and definition like
“women operated” enterprise etc can be included.
Classification of industry
Classification based on distinguished sector like
Agriculture based industries, manufacturing
industries etc have been done.
Good that agri and forest based enterprises are also prioritized.
Industry to be Registered
The process of registration of industries has
been mentioned.
A simplified procedure need to be brought into effect for registering small scale industries.
Moreover, women groups need to be provided cash concessions on registration of such
industry.
Facilities and Concessions to
be Accorded to Industries
Several facilities and concessions to the
registered enterprises have been mentioned.
Apart from few forest based enterprises like fruit enterprises, the provision seems to benefit
large enterprises only as concessions on income tax, sales tax, excise duty and custom duties
etc shall benefit the middle and large scale industries only.
In addition to this, there is no recognition of women led enterprises resulting to no provision of
facilities or special consideration for such enterprises.
Industrial Manpower
Forest-based industry may be made available
any forest on a leasehold basis.
Good that leasehold system shall be promoted to ultra-poors for enterprise set-up.
Provision of manpower for industries run in
Nepal is made.
Good that local people are prioritized firstly. However, almost nothing is mentioned in terms of
women manpower. Motivation could be generated by inducing provisions of tax concession if
any company hires women manpower.
Micro Enterprise Policy 2064
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Background
Highlights about the need of enterprise
development as well as necessity of framing this
policy document.
Good that policy realizes strong linkage between role of micro-enterprises and livelihood
improvement of indigent class, women, Dalit, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi and other
backward communities.
The policy has rightly identified that facilities and concessions provided by the existing policies
and laws is not adequate for small scale enterprises.
159
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Past efforts, Existing situation,
Problems and challenges,
Need for new policy
Describes the necessity of development of
micro enterprise policy apart from industrial
policy
Good that a separate policy has been formulated to cover informal and business activities
which could not be covered by the existing industrial policy in the classification of industries.
Definitions
Defines several words which are closely related
to micro scale enterprise
Though the policy background raises the need of pro-poor economic and development
programs, it fails to define and include explanation of women and other marginalized groups in
definition itself. In fact, these groups are largely involved in informal small enterprises.
Objectives
Highlights the objectives of policy
Good that marginalized groups are properly targeted for opportunities of employment and selfemployment. In addition, maximum use of local resources, means, technologies and skills has
been rightly included in objectives.
Policy
Highlights the policy provisions:
- Build legal and institutional mechanisms and
infrastructures as required for the inclusion
of micro-enterprise in the formal sector.
- Simplify, facilitate and systematize the
establishment, management and operation
of micro-enterprises.
- To get the micro-enterprise promotion
programs to be included by the local bodies
in their respective plans.
- Accord special priorities to the targeted
group specified by GoN while promoting and
operating micro-enterprises.
- Capacity building of target groups
- Use of collective marks for promotion of
micro-enterprise based products
- Good that institutional arrangement shall be built to include micro-enterprises in formal
sector as doing so may facilitate microenterprises to enjoy several facilities and
concessions.
- The policy has laid emphasis on establishment, management and operation of microenterprises.
- However classification of enterprises is necessary before providing promotional assistance
to micro-enterprise. Classification of micro-enterprises need to be based on some vital
questions like:
Who is the principal owner of micro-enterprise? Is it women-led enterprise? Does the
enterprise encourage representation of socially backward communities? How many women
or IPs have access to job opportunities in enterprise?
What is the capital investment in any enterprise? Do women-led enterprises have adequate
resources to operate and compete along with male led enterprises?
- A clear value chain involved in every micro-enterprise namely production, processing and
marketing needs to be strengthened rather than capacity building by focusing on only one
of the abovementioned three functions.
160
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Entire policy document remains silent in safeguarding and subsequently enhancing the capacity of micro-enterprises to flourish in competitive market environment. The corporate
and mega-enterprises who boost massive physical, human and financial resources already capture the market system making it almost impossible for micro-enterprises to survive.
The market variations (fluctuations) exert tremendous pressure which is not the same in corporate giants. The marginalized groups are the hardest hit section of the community.
Once micro-enterprises cannot cope to the fluctuating market systems, such groups lose income generation opportunities forcing them to explore for alternate means of livelihood
e.g. migration to and employment in foreign land. Therefore, policy document which at a time safeguards as well as enhances capability of micro-enterprises to cope with fluctuating
market systems and growing corporate influence is necessary.
Institutional structure
Provision of central level micro-enterprise
development unit in MoICS and a district micro
enterprise development unit under DDC.
It would be effective if institutional structures were formed at municipality level as well as
cluster of VDCs level.
Monitoring and evaluation
Agencies involved in monitoring and evaluation.
There is a need to make provisions for intense and continuous monitoring of micro-enterprises
in order to identify problems encountered by entrepreneurs as well as to provide necessary
assistance services.
Industrial Policy, 2067
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 1- Part 5
Background for the need of industrial policy, 2067
It is good that need of industrial development has been realized. The industrial policy
enacted on 2049 is therefore updated to develop current version of industrial policy
2067
Part 6
Long term goal: effective and coordinated cooperation approach of
public, private and cooperative sector to deliver significant
contribution to national economy and poverty reduction through solid
foundation of industrial development
161
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Part 7
Objectives:
- Increase of industrial production and productivity
- Mobilization of local means and resources, raw materials, skills
etc
- Introduction of appropriate technology
- Prepare an investment friendly environment
- Protection of industrial intellectual property rights.
Part 8
Policies based on objectives
Part 9
Special policy provisions for micro-enterprises and small scale
industries:
- Build legal and institutional arrangements for the promotion of
micro enterprises and small scale industries
- Capacity building of micro-enterprises
- Preparation of district level industrial development plans with the
close consultation with governmental organizations at local level.
- Special priority to be given to target population in the
establishment and operation of micro-enterprises.
- Development of industrial clusters
- OVOP (one village one products) concept to be promoted
- Provision of grants for local bodies focusing on industrial
infrastructure development
- Provision of collective mark
- Protection of intellectual property rights of micro-enterprises
- Special provision on use of Information technology for production
and marketing
162
Suggested GESI related revisions
Good that the objectives set forward can lead to industrial development as envisaged.
However, inclusive and equitable approach for industrial development needs to be
highlighted.
In this regard, marginalized groups and communities should also be brought into main
development discourse for achieving broad-based holistic growth.
Good that the policy has laid detailed elaboration of objectives.
Good that special recognition is given for the development of micro-enterprises.
Good that targeted population are given priority.
Still, social groups like women and indigenous people need to be provided with certain
monetary or credit facilities for the establishment and operation of micro-enterprises.
Trainings can be helpful in increasing revenue generated by any micro-enterprise but
capital investment is integral at every stages of micro-enterprise operation.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Part 11
Special strategies for micro-enterprises and small scale industries:
- Identification of target groups and place through social
mobilization
- Integrated business development service to be started
- Provision of equity fund, credit guarantee fund etc
- Provision of business development service through business
development service provider
- Business incubation center establishment to benefit microenterprises based on agri and NTFPs.
- Provision of additional funds like Angel Fund and Venture Capital
Fund.
Suggested GESI related revisions
Good that, credit facilities are also included in strategies. It should be noted that
equitable mechanism should be put in place to access such fund so that target groups
get maximum benefit out of such funds.
Technology Development Fund Guidelines, 2070
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Definition
Explanation of terms used in policy document
Absence of definition which states existence of indigenous technology and knowledge
in traditional micro-enterprises
Part 3
Formation of a basket fund. Funds coming from government
agencies, donor agencies, private sector etc shall be accounted to
such fund.
Good that the fund can seek for policy reform, manage the fund for credit facilities and
upgrade/ introduce technology.
Roles and responsibilities of such fund are elaborated.
Part 5
Formation of committee to overlook roles and responsibilities of
fund.
GESI perspectives should be employed in the formation of such committee. Since
micro-enterprises is concerned/focused at grass-root level, provision of inclusion of civil
society organizations need to be made in whatsoever committee formed at
central/district/local level.
Part 9
Submission of proposals for acquiring credit facilities by microenterprises
An evaluation mechanism of finalizing grant or credit facility to micro-enterprise has
been set up. However, policy needs to facilitate setting up GESI provisions as one of
the criteria of evaluation mechanism.
163
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 10
Monitoring: the committee can undertake monitoring at times.
Monitoring is an important component of program conduction. So, the provision of
compulsory monitoring within certain time limits may be effective than saying
monitoring shall be carried out at times. Also this section on monitoring should
exclusively mandate monitoring format and collection of data from GESI lens.
Women entrepreneurship development fund Karyabidhi, 2069
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 3: Formation of Fund
Setting up of “women entrepreneurship development fund”.
It is good that fund is formed for promoting women
entrepreneurship.
Provision of basket funding on abovementioned fund.
Part 4: Objectives of Fund
Highlights main objectives of fund:
- Provide collateral free loan to women entrepreneurs in simplified and
easy way.
- Help in socio-economic upliftment of women through entrepreneurship
- Help in the development, promotion of women entrepreneurship
through micro enterprises
Part 6: Use of Fund
The amount deposited in fund shall be used to promote entrepreneurship
among women.
Utilization of fund.
Part 7: Formation of committee at
central level
The provision has provided a structure of committee for conduction of
fund
Part 8: Roles and responsibilities of
committee
Detailed description of roles and responsibilities of central committee
Part 9:District Fund management
committee
Formation of district fund management committee
Part 10: Roles and responsibilities of
district fund management committee
Detailed description of roles and responsibilities of district committee
164
GESI provisions need to be employed clearly.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section in Policy
Existing policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 11: Loan flow, interest
determination
Detailed description of loan flow:
Complicated procedure to acquire loan.
Applications submission to district committee. District committee then
forwards those applications to central committee. Central committee
approves the selected applications and sends back to district. Interest rate
for the amount is 10%. Loan repayment duration is two years.
The main criterion for disbursement of loan is taken as
employment generation ability of enterprise. Other criteria
like geographical coverage, raw material usage pattern etc
should be included.
Simplified database creation to track down the progress on
women entrepreneurship is necessary. Loan disbursement
and banking procedure needs to be highly simplified and
systematized so that transparency and accountability can be
ensured.
165
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 12: GESI analysis of MEDPA Operational Guidelines
Micro-Enterprise Development for Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA): Operational Guidelines, 2070
(Approved as per the ministerial decision of January 7, 2014)
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Part 1: Definitions
Definition of poor included
Part 2: Target Groups
Clear target group and percentages
166
Suggested GESI related revisions
- ADD: definitions of excluded groups, empowerment gender, GESI, GESI responsive programmes
- Excluded groups are groups of people who have been systematically excluded over a long time due to economic,
caste, ethnic, gender, disability, and geographic reasons and include sexual and gender minorities. GoN
documents define excluded groups as “women, Dalits, indigenous Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims, people with
disabilities, senior citizens, and people living in remote regions who have not benefited from national development
efforts.”
- Empowerment is the enhancement of assets and capabilities of diverse individuals and groups to function and to
engage, influence and hold accountable the institutions that affect them.
- Gender is the socially constructed power relations between women and men that establishes the roles,
responsibilities, opportunities and decision-making authority of women and men in society.
- Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) is a concept that addresses unequal power relations between
women and men and between different social groups. It focuses on the need for action to re-balance these power
relations and ensure equal rights, opportunities and respect for all individuals regardless of their social identity.
- GESI responsive programmes are programmes that address the barriers women and other historically excluded
groups face. They work to strengthen the capacities of women and poor and excluded people to improve their lives.
(Source: adapted from Operational Guidelines for Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Mainstreaming in the Health
Sector, Ministry of Health and Population, 2013)
REFINE terminology: delete "backward" before women;
ADD Gender and sexual minorities
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 3: Formation and operation of “Micro Enterprise
Development Fund” at district levels
ADD in Functions
(F) Prepare and implement (ADD)"A GESI responsive" annual programme of the Fund and ensure value for money
(H) Submit regular programme progress report, financial and audit report to DDC with disaggregation by
gender/caste/ethnicity and location and with analysis of progress related with GESI issues
(I) Prepare regular Programme progress report, financial and audit report of the Fund and submit to Department/Board
and MEDEP with disaggregation by gender/caste/ethnicity and location and with analysis of progress related with GESI
issues
Functions, Duties and Authorities of DEDC in operation of
MEDF as Fund Executive Committee
Part 4: Program Operations “Business Development
Service Providing Organization”
Mobilization of Business Development Service Providing
Organization
ADD in first paragraph: Conduct gender and social relations analysis
Invitation of Proposal for Pre-qualification of Business
Development Service Providing Organization
ADD: the ad must be circulated widely and through forums which will be accessed by organisations working on the
issues of women, poor and excluded, ensuring it reaches the less accessible geographical areas.
- Basis of pre-qualification of business development
service providing organization
- Inclusiveness and Competency of the human
resources
- Organizational policies related to gender equality and
social inclusion
ADD: Prior experience of the organisation in working with women, poor and people of excluded groups
- Composition of the Selection Committee for selection
of Business Development Service Providing
Organization
- Selection Committee for evaluation of the proposal
and to shortlist pre-qualified BDSPOs
ADD MEMBERS: representative national women commission, and representative NGO federation
ADD LANGUAGE: Selection Committee shall prepare GESI sensitive standards for selecting BDSPOs for evaluation
Publication of the list of Business Development Service
Providing Organization after Pre-qualification
ADD: Based on the recommendation of Selection Committee, DCSI/CSIDB shall publish district-wise list of prequalified BDSPOs in the national newspaper and local FMso that local organisations have access to pre-qualification
information more easily
167
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Selection of VDC
- The VDCs shall include following particulars in the
project proposal
- Poverty mapping / DAG mapping), VDCs poverty
index
ADD
- Status of employment of the VDC including of women and the excluded
- Potential opportunities that may be available in the VDC for women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor microentrepreneurs
Part 5: Roles, Responsibility and Obligation of
Business Development Service Providing
Organization
Conduct Preliminary Survey
ADD
- Map existing gender and social relations (micro-enterprise related division of labour, access to resources and
decision making authority of women and men (of different social groups),
- Identify existing gender/caste/ethnicity based social practices impacting micro-enterprise development of women,
poor and the excluded
Identification and Selection of Market Centre and
Programme Location
ADD: Based on the preliminary survey, raw materials availability, demand and market access, mobility issues of
women target group, BDSPO will identify appropriate location.
Identification of Market, Technology and Environment
Feasibility
ADD
a) Particulars of the raw materials availability at the local level and its analysis, with disaggregated analysis of access
of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor to the available raw materials
b) Particulars of technology availability and its analysis, with disaggregated analysis of access of women, Dalits,
Janajatis and Hardcore poor to the available technology
c) Particulars of the skill requirement based on the raw materials and indigenous technology availability at the local
level and its analysis, with disaggregated analysis of existing skills of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor
d) Feasible industrial goods and its potential consumers, e) Status of physical infrastructure to operate enterprise, and
ability of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor to use the infrastructure
Identification and Selection of Potential Micro
Entrepreneurs
The families identified below poverty line as per the
preliminary survey shall be the target group .... ratio of
Hardcore poor, backward women, indigenous group, dalit,
physically challenged, marginalized group shall be as per
MEDEP’s approach
ADD: Appropriate importance shall also be given for the quality that include attitude towards enterprise, level of
commitment, level of commitment of family gatekeepers to women for addressing gender constraints, appropriate age
group (16 to 50 years), level of assuming risk, willingness, readiness, time to be given for enterprise, dynamism, family
enterprising environment, etc in the process of identification of potential micro entrepreneurs
168
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Formation of Group
- Orientation of potential MEs
- Formation of MEGs, MEGA, DMEGA
ADD: A meeting with husband, mother-in-law and other family members will be organised for potential women microentrepreneurs to identify the steps to be taken by the family to address women's work-burden, time poverty and
mobility issues related with managing micro-enterprises.
Conduct Entrepreneurship Development Training
ADD: The main curricula of Entrepreneurship Development Training shall include: Micro Enterprise Creation and
Development - MECD, Start and Improve Your Business –SIYB, Training on Potential Entrepreneurs –TOPE, Training
on Start up Entrepreneurs –TOSE, Training on Existing Entrepreneurs –TOEE, Training on Growing Entrepreneurs –
TOGE. all these training shall integrate GESI aspects as required
Conduct Skill Development Training
ADD: It shall be the responsibility of the Business Development Service Providing Organization to conduct/facilitate
skill development training through the provision of a subject expert and competent trainer and to ensure that GESI
aspects are integrated in the training. if needed a separate training session on GESI shall be organised with a GESI
trainer.
ADD an extra point regarding: business development service providing organization shall ensure that the
gender/caste/ethnicity based issues experienced by the different groups amongst the target participants are addressed
(e.g. language, methodology and timing, subject matter adapted to different social groups considering their particular
context)
ADD: Business Development Service Providing Organization shall make available the study materials, training
materials, refreshment expenses, subsistence allowance and other facilities including child care (As per Annex 8) to
the participants during skill development training
Counseling Services to be provided by Business
Development Service Providing Organization
ADD: To start business after training, information on raw materials required starting enterprise, access to technology
and method of using the technology shall also be taught. This will be customised and the social constraints of the
participants recognised and addressed
Part 6 Establishment and Operations of Common
Facility Centre
If the number of Hardcore poor who are interested to
establish enterprises but because of poverty no space is
available in their residence exceed 10 .....
ADD: Following points shall have to be considered in carrying out feasibility study: Possibility of child care facilities,
community kitchen and community laundry facilities to ease household women's work burden
169
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 7: Institutional arrangement
Formation of committees: structure and processes in
local, district and central level.
Members: Representative of NWC, NDC, NEFDIN
Function, Duties and Authority of the MEDPA Steering
Committee
ADD
- Prepare policy environment for micro entrepreneurs' easy access to capital, including for women and the most
disadvantaged amongst the target group.
- Manage regular monitoring, evaluation and review of the programme and provide policy direction based on
disaggregated analysis of monitoring reports.
- Manage required human resources required for the implementation of the programme, ensuring diversity amongst
them
ADD AN EXTRA POINT
- Ensure barriers of women, poor and the excluded amongst the target group are addressed for the development of
their micro-enterprise
Formation of Micro Enterprise Development for
Poverty Alleviation (MEDPA) Executive Committee
ADD: Member: Representative, GESI unit/section, Ministry of federal affairs and local development
Function, Duties and Authority of the Executive
Committee
ADD: To ensure GESI mainstreaming in all of the above functions
Formation of District Enterprise Development Committee
- Member WCO, Member: Vice President, District Dalit
Coordination Committee at DDC
- Member: Vice President, District Indigenous
Nationalities Development Coordination Committee
Function, Duties and Authority of District Enterprise
Development Committee
170
ADD: To ensure barriers of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor are addressed for progress in micro-enterprise
development
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Formation of Village Enterprise Development Committee
Ward Citizens Forum
Representative, 1 person nominated by committee from
among local Dalit organizations,
from among local indigenous nationalities organizations,
from among local women organizations
Function, Duties and Authority of Village Enterprise
Development Committee
- To mobilize local community to promote Hardcore poor
centric and inclusive enterprise development initiative
through Ward Civic Forum at ward level and Civic
- Awareness Centre at the VDC level
ADD: To ensure GESI mainstreaming in all of the above functions
Part 8: Roles and responsibilities
Roles and Responsibilities Department of Cottage and
Small Industry - DCSI/ Board – CSIDB
ADD
- To enhance capacity of the jurisdiction offices and make them capable for GESI responsive planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation
- To make managerial functions like human resources management, resource mobilization, fund management,
monitoring and evaluation effective and inclusive
- To update and standardize different training curriculum entrepreneurship and capacity development and ensure
GESI mainstreaming in them.
Roles and Responsibilities of District Offices of
DCSI/CSIDB
To establish gender centric and inclusive management
information system ...
ADD: To ensure GESI issues are addressed in all programmes related with micro-enterprise
Roles and Responsibilities of District Development
Committee
ADD
- To ensure GESI mainstreaming in all district level micro-enterprise activities
- To prepare district level GESI responsive strategic plan for micro enterprise development and get it approved from
District Council
Roles and Responsibilities of Business Development
Service Providing Organization – BDSPO
ADD: To work with relevant organisations to address barriers of women, Dalits, Janajatis, Hardcore poor and other
disadvantaged social groups
171
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Roles and Responsibilities of Village Development
Committee - VDC
To mobilize local community to promote Hardcore poor
centric and inclusive enterprise development initiative
through Ward Civic Forum at ward level and Civic
Awareness Centre at the VDC level
ADD: To formulate GESI RESPONSIVE policy, plan and Programme in relation to micro enterprise development at the
VDC level
Roles and Responsibilities of MEDEP
ADD: To provide technical assistance for GESI mainstreaming in MEDPA implementation
Part 9: Graduation Training to be provided
ADD
- The Office shall interact with the micro entrepreneurs selected for graduation training and analyze their training
need, feasibility, social issues impacting smooth graduation of particularly women, Dalits, Janajati and Hardcore
poor micro-entrepreneurs and capacity before inducting them in the advanced training .
- The Monitoring Sub-committee shall consider and give the following details: need, type and duration of the training,
number and type of participants, diversity amongst participants.......
Provision regarding specialized trainings.
ADD extra point: To work with different partners to reduce the gender/caste/ethnicity based discriminatory practices
impacting progress of women and other excluded group
Part 10: Provision regarding use and development of
appropriate technology
ADD
- Research and development of technology which would support women to make higher incomes from the
enterprises they select
- Micro entrepreneurs promoted by transfer of appropriate technology shall compulsorily submit annual progress
report to the concerned Office. Such report may include additional employment generation, increase in income,
multiplier effect etc and should report on shifts in gender and social relations
- The provision of co-fund may deprive target groups from introducing appropriate technology in their enterprise.
Alternate provisions and credit arrangements may encourage enterprises to adopt technology.
Part 11: Conduct Training on Contract Basis
ADD: Efforts should be made to promote business led/managed by women, if working in the sector, for such training
Part 12: Management of the Goods Produced from
Training
50% discount for participants
ADD: For the Hardcore poor group, further concession could be made, as decided by the trainer in case of need of
participant
Part 13: Arrangement of Technical and Counseling
Services
ADD
- The monitoring sub-committee will identify the specific needs of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor for
technical and counselling services according to their needs/interests
- Special arrangements to support, if required, the Hardcore poor will be identified.
172
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Suggested GESI related revisions
Part 14: Marketing Network
ADD: Support in strengthening capacity of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor amongst the target group to
identify and use such marketing facilities/networks
Part 15: Quality Control and Improvement
ADD: District Enterprise Development Committee shall make extra efforts to address the constraints of women and
others of excluded groups due to their low exposure to quality control/improvement activities.
Part 16: Monitoring and Evaluation
Indicator based effective monitoring
ADD
- This monitoring report will provide disaggregated data about the micro-entrepreneurs and will analyse the progress
in addressing the constraints of women, Dalits, Janajatis and Hardcore poor micro-entrepreneurs.
- Based on the monitoring done by District Enterprise Development Committee, member secretary shall send
monitoring report, WITH GESI ANALYSIS, on monthly basis to Department/Board and MEDEP
ADD (members in Monitoring sub-committee)
- Member: Social Development Officer, DDC
- Member: one representative of women's organisations
ADD (responsibility of sub-committee on monitoring)
- To monitor progress in addressing of gender/caste/ethnicity based constraints of women, Dalits, Janajatis and
Hardcore poor for their micro-enterprise development
- Make monitoring effective, GESI responsive and results-oriented
Part 17: Progress Report
ADD
- Business Development Service Providing Organization shall submit regular monthly progress report (both financial
and programme), with GESI disaggregation AND ANALYSIS, in the format as specified
- The Executive Committee shall submit a GESI sensitive progress report to the Steering Committee on half yearly
and annual basis
Part 18: Arrangement to Reduce Fiduciary Risk
Make provision of civic monitoring, public hearing, social
audit, public audit, public survey etc. to make the Fund
accountable to the stakeholders
ADD: Ensure participation of women and the excluded of the target group participate actively in such social
accountability monitoring
Part 19: Arrangement of Rewards and Incentives
- Cash incentive and certificate
- Number of households that have come out of poverty
ADD (evaluation indicator for DEDC): Demonstrated decrease in gender/caste/ethnicity based barriers for women,
dalits, janajatis and other excluded groups
ADD (for BDSPO): Status of GESI responsiveness in organisation
173
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Section/Existing GESI sensitive policy provisions
Part 20: Miscellaneous
174
Suggested GESI related revisions
ADD (Complaint Management Mechanism): District Enterprise Development Committee will be responsible to
develop a grievance mechanism for sexual harassment cases which will provide privacy and confidentiality for
complaints to be filed and heard.
ADD (Qualification of Enterprise Development Facilitators): Those having Entrepreneurship Development skill test
Level 2 or 3 of CTEVT after receiving training on Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Household Survey (HHS),
Entrepreneurship Development (SIYB/MECD) and gender equality and social inclusion
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 13: GESI analysis of BDSPO documents
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
1. Kailali BDSPO (Sustainable Enterprise and Environment Development Working Awareness Center- SEEWAC/ Nepal)
Vision: to firmly establish entrepreneurship development as a medium to address
poverty in far western region in Nepal.
Mission: to provide necessary enterprise development consultancy services to
government bodies, non-government bodies and individuals seeking to upscale
their business
Goal: to promote the rural enterprise sector and entrepreneurial culture to reduce
the level of poverty.
DEFINE target groups.
Vision: REVISE statement and ADD after “to firmly establish
entrepreneurship development”……..“INCLUDING FOR WOMEN, POOR
AND THE EXCLUDED” ……as a medium to address poverty in far western
region in Nepal
Mission and Goal: add "for women, poor and the socially excluded
groups" in mission and goal itself.
Focus areas of SEEWAC
Of its four focus areas, one is ;
- Undertake activities related to social mobilization, skills development,
entrepreneurship development and income generating programmes targeted
towards socially excluded groups, ethnic and indigenous groups, backward
communities, women and people affected by conflict.
The activities designed by the organization to achieve its goal and objectives have
almost no provision targeted towards GESI groups.
It’s good that BDSPO has included abovementioned point as one of its four focus
areas.
Add in activities section;
- Map existing gender and social relations (micro-enterprise related
division of labour, access to resources and decision making authority of
women and men (of different social groups)
- Prepare GESI guidelines or regulations to handle GESI issues
- Include GESI activities on work plan and implementation plan
Organizational
Profile
Composition:
- There are 4 women out of 10 board members.
- There are 9 women out of 13 human resources involved in organization.
Ensure women and other candidates coming from excluded groups occupy
positions at decision making level by making the provision of mandatory
representation on the constitution and policy documents of the organization
itself.
Human Resources
Regulation
None
Staff Profile
None
ToR
None
Constitution
175
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
2. Tehrathum BDSPO (Deurali Society)
Constitution
Vision: inclusive and social discrimination free society.
Mission: facilitate and advocate for economic, social, political enrichment of poor
and disadvantaged families through empowerment, social mobilization and
enhancing intervention on power relations, resource and opportunities.
- Good that the vision and mission of organization has mentioned its target
groups.
- It has adopted GESI internalization as one of its values
Define target groups.
Organizational
Profile
Composition: Out of 50 staffs, 52% and 14 % come from Janajati and Dalit
background respectively. 39% of staffs are women. Similarly, in Executive
committee, 57.14 % come from Janajati background. Female executive members
constitute 36% of executive board.
Ensure poorest among the poors have access and mandatory
representation in executive board.
Human Resources
Regulations
Gender sensitive activities conduction regulations, 2062
Definition: It has identified the target groups as women, Dalit, IPs, opportunity
deprived groups etc.
- Selection criteria of employees for the operation of programs implemented by
BDSPO well formulated.
- Provision of lactation interval break for breast-feeding mothers.
- Inclusion while hiring the employees for the program.
Staffs rules and regulations, 2055
Policy and provisions for the selection of candidates in the programs implemented
by BDSPO.
- Formulate provision that sets “gender sensitive and social inclusion”
knowledge and expertise as one of the evaluation criteria during
selection and recruitment of staffs.
- Make provisions that ensures all appointed staffs are equipped with
“gender sensitive and social inclusion trainings” through various GESI
trainings and workshops.
Document name:
Staff Profile
- Has a total of 7 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 AFA and 5 EDFs. Of these 4 are hill
Brahmin/Chhetri (2 men, 2 women), 1 janajati (hill except newar) male, 1 janajati
(terai) female and 1 other caste madhesi male.
- Of the two BC hill women, one is DPC and other is EDF. The two BC hill men
along with Janajati (terai) female and other caste madhesi male are EDFs.
Janajati (hill except Newar) male is the AFA.
176
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Terms of Reference District Program Coordinator
(ToR)
- Overall management of MEDEP programs.
- The assignment of DPC is to manage the program by coordination and
cooperation among district level stakeholders.
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Assign responsibility to DPC to overlook GESI issues like identify
hindrances for smooth operation of women led enterprises.
EDF: Good that one of the important assignment of EDF is to:
Make provisions to equip EDF with GESI sensitive knowledge.
- Ensure gender and social inclusion by provisioning participation of 60% women,
60% Janajati, 10% Dalit and 60% Youth in programs.
- EDF has the crucial role in revival and upgrading of existing enterprises.
Therefore, the EDF remains in the core of enterprise development which makes
it necessary to equip EDF with gender lens in executing the programs by
providing extra privileges to women and excluded social groups.
Administrative and Finance Assistant
Define significant eligibility criteria for the selection of candidate for this
post.
3. Mahottari BDSPO (Rural Community Development Service Council-RCDSC)
Constitution
Objective: Few of the GESI friendly objectives
- Discrimination and untouchability on the basis of sex and caste shall be opposed
by uniting social groups, leadership development, increasing access to local
means and resources, increasing participation on social events etc
- Empower both men and women for social change
- Unite Dalits against women discrimination and untouchability
Composition of executive committee
- Good that compulsory representation of at least 20% Dalit and 40% women.
- Have a total of 9 board members.
- Though working committee detail haven’t been available, there is the
involvement of one Dalit (Madhesi) female, two Janajati (Terai) female and one
other caste (Madhesi) female in the board. Similarly, two Dalit (Madhesi) male,
one janajati (Terai) male and one other caste (Madhesi) male have also been
represented in the board.
Incorporate GESI mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring
and reporting through the provision of GESI sensitive assignments of
executive members
177
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Organizational
profile
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Vision: rural societies with social, economic and political equity.
Mission: One of its mission states that: Organize and capacitate Dalits, Women,
Children and marginal farmers against untouchability, child labor, child marriage,
human trafficking, caste/class violence, Gender violence and all forms of social
discrimination and violence.
Objectives: Some of the GESI friendly points
- To organize and capacitate dalits, men and women against untouchability and
gender discriminations/violence.
- To initiate advocacy, lobby and campaign against various kinds of traditional
obscurantism like, dowry system, veil system, child marriage, child labor, belief
in “dyan” and to eliminate bonded/ semi bonded labor and child labor etc.
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Vision: Incorporate the definition of target group in the vision itself.
Good that the mission of the organization attempts to safeguard and capacitate
poor social groups.
Also, the organization has identified its primary target groups as women, Dalits and
Children, agro forestry and other Socially Excluded Groups of Nepalese Societies.
Composition:
- All 9 board members come from Janajati or Dalit background. Four of them are
women.
- On one of the board members profile, the area of expertise has been mentioned
as Gender Trainer. It is welcoming that executive board composition has
Gender expert.
Human Resources
Regulations
178
Human Resource Management Policy
Recruitment: The marginalized members of society namely women and Daltis will
be given priority in recruitment where possible and applicable. However, this
provision in itself is not so clear. Therefore, a fair mechanism need to be defined
beforehand.
Other provisions
Devise transparent selection and recruitment mechanism so that
candidates based on merit are selected rather than based on nepotism.
Make provision of lactation hours for breast feeding staffs.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Financial Management policy and Office management policy: Deals with
technical and economic affairs of office management.
Include GESI sensitive issues which can be explained on implementation
plan with budget. e.g. minimum of 20% of budget should be used to
address GESI issues.
Gender policy: Provisions for women friendly environment
- Ensure poorest among the poors benefit by the gender policy. e.g. well
being ranking to be conducted before selecting candidates for
representation.
- Formulate provisions to tackle modern form of discrimination and
harassment at workplace.
Good that representation of women has been made in every level: 40% on general
assembly, 50% in decision making level, 45% in implementation phase of every
program, 50% of total beneficiaries, 50% on trainings
Staff Profile
Has a total of 5 staffs – 1 DPC, 1 AFA and 3 EDFs. All of these positions are held
by other madhesi caste males.
ToR
None
4. Nawalparasi BDSPO (Resource Center for Enterprise Development Nepal or Udhyam Bikas Shrot Kendra)
Constitution
Organizational
profile
Objectives:
The closest objective among many which has GESI issues is following:
- To help unemployed youths/ men and women towards self reliance through
enterprise creation.
- To conduct social mobilization and gender sensitization
- Raise awareness against gender discrimination.
Define clear target groups.
Adopt GESI as “cross-cutting issue”
Composition: Provision of 7 members (1 President, 1 Secretary, 1 Treasurer and 4 Make provision of mandatory representation of socially excluded groups
executive members)
like women, IPs and Dalit.
Roles and responsibilities
Manage required human resources required for the implementation of the
programme, ensuring diversity amongst them.
Add an extra point:
"ensure barriers of women, poor and the excluded amongst the target
group are addressed for the development of their micro-enterprise."
179
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Human Resources
Regulations
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Organization operation regulations
Recruitment: Good that inclusion of one woman in staff selection committee is
compulsory.
Benefits: Its good that training facilities will be provided to its staff. Moreover, the
women staffs will get privilege for such trainings.
- Make provisions which respects cultural diversity through language,
festival leaves according to culture etc.
- Replace the term “Dashain allowance” with “festival allowance”.
Delegation of responsibility: Formation of committee comprising one woman at
least to delegate the responsibility if senior official remains out of country or
organization.
Staff regulation
Recruitment and selection committee: A committee is formed comprising one
member from executive committee, one member from donor agency, one member
from business delivery organization and other members based on requirement.
Such committee shall handle all the recruitment and selection process.
Ensure mandatory representation of women and excluded groups on “staff
selection and recruitment committee.”
Promotion policy
Ensure transparent mechanism for promotion to avoid nepotism.
Benefits
- Several provisions have been made. Moreover, the policy paper has the
provision of penalty as well as prize for according acts.
- Good that DMEGA has already developed several forms and evaluation sheets
beforehand which can be helpful to inform or receive desired information.
Make provisions for lactation period, play rooms for small children
accompanying their parents at work etc.
Staff Profile
Has a total of 6 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 AFA and 4 EDFs. Of these 2 are hill Brahmin/
Chhetri (1 man, 1 woman), 3 are Janajati men and one Dalit madhesi woman who is
an EDF. One BC woman is AFA. BC hill man is the DPC. All the Janajati men are
EDFs.
TOR
None
180
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
5. Sindhupalchok BDSPO (Sindhu Development Center, SIDEC)
Constitution
Vision: To be establish as the main business development support providing
Define target group in vision itself.
organization for development of efficient and self-reliance Society by improving the
economic and social status of the people through enterprise.
Mission: Providing necessary business counselling and support services to
different Government, non-government as well as entrepreneurs for the creation
and development of entrepreneurs as well as in using appropriate technology and
make them aware and to take benefit from the developmental activities provided by
the Government and other sources
Objectives: The objectives have segregated the areas where the organization shall
be involved. The number 7 objective mentions to conduct programs that are based
on “equality based approach to development”.
Organizational
profile
Executive Board composition: The board has high representation of socially
Ensure mandatory representation of women, Dalits, IPs and other
excluded groups, women, IPs and Dalits.
marginalized communities.
Composition on executive committee: No any description regarding the structure
of executive committee and compulsory representation of socially excluded groups.
However, the constitution itself does not have provision of mandatory representation
of socially excluded groups in executive committee.
Have a total of 7 board members:
- On key positions of board, there is one Dalit (hill) female in the position of vice
chairperson and one janajati (Newar) female as General Secretary. The position
of chairperson and treasurer is held by janajati (hill except newar) male and
Janajati (newar) male respectively. Similarly, the position of Secretary is held by
Bahun Chettri (hill) male.
- Likewise, two members involved in the board are Bahun Chettri (hill) female and
janajati (newar) female.
Manage required human resources required for the implementation of the
Roles and responsibilities: Specific GESI roles and responsibilities are absent.
programme, ensuring diversity amongst them.
Add an extra point: Ensure barriers of women, poor and the excluded
amongst the target group are addressed for the development of their microenterprise.
181
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Human Resources
Regulations
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Staff regulations
Recruitment process: (1) Provision of compulsory representation of one woman in Devise transparent selection and recruitment mechanism so that
3 member sub-committee. (2) Priority to women, IPs and Dalits will be given.
candidates based on merit are selected rather than based on nepotism.
Provision of Dashain allowances. Lack of additional benefits to women staffs.
- Term “Festival allowances” instead of “Dashain allowance”.
- Provide freedom to staffs to decide on when to receive such allowances.
- Formulate provisions of lactation hours of minimum one hour for breast
feeding mothers/staffs.
Job Performance Evaluation form
- Mark system for criteria developed as per the program.
- Absence of GESI related Performance indicators which tries to analyze the use
of GESI perspective and knowledge during program implementation and staffs
tenure at the organization.
Design a GESI related “performance indicators”.
Staff Profile
Has a total of 7 staff- 1 Executive director, 1 AFA and 5 EDFs.
- Of these 4 are hill Dalits (3 men, 1 woman), 1 Janajati (newar) male, 1 Janajati
(hill except newar) female and 1 BC hill female. BC hill woman including all the
hill Dalits are EDFs.
- Janajati (newar) male is the executive director whereas janajati (hill except
Newar) female is the AFA.
ToR
None
6. Jumla BDSPO (Panch Tara Yuba Samrekshak Manch)
Constitution
Vision: Develop an independent, equitable base and creative society
Mission: To help the underprivileged and marginalized sections of people for their Define geographical adversity also as a form of exclusion.
Livelihood
Goal: The goal of the organization is to help the rural communities to help
Inaccessibility and lack of connection with regional market centers have
themselves in their development and eventually contribute to overall development of created geographical isolation and exclusion.
the country.
Good that the mission of organization identifies underprivileged groups.
Organizational
Profile
Composition of staff: 3 Dalits, 2 women among 7 staffs.
182
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Human Resources
Regulations
None
Staff Profile
- Has a total of 7 staff- 1 DPC, 1 AFA and 5 EDFs. Of these 4 are hill Brahmin/
Chhetri (3 men, 1 woman) and three hill Dalits (2 men, 1 woman).
- Both Dalit hill woman and Brahmin/Chhetri hill woman are EDFs. BC hill man is
the DPC. Dalit Hill male is AFA.
ToRs and Annual
Work Plan
Annual work plan of 2012
- Tailoring skill training and technology transfer
- Off-seasonal vegetable skill training and technology support
- Facilitation for access to micro-credit
- Cooperative formation and registration
- Labeling, packaging and quality control training
- Participation in district level trade fair
Annual work plan of 2013
PRA I phase
- Meg formation and meeting
- TOPE/TOSE training I phase
- Market coordination
- Off-seasonal trainings
- Cooperative formation
PRA II phase
- Carrot production
- Apple processing training
- Garlic production
Action plan of 2014
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Ensure poorest of the poors are benefited with these activities.
Make provision of gesi activities along with the budget.
Include members of socially excluded communities in cooperative
formation. the social groups which have been provided trainings in 2012 do
not have any representation in cooperative formation
Guarantee participation of socially excluded groups in every phases of
program.
Ensure participation of dalits and ips decision making level which is
remarkably low by allocating budget on gesi issues and activities.
183
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
7. Sunsari BDSPO (Save the Earth Foundation International)
Constitution
Objectives: Develop educational sector; Environmental conservation; Awareness - Amend constitution with clear mentioning of goals, mission and
and advocacy; Miscellaneous
objectives.
- Very few provisions related to GESI on objectives. Vision and mission is absent. - Mission and goal: add "for women, poor and the socially excluded
groups" in mission and goal itself.
- Focused largely on conservation approach.
- Define target group
- The constitution has been formulated in the times of Monarchy. Need to be
amended to incorporate radical changes observed in country.
Composition
ADD
- The constitution talks about the provision of advisory committee comprising 2 to - Mention the maximum number of members which a executive
5 members.
committee can have.
- There is no clear indication about the number of executive members to be
- Ensure women and other candidates coming from excluded groups
appointed in the executive committee.
occupy positions at decision making level by making the provision of
mandatory representation on the contitution.
- Likewise, mandatory representation of GESI groups is completely absent.
Board profile
- Have a total of 11 board members.
- Among key positions of board, two Bahun Chettri female occupy the position of
chairperson and secretary whereas one Bahun Chettri (hill) male holds the
position of vice chairperson. The position of treasurer is hold by Janajati (terai)
male.
- Likewise on 7 members, there is one Bahun Chettri (hill) female, one dalit
(madehesi) male, one janajati (hill except Newar) male, one (terai) female, two
janajati (terai) male and one madhesi other caste female.
184
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Organizational
profile
Vision: To assist in the construction of healthy & environmental friendly society,
with the poverty Reduction for sustainable development.
Goal: Helping in the people-centered development on the basis of Rights based
approach.
Purpose: Among several purposes, the most GESI sensitive purposes are;
- To aware Dalits & backwards or DAG community regarding the Right Based
issue in organized form and to enhance their good tradition and practice for
elimination of poverty.
- Empowerment of the people Centered poverty Reduction programmed through
the sustainable agriculture base.
- To help to attain & clime the Childs rights in an effective way.
Awareness regarding women's right
Strategy: Among several provisions, the most GESI sensitive strategy is;
- Moving ahead on the basis of social mobilization & Empowerment.
Human Resources
Regulations
None
Staff profile
None
ToR
None
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Comply the vision and mission mentioned in organizational profile with the
constitution of organization.
Vision: Add after …environmental friendly society….
“including for women, poor and the excluded” ……as a medium to
address”…..
Poverty reduction for sustainable development.
Purpose: Add
- Incorporate gesi mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring
and reporting
- Ensure barriers of women, poor and the excluded amongst the target
group are addressed for the development of their micro-enterprise
8. Dadeldhura BDSPO (Social Environment and Enterprise Development Society/Nepal- SEEDS Nepal)
Constitution
Objectives: To identify and create entrepreneurial opportunities to reduce
Define clear target groups in objectives itslef.
discrimination based on gender and to help in socio-educational and environmental
development.
The organization is focused on enterprise development. Several of MEDEP
components like MEC, SIYB, Gender Sanitation, Leadership development,
Facilitation, Community mobilization, ICS contraction, market networking PRA, Bee
keeping proposal and report writing, VDC periodic plan on LFA methodology,
livelihood analysis, organizational development training and many more have been
included on the amended version of constitution.
185
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Organizational
profile
Composition: Have a total of 9 board members.
- On key positions of board, there is one Bahun Chettri (hill) female on the position of
chairperson whereas remaining key positions of vice chairperson, secretary,
joint secretary and treasurer are occupied by Bahun Chettri (hill) male.
- Likewise on 4 members, there is one Bahun Chettri (hill) female and all the
remaining three members are Bahun Chettri male.
Human Resources
Regulations
Organization Operation Regulations
Recruitment process: Formation of 5 member committee for recruitment and
selection purpose.
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Formulate provision of compulsory representation of women and
indigenous people or dalits in executive committees.
Include at least 2 members from ethnic groups like women, dalits or ips in
“recruitment and selection committee”.
Transfer: Women friendly transfer will be only conducted.
Working environment and participation: Good that organization has stressed
and mentioned working environment as one of the important components in the
policy paper itself. In fact, creation of cooperative and helpful workplace can highly
discourage work place discrimination based on sex, caste and ethnic groups.
Staff Profile
186
Benefits: Training facilities which provide special consideration to women and
backward communities.
- Make provisions which respects cultural diversity through language,
festival vacations.
- Repalce the term “dashain allowance” with “festival allowance”.
Performance evaluation format for Staffs at SEEDS: The staffs need to prepare
a report by incorporating the prescribed details.
Such details will obviously turn out to be good as it will be prepared by staff
himself/herself.
- Instead of allowing staffs to prepare a report, design a standarized
format to evaluate the staff performance by independent individual.
- Moreover, include criteria that make evaluation of “gesi sensitiveness”
during his/her tenure. eg. was gesi sensitization adopted during hhs
survey, participation selection etc?
Evaluation is based on following factors: Social mobilization, resource survey,
market survey, HHs survey and participation selection, group formation,
entrepreneurship trainings, skill trainings, technology transfer, credit services,
marketing, up-scaling and sick revival, developing business plan.
Good that in each every steps, number of women, youths, IPs, Dalits included etc
are recorded. Moreover, remarks of supervisor are also sought forward.
- Instead of developing general format to all staffs namely DPC, AFA,
BDC, EDF etc, develop a evaluation format based on tor of concerned
staffs. (since evaluation of edf and afa cannot be done based on same
criteria as they have different responsibilities assigned in tor).
Or
- Develop an evaluation format which is based on tor of concerned staff.
None
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
District Program Coordinator: Organize groups of micro-entrepreneur through
Include gender and inclusion specific assignments.
community sensitization, identify MEDEP participants and provide support in microenterprise development.
ToR
Enterprise Development Facilitator (EDF): PRA, household survey, group
Include additional gender and inclusion specific assignments.
formation and SIYB should be conducted based on target population (70% women,
30% Dalit, 40 % IPs and 60% youths) prescribed by UNDP MEDEP
Agriculture Enterprise Development Facilitator (AEDF)
Include gender and inclusion specific assignments.
Progressive reports None
Progress report of SEEDS: The disaggregated data of details have been clearly mentioned. Therefore, GESI approach has been taken quite impressively.
Time period
Major activities
Results
Jan 1- Feb
15, 2013
- Resource survey, PRA
4 VDCs selected
- HH survey, selection of target groups and group This is the
preliminary step towards enterprise development under MEDEP. HHs survey conducted and 15 groups formed
- Disaggregated data on sex, ethnic groups and age has been
properly recorded. formation
July 1-Aug
15, 2013
Resource Survey
PRA
HHs survey
Group formation
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
- Wards and VDCs selected
- HHs conducted and 13 groups formed
Aug 16 to Sep - Train in entrepreneurship development training
- 141 trained in entrepreneurship training (19% dalit, 36%
30, 2014
janjati 85% women)
- Development of business plan
- Improvement in living condition of women & backward communities - Six business development plan formed
Oct 1 to Dec
31, 2013
-
Entrepreneurship development training conduction
Formation of business plan
Credit access
Marketing trainings
- Seventy entrepreneurs trained in bee hive cultivation
(11% dalit, 44% IPs, 74% women)
- 49 business plan developed
- Simple technology introduced for beehive cultivation
- One all processing center established.
- 104 entrepreneurs receiving credit access.
Good that program has attempted to link the entrepreneurs
with market. The marginalized and vulnerable social groups
have been provided entrepreneurship development training.
Ensure proper mechanism for easier
and simplified credit facilities as well as
equitable access to financial resources
to women led groups and IPs groups.
Collateral free loan may be provided to
women led groups.
187
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 14: GESI analysis of DMEGA documents
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
1. Kailali DMEGA
Constitution
Goal: to improve living standard of poor, dalit, women, IPs and excluded groups.
Good that the organization has adopted GESI perspective in the goal itself.
Objectives: 11 objectives laid out which are largely focused towards enterprises
development only.
Add:
12. ensure gesi mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring and
reporting
13. remove barriers for women, dalits, ips and poor to operate microenterprises through capacity building
Working areas: Entrepreneurship, skill development and institutional building
Add: GESI mainstreaming
(define GESI mainstreaming as provided by source: adapted from
Operational Guidelines for Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Mainstreaming in the Health Sector, Ministry of Health and Population,
2013)
Working area/service delivery: Major activities of the organization are listed down. Add:
Absence of GESI sensitive activities.
- Map existing gender and social relations (micro-enterprise related
division of labour, access to resources and decision making authority of
women and men (of different social groups).
- Prepare GESI guidelines or regulations to handle GESI issues.
- Include GESI activities on work plan and implementation plan.
Major working area: Four major working areas are mentioned which completely
Add:
lacks GESI issues. The four major working areas are:
Incorporate gesi as cross cutting issue in all four major working areas
- Advocacy for rights of micro-entrepreneurs
- Promote self-employment and enterprise development through entrepreneurship
- Provide skill based trainings
- Institutionalize Micro Entrepreneurs Groups (MEGs)
188
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Organization Profile Board composition: Out of 10 executive board members, only two are men (from Ensure involvement of women and excluded groups in decision making
“others” category) but they occupy key positions (one President and one Secretary) level
Staff composition: All five staffs are women. Four belong to “others” category and Ensure involvement of poorest of the poor or the most vulnerable groups in
only one to “IPs” category.
management.
Beneficiaries: So far, the organization has directly supported 1264 women and 235 Provide disaggregated analysis of dalits, janajati, sexual minorities and
men.
Hardcore poor to the programs and not only on the basis of sex.
Good that more women have been benefitted than men.
DMEGA office
management and
staff services
related regulation
Upcoming activities: Absence of GESI specific activities.
Include GESI section consisting gesi sensitive workshops, trainings and
activities on implementation plan itself.
Part 6: Salary and other services
Salary and incentives based on established scale of designation.
Define established minimum scale of salary in the regulation itself.
Add: There shall be no discrimination for slary and incentives based on
sex, caste, ethnic groups etc
Part 6: Leaves
Maternity leave as well as paternity leave provisioned.
Add: Provide a minimum of one hour lactation time for breast feeding staffs
at least during infancy period (12 months after the delivery).
Increase the number of days for maternity leave than 60 days if required.
however, additional leaves other than 60 days need not necessarily be paid.
Part 7: Trainings and other benefits
Mentions about the payment and time period through trainings
Add: ensure participation of staffs on gesi trainings, workshops to
strengthen necessarry gesi knowledge and skills in planning,
implementation, monitoring and reporting.
Part 11: Economic provisions
Mentions details of economic provisions (sources and details) for operation of
organization.
Add following provisions
- Prepare and implement "a GESI responsive" annual programme for
upcoming annual year.
- Draft regular programme progress report, financial and audit report with
disaggregation by gender/caste/ethnicity and location and with analysis
of progress related with gesi issues.
189
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Staff Profile
Has a total of 6 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA and 3 EDFs. Of these two are hill
Brahman/Chettri female who hold the positions of DPC and AFA. There is one
Janajati (terai) male who hold the position of BDC. Among the three EDFs, one is
BC Madhesi male, one Dalit hill female and one Janajati (terai) female.
ToR
District Program Coordinator
Add in second point: Prepare work plan including GESI PLAN for
programme planning and implementation.
Add: Recommend appropriate gesi trainings and courses to business
development counsellor, enterprise development facilitator and admin &
finance assistant.
Enterprise Development Facilitator
Add in first point: Identify and select potential micro-enterprises for scale
up based on preliminary survey of women led enterprises, ips led
enterprises, women’s work burden in domestic chores, availability of
conducive environment etc
Add in second point: Disaggregation with women, dalits, ips etc should be
maintained.
Add in twelvth point: (1) Should possess gesi sensitive knowledge and
skills (2) Should have sound understanding of GESI issues
Business Development Counsellor
Add in first point: Impart GESI sensitive training……
Add in fifth point: …..for upgrading their existing micro-enterprises by
adopting GESI perspective.
Add in Qualifications and Experiences
- Should have gesi knowledge and skills to manage micro enterprises
- Should have sound understanding of gesi issues and empathy towards
gesi groups
Admin and Finance Assistant
Add
- GESI responsive trainings should be obtained
- Maintain and revise “GSIMIS database” in regular interval
190
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
2. Parbat DMEGA
Constitution
None
Organizational
profile
Board profile
Has a total of 19 board members.
On key positions of boards, there are two dalit (hill) female on the position of
chairman and vice secretary; one janajati (hill except Newar) female as
treasurer; one Janajati (hill except Newar) male as vice chairperson and one BC
hill male on the position of secretary.
Likewise on 14 members, there is one dalit (hill) female and three dalit (hill) male,
two janajati (hill except Newar) female, one janajati (hill except Newar) male.
The remaining seven members are two BahunChettri (hill) female and five
BahunChettri (hill) male.
Human Resources
Regulations
Part 2: Formation of staff selection committee for selection and recruitment
process: A committee having upto 15 members can be formed.
Ensure mandatory representation of women and socially excluded groups
in such committee.
Part 4: Recruitment and selection procedure
Vacancy announcement shall be done in local newspaper.
Recruitment process: women and marginalized groups shall be highly
encouraged.
- Use other accessible local media like f.m to announce vacancy so that
people who don’t have access to newspaper can also be informed
about the ad.
- Mention clear explanation of levels/stages/ phases where marginalized
groups can be provided special treatment in hiring process.
Services and Benefits to Staffs
- Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave has been provisioned.
- “Dashain Allowance” will be provided.
- No provision of lactation hour for breast feeding mother/staffs.
Replace “dashain allowance” with “festival allowance”
Add: Provide a minimum of one hour lactation time for breast feeding staffs
at least during infancy period (12 months after the delivery).
Economic administration related services
Add the following:
Fund management: Provision of fund for organization management. However, there - Prepare work plan including GESI plan for programme planning and
is no provision related to GESI issues on this chapter.
implementation.
- Recommend appropriate gesi trainings and courses to business
development counsellor, enterprise development facilitator and admin
and finance assistant.
191
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Staff Profile
- Has a total of ten staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA, 1 HDO, 4 senior EDFs, 1 EDF
and 1 office assistant. Of these six are Brahmin/Chettri (four women, 2 men),
two are Janajati hill except Newar (1 man, 1woman), one Janajati (Newar) male
and one Dalit Hill female.
- The two BC hill women hold the position of DPC and AFA whereas other two are
Senior EDFs. The remaining two positions of Senior EDFs are held by BC hill
men. The BDC is held by Janajati (hill except Newar) male whereas the EDF is
held by Janajati (hill except Newar) female. The position of HDO and Office
assistant is held by Janajati (Newar) male and Dalit hill female respectively.
ToR
None
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
2. Nawalparasi DMEGA
Constitution
Objectives
- Operation of programs focused towards socially and economically backward
communities, poors, Dalit, IPs, Janajati etc.
- Promotion of entrepreneurship to reduce poverty
Though GESI elements have been included on objectives, the activities
designed to achieve objectives do not comply with objectives.
Add in fifth point of activities: Organize trainings, workshops,
conference, trainings including gesi sensitive events to impart gesi
knowledge and skills.
Add in eigth point of activities: Develop work plan to address gender
issues.
Add: Prepare and approve gesi section along with budget head in
implementation plan.
Organizational
Profile
Composition of executive committee: 11 to 17 members
- Every enterprise can become its general member.
- Provision of formation of advisory committee comprising 3 to 5 members.
Increase the minimum quota of mandatory representation of dalit, janajati,
apanga and women groups.
Organization fund: A fund which oversees the financial management of
organization.
Prepare regular Programme progress report, financial and audit report of
the Fund with disaggregation by gender/caste/ethnicity and location and
with analysis of progress related with GESI issues
192
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Human Resources
Regulation
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Recruitment procedures and policy
- Formation of selection sub-committee comprising 5 members among which 2
are women.
- While transferring staffs, attention shall be provided to place women staffs in
offices near the house. Transfer shall not be carried out if any transfer facilitates
women to be placed away from their house.
Provisions of services and benefits
- Provision of “Dashain Allowance” for staffs
- Provision of lactation time of two hours to breast feeding women.
Allocate holidays for staffs based on their cultural and ethnic belief (not just
provide one for all holidays for dashain and tihar).
Formation of evaluation sub-committee
- Provision of evaluation sub-committee comprising at least two women.
- Moreover, “Gender Sensitive Behavior”. is taken as one among six evaluation
criteria for evaluation of staffs
Others
While determining time and venue for any meetings and events of organization,
suitable venue as well as favorable time for women staffs shall be kept in mind.
Staff Profile
None
ToR
None
Progress reports
Work Plan (Jan to Jun 2013)
For new entrepreneurs creation: Entrepreneurship development training and Skill
training have been provided. The budget has been allocated which is in line with the
trainings conducted.
Scale-up activities for existing entrepreneurs: Considerable amount (around 12
lakhs) has been spent on revival of entrepreneurs. The budget has justified the
activities conducted under this component.
Workshop and Seminar: In meetings of MEGA and DMEGA as well as workshops,
relatively high budget (around three lakhs and fifty thousand) has been spent.
Therefore, it is hard to justify budget spent with actual output of project.
193
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Human resource mobilization cost: Around 15.5 lakhs have been spent on salary - Allign activities based on proposed budget heads.
and monitoring visits on six months. The budget seems to be too high compared
- Allocate budget on realistic assumptions based on outcome of program.
with the budget allocated for program components and trainings.
Institutional management: The budget of around 1 lakh for logistic support to two
institutions is quite justifiable and reasonable.
Progress report of 2069/70
Financial progress report
While carrying out activities, actual budget has never exceeded the planned budget.
Therefore, sound financial management have been undertaken. However, high
amount of financial expenses have been incurred for salary and meetings.
Target population
317 women, 50 Dalits, 273 IPs, 113 Madhesis have been benefited by the
programs.
Define the basic criteria for identifying and recording the targeted
beneficiaries to understand WHO the real beneficiaries are?
OR, Identify target groups based on well being ranking.
Achievements of fiscal year
Social mobilization among groups; Participation in exhibitions; Provision of awards
for best enterprises; Facilitation for marketing of products etc.
Segregate gesi sensitive activities conducted in previous fiscal year.
Or,
Monitoring and reporting of gesi issues with priority.
4. Sunsari DMEGA
Constitution
194
Similar to DMEGA Nawalparasi objectives
- The organization is solely focused on promotion of entrepreneurship by
facilitation of enterprise related services.
- Moreover, the organization in its objectives has mentioned to conduct various
programs for economic upliftment of Dalits, IPs, women, handicapped etc
- Add in objectives: (1) Ensure gesi mainstreaming in planning,
implementation, monitoring and reporting. (2) Remove barriers for
women, dalits, ips and poor to operate micro-enterprises through
capacity building.
- Though gesi elements have been included on objectives, the activities
designed to achieve objectives do not comply with objectives.
- Add in fifth point of activities: Organize trainings, workshops,
conference, trainings including gesi sensitive events to impart gesi
knowledge and skills.
- Add in eighth point: Develop work plan to address gender issues
- Add: Prepare and approve gesi section along with budget head in
implementation plan.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Organizational
Profile
Composition of executive committee: Provision of formation of executive
committee consisting of at least 11 members
Board profile: Have a total of 21 board members.
- On key positions of boards, there is one dalit (madhesi) male on the position of
chairperson; three janajati (terai) female on the position of vice chairperson,
secretary and vice secretary as well as one janajati (terai) female as treasurer.
- Likewise on 16 members, there is one dalit (hill) female and two dalit(madhesi)
male, one janajati (hill except Newar) female, two janajati (hill except Newar)
male, four janajati (terai) female, one janajati (newar) male. The remaining five
members are two BahunChettri (hill) female, one BahunChettri (hill) male and
two other caste madhesi male.
Human Resources
Regulations
None
Staff Profile
- Has a total of 7 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA and 4 EDFs. Of these two are
other caste madhesi males, three are janajatiterai (2 male, 1 female), one BC
Hill male and one Daltimadhesi female.
- The BC hill male is DPC. The two Janajatiterai male occupy the positions of AFA
and EDF whereas one Janajatiterai female hold the position of EDF. The two
other madhesi caste males occupy the position of BDC and EDF. The remaining
one EDF position is held by Dalit Madhesi female.
ToR
None
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
- Ensure mandatory representation of poor and marginalized groups by
specifying the minimum quota for such groups in executive committee.
- Add this clause “executive committee shall ensure that the
gender/caste/ethnicity based issues experienced by the different groups
amongst the target participants are addressed (e.g. language,
methodology and timng, subject matter adapted to different social
groups considering their particular context)”
195
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
5. Dadeldhura DMEGA
Constitution
Objectives
- Representative organization for all micro-entrepreneurs of Dadeldhura district.
- Conduction of various programs for social and economic upliftment of socially
excluded groups.
The organization has chosen coordination and facilitation as its major approach to
support micro-enterprises rather than doing programmatic actions by itself. It is
good to adopt this kind of approach as capacity of micro-enterprises will be
enhanced.
Organizational
profile
Composition: Formation of committee comprising 11 members in executive
committee. Four members can be nominated by executive committee from socially
excluded groups. At least 40% representation should be made for women and
Dalits.
- Good that attempt to make inclusive executive committee has been made.
- The founding members have high representation of women in decision making
level of founding executive committee.
Human Resources
Regulations
Organization Operation Regulations
Recruitment procedures: Formation of sub-committee for carrying out recruitment Specify exact % or number of women and socially excluded groups in
comprising 3 to 5 members.
executive committee rather than just mentioning the provision of inclusion in
policy paper.
Transfers: while transferring staffs, attention shall be given whether women staffs
are in convenience with such transfers or not.
Working environment and participation: Good that organization has stressed
and mentioned working environment as one of the important components in the
policy paper itself. In fact, creation of cooperative and helpful workplace can highly
discourage work place discrimination based on sex, caste and ethnic groups.
196
Add in objectives
- To ensure gesi mainstreaming at every levels of program operation i.e.
planning, implementation, monitoring, reporting etc
- Formulate appropriate policy documents to ensure “gender and social
inclusion sensitive’ approach to handle projects and activities run by
organization.
In the activities section, Add
- Include gesi activities, workshops, trainings, conferences etc in
implementation plan along with the budget
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Benefits: Provision of benefits and services to employees. Training facilities shall
be provided. Women and backward communities shall be given special privilege in
such trainings.
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
- Respect cultural and social backgrounds of staffs.
- Stop to impose Dashain allowances to every staffs. Alternatively,
Replace the term “Dashain allowance” with “Festival allowance”.
- Provide freedom to staffs to decide on which occasion to take festival
leave and festival allowances.
Performance evaluation: Good that among six evaluation criteria, Gender
Sensitive Behavior is also taken as one of the criteria.
Staff profile
Has a total of 7 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA, 3 EDFs and 1 messenger. Of these 3
are hill Brahman/Chettri who hold the positions of DPC, BDC and messenger. There
are three BC Hill women in which one hold the position of AFA and remaining two
are EDFs. One remaining EDF is Dalit hill male.
ToR
None
6. Salyan DMEGA
Constitution
Goal and Objectives of organization
- Has directly recognized poors, women, Dalits, backward communities, IPs,
Youths, Conflict affected people and handicapped people in the Goal itself.
- The objectives and working activities of the document do not include provisions
which prioritize GESI issues.
- However, the activity listed down in fifth point is focused in identifying potential
entrepreneurs using GESI perspective.
Add in objectives
In point two and three of objectives, add after microentrepreneurs…”with special focus on women, dalits, ips and marginalized
groups” so that target groups are properly defined in the objectives itself.
Add the following objectives:
14. Ensure gesi mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring and
reporting.
15. Remove barriers for women, dalits, ips and poor to operate microenterprises through capacity building.
Organizational
profile
Composition of executive committee: Founding members: All founding members Formulate the provision of mandatory inclusion of gesi groups in executive
are women. The women come from disadvantaged groups as well.
committee.
Human Resources
Regulations
None
197
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Staff profile
Has a total of 8 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA, 2 EDFs and 1 A-EDF. Of these five
are Brahmin/Chettri (5 men, 0 woman), two are Dalit Hill female as EDFs and one is
janajati (hill except Newar male) as AFA. The five BC males occupy the position of
DPC, BDC, A-EDF and two EDFs.
Progress reports
Progress reports of several phases
The progress namely number of MEGA and DMEGA meeting conducted,
technology transfer, trainings etc have been mentioned of each phase.
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Ensure beneficiaries of activities conducted in each phase serve the
interests of poors, women, IPs, dalits, handicapped, conflict affected people
and marginalized communities by developing GESI based reporting
mechanism.
7. Jumla DMEGA
Constitution
Objectives: The following objective identifies its target beneficiaries:
Add in objectives
- Conduct and coordinate various programs and activities for economic
- Ensure gesi mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring and
improvement of socially excluded groups like Dalits, IPs, women, Handicapped,
reporting
homeless etc.
- Remove barriers for women, dalits, ips and poor to operate microObjectives are focused towards development of micro-enterprises only. The proper
enterprises through capacity building
assimilation of GESI issues along with enterprise development is somehow absent.
Board profile
- Has a total of 11 board members.
- On key positions of board, there are two BC (hill) male on the position of
secretary and joint secretary whereas one Dalit (hill) man and one Dalit (hill)
woman hold the position of chairperson and treasurer respectively.
- Likewise on 7 members, there are two BC hill (one man and one woman), four
dalit (hill) and one janajati (hill except Newar) female.
Staff profile
- Has a total of seven staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 1 AFA, 3 EDFs and 1 messenger. All
of the staffs are male.
- Of these three are hill Brahman/Chettri men who hold the positions of DPC, BDC
and messenger. There are four Dalit hill males among which one hold the
position of AFA and remaining three are EDFs.
198
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Progress reports of Progress report has focused in following themes:
various project
- Skill enhancement and capacity building
durations.
- Marketing access
- Revival of sick enterprises
- Social mobilization, institutional development etc
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
- Ensure beneficiaries of activities conducted in each phase serve the
interests of poors, women, IPs, Dalits, Handicapped, Conflict affected
people and marginalized communities by developing GESI based
reporting mechanism.
- Segregate GESI sensitive activities conducted in previous fiscal year as
well as those which require gesi attention in the future.
8. Mahottari DMEGA (* staff profile is the only document which was obtained for review)
Staff profile
Has a total of 7 staffs- 1 DPC, 1 BDC, 2 AFA and 3 EDFs. Of these four are
Madhesi Other caste male who occupy the positions of DPC, 2 AFAs and 1 EDF.
There are two Janajati (terai) female as EDFs and one BC madhesi male as BDC.
9. Sindhupalchowk DMEGA (* staff profile is the only document which was obtained for review)
Constitution
Vision: to build a prosperous society by strengthening social, cultural and economic
condition of rural community.
Mission: to conduct programs for the social and economic development of
community with coordination and cooperation with several governmental, nongovernmental and donor organizations.
Goal: to help in poverty reduction through social and economic development based
on increased access to the use of local resources.
Objectives: The following objective identifies its target beneficiaries:
- Conduct and coordinate various programs and activities for economic
improvement of socially excluded groups like Dalits, IPs, women, Handicapped,
homeless etc.
Objectives are focused towards development of micro-enterprises only. The proper
assimilation of GESI issues along with enterprise development is somehow absent.
Organizational
profile
Executive committee: The representation of Dalits and Janajati in executive
committee is highly inclusive in terms of ethnicity (about 85%). However, while
disaggregation by sex is analyzed, only 46 % of the executive committee are
female.
Define target groups namely women, dalits, ips, conflict affected people,
handicapped people, sexual minorities etc in the vision, mission and goal
itself.
ADD in objectives
- Ensure gesi mainstreaming in planning, implementation, monitoring and
reporting
- Remove barriers for women, dalits, ips and poor to operate microenterprises through capacity builiding
- Formulate appropriate policy documents to ensure “gender and social
inclusion sensitive’ approach to handle projects and activities run by
organization.
199
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Document
Existing provisions/Existing GESI sensitive policy review
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Staff profile
- Has a total of eight staffs- 1 DPC, 1 AFA, 2 Senior EDFs, 3 EDFs and 1
Entrepreneur Development Consultant (EDC). Of these three are
Brahmin/Chettri (1 man, 2 women), two are Dalit Hill (1 man, 1 woman), two
Janajati hill except Newar (0 man, 2 women) and one Janajati (Newar) female.
- The Janajati (Newari) female is DPC. The BC hill male is EDC whereas two BC
hill female are AFA and EDF. Also, the Dalit Hill male is Senior EDF wheras the
Dalit Hill femae is EDF. Similarly, two Janajati (hill except Newar female are
Senior EDF and EDF respectively.
ToR
District Program Coordinator
Add in second point: Prepare work plan including GESI PLAN for
programme planning and implementation.
Add the following: recommend appropriate gesi trainings and courses to
business development counsellor, enterprise development facilitator and
admin & finance assistant.
Business Development Counsellor
Add in first point: Impart GESI sensitive training……
Add in fifth point: …..for upgrading their existing micro-enterprises by
adopting GESI perspective
Add in Qualifications and Experiences
- Should have gesi knowledge and skills to manage micro enterprises
- Should have sound understanding of gesi issues and empathy towards
GESI groups
Enterprise Development Facilitator
Add in first point: Identify and select potential micro-enterprises for scale
up based on preliminary survey of women led enterprises, ips led
enterprises, women’s work burden in domestic chores, availability of
conducive environment etc.
Add in second point: Disaggregation with women, dalits, ips etc should be
maintained
Add in twelvth point: (1) should possess gesi sensitive knowledge and
skills. (2) Should have sound understanding of gesi issues.
Add
- GESI responsive trainings should be obtained
- Maintain and revise “gsimis database” in regular interval
Admin and Finance Assistant
200
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 15: GESI analysis of NMEFEN documents
A. Constitution (Goal, mission, vision and objectives) of the organization
Document Sections
Existing provisions on such sections
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Vision
To take leadership role in strengthening the micro-enterprise sector, safeguard the interest of micro- Include GESI elements in the vision itself.
entrepreneurs and receive national recognition.
Add GESI terms in the vision itself like “…….. the interest
of micro-entrepreneurs by focusing on socially excluded
groups and receive national recognition”.
Goal
- To advocate for the interest and concerns of micro-entrepreneurs at the local and national level
to ensure a conducive environment for underprivileged people's engagement in enterprise
development.
- To advocate for policy reforms to promote and strengthen the micro-enterprises.
The first part of the goal has mentioned “ underprivileged people’s engagement in enterprise
development.
Purpose
To ensure business success for micro-entrepreneurs by bridging the gap between disadvantaged
Provide clear definition of terms like “low-income
individuals and the tools they need to start and grow successful businesses.
entrepreneurs”.
Low-income entrepreneurs are equipped with necessary/vital business knowledge, access to capital
etc.
Objective
To bring the large number of scattered micro-entrepreneurs across the country on a common
platform to advocate for the rights and interest of poor entrepreneurs who are largely from
disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Add in second point:
To advocate for policy reforms to promote and strengthen
the micro-enterprises with special emphasis to women,
ips, dalits, sexual minorities and marginalized groups.
Include objectives which aim to build capacity of GESI
groups to acquire knowledge regarding the challenges and
competition prevailing in market systems to target groups.
Poor entrepreneurs who were poorly explained in purpose section is clear in this section.
The program has been dedicated to increase the capability of low-income entrepreneurs by the
provision of services and trainings.
B. Human Resource Regulations: None
201
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
C. Staff and Board Profile
Document Sections
Existing provisions on such sections
Staff profile
Has two staffs. Of these, both are men and come from Janajati hill category.
Board profile
- Have a total of 21 board members. Among these board members, 11 hold executive positions
whereas 10 are the general members.
- Among the key positions, six are Bahun Chettri (5 men, 1 woman), two Dalit hill females, two
Janjati hill male and one janajati terai female. The two position of President and Vice-president
are held by Dalit hill women. The position of Senior vice president and Vice-treasurer has been
held by Janajati hill male whereas one vice-president position is held by Janajati terai female.
The remaining positions namely two vice-president, one senior secretary and two secretary are
held by Brahim/Chettri hill male. Lastly, one position of treasurer is held by Brahmin/Chettri
woman.
- Likewise among ten general members, five are Bahun Chettri (4 men, 1 woman), three Janajati
hill female and two Dalit hill(1 man, 1 woman).
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
D. ToR of Team Leader/Coordinator
Provision in ToR
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
- Coordinate with the donor agencies including Government for collecting resources to support the poverty reduction
through promoting the micro, cottage and small enterprises.
- Coordinate with the line agencies and support to ensure the interests and concerns of micro entrepreneurs and enhance
their capacity.
- Coordinate with the DMEGA and support them to coordinate with the district level donors, line agencies for collecting
resources to support the poverty reduction through promoting the micro, cottage and small enterprises.
- Support to the capacity building of NMEFEN by coordinating with the partner/ donor organizations and stakeholders.
- Be responsible for preparing annual programme plan; submit to the Micro-Enterprises Development Programme
(MEDEP/UNDP) and implementation.
- Support to manage the meeting, workshops, seminars and Trade Fairs of micro- Entrepreneurs and their associations.
- Strengthen the network and its organization with the regular monitoring and supervision.
Add
Prepare and implement (ADD) "a GESI responsive"
annual programme of the fund and ensure value for
money .
Submit regular programme progress report, financial and
audit report to executive board with disaggregation by
gender/caste/ethnicity and location and with analysis of
progress related with GESI issues.
202
Add in the fifth point: Ensure gesi mainstreaming on
monitoring and reporting.
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
E. Action plan 2014 and Budget
Activities
Strengths
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Support to Micro Entrepreneurs Association to build
capacity of Micro Entrepreneurs for Sustainability
Enterprise
Sub activities like capacity assessment of NMEFEN and DMEGAs,
performance evaluation, exposure programs and supporting
entrepreneurs are notable good aspects of this activity plan.
- Analyze activity based planning.
- Include GESI planning with budget
Support to building a strong Micro-Entrepreneurs
Good that the activity attempts to bring entrepreneurs created by
network to increase membership of micro entrepreneurs other organizations into a network which has already been created.
(MEDPA/MEDEP, ME created by other organizations).
Identify traditional enterprises run by ethnic groups
and support these initiatives for scaling up.
Workshop with Micro Finance Institutions
Plan and organize activities which can produce
desirable results at the grassroot level rather than
those activities which is limited at central sphere only.
Support to developed alliance with Business member
organization such as FNCCI/FNCSI/FTGN/FITA/FHAN/
Mahaguthi/Dhukuti/Sana Hastakala and other for policy
advocacy and product promotion
Good that partnership with relevant stakeholders have been realized
and planned accordingly.
Develop clear frameworks, guidelines and mechanism
to develop alliance with “business member
organizations” that are outside of institutional structure
developed by MEDEP.
F. Fiscal Year 2069/70 Report
Activities
Suggested GESI revisions/additions
Exhibitions
Ensure regular participation of Micro-Enterprises on exhibitions and trade fairs etc.
Women entrepreneur awards
Continue the tradition of rewarding the best entrepreneurs.
Capacity build up for MEs
Analyze the documents in detail.
G. Monitoring and evaluation team members
Kesha Kumari Pariyar-Coordinator
Lakpa Lama-Member
Ghuran Mahato-Member
Ramchandra Neupane-Member
Shobha Gywali-Member
Sabitri Kurmi-Member
Nagendra Rajak-Member
Uddav Giri-Member
- The monitoring and evaluation is headed by a Dalit women. Representation of Madhesis,
women, IPs is balanced. However, it is necessary to evaluate the roles and responsibilities
assigned to each member of M & E team
- Further analysis of TORs and responsibility of M & E teams needs to be carried out.
203
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 16: List of MEDEP annual workplan activities categorised from a GESI perspective
1. Admin activities from MEDEP's annual workplans of 2011-2013
Due payment
GSM
Human resource, administration and operation management costs
Operation and management for implementation of social mobilisation and overall follow up, interaction, regular monitoring for enterprise scale up, information collection, data entry
into GSIMIS Database of 36 districts and GSIMIS/UNDP, and reporting
Programme support cost
2. Programme activities from the perspective of GESI (MEDEP's annual workplans of 2011-13)
2.1 Supportive and 'Access to Services' as domains of change
Assess income and expenditure pattern of MEs (types of MEs: agro-based, forest based), their requirement of external ....
Build linkage of MEs of Baglung, Myagdi, Parbat to newly established eco tourism trekking route developed in Baglung, Myagdi, Parbat
Create conducive environment for accessing financial service to MEs access to finance improved
Enhance capacity of MED service providers to deliver MED sustainably
Four days' orientation on agro-based enterprise development under CIDA support to MEDEP staffs
Identify issues/areas for sustainability of micro-enterprises, where the existing micro-entrepreneurs need to... ....
Identify potential micro entrepreneurs, develop their entrepreneurship and technical skills, develop market linkage
Mobilise 9 interns and 2 research graduates for supporting implementation of programme at NPSO level
Promotion of 3 cooperative with integrated e-marketing technology
Provide logistic and technical support to JWDC for managerial position
204
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.2 Supportive and 'Voice' as domains of change
Support NMEFEN for participating in trade fair exhibition
2.3 Supportive and 'Rules of the Game' as domains of change
One day orientation on community forest guidelines (FECOFUN CFUGs) in 15 districts
Assist GoN/MOOI for preparing capacity development plans for "ME Development for Poverty Alleviation"
Capacity development support to NEFEN
Conduct financial corrective action on the basis of special audit findings and recommendations in 36 districts; prepare for annual audit, orientation to AFAs' on NGO guidelines,
sharing and orientation on .........
Conduct phasing out strategy preparation workshop
Conduct training on VEDP preparation guideline for sustainability of micro enterprise development at local level
Conduct workshop on issue of developing VEDP with selected LDOs/DDCs/MLD
Develop plan of action for pro-poor value chain strengthening for prioritised products with concerned
Four days training on formation and registration process of cooperative to MEG and MEGA
Internal evaluation for cost effectiveness and sustainability of CFC support services to taret groups on cost sharing
MED PA documentation management including documentation and dissemination of lessons leart and impact assessment of MEDEP
Micro-enterprise friendly resource mobilisation by stakeholders
Piloting of institutionalisation of gender and social inclusion sensitivity participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation techniques in DMEGAs, cooperatives
Printing of flyers and stories (glossy papers)
Produce communication reference materials and replication of MEDEP model
Provide capacity development support to officers of 7 new district of CSIDB and DCSI on (i) PRA package for 7 days, (ii) SIYB orientation for 5 days (iii) and related areas like ...........
Publishing of MEDEP information for advertisement
Strengthen capacities of MEs' organisations of application of "Gender and social inclusion .........
Strengthen capacity of BDSPOs and other partners
205
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.4 Specific and 'Access to Services' as domains of change
Adopt new technologies
Adoption of new technologies for agro-based MEs in 18 districts
Complete the Dhorpatan CFC (community lodge) of Baglung
Creation of at least 4,250 new micro entrepreneurs directly and support 1,000 existing for their resiliency (MEDEP); and 3,000 new micro entrepreneurs indirectly and support 850
existing MEs for their resiliency (MEDPA)
Develop 200 new micro entrepreneurs
Develop local resource person for employment generation in collaboration with council for technical education and private training centre
Establish 1500 new agro-based MEs
Facilitate for strengthening access of micro-entrepreneurs to credit for MED
Facilitate to establish Pine Pole Treatment Centre in Kavre/Sindhupalchok in "pro-poor public private partnership" approach
Handover 200 CFCs to the owners/groups and certificates of handover distribution
Identify 300 graduated entrepreneurs certify and counsel them to buy service by themselves now onwards in 25 districts
Link agro-based MEs to financial services in 18 districts
Link to financial services
Provide scholarship support to women of indigenous Nationalities and Dalit ..............
Provide support to 3 NTFP processing, grading, packaging and handling of training, monitoring of .............
Provide support to 72 female students for 15 months EDF Development Course
Provide support to develop 150 micro-entrepreneurs
Revise 50 sick CFCs
Revise 550 sick entrepreneurs
Scale up of 1000 existing agro based entrepreneurs through
Scale up of 1000 existing ME under regular programme
Scale up support to IGA group for promoting to MEs
Strengthen capacity of training institutes for EDF course
Support of renewal for 5 expired SGOPs from Sindhupalchowk and Kavre
Support to completed initiated SGOPs development and implement the SGOPs
206
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2.5 Neutral activities
Assist GON for technical support in finalizing industrial enterprises act and bylaws, and "policy review and development"
Assist Government of Nepal for reviewing sectoral policies and guidelines
Assist MoI for "development of MED PA Master Plan/Strategy and Actions Plans" for implementation of "Micro Enterprises Development for Poverty Alleviation"
Assist MoI/GON for conducting exposure visit of Project Board Members
Assist to MoFSC to develop forest based enterprise development and implementation
Capacity development and policy feedback to concerned government agencies
Capacity development and policy feedback to concerned government agencies
Capacity development support to national entrepreneurship development centre (NEDC)
Conduct 3 national professionals consultative planning and ...........................
Conduct market study on usage of allo from allo product producers to the end users, and market linkage of MEs product to 5 super markets
Conduct physical assets management from 1998 to year 2010
Conduct skill testing curricula design for enterprise development
Conduct skill testing of 80 enterprise development facilitators
Conduct training and skill testing of community forestry facilitators, level 2 to 30 participants
Conducting a value chain consultative meeting in KTM in participation of stakeholders
Conduct training and orientation to partners AFA regarding the partners financial management guidelines and capacity strengthen to ........
Develop participatory action research for appropriate irrigation technologies in reiverbed farming in Siraha and other locations
Development of market linkages and value chains for promoting and developing products
Enhance capacity of implementing POs in 18 districts for technical supervision
GoN makes use of relevant evidence and dialogue in MED policy making and planning. More research and evidence on MED is available.
Institutional capacity of district level implementing partners (Government, private sector, NGOs) developed for implementing GON's MEDPA programme including local bodies
Institutional capacity of the central government developed for implementing GON's MEDPA programme
207
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Internal review of the documents of partner organisation through internal audit
Logistic support to partner NGOs in two districts
Making structural change in website of MEDEP along with one year maintenance services
MEDPA strategy and plan document will be reviewed and finalized by MoI/NPC/MoF
Observation of micro-enterprise
Provide capacity development support to officers of new districts of CSIDB and DCSI on ...............
Provide capacity development support to selected NGOs on ..............
Provide capacity enhancement support to MEDPA districts (DEDIC, EDU, CSIDB, DCSI, DDC/VDC, Business ........
Provide support to selected NGOs for technical service provision
Results-based M&E framework for MEDEP model (that addressing sustainability issues and with specific .....
Results-based M&E guidelines and result measurement framework system in DCED standard for MEDEP IV Phase
Revise NGO selection criteria/guidelines, and programme subcontract guidelines in result based perspective and implement accordingly
SIYB manuals to new 20 districts of MED PA
Strengthening financial management system of NPSO to address audit issues
Subcontracting Policy to strengthen B2B linkages among micro, cottage, small, medium and large enterprises will
Support GoN for enabling policy environments for effective implementation of MEDPA
Support MEs unit in CSIDB/DCSI for implementing MED PA effectively
Support to riverbed farming alliance (A national workshop on riverbed farming, documentation and publication, policy .....)
Training on procurement (CIPS) organized by UNDP
208
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 17: Average income by source (Treatment)
In NRs.
Strata
Hill Dalit
Micro enterprises
Remittance
Agriculture
Service
Business
Other
Total Income
104,255
83,153
22,883
11,725
4,592
27,367
253,975
Madhesi Dalit
49,238
31,893
19,239
80,232
357
18,089
199,048
Hill Indigenous
83,619
69,490
21,639
22,887
8,808
33,077
239,521
101,944
55,944
41,732
24,810
2,676
20,775
247,880
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
88,396
71,122
47,206
7,783
20,910
61,103
296,520
Muslims
91,200
48,000
64,000
3,000
-
-
206,200
Other Madhesi Caste
75,333
66,667
25,000
31,444
1,778
-
200,222
Overall (All)
87,503
66,827
32,769
21,818
10,280
37,471
256,667
Male Hill Dalit
86,150
83,975
34,163
9,925
6,000
17,775
237,988
116,741
82,586
15,103
12,966
3,621
33,983
265,000
Male Madhesi Dalit
66,500
16,667
21,450
59,250
-
14,167
178,033
Female Madhesi Dalit
44,530
36,046
18,636
85,955
455
19,159
204,780
Male Hill Indigenous
91,370
60,544
26,478
9,739
1,739
24,978
214,848
Female Hill Indigenous
80,349
73,266
19,597
28,436
11,791
36,495
249,934
Male Terai Indigenous
114,800
100,000
30,000
24,000
-
30,000
298,800
Female Terai Indigenous
100,970
52,606
42,621
24,871
2,879
20,076
244,023
Male Hill Brahman/Chhetri
94,871
71,207
50,819
6,017
14,345
64,276
301,535
Female Hill Brahman/Chhetri
85,529
71,084
45,607
8,565
23,817
59,698
294,299
Male Muslims
80,000
-
106,667
-
-
-
186,667
108,000
120,000
-
7,500
-
-
235,500
Male Other Madhesi Caste
87,500
200,000
20,000
7,500
-
-
315,000
Female Other Madhesi Caste
71,857
28,571
26,429
38,286
2,286
-
167,429
Male
89,991
68,518
37,948
12,289
6,940
35,590
251,277
Female
86,512
66,154
30,707
25,612
11,610
38,219
258,813
Terai Indigenous
Female Hill Dalit
Female Muslims
209
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Strata
Micro enterprises
Remittance
Agriculture
Service
Business
Other
Total Income
Overall
87,503
66,827
32,769
21,818
10,280
37,471
256,667
Hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
28,267
13,600
5,467
9,733
-
3,600
60,667
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
117,988
95,723
26,030
12,084
5,422
31,663
288,910
Hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
28,800
-
10,600
22,800
-
-
62,200
Non-hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
51,241
35,020
20,086
85,863
392
19,863
212,465
Hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
20,333
6,042
9,417
6,708
1,300
-
43,800
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
95,214
81,115
23,879
25,851
10,183
39,137
275,379
Hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
33,750
4,500
17,000
3,188
1,250
1,875
61,563
Non- hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
110,603
62,476
44,873
27,556
2,857
23,175
271,540
Hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
18,236
3,889
14,903
5,250
-
1,167
43,445
104,904
86,941
54,807
8,379
25,830
75,205
356,067
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-hardcore Poor Muslims
91,200
48,000
64,000
3,000
-
-
206,200
Hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
25,000
-
-
7,500
8,000
-
40,500
Non-hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
89,714
85,714
32,143
38,286
-
-
245,857
Hardcore Poor
22,583
5,833
11,483
7,228
636
1,233
48,997
Non-hardcore Poor
99,354
77,962
36,654
24,482
12,041
44,086
294,578
Overall
87,503
66,827
32,769
21,818
10,280
37,471
256,667
Non- hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Hardcore Poor Muslims
Note: Micro enterprises include retail shops and tailoring
Source: Field Survey, 2014
210
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 18: Education Status of Respondent Family by Poverty (Treatment)
1. Male
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Illiterate
12
12
24
1
15
16
3
22
25
0
1
1
11
36
47
0
3
Literate & Primary
25
60
85
5
18
23
5
55
60
0
9
9
39
33
72
0
Class 5 to 10
13
56
69
6
19
25
9
83
92
0
5
5
30
79
109
SLC
2
16
18
0
6
6
1
32
33
0
1
1
1
39
Twelve (10+2)
2
6
8
0
2
2
1
10
11
0
3
3
5
Graduate
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
Master and above
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
Total
54
151
205
12
62
74
19
204
223
0
23
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
3
1
2
3
28
91
119
10
10
2
5
7
76
190
266
0
6
6
0
1
1
58
249
307
40
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
96
100
21
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
42
50
2
15
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
19
21
4
2
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
12
23
90
0
21
21
3
8
11
178
697
875
228 318
HC NHC T
Total
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
2. Female
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Illiterate
12
37
49
4
53
57
13
55
68
12
47
59
17
43
60
0
1
Literate & Primary
9
78
87
8
83
91
33
134
167
11
96
107
39
114 153
0
Class 5 to 10
14
111
125
7
56
63
37
185
222
16
130
146
48
201 249
SLC
0
14
14
2
7
9
12
37
49
6
21
27
9
97
Twelve (10+2)
1
20
21
0
3
3
7
19
26
2
17
19
15
Graduate
0
7
7
0
1
1
0
10
10
2
5
7
Master and above
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
Total
36
268
304
21
205
226
102
440
542
49
318
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
1
0
9
9
58
245
303
4
4
4
13
17
104
522
626
0
7
7
0
9
9
122
699
821
106
0
0
0
0
1
1
29
177
206
63
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
122
147
1
43
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
66
69
2
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
367
129
0
12
12
4
32
36
570 699
HC NHC T
Total
341 1,845 2,186
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
211
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 19: Education Status of Respondent Family (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Illiterate
24
49
73
16
57
73
25
68
93
1
59
60
47
60
107
3
1
4
3
9
12
119
303
422
Literate & Primary
85
87
172
23
91
114
60
167
227
9
107
116
72
153
225
10
4
14
7
17
24
266
626
892
Class 5 to 10
69
125 194
25
63
88
92
222
314
5
146
151
109
249
358
6
7
13
1
9
10
307
821 1,128
SLC
18
14
32
6
9
15
33
49
82
1
27
28
40
106
146
2
0
2
0
1
1
100
206
306
Twelve (10+2)
8
21
29
2
3
5
11
26
37
3
19
22
26
78
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
147
197
Graduate
1
7
8
2
1
3
1
10
11
0
7
7
17
44
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
69
90
Master and above
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
4
2
6
7
9
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
14
26
223
542
765
23
367
390
318
699
1,017
21
12
33
11
36
47
875 2,186 3,061
Total
205 304 509
Source: Field Survey, 2014
74
226 300
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC NHC
T
Illiterate
24
49
73
5
68
73
16
77
93
12
48
60
28
79
107
0
4
Literate & Primary
34
138 172
13
101
114
38
189
227
11
105
116
78
147
225
0
Class 5 to 10
27
167 194
13
75
88
46
268
314
16
135
151
78
280
358
SLC
2
30
32
2
13
15
13
69
82
6
22
28
10
136
Twelve (10+2)
3
26
29
0
5
5
8
29
37
2
20
22
20
Graduate
0
8
8
0
3
3
0
11
11
2
5
7
Master and above
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
6
Total
90
33
267
300
121
644
765
49
341
Source: Field Survey, 2014
212
419 509
HC NHC
Hill Indigenous
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
4
1
11
12
86
336
422
14
14
6
18
24
180
712
892
0
13
13
0
10
10
180
948 1,128
146
0
2
2
0
1
1
33
273
306
84
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
164
197
3
58
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
85
90
6
2
14
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
24
26
390
219
0
33
33
7
40
47
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
798 1,017
HC NHC T
Total
519 2,542 3,061
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 20: Drop-out Status of Respondent Family (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
School going (M)
73
0
73
17
0
17
47
0
47
8
0
8
89
0
89
6
0
6
1
0
1
241
0
241
School going (F)
0
71
71
0
65
65
0
146
146
0
107
107
0
215
215
0
3
3
0
9
9
0
616
616
Drop Out (M)
132
0
132
57
0
57
176
0
176
15
0
15
229
0
229
15
0
15
10
0
10
634
0
634
Drop Out (F)
0
233 233
0
161 161
0
396
396
0
260
260
0
484
484
0
9
9
0
27
27
0
205 304 509
74
226 300
223
542
765
23
367
390
318
699
1,017
21
12
33
11
36
47
Total
1,570 1,570
875 2,186 3,061
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
HC NHC
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC
T
HC NHC T
HC NHC
School going (M)
22
51
73
5
12
17
6
41
47
0
8
8
37
52
89
0
6
6
1
School going (F)
8
63
71
7
58
65
31
115
146
14
93
107
53
162
215
0
3
3
Drop Out (M)
32
100 132
7
50
57
13
163
176
0
15
15
53
176
229
0
15
Drop Out (F)
28
205 233
14
147
161
71
325
396
35
225
260
76
408
484
0
Total
90
419 509
33
267
300
121
644
765
49
341
390
219
798 1,017
0
Total
T
HC
NHC
T
0
1
71
170
241
2
7
9
115
501
616
15
2
8
10
107
527
634
9
9
2
25
27
226 1,344 1,570
33
33
7
40
47
519 2,542 3,061
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, M: Male, F: Female
Source: Field Survey, 2014
213
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 21: Reason for female household head (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Husband outside
home
1
10
11
0
1
1
1
12
13
0
5
5
1
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
39
42
Widow
0
4
4
0
3
3
3
8
11
0
3
3
1
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
25
29
Divorced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
Husband separated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
Total
1
14
15
0
4
4
5
21
26
0
10
10
4
24
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
73
83
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Education level
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
T
HC NHC
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
HC NHC
Total
T
HC
NHC
T
Husband outside
home
0
11
11
0
1
1
1
12
13
0
5
5
1
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
40
42
Widow
0
4
4
1
2
3
4
7
11
0
3
3
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
24
29
Divorced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
Husband separated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
Total
0
15
15
1
3
4
5
21
26
1
9
10
3
25
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
73
83
Source: Field Survey, 2014
214
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, M: Male, F: Female
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 22: Average income by source (Control)
In NRs.
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Source
M
F
Madhesi Dalit
ALL
M
Remittance
27,632
Agriculture
40,000 32,029 34,887
3,235 11,981
F
Hill Indigenous
ALL
M
F
0 19,167 10,952 30,556
Terai Indigenous
ALL
M
F
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
ALL
M
ALL
M
F
Other Madhesi Caste
ALL
M
F
Total
ALL
M
F
ALL
6,429 17,180 11,673
0
0
0 150,000
0 85,714 20,650 11,150 15,317
2,222 15,833 10,000 44,444 52,588 48,400 30,625 20,455 23,167 53,333 91,500 71,951
0
0
0
25,000
0 14,286 41,650 49,086 45,825
0
0
0
17,500
6,667 12,857 13,440
7,234
9,956
Livestock sale
1,316
3,353
2,623 14,444
Livestock products sale
4,684
3,250
3,764
Wages
2,895
5,177
4,359
0 15,714 15,000 18,182 17,333
F
Muslims
6,000
3,636
7,400
0
1,318
967
8,000
8,345
8,168
0
0
0
17,500
6,667 12,857
5,750
5,838
5,800
8,429
0
0
0
7,619
9,000
8,293
0
0
0
18,000
0 10,286
6,660
4,930
5,689
Service
33,474 21,235 25,623 27,722 64,500 48,738 18,056 94,206 55,043 58,750 36,636 42,533 19,810 19,480 19,649
0
0
0
10,500 35,667 21,286 25,545 37,420 32,211
Driver
17,621 17,647 17,638 25,111
0
0
0
10,000
10,000 13,333 11,429
Business
833
6,667
7,778 12,588 10,114
5,000
2,500
3,571
1,944 13,177
1,000
833
0
2,388
1,532
1,053
0
377
0
0
0
0
7,895
1,471
3,774
Pension
0
0
Art making
0
0
Retail shop
5,000
0 10,762 20,667 28,118 24,286
0
1,429 14,222
6,647 10,543
9,524
556
2,118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 11,111
9,636
7,900 20,524 16,050 18,342
0 63,636 46,667 13,857
1,314 15,750
5,880
9,966
0
0
0
0
5,714 18,598 15,094 16,631
9,080 14,605 12,182
4,200
5,714
4,900
5,317
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,160
3,219
3,632
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
391
877
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
877
136,568 89,785 106,557 81,055 118,667 102,548 161,000 214,441 186,957 129,250 153,500 147,033 157,452 184,535 170,664
0
0
0 258,500 62,333 174,429 149,033 148,966 148,995
Tractor Operator
2,222 15,000
3,125
0
Tailoring
Total
3,333
905 11,667
4,267 22,167 12,200 17,305
Note: M: Male, F: Female
Source: Field Survey, 2014
215
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Source
Hill Dalit
HC
NHC
Madhesi Dalit
ALL
HC
NHC
Hill Indigenous
ALL
HC
NHC
Terai Indigenous
ALL
HC
NHC
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
ALL
HC
NHC
Muslims
ALL
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC ALL
HC
NHC
Total
ALL
HC
NHC
ALL
Remittance
2,174 19,500 11,981
0 14,375 10,952
0 21,154 15,714
0 22,609 17,333
360 15,323 11,673
0
0
0
0 120,000 85,714
867 21,204 15,317
Agriculture
7,348 56,000 34,887
0 13,125 10,000
0 65,154 48,400
0 30,217 23,167
0 95,161 71,951
0
0
0
0 20,000 14,286
2,561 63,451 45,825
Livestock sale
2,783
2,500
2,623
2,000
8,125
6,667
6,700 20,726 17,305
0
0
0 10,000 14,000 12,857
4,197 12,303
9,956
Livestock products sale
4,609
3,117
3,764
9,000
1,875
3,571
5,340
9,081
8,168
0
0
0 22,500
4,603
6,287
5,800
Wages
8,696
1,033
4,359
2,000
563
0 12,750
6,855
8,293
0
0
0
6,000 12,000 10,286 10,636
3,673
5,689
18,044 31,433 25,623 30,000 54,594 48,738 24,389 65,654 55,043 37,286 44,130 42,533 14,160 21,419 19,649
0
0
0 11,000 25,400 21,286 20,465 36,997 32,211
0
0
0
0
5,714
800 23,080 16,631
Service
Driver
2,296 29,400 17,638
Business
3,478
40
1,532
Retail shop
0
667
377
Tailoring
0
0
0
0
2,174
5,000
3,774
Pension
0
0
Art making
0
0
Tractor Operator
Total
216
3,826
4,267
967
9,923
7,400
0
1,261
905 25,000
2,692
8,429
0
0
0 32,692 24,286
0 10,304
7,900
0 24,258 18,342
9,000 12,857
8,000
0
1,429
0 14,192 10,543
0 60,870 46,667
1,200 12,794
9,966
0
0
0
0 16,000 11,429
2,030 16,317 12,182
4,000 11,250
9,524
0
1,769
1,314
0
5,478
4,200
3,000
6,065
5,317
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,212
4,617
3,632
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
758
926
877
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,692
5,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,235
877
51,600 148,690 106,557 53,000 118,031 102,548 50,500 234,192 186,957 43,000 178,696 147,033 43,510 211,681 170,664
0
0
0 49,500 224,400 174,429 48,129 190,089 148,995
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
5,714
111
0 14,125 10,762
6,000
1,000 13,269 10,114
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 23: Education Status of Respondent Family by Poverty (Control)
1. Male
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Illiterate
11
9
20
5
5
10
3
9
12
7
12
19
6
14
20
0
0
Literate & Primary
18
25
43
10
12
22
13
18
31
4
21
25
15
42
57
0
Class 5 to 10
32
29
61
4
15
19
7
24
31
5
17
22
19
45
64
SLC
4
2
6
1
0
1
1
12
13
0
5
5
6
21
Twelve (10+2)
1
6
7
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
Graduate
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Master and above
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
66
73
139
20
33
53
24
63
87
17
59
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
0
2
2
32
51
83
0
0
2
6
8
62
124
186
0
0
0
2
8
10
69
138
207
27
0
0
0
1
1
2
13
41
54
9
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
18
23
1
9
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
13
1
2
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
76
52
0
0
0
5
17
22
184
388
572
143 195
HC NHC T
Total
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
2. Female
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Illiterate
25
24
49
6
7
13
7
10
17
5
10
15
10
28
38
0
0
Literate & Primary
12
15
27
4
18
22
8
29
37
4
14
18
11
45
56
0
Class 5 to 10
21
19
40
3
10
13
4
10
14
7
23
30
19
43
62
SLC
3
2
5
0
0
0
1
9
10
0
2
2
6
13
Twelve (10+2)
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
1
Graduate
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Master and above
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
63
63
126
13
35
48
20
58
78
17
53
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
1
3
4
54
82
136
0
0
1
5
6
40
126
166
0
0
0
1
2
3
55
107
162
19
0
0
0
1
3
4
11
29
40
8
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
14
17
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
1
2
3
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
4
7
70
49
0
0
0
5
14
19
167
365
532
142 191
HC NHC T
Total
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
217
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 24: Education Status of Respondent Family (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Illiterate
20
49
69
10
13
23
12
17
29
19
15
34
20
38
58
0
0
0
2
4
6
83
136
219
Literate & Primary
43
27
70
22
22
44
31
37
68
25
18
43
57
56
113
0
0
0
8
6
14
186
166
352
Class 5 to 10
61
40
101
19
13
32
31
14
45
22
30
52
64
62
126
0
0
0
10
3
13
207
162
369
SLC
6
5
11
1
0
1
13
10
23
5
2
7
27
19
46
0
0
0
2
4
6
54
40
94
Twelve (10+2)
7
3
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
4
7
12
9
21
0
0
0
0
1
1
23
17
40
Graduate
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
2
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
4
17
Master and above
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
5
5
10
0
0
0
0
1
1
6
7
13
53
48
101
87
78
165
76
70
146
195
191
386
0
0
0
22
19
41
572
Total
139 126 265
Source: Field Survey, 2014
532 1,104
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Education level
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
HC NHC
T
HC NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Illiterate
36
33
69
11
12
23
10
19
29
12
22
34
16
42
58
0
0
Literate & Primary
30
40
70
14
30
44
21
47
68
8
35
43
26
87
113
0
Class 5 to 10
53
48
101
7
25
32
11
34
45
12
40
52
38
88
126
SLC
7
4
11
1
0
1
2
21
23
0
7
7
12
34
Twelve (10+2)
2
8
10
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
7
4
Graduate
1
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Master and above
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
33
68
101
44
121
165
34
112
Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
218
129
136 265
Other Madhesi Caste
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
1
5
6
86
133
219
0
0
3
11
14
102
250
352
0
0
0
3
10
13
124
245
369
46
0
0
0
2
4
6
24
70
94
17
21
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
32
40
1
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
17
2
4
6
10
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
8
13
146
101
285
386
0
0
0
10
31
41
351
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, BC: Brahman/Chhetri
HC NHC T
Total
753 1,104
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 25: Drop-out Status of Respondent Family (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
School going (M)
6
0
6
2
0
2
3
0
3
7
0
7
25
0
25
0
0
0
2
0
2
45
0
45
School going (F)
0
7
7
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
6
6
0
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
39
Drop Out (M)
133
0
133
51
0
51
84
0
84
69
0
69
170
0
170
0
0
0
20
0
20
527
0
527
Drop Out (F)
0
119 119
0
47
47
0
76
76
0
64
64
0
168
168
0
0
0
0
19
19
0
493
493
139 126 265
53
48
101
87
78
165
76
70
146
195
191
386
0
0
0
22
19
41
572
Total
532 1,104
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Education level
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
T
HC NHC
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
HC NHC
Total
T
HC
NHC
T
School going (M)
2
4
6
0
2
2
1
2
3
0
7
7
7
18
25
0
0
0
0
2
2
10
35
45
School going (F)
1
6
7
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
6
6
8
15
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
29
39
Drop Out (M)
64
69
133
20
31
51
23
61
84
17
52
69
45
125
170
0
0
0
5
15
20
174
353
527
Drop Out (F)
62
57
119
13
34
47
19
57
76
17
47
64
41
127
168
0
0
0
5
14
19
157
336
493
Total
129
136 265
33
68
101
44
121
165
34
112
146
101
285
386
0
0
0
10
31
41
351
753
1,104
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, M: Male, F: Female
Source: Field Survey, 2014
219
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 26: Reason for female household head (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Education level
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Husband outside
home
1
2
3
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
14
Widow
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
7
Divorced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Husband separated
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total
2
3
5
1
1
2
2
2
4
0
2
2
1
9
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
17
23
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Education level
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
T
HC NHC
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
HC NHC
Total
T
HC
NHC
T
Husband outside
home
1
2
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
14
Widow
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
Divorced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Husband separated
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Total
2
3
5
0
2
2
1
3
4
0
2
2
2
8
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
18
23
Source: Field Survey, 2014
220
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, M: Male, F: Female
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 27: Type of Micro-Enterprises (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Category
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Individual
31
48
79
8
33
41
28
76
104
5
39
44
44
86
130
3
2
5
2
7
9
121
291
412
Group
5
2
7
2
2
4
1
6
7
0
4
4
4
11
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
25
37
Total
36
50
86
10
35
45
29
82
111
5
43
48
48
97
145
3
2
5
2
7
9
133
316
449
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Category
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC NHC T
Individual
10
69
79
5
36
41
13
91
104
4
40
44
25
105
130
0
5
Group
1
6
7
0
4
4
2
5
7
0
4
4
4
11
15
0
Total
11
75
86
5
40
45
15
96
111
4
44
48
29
116
145
0
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
5
2
7
9
59
353
412
0
0
0
0
0
7
30
37
5
5
2
7
9
66
383
449
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
221
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 28: Number of male and female in women group (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Category
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
No. of response (F)
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
4
4
2
10
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
21
25
Number of female
11
11
22
0
0
0
7
40
47
0
53
53
6
55
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
159
183
Average female
11.0
5.5
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
8.0
7.8
0.0
3.0
5.5
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
7.6
7.3
No. of response (M)
4
2
6
2
0
2
1
4
5
0
0
0
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
9
19
Number of male
26
7
33
10
0
10
4
18
22
0
0
0
20
8
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
33
93
Average male
6.5
3.5
5.5
5.0
0.0
5.0
4.0
4.5
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
2.7
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
3.7
4.9
Source: Field Survey, 2014
13.3 13.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Category
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
No. of response (F)
1
2
3
0
0
0
2
4
6
0
4
4
3
9
12
0
0
Number of female
7
15
22
0
0
0
11
36
47
0
53
53
21
40
61
0
0
Average female
7.0
7.5
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
9.0
7.8
0.0
7.0
4.4
5.1
0.0
No. of response (M)
1
5
6
0
2
2
2
3
5
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
0
Number of male
4
29
33
0
10
10
7
15
22
0
0
0
10
18
28
0
0
Average male
4.0
5.8
5.5
0.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
5.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
3.6
4.7
0.0
Source: Field Survey, 2014
222
13.3 13.3
Note: F: Female, M: Male, HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
0
0
0
6
19
25
0
0
0
0
39
144
183
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
7.6
7.3
0
0
0
0
4
15
19
0
0
0
0
21
72
93
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.8
4.9
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 29: Classification of micro-enterprises (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Type
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Production oriented
18
32
50
8
33
41
23
72
95
4
32
36
35
65
100
2
1
3
1
7
8
91
242
333
Processing
11
2
13
1
0
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
7
22
Retail/wholeseller
3
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
1
1
3
7
10
0
1
1
0
0
0
7
11
18
Exporter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
Tailoring
3
5
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
3
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
14
19
Hotel /Restaurant
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Beauty parlor
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Dhaka
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Multiple enterprises
1
9
10
1
3
4
5
8
13
0
8
8
8
15
23
1
0
1
1
0
1
17
43
60
Total
36
49
85
10
36
46
30
86
116
5
45
50
50
98
148
3
2
5
2
7
9
136
323
459
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
223
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
District
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Production oriented
6
44
50
5
36
41
13
82
95
3
33
36
24
76
100
0
3
Processing
3
10
13
0
1
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
Retail/wholeseller
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
1
1
1
9
10
Exporter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
Tailoring
1
7
8
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
0
Hotel /Restaurant
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Beauty parlor
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dhaka
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Multiple enterprises
1
9
10
0
4
4
2
11
13
Total
11
74
85
5
41
46
15
101
116
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
224
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
3
2
6
8
53
280
333
0
0
0
0
0
3
19
22
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
17
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
17
19
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
8
5
18
23
0
1
1
0
1
1
9
51
60
5
45
50
30
118
148
0
5
5
2
7
9
68
391
459
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 30: Micro-enterprises by function (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Function
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Agriculture based
4
25
29
8
26
34
20
50
70
2
28
30
31
65
96
3
2
5
1
7
8
69
203
272
Forest based
6
2
8
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
9
17
Trad. skill based
17
12
29
0
0
0
3
6
9
1
4
5
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
23
24
47
Tourist based
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Service
4
4
8
2
0
2
3
4
7
0
8
8
2
13
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
29
40
Bee keeping
5
4
9
0
1
1
0
10
10
0
1
1
13
11
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
27
45
Skill related
0
3
3
0
7
7
4
15
19
1
1
2
1
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
35
Total
36
50
86
10
36
46
31
86
117
4
44
48
49
96
145
3
2
5
2
7
9
135
321
456
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total, Trad. = Traditional
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Function
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Agriculture based
3
26
29
5
29
34
8
62
70
2
28
30
12
84
96
0
5
Forest based
1
7
8
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
2
3
0
Trad. skill based
5
24
29
0
0
0
2
7
9
1
4
5
0
3
3
Tourist based
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Service
1
7
8
0
2
2
0
7
7
2
6
8
0
Bee keeping
1
8
9
0
1
1
3
7
10
0
1
1
Skill related
0
3
3
0
7
7
1
18
19
0
2
Total
11
75
86
5
41
46
15
102
117
5
43
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
5
2
6
8
32
240
272
0
0
0
0
0
3
14
17
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
39
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
37
40
17
7
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
24
45
2
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
34
35
48
30
115
145
0
5
5
2
7
9
68
388
456
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, Trad. = Traditional
225
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 31: Number of closed Micro Enterprises by project phase (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Phase
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
First
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
7
0
3
3
4
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
8
17
Second
2
5
7
2
8
10
6
12
18
0
16
16
0
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
67
77
Third
2
3
5
0
0
0
3
8
11
0
2
2
4
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
17
26
Total
4
8
12
2
8
10
14
22
36
0
21
21
8
33
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
92
120
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Phase
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
First
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
7
1
2
3
0
7
7
0
0
Second
4
3
7
0
10
10
4
14
18
2
14
16
5
21
26
0
Third
0
5
5
0
0
0
3
8
11
0
2
2
1
7
8
Total
4
8
12
0
10
10
8
28
36
3
18
21
6
35
41
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
226
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
0
0
0
0
2
15
17
0
0
0
0
0
15
62
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
22
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
99
120
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 32: Preference for lending institutions (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Institution
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Co-operatives
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
4
4
1
3
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
13
16
Micro-finance
2
4
6
1
0
1
0
4
4
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
14
Saving & credit group
6
3
9
1
1
2
3
7
10
0
2
2
3
8
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
21
34
Bank/Finance
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
9
14
Village/money lender
10
2
12
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
13
7
20
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
Total
20
11
31
3
3
6
7
19
26
1
6
7
9
20
29
0
0
0
0
2
2
40
61
101
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Function
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Co-operatives
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
5
5
1
3
4
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
15
16
Micro-finance
0
6
6
0
1
1
1
3
4
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
12
14
Saving & credit group
1
8
9
0
2
2
0
10
10
0
2
2
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
33
34
Bank/Finance
0
2
2
0
3
3
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
Village/money lender
2
10
12
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
4
16
20
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
Total
3
28
31
0
6
6
1
25
26
1
6
7
2
27
29
0
0
0
1
1
2
8
93
101
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
227
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 33: Saving status (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
34
51
85
11
38
49
36
84
120
4
40
44
49
108
157
3
2
5
2
7
9
139
330
469
Before MEDEP
16
18
34
2
7
9
11
43
54
1
13
14
27
57
84
0
0
0
1
1
2
58
139
197
After MEDEP
18
32
50
9
31
40
24
42
66
3
27
30
21
55
76
3
2
5
1
6
7
79
195
274
Total
34
50
84
11
38
49
35
85
120
4
40
44
48
112
160
3
2
5
2
7
9
137
334
471
Male member
22
11
33
6
2
8
20
12
32
1
4
5
30
26
56
3
1
4
2
0
2
84
56
140
Female member
11
38
49
2
27
29
9
77
86
1
29
30
19
85
104
0
0
0
0
3
3
42
259
301
Total
33
49
82
8
29
37
29
89
118
2
33
35
49
111
160
3
1
4
2
3
5
126
315
441
Saving Regularly
Saving status
Saving by
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
228
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
HC NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
11
74
85
5
44
49
13
107
120
7
37
44
31
126
157
0
5
Before MEDEP
7
27
34
1
8
9
5
49
54
4
10
14
22
62
84
0
After MEDEP
4
46
50
4
36
40
8
58
66
3
27
30
9
67
76
Total
11
73
84
5
44
49
13
107
120
7
37
44
31
129
Male member
3
30
33
0
8
8
2
30
32
1
4
5
7
Female member
8
41
49
1
28
29
10
76
86
6
24
30
Total
11
71
82
1
36
37
12
106
118
7
28
35
Saving Regularly
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
5
2
7
9
69
400
469
0
0
1
1
2
40
157
197
0
5
5
1
6
7
29
245
274
160
0
5
5
2
7
9
69
402
471
49
56
0
4
4
1
1
2
14
126
140
22
82
104
0
0
0
0
3
3
47
254
301
29
131
160
0
4
4
1
4
5
61
380
441
Saving status
Saving by
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
229
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 34: Reason for selecting enterprise (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Reasons
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Availability of raw
materials at local level
6
5
11
2
10
12
11
16
27
1
11
12
12
16
28
0
0
0
1
1
2
33
59
92
Based on traditional
skill
18
12
30
1
4
5
9
23
32
0
8
8
2
4
6
1
0
1
1
1
2
32
52
84
High demand
9
20
29
1
0
1
10
27
37
2
12
14
22
53
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
112
156
Others
3
11
14
6
21
27
2
18
20
2
14
16
14
24
38
2
2
4
0
5
5
29
95
124
Total
36
48
84
10
35
45
32
84
116
5
45
50
50
97
147
3
2
5
2
7
9
138
318
456
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Reasons
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Availability of raw
materials at local level
1
10
11
3
9
12
7
20
27
1
11
12
9
19
28
0
0
0
2
0
2
23
69
92
Based on traditional
skill
8
22
30
0
5
5
1
31
32
0
8
8
0
6
6
0
1
1
0
2
2
9
75
84
High demand
0
29
29
0
1
1
2
35
37
3
11
14
11
64
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
140
156
Others
2
12
14
2
25
27
4
16
20
1
15
16
10
28
38
0
4
4
0
5
5
19
105
124
Total
11
73
84
5
40
45
14
102
116
5
45
50
30
117
147
0
5
5
2
7
9
67
389
456
Source: Field Survey, 2014
230
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 35: Participation of women in enterprise selection (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
No participation
13
1
14
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
2
2
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
6
23
Limited participation
5
6
11
3
21
24
12
13
25
5
19
24
10
9
19
1
0
1
2
7
9
38
75
113
High participation
17
39
56
4
12
16
20
65
85
0
24
24
35
88
123
1
2
3
0
0
0
77
230
307
Total
35
46
81
7
34
41
32
80
112
5
45
50
49
97
146
2
2
4
2
7
9
132
311
443
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
No participation
2
12
14
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
21
23
Limited participation
2
9
11
4
20
24
7
18
25
0
24
24
3
16
19
0
1
1
2
7
9
18
95
113
High participation
6
50
56
1
15
16
8
77
85
5
19
24
26
97
123
0
3
3
0
0
0
46
261
307
Total
10
71
81
5
36
41
15
97
112
5
45
50
29
117
146
0
4
4
2
7
9
66
377
443
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
231
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 36: Women's level of participation in decisions regarding financial source
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
18
28
46
1
12
13
13
41
54
0
31
31
20
54
74
1
0
1
0
0
0
53
166
219
Low
13
13
26
7
27
34
15
34
49
3
22
25
21
43
64
2
2
4
1
7
8
62
148
210
High
1
2
3
2
2
4
5
3
8
1
2
3
8
3
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
12
29
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
6
Total
32
43
75
10
42
52
35
79
114
4
55
59
51
100
151
3
2
5
1
7
8
136
328
464
Very low
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
7
10
Low
1
3
4
0
8
8
1
8
9
0
10
10
2
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
36
40
High
16
21
37
8
29
37
22
39
61
4
38
42
29
54
83
2
2
4
1
6
7
82
189
271
Very high
14
19
33
2
4
6
11
26
37
0
7
7
19
35
54
0
0
0
0
1
1
46
92
138
Total
32
43
75
10
41
51
35
78
113
4
55
59
50
98
148
3
2
5
1
7
8
135
324
459
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
232
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
5
41
46
0
13
13
11
43
54
5
26
31
10
64
74
0
1
1
0
0
0
31
188
219
Low
5
21
26
4
30
34
6
43
49
1
24
25
21
43
64
0
4
4
2
6
8
39
171
210
High
0
3
3
1
3
4
1
7
8
0
3
3
1
10
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
26
29
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
6
Total
10
65
75
5
47
52
18
96
114
6
53
59
33
118
151
0
5
5
2
6
8
74
390
464
Very low
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
7
10
Low
1
3
4
0
8
8
3
6
9
1
9
10
3
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
32
40
High
8
29
37
5
32
37
9
52
61
5
37
42
29
54
83
0
4
4
2
5
7
58
213
271
Very high
1
32
33
0
6
6
3
34
37
0
7
7
1
53
54
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
133
138
Total
10
65
75
5
46
51
18
95
113
6
53
59
33
115
148
0
5
5
2
6
8
74
385
459
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
233
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 37: Participation of women in decisions on purchase of machinery and equipment (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
No participation
18
6
24
0
3
3
1
18
19
0
1
1
7
5
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
33
59
Limited participation
7
6
13
3
19
22
14
17
31
3
19
22
8
14
22
1
0
1
2
6
8
38
81
119
High participation
11
31
42
3
10
13
15
39
54
2
24
26
32
75
107
1
2
3
0
1
1
64
182
246
Total
36
43
79
6
32
38
30
74
104
5
44
49
47
94
141
2
2
4
2
7
9
128
296
424
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
No participation
4
20
24
0
3
3
1
18
19
0
1
1
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
54
59
Limited participation
2
11
13
3
19
22
5
26
31
1
21
22
3
19
22
0
1
1
2
6
8
16
103
119
High participation
4
38
42
1
12
13
6
48
54
4
22
26
25
82
107
0
3
3
0
1
1
40
206
246
Total
10
69
79
4
34
38
12
92
104
5
44
49
28
113
141
0
4
4
2
7
9
61
363
424
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
234
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 38: Usefulness of Common Facility Centre (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Usefulness
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very useful
5
5
10
0
1
1
3
4
7
0
2
2
6
7
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
19
33
Useful
1
7
8
2
0
2
10
21
31
0
9
9
5
12
17
0
0
0
0
1
1
18
50
68
Not useful
3
0
3
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
13
Total
9
12
21
3
1
4
13
27
40
0
12
12
13
23
36
0
0
0
0
1
1
38
76
114
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Usefulness
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Very useful
0
10
10
0
1
1
1
6
7
1
1
2
0
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
31
33
Useful
0
8
8
0
2
2
4
27
31
1
8
9
6
11
17
0
0
0
1
0
1
12
56
68
Not useful
1
2
3
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
11
13
Total
1
20
21
0
4
4
5
35
40
3
9
12
6
30
36
0
0
0
1
0
1
16
98
114
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
235
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 39: Test for difference of mean values of "treatment" and "control" groups
Items
Calculated t-values
Per capita income
4.25
Use Improved cooking stove
-2.18
Access to Safe drinking water
-1.86
Food self-sufficiency from own production
-3.82
Increase in food self-sufficiency
9.08
Asset ownership
5.06
Awareness of HIV/AIDS
-1.26
Awareness of Malaria
-1.78
Note: Calculated t-value > 1.96 indicates significance at 95% confidence level and 5 percent error.
236
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 40: Number and percentage of households below and above poverty level PCI
Strata
Treatment
Above poverty
No.
%
69
70.4
Hill Dalit
Below poverty
No.
%
29
29.6
Madhesi Dalit
14
25
42
Hill Indigenous
49
31.6
Terai Indigenous
25
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Control
Above poverty
No.
%
15
28.3
98
Below poverty
No.
%
38
71.7
75
56
13
61.9
8
38.1
21
106
68.4
155
15
42.9
20
57.1
35
35.2
46
64.8
71
17
56.7
13
43.3
30
52
27.5
137
72.5
189
37
45.1
45
54.9
82
Muslims
1
20
4
80
5
0
0
0
0
0
Other Madhesi Caste
5
55.6
4
44.4
9
5
71.4
2
28.6
7
Overall (All)
175
30
408
70
583
125
54.8
103
45.2
228
Male Hill Dalit
16
40
24
60
40
10
52.6
9
47.4
19
Female Hill Dalit
13
22.4
45
77.6
58
28
82.4
6
17.6
34
Male Madhesi Dalit
4
33.3
8
66.7
12
7
77.8
2
22.2
9
Female Madhesi Dalit
10
22.7
34
77.3
44
6
50
6
50
12
Male Hill Indigenous
14
30.4
32
69.6
46
9
50
9
50
18
Female Hill Indigenous
35
32.1
74
67.9
109
6
35.3
11
64.7
17
Male Terai Indigenous
0
0
5
100
5
4
50
4
50
8
Female Terai Indigenous
25
37.9
41
62.1
66
13
59.1
9
40.9
22
Male Hill Brahman/Chhetri
19
32.8
39
67.2
58
19
45.2
23
54.8
42
Female Hill Brahman/Chhetri
33
25.2
98
74.8
131
18
45
22
55
40
Male Muslims
1
33.3
2
66.7
3
0
0
0
0
0
Female Muslims
0
0
2
100
2
0
0
0
0
0
Male Other Madhesi Caste
1
50
1
50
2
2
50
2
50
4
Female Other Madhesi Caste
4
57.1
3
42.9
7
3
100
0
0
3
Male
55
33.1
111
66.9
166
51
51
49
49
100
Sample
Sample
53
237
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Strata
Treatment
Above poverty
No.
%
297
71.2
417
Below poverty
No.
%
74
57.8
Control
Above poverty
No.
%
54
42.2
Female
Below poverty
No.
%
120
28.8
Overall
175
30
408
70
583
125
54.8
103
45.2
228
Hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
15
100
0
0
15
23
100
0
0
23
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
14
16.9
69
83.1
83
15
50
15
50
30
Hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
5
100
0
0
5
5
100
0
0
5
Non-hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
9
17.6
42
82.4
51
8
50
8
50
16
Hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
24
100
0
0
24
9
100
0
0
9
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
25
19.1
106
80.9
131
6
23.1
20
76.9
26
Hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
8
100
0
0
8
7
100
0
0
7
Non- hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
17
27
46
73
63
10
43.5
13
56.5
23
Hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
36
100
0
0
36
20
100
0
0
20
Non- hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
16
10.5
137
89.5
153
17
27.4
45
72.6
62
Hardcore Poor Muslims
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Muslims
1
20
4
80
5
0
0
0
0
0
Hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
2
100
0
0
2
2
100
0
0
2
Non-hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
3
42.9
4
57.1
7
3
60
2
40
5
Hardcore Poor
90
100
0
0
90
66
100
0
0
66
Non-hardcore Poor
85
17.2
408
82.8
493
59
36.4
103
63.6
162
Overall
175
30
408
70
583
125
54.8
103
45.2
228
Mountain
34
35.4
62
64.6
96
28
62.2
17
37.8
45
Hill
64
26.8
175
73.2
239
46
52.9
41
47.1
87
Terai
77
31
171
69
248
51
53.1
45
46.9
96
Overall
175
30
408
70
583
125
54.8
103
45.2
228
Source: Household survey 2014
238
Sample
Sample
128
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 41: Participation of women in use of income by poverty and caste/ethnicity (in percent) (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
No participation
7
3
10
1
1
2
3
1
4
0
2
2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
8
21
Limited participation
4
10
14
1
16
17
6
15
21
3
14
17
5
10
15
1
0
1
1
2
3
21
67
88
High participation
22
32
54
5
18
23
22
63
85
2
29
31
42
87
129
1
2
3
1
5
6
95
236
331
Total
33
45
78
7
35
42
31
79
110
5
45
50
49
98
147
2
2
4
2
7
9
129
311
440
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Level of
participation
Hill Dalit
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
No participation
2
8
10
0
2
2
0
4
4
1
1
2
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
17
21
Limited participation
2
12
14
3
14
17
2
19
21
0
17
17
2
13
15
0
1
1
0
3
3
9
79
88
High participation
6
48
54
2
21
23
13
72
85
4
27
31
27
102
129
0
3
3
2
4
6
54
277
331
Total
10
68
78
5
37
42
15
95
110
5
45
50
30
117
147
0
4
4
2
7
9
67
373
440
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
239
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 42: Change in women's decision making on use of income (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
17
20
37
1
8
1
13
31
13
0
28
0
18
47
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
134
183
Low
12
16
28
4
18
4
10
40
10
1
17
1
22
47
22
2
1
2
0
3
0
51
142
193
High
0
4
4
5
13
5
7
10
7
3
11
3
10
11
10
1
1
1
1
4
1
27
54
81
Very high
1
1
2
0
0
0
4
1
4
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
9
Total
30
41
71
10
39
10
34
82
34
4
56
4
52
105
52
3
2
3
1
7
1
134
332
466
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
Low
1
1
2
0
6
0
0
5
0
1
7
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
25
27
High
15
22
37
6
17
6
18
43
18
0
35
0
29
52
29
3
1
3
0
2
0
71
172
243
Very high
15
18
33
4
15
4
14
30
14
3
14
3
22
46
22
0
1
0
1
5
1
59
129
188
Total
31
41
72
10
38
10
34
81
34
4
56
4
51
105
51
3
2
3
1
7
1
134
330
464
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
240
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
4
33
4
0
9
0
6
38
6
4
24
4
8
57
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
161
183
Low
6
22
6
3
19
3
12
38
12
1
17
1
19
50
19
0
3
0
0
3
0
41
152
193
High
0
4
0
1
17
1
2
15
2
0
14
0
5
16
5
0
2
0
2
3
2
10
71
81
Very high
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
9
Total
10
61
10
4
45
4
20
96
20
5
55
5
33
124
33
0
5
0
2
6
2
74
392
466
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
Low
0
2
0
1
5
1
4
1
4
1
7
1
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
19
27
High
8
29
8
3
20
3
9
52
9
4
31
4
26
55
26
0
4
0
0
2
0
50
193
243
Very high
2
31
2
0
19
0
5
39
5
0
17
0
5
63
5
0
1
0
2
4
2
14
174
188
Total
10
62
10
4
44
4
20
95
20
5
55
5
33
123
33
0
5
0
2
6
2
74
390
464
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
241
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 43: Average number of persons engaged in micro-enterprises
Full time (250 days or more)
Strata
Family
Part Time
Wage labor
Family
Wage labor
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
1.8
1.4
1
1
1.1
1
1
1
Madhesi Dalit
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
Hill Indigenous
1.1
1
1
1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1
1
0
0
1.7
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.8
1.6
Muslims
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Madhesi Caste
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Overall (All)
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.4
Male Hill Dalit
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1.8
1.5
1
1
1.1
1
1
0
Male Madhesi Dalit
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
Female Madhesi Dalit
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
Male Hill Indigenous
1.1
1
0
0
1
1
1.6
1.6
Female Hill Indigenous
1.1
1
1
1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
Male Terai Indigenous
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Female Terai Indigenous
1
0
0
0
1.7
1.7
0
0
Male Hill Brahman/Chhetri
2.2
2
2
1
1.7
1.3
2
1.7
Female Hill Brahman/Chhetri
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.4
2.9
1.6
Male Muslims
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Female Muslims
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Male Other Madhesi Caste
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Female Other Madhesi Caste
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.6
1.5
2
1
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.6
Hill Dalit
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Female Hill Dalit
Male
242
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Full time (250 days or more)
Strata
Family
Part Time
Wage labor
Family
Wage labor
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
2
1.3
Overall
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.4
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
1.7
1.5
1
0
1.1
1
1
0
Hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
Hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
1.3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
1.1
1
1
0
1.1
1.1
1.4
0
Hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
0
0
0
0
2.7
2
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
1
1
0
0
1.2
1
0
0
Hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
2.3
2.3
0
0
2
1.3
2.5
0
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
1.6
1.4
1.7
0
1.3
1.3
2.8
0
Hardcore Poor Muslims
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Muslims
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hardcore Poor
1.8
1.6
1
1
1.7
1.3
2.2
1.3
Non-hardcore Poor
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.9
1.4
Overall
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.4
Hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
Source: Field survey 2014
243
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 44: Food sufficiency from own production
Strata
Yes
Treatment
No
No.
%
87
88.8
Hill Dalit
No.
11
%
11.2
Madhesi Dalit
14
25
42
Hill Indigenous
43
27.7
Terai Indigenous
47
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
Control
Sample
Yes
No
Sample
98
No.
6
%
11.3
No.
47
%
88.7
75
56
2
9.5
19
90.5
21
112
72.3
155
9
25.7
26
74.3
35
66.2
24
33.8
71
3
10
27
90
30
91
48.1
98
51.9
189
30
36.6
52
63.4
82
Muslims
4
80
1
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
Other Madhesi Caste
4
44.4
5
55.6
9
1
14.3
6
85.7
7
214
36.7
369
63.3
583
51
22.4
177
77.6
228
Male Hill Dalit
6
15
34
85
40
2
10.5
17
89.5
19
Female Hill Dalit
5
8.6
53
91.4
58
4
11.8
30
88.2
34
Male Madhesi Dalit
6
50
6
50
12
2
22.2
7
77.8
9
Female Madhesi Dalit
8
18.2
36
81.8
44
0
0
12
100
12
Male Hill Indigenous
19
41.3
27
58.7
46
5
27.8
13
72.2
18
Female Hill Indigenous
24
22
85
78
109
4
23.5
13
76.5
17
Male Terai Indigenous
3
60
2
40
5
2
25
6
75
8
Female Terai Indigenous
44
66.7
22
33.3
66
1
4.5
21
95.5
22
Male Hill Brahman/Chhetri
23
39.7
35
60.3
58
21
50
21
50
42
Female Hill Brahman/Chhetri
68
51.9
63
48.1
131
9
22.5
31
77.5
40
Male Muslims
3
100
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
Female Muslims
1
50
1
50
2
0
0
0
0
0
Male Other Madhesi Caste
1
50
1
50
2
1
25
3
75
4
Female Other Madhesi Caste
3
42.9
4
57.1
7
0
0
3
100
3
Male
61
36.7
105
63.3
166
33
33
67
67
100
Overall (All)
244
53
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Strata
Yes
Treatment
No
No.
%
264
63.3
Female
No.
153
%
36.7
Overall
214
36.7
369
Hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
1
6.7
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Dallit
10
Hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
Control
Sample
Yes
No
Sample
417
No.
18
%
14.1
No.
110
%
85.9
63.3
583
51
22.4
177
77.6
228
14
93.3
15
0
0
23
100
23
12
73
88
83
6
20
24
80
30
4
80
1
20
5
0
0
5
100
5
Non-hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
10
19.6
41
80.4
51
2
12.5
14
87.5
16
Hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
7
29.2
17
70.8
24
1
11.1
8
88.9
9
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
36
27.5
95
72.5
131
8
30.8
18
69.2
26
Hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
6
75
2
25
8
0
0
7
100
7
Non- hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
41
65.1
22
34.9
63
3
13
20
87
23
Hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
12
33.3
24
66.7
36
5
25
15
75
20
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
79
51.6
74
48.4
153
25
40.3
37
59.7
62
Hardcore Poor Muslims
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Muslims
4
80
1
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
Hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
0
0
2
100
2
0
0
2
100
2
Non-hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
4
57.1
3
42.9
7
1
20
4
80
5
Hardcore-Poor
30
33.3
60
66.7
90
6
9.1
60
90.9
66
Non-hardcore-Poor
184
37.3
309
62.7
493
45
27.8
117
72.2
162
Overall
214
36.7
369
63.3
583
51
22.4
177
77.6
228
Mountain
30
31.3
66
68.7
96
9
20
36
80
45
Hill
72
30.1
167
69.9
239
22
25.3
65
74.7
87
Terai
112
45.2
136
54.8
248
20
20.8
76
79.2
96
Overall
214
36.7
369
63.3
583
51
22.4
177
77.6
228
128
Source: Field survey 2014
245
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 45: Roof of house
Treatment
Strata
Thatch
Concrete/Cement
Control
Tin/Tile/Slate
Thatch
Concrete/Cement
Tin/Tile/Slate
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Total
Response
98
17
32.1
1
1.9
35
66
47
56
56
7
33.3
0
0
14
66.7
16
74.7
154
155
14
40
3
8.6
18
51.4
28
61
85.9
71
71
4
13.3
2
6.7
24
80
14
9.8
158
85.9
184
189
20
24.4
8
9.8
54
65.9
57
0
0
5
100
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.3
1
11.1
5
55.6
9
9
2
28.6
0
0
5
71.4
4
78
13.6
50
8.7
444
77.6
572
583
64
28.1
14
6.1
150
65.8
166
Male Hill Dalit
10
26.3
1
2.6
27
71.1
38
40
5
26.3
1
5.3
13
68.4
15
Female Hill Dalit
8
14.5
10
18.2
37
67.3
55
58
12
35.3
0
0
22
64.7
32
Male Madhesi Dalit
1
8.3
1
8.3
10
83.3
12
12
1
11.1
0
0
8
88.9
7
Female Madhesi Dalit
17
38.6
1
2.3
26
59.1
44
44
6
50
0
0
6
50
9
Male Hill Indigenous
6
13
3
6.5
37
80.4
46
46
7
38.9
2
11.1
9
50
14
Female Hill Indigenous
20
18.5
10
9.3
78
72.2
108
109
7
41.2
1
5.9
9
52.9
14
Male Terai Indigenous
1
20
0
0
4
80
5
5
2
25
0
0
6
75
4
Female Terai Indigenous
4
6.1
5
7.6
57
86.4
66
66
2
9.1
2
9.1
18
81.8
10
Male Hill Brahman/Chhetri
2
3.4
4
6.9
52
89.7
58
58
12
28.6
2
4.8
28
66.7
32
Female Hill Brahman/Chhetri
6
4.8
14
11.1
106
84.1
126
131
8
20
6
15
26
65
25
Male Muslims
0
0
0
0
3
100
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Female Muslims
0
0
0
0
2
100
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Male Other Madhesi Caste
0
0
1
50
1
50
2
2
0
0
0
0
4
100
1
Female Other Madhesi Caste
3
42.9
0
0
4
57.1
7
7
2
66.7
0
0
1
33.3
3
Male
20
12.2
10
6.1
134
81.7
164
166
27
27
5
5
68
68
73
Reponse
Sample
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Hill Dalit
18
19.4
11
11.8
64
68.8
93
Madhesi Dalit
18
32.1
2
3.6
36
64.3
Hill Indigenous
26
16.9
13
8.4
115
Terai Indigenous
5
7
5
7
Hill Brahman/Chhetri
8
4.3
18
Muslims
0
0
Other Madhesi Caste
3
Overall (All)
246
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Treatment
Strata
Thatch
Concrete/Cement
Control
Tin/Tile/Slate
Thatch
Concrete/Cement
Tin/Tile/Slate
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Total
Response
417
37
28.9
9
7
82
64.1
93
572
583
64
28.1
14
6.1
150
65.8
166
66.7
15
15
10
43.5
0
0
13
56.5
23
54
69.2
78
83
7
23.3
1
3.3
22
73.3
24
0
4
80
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
100
5
2
3.9
32
62.7
51
51
7
43.8
0
0
9
56.3
11
33.3
1
4.2
15
62.5
24
24
6
66.7
0
0
3
33.3
9
18
13.8
12
9.2
100
76.9
130
131
8
30.8
3
11.5
15
57.7
19
Hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
1
12.5
0
0
7
87.5
8
8
0
0
0
0
7
100
1
Non- hardcore Poor Terai Indigenous
4
6.3
5
7.9
54
85.7
63
63
4
17.4
2
8.7
17
73.9
13
Hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
1
2.9
0
0
33
97.1
34
36
5
25
0
0
15
75
18
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Brahman/Chhetri
7
4.7
18
12
125
83.3
150
153
15
24.2
8
12.9
39
62.9
39
Hardcore Poor Muslims
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-hardcore Poor Muslims
0
0
0
0
5
100
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
0
0
0
0
2
100
2
2
1
50
0
0
1
50
2
Non-hardcore Poor Other Madhesi Caste
3
42.9
1
14.3
3
42.9
7
7
1
20
0
0
4
80
2
Hardcore-Poor
15
17
2
2.3
71
80.7
88
90
22
33.3
0
0
44
66.7
58
Non-hardcore-Poor
63
13
48
9.9
373
77.1
484
493
42
25.9
14
8.6
106
65.4
108
Overall
78
13.6
50
8.7
444
77.6
572
583
64
28.1
14
6.1
150
65.8
166
Reponse
Sample
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Female
58
14.2
40
9.8
310
76
408
Overall
78
13.6
50
8.7
444
77.6
Hardcore Poor Hill Dalit
4
26.7
1
6.7
10
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Dallit
14
17.9
10
12.8
Hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
1
20
0
Non-hardcore Poor Madhesi Dalit
17
33.3
Hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
8
Non-hardcore Poor Hill Indigenous
Source: Field survey 2014
247
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 46: Ownership of goods (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Type
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Radio
18
23
41
3
5
8
24
51
75
1
10
11
27
61
88
2
0
2
1
1
2
Color TV
17
32
49
6
23
29
28
54
82
3
33
36
30
86
116
1
0
1
1
1
2
Black & white TV
1
2
3
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
4
4
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
1
1
Mobile
36
52
88
12
33
45
42
94
136
4
59
63
53
118
171
3
2
5
2
7
9
Bi-cycle
1
9
10
11
25
36
3
12
15
3
60
63
5
26
31
2
2
4
2
7
9
Motor cycle
1
2
3
1
3
4
2
8
10
2
10
12
5
21
26
0
1
1
1
0
1
Tractor
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Refrigerator
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
4
6
1
4
5
5
6
11
0
0
0
1
0
1
Computer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rickshaw
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Thela
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Micro oven
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
248
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
District
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Radio
6
35
41
1
7
8
11
64
75
0
11
11
13
75
88
0
2
Color TV
2
47
49
1
28
29
9
73
82
4
32
36
9
107
116
0
Black & white TV
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
4
4
1
6
7
Mobile
14
74
88
4
41
45
19
117
136
8
55
63
31
140
Bi-cycle
0
10
10
3
33
36
1
14
15
6
57
63
3
Motor cycle
0
3
3
1
3
4
1
9
10
0
12
12
Tractor
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
0
2
Refrigerator
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
5
6
1
Computer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Rickshaw
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Thela
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Micro oven
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC T
HC
NHC
T
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
171
0
5
5
2
7
9
28
31
0
4
4
2
7
9
0
26
26
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
249
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 47: Ownership of goods (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Goods
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Radio
7
8
15
3
1
4
5
6
11
2
8
10
27
9
36
0
0
0
0
2
2
Color TV
3
9
12
2
7
9
8
11
19
5
8
13
30
23
53
0
0
0
2
1
3
Black & white TV
17
30
47
8
10
18
13
13
26
6
20
26
41
37
78
0
0
0
4
3
7
Mobile
2
2
4
8
12
20
3
1
4
6
17
23
10
16
26
0
0
0
2
2
4
Bi-cycle
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
3
1
5
6
0
0
0
1
0
1
Motor cycle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tractor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Goods
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Radio
6
9
15
2
2
4
2
9
11
2
8
10
10
26
36
0
0
Color TV
4
8
12
1
8
9
1
18
19
0
13
13
6
47
53
0
Black & white TV
20
27
47
5
13
18
3
23
26
6
20
26
18
60
78
Mobile
1
3
4
4
16
20
0
4
4
6
17
23
3
23
Bi-cycle
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
3
0
Motor cycle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Tractor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Others
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Source: Field Survey, 2014
250
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC T
HC
NHC
T
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
2
5
7
26
0
0
0
0
4
4
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 48: Toilet facility at home
A. TREATMENT
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Response
Hill Dalit
M
F
T
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
M
M
F
T
F
T
Terai Indigenous
M
F
T
Hill BC
M
F
Muslims
T
M
F
Other Madhesi Caste
T
M
F
T
Yes
No
Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Response
Yes
No
Total
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
15
0
15
73
10
83
88
10
98
4
1
5
34
17
51
38
18
56
23
1
24
121
10
131
144
11
155
8
0
8
NHC
T
47
55
16
16
63
71
B. CONTROL
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
34
2
36
145
8
153
179
10
189
4
1
5
M
F
T
151
360
511
15
57
72
166
417
583
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC T
0
0
0
Total
4
1
5
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
1
1
2
2
5
7
3
6
9
85
5
90
426
67
493
511
72
583
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Response
Hill Dalit
M
F
T
Yes
15
29
44
No
4
5
9
Total
19
34
53
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Response
Yes
No
Total
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
8
1
9
10
2
12
18
3
21
16
2
18
14
2
16
30
4
34
7
1
8
22
0
22
29
1
30
39
1
40
35
3
38
74
4
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
2
1
3
6
1
7
89
9
98
112
13
125
201
22
223
Madhesi Dalit
Terai Indigenous
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill BC
Muslims
Hill BC
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
21
2
23
23
7
30
44
9
53
4
1
5
14
2
16
18
3
21
7
2
9
23
2
25
30
4
34
7
0
7
22
1
23
29
1
30
17
2
19
57
2
59
74
4
78
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Other Madhesi Caste
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC T
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
2
0
2
4
1
5
6
1
7
58
7
65
143
15
158
201
22
223
Note: M: Male, F: Female, HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total, BC:Brahman/Chhetri
251
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 49: Awareness on health (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Description
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Knowledge on
HIV/AIDS
30
35
65
10
30
40
40
79
119
4
41
45
48
106
154
1
1
2
0
3
3
Knowledge on
Malaria
26
33
59
12
42
54
35
78
113
5
49
54
46
95
141
3
2
5
2
5
7
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Description
Hill Dalit
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Knowledge on
HIV/AIDS
8
57
65
3
37
40
17
102
119
2
43
45
28
126
154
0
2
Knowledge on
Malaria
10
49
59
5
49
54
15
98
113
4
50
54
29
112
141
0
5
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
252
Other Madhesi Caste
HC NHC T
HC
NHC
T
2
0
3
3
5
2
5
7
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 50: Participation in training (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Training/Tour
M
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Development of TOPE, TOSE
Participation
526
38
564
49
10
59
44
48
92
100
4
104
52
50
102
117
3
120
2
2
4
Usefulness
503
39
542
50
10
60
44
43
87
97
4
101
47
47
94
108
3
111
2
2
4
Development of TOEE, TOGE
Participation
61
4
65
8
0
8
3
4
7
12
1
13
4
5
9
19
0
19
0
0
0
Usefulness
65
4
69
9
0
9
4
4
8
12
1
13
4
6
10
20
0
20
0
0
0
Technical skill development
Participation
526
38
564
49
10
59
44
48
92
100
4
104
52
50
102
117
3
120
2
2
4
Usefulness
503
39
542
50
10
60
44
43
87
97
4
101
47
47
94
108
3
111
2
2
4
Institutional development
Participation
61
4
65
8
0
8
3
4
7
12
1
13
4
5
9
19
0
19
0
0
0
Usefulness
65
4
69
9
0
9
4
4
8
12
1
13
4
6
10
20
0
20
0
0
0
Participation
222
13
235
16
8
24
25
15
40
26
4
30
25
29
54
52
2
54
2
0
2
Usefulness
210
13
223
15
8
23
24
14
38
21
3
24
23
29
52
52
1
53
2
0
2
Participation
60
7
67
9
1
10
3
3
6
3
2
5
2
12
14
18
0
18
0
0
0
Usefulness
66
7
73
10
2
12
2
4
6
3
2
5
2
14
16
20
0
20
0
0
0
Empowerment
Observation Tour
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
253
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Training/Tour
Hill Dalit
HC
NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/ Chhetri
Muslims
Other Madhesi Caste
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC NHC T
HC
NHC
T
Development of TOPE, TOSE
Participation
526
12
538
75
2
77
52
22
74
126
6
132
50
33
83
134
0
134
5
2
7
Usefulness
503
13
516
76
2
78
52
22
74
118
4
122
47
33
80
122
0
122
5
2
7
Development of TOEE, TOGE
Participation
61
2
63
10
0
10
3
5
8
11
1
12
4
8
12
16
0
16
0
0
0
Usefulness
65
3
68
10
0
10
4
5
9
11
1
12
4
10
14
16
0
16
0
0
0
Technical skill development
Participation
526
12
538
75
2
77
52
22
74
126
6
132
50
33
83
134
0
134
5
2
7
Usefulness
503
13
516
76
2
78
52
22
74
118
4
122
47
33
80
122
0
122
5
2
7
Institutional development
Participation
61
2
63
10
0
10
3
5
8
11
1
12
4
8
12
16
0
16
0
0
0
Usefulness
65
3
68
10
0
10
4
5
9
11
1
12
4
10
14
16
0
16
0
0
0
Participation
222
3
225
26
4
30
29
7
36
34
3
37
26
10
36
71
0
71
4
0
4
Usefulness
210
2
212
26
4
30
28
7
35
28
4
32
22
10
32
71
0
71
3
0
3
Participation
60
1
61
15
0
15
4
0
4
6
0
6
4
4
8
26
0
26
0
0
0
Usefulness
66
1
67
16
0
16
4
0
4
7
0
7
4
7
11
27
0
27
0
0
0
Empowerment
Observation tour
Source: Field Survey, 2014
254
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor, T: Total
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 51: Member of other organization and presence in the meeting (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Member of
organisation other
than MEDEP
Level of participation
Regular
29
41
70
8
18
26
23
69
92
2
23
25
38
84
122
0
0
0
1
2
3
101
237
338
21
29
50
10
37
47
20
63
83
4
34
38
39
73
112
3
2
5
0
6
6
97
244
341
Occasional
Generally absent
Total
8
1
30
13
1
43
21
2
73
1
0
11
3
0
40
4
0
51
9
0
29
18
1
82
27
1
111
0
0
4
4
1
39
4
1
43
6
1
46
17
0
90
23
1
136
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
5
1
0
1
1
0
7
2
0
8
25
2
124
56
3
303
81
5
427
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Description
Member of
organisation other
than MEDEP
Level of participation
Regular
Occasional
Generally absent
Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
11
59
70
5
21
26
9
83
92
5
20
25
28
94
122
0
0
0
1
2
3
59
279
338
5
5
1
11
45
16
1
62
50
21
2
73
5
0
0
5
42
4
0
46
47
4
0
51
10
2
0
12
73
25
1
99
83
27
1
111
3
2
1
6
35
2
0
37
38
4
1
43
20
9
0
29
92
14
1
107
112
23
1
136
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
5
1
0
0
1
5
2
0
7
6
2
0
8
44
18
2
64
297
63
3
363
341
81
5
427
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
255
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 52: Voice raised on women issue and presence in the meeting (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
21
26
47
3
24
27
16
47
63
2
13
15
34
67
101
1
2
3
0
3
3
77
182
259
Regular
18
21
39
9
31
40
20
42
62
4
23
27
34
59
93
3
2
5
0
5
5
88
183
271
Occasional
11
16
27
1
7
8
7
30
37
0
12
12
10
29
39
0
0
0
0
2
2
29
96
125
Listen only
0
6
6
1
1
2
3
10
13
0
4
4
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
6
23
29
Total
29
43
72
11
39
50
30
82
112
4
39
43
45
90
135
3
2
5
1
7
8
123
302
425
Voice raised on
women issue
Level of participation
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
7
40
47
4
23
27
7
56
63
1
14
15
18
83
101
0
3
3
1
2
3
38
221
259
Regular
3
36
39
5
35
40
7
55
62
1
26
27
12
81
93
0
5
5
1
4
5
29
242
271
Occasional
6
21
27
0
8
8
4
33
37
3
9
12
13
26
39
0
0
0
0
2
2
26
99
125
Listen only
1
5
6
0
2
2
2
11
13
2
2
4
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
22
29
Total
10
62
72
5
45
50
13
99
112
6
37
43
27
108
135
0
5
5
1
7
8
62
363
425
Voice raised on
women issue
Level of participation
Source: Field Survey, 2014
256
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 53: Response on issues raised in the meeting (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Nobody listen
2
6
8
0
1
1
3
2
5
0
1
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
16
21
Listen and make
decision accordingly
14
19
33
4
27
31
16
46
62
4
24
28
28
56
84
1
2
3
0
6
6
67
180
247
Listen but does not
make decision
4
4
8
0
5
5
1
8
9
0
1
1
5
10
15
0
0
0
0
1
1
10
29
39
Total
20
29
49
4
33
37
20
56
76
4
26
30
33
72
105
1
2
3
0
7
7
82
225
307
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Description
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Nobody listen
1
7
8
0
1
1
1
4
5
0
1
1
4
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
15
21
Listen and make
decision accordingly
3
30
33
4
27
31
6
56
62
1
27
28
10
74
84
0
3
3
1
5
6
25
222
247
Listen but does not
make decision
2
6
8
1
4
5
3
6
9
0
1
1
6
9
15
0
0
0
0
1
1
12
27
39
Total
6
43
49
5
32
37
10
66
76
1
29
30
20
85
105
0
3
3
1
6
7
43
264
307
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
257
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 54: Reason for being members in organization other than MEDEP (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Reason
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased confidence
13
12
25
5
23
28
13
30
43
4
23
27
13
32
45
3
2
5
0
6
6
51
128
179
Support from family
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Other women
participate
0
5
5
0
1
1
1
15
16
0
3
3
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
33
34
Available facilities
4
4
8
3
5
8
8
15
23
0
1
1
5
8
13
0
0
0
1
0
1
21
33
54
Others
0
8
8
0
7
7
3
17
20
0
11
11
2
12
14
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
56
61
Total
17
29
46
8
36
44
26
77
103
4
38
42
20
64
84
3
2
5
1
7
8
79
253
332
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Reason
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased confidence
0
25
25
2
26
28
4
39
43
0
27
27
4
41
45
0
5
5
1
5
6
11
168
179
Support from family
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Other women
participate
1
4
5
0
1
1
2
14
16
1
2
3
2
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
28
34
Available facilities
2
6
8
1
7
8
2
21
23
0
1
1
3
10
13
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
46
54
Others
0
8
8
1
6
7
3
17
20
5
6
11
1
13
14
0
0
0
0
1
1
10
51
61
Total
3
43
46
4
40
44
11
92
103
6
36
42
11
73
84
0
5
5
1
7
8
36
296
332
Source: Field Survey, 2014
258
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 55: Participation in DDC/VDC meetings (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
12
35
47
4
13
4
10
34
10
0
11
0
13
35
13
0
0
0
1
1
1
40
129
169
Low
3
4
7
5
12
5
14
3
14
2
12
2
12
18
12
0
0
0
0
5
0
36
54
90
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
11
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
Total
15
39
54
9
25
9
27
38
27
3
24
3
31
55
31
0
0
0
1
6
1
86
187
273
Very low
1
3
4
1
3
1
1
9
1
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
4
28
32
Low
7
20
27
2
10
2
8
22
8
0
8
0
10
16
10
0
0
0
0
2
0
27
78
105
High
4
14
18
6
12
6
14
6
14
1
11
1
9
20
9
0
0
0
0
3
0
34
66
100
Very high
3
2
5
0
0
0
4
1
4
2
1
2
12
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
15
36
Total
15
39
54
9
25
9
27
38
27
3
24
3
31
55
31
0
0
0
1
6
1
86
187
273
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
259
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
6
41
6
2
15
2
7
37
7
2
9
2
14
34
14
0
0
0
1
1
1
32
137
169
Low
1
6
1
1
16
1
2
15
2
0
14
0
5
25
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
9
81
90
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
11
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
Total
7
47
7
3
31
3
10
55
10
2
25
2
20
66
20
0
0
0
1
6
1
43
230
273
Very low
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
9
1
1
3
1
2
6
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
25
32
Low
6
21
6
0
12
0
5
25
5
1
7
1
10
16
10
0
0
0
0
2
0
22
83
105
High
0
18
0
2
16
2
4
16
4
0
12
0
7
22
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
13
87
100
Very high
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
1
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
35
36
Total
7
47
7
3
31
3
10
55
10
2
25
2
20
66
20
0
0
0
1
6
1
43
230
273
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
260
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 56: Access in budget allocation (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
11
28
39
3
13
3
13
32
13
0
11
0
15
29
15
0
0
0
1
2
1
43
115
158
Low
4
8
12
5
12
5
11
6
11
3
9
3
9
22
9
0
0
0
0
3
0
32
60
92
High
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
3
0
2
0
5
3
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
7
16
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
Total
15
36
51
9
25
9
27
39
27
3
23
3
31
55
31
0
0
0
1
6
1
86
184
270
Very low
0
7
7
0
2
0
3
10
3
0
1
0
2
4
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
6
25
31
Low
6
12
18
3
10
3
8
20
8
1
13
1
9
13
9
0
0
0
0
2
0
27
70
97
High
6
15
21
6
13
6
11
9
11
2
7
2
8
27
8
0
0
0
0
3
0
33
74
107
Very high
3
2
5
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
2
0
12
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
15
35
Total
15
36
51
9
25
9
27
39
27
3
23
3
31
55
31
0
0
0
1
6
1
86
184
270
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
261
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
7
32
7
1
15
1
8
37
8
1
10
1
14
30
14
0
0
0
1
2
1
32
126
158
Low
1
11
1
2
15
2
1
16
1
0
12
0
5
26
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
9
83
92
High
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
15
16
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Total
8
43
8
3
31
3
10
56
10
1
25
1
20
66
20
0
0
0
1
6
1
43
227
270
Very low
1
6
1
1
1
1
3
10
3
1
0
1
4
2
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
11
20
31
Low
6
12
6
0
13
0
4
24
4
0
14
0
9
13
9
0
0
0
0
2
0
19
78
97
High
1
20
1
2
17
2
3
17
3
0
9
0
6
29
6
0
0
0
0
3
0
12
95
107
Very high
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
1
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
34
35
Total
8
43
8
3
31
3
10
56
10
1
25
1
20
66
20
0
0
0
1
6
1
43
227
270
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
262
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 57: Raise voice in government office on necessary services (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
7
24
31
0
4
0
4
23
4
0
6
0
9
17
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
20
75
95
Low
9
11
20
5
15
5
18
17
18
1
16
1
11
38
11
0
0
0
1
3
1
45
100
145
High
0
2
2
4
6
4
5
2
5
2
2
2
8
4
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
19
18
37
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Total
16
37
53
9
25
9
27
42
27
3
24
3
29
60
29
0
0
0
1
6
1
85
194
279
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
3
13
16
0
4
0
4
15
4
1
5
1
7
8
7
0
0
0
1
1
1
16
46
62
High
9
17
26
7
13
7
18
24
18
1
17
1
10
34
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
45
106
151
Very high
4
7
11
2
8
2
5
3
5
1
2
1
12
18
12
0
0
0
0
4
0
24
42
66
Total
16
37
53
9
25
9
27
42
27
3
24
3
29
60
29
0
0
0
1
6
1
85
194
279
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
263
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
28
3
1
3
1
9
18
9
1
5
1
9
17
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
23
72
95
Low
7
13
7
0
20
0
1
34
1
1
16
1
8
41
8
0
0
0
1
3
1
18
127
145
High
0
2
0
2
8
2
1
6
1
0
4
0
1
11
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
33
37
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Total
10
43
10
3
31
3
11
58
11
2
25
2
19
70
19
0
0
0
1
6
1
46
233
279
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
3
13
3
1
3
1
6
13
6
1
5
1
10
5
10
0
0
0
0
2
0
21
41
62
High
7
19
7
1
19
1
4
38
4
1
17
1
8
36
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
22
129
151
Very high
0
11
0
1
9
1
1
7
1
0
3
0
1
29
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
63
66
Total
10
43
10
3
31
3
11
58
11
2
25
2
19
70
19
0
0
0
1
6
1
46
233
279
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
264
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 58: Status of addressing and implementing women's advice by male member of society/family (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
3
13
16
0
3
0
3
10
3
0
3
0
5
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
36
47
Low
11
18
29
4
17
4
16
27
16
0
9
0
15
36
15
0
0
0
1
6
1
47
113
160
High
1
6
7
0
4
0
3
5
3
0
11
0
9
13
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
39
52
Very high
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
12
Total
16
37
53
4
24
4
22
42
22
0
24
0
30
65
30
0
0
0
1
6
1
73
198
271
Very low
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Low
0
6
6
1
2
1
4
9
4
0
3
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
7
22
29
High
11
26
37
3
16
3
14
29
14
0
10
0
18
34
18
0
0
0
0
4
0
46
119
165
Very high
5
5
10
0
4
0
3
4
3
0
10
0
11
29
11
0
0
0
0
2
0
19
54
73
Total
16
37
53
4
24
4
22
42
22
0
24
0
30
65
30
0
0
0
1
6
1
73
198
271
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
265
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
13
3
0
3
0
3
10
3
1
2
1
2
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
38
47
Low
7
22
7
3
18
3
5
38
5
0
9
0
12
39
12
0
0
0
1
6
1
28
132
160
High
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
11
0
7
15
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
45
52
Very high
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
12
Total
10
43
10
3
25
3
8
56
8
1
23
1
23
72
23
0
0
0
1
6
1
46
225
271
Very low
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Low
2
4
2
0
3
0
4
9
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
21
29
High
8
29
8
2
17
2
4
39
4
0
10
0
20
32
20
0
0
0
1
3
1
35
130
165
Very high
0
10
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
0
10
0
2
38
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
71
73
Total
10
43
10
3
25
3
8
56
8
1
23
1
23
72
23
0
0
0
1
6
1
46
225
271
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
266
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 59: Status of support from husband and male members in child caring, cooking and sanitation (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
1
11
12
1
2
1
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
24
26
Low
2
12
14
1
20
1
1
22
1
0
12
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
94
98
High
0
3
3
0
2
0
1
5
1
0
10
0
1
12
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
33
35
Very high
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
Total
4
26
30
2
24
2
2
31
2
0
24
0
1
44
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
9
155
164
Very low
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
Low
0
5
5
1
3
1
0
5
0
0
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
19
21
High
3
14
17
1
18
1
1
19
1
0
16
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
94
99
Very high
0
7
7
0
2
0
1
7
1
0
5
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
40
41
Total
3
27
30
2
24
2
2
31
2
0
24
0
1
45
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
8
157
165
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
267
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
9
3
0
3
0
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
21
26
Low
1
13
1
2
19
2
6
17
6
1
11
1
2
21
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
12
86
98
High
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
10
0
5
8
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
6
29
35
Very high
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Total
4
26
4
2
24
2
7
26
7
2
22
2
7
38
7
0
0
0
1
5
1
23
141
164
Very low
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
Low
2
3
2
0
4
0
2
3
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
15
21
High
2
15
2
1
18
1
4
16
4
1
15
1
5
19
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
13
86
99
Very high
0
7
0
0
2
0
1
7
1
0
5
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
39
41
Total
4
26
4
2
24
2
7
26
7
2
22
2
7
39
7
0
0
0
1
5
1
23
142
165
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
268
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 60: Status of respect from family and community (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
3
10
13
0
3
0
1
6
1
0
2
0
5
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
27
36
Low
9
19
28
3
19
3
9
33
9
0
13
0
6
34
6
0
0
0
0
6
0
27
124
151
High
3
6
9
0
2
0
10
3
10
1
10
1
16
16
16
0
0
0
1
0
1
31
37
68
Very high
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
7
Total
16
35
51
4
24
4
20
43
20
1
25
1
29
58
29
0
0
0
1
6
1
71
191
262
Very low
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Low
1
5
6
1
2
1
2
5
2
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
17
22
High
11
25
36
2
17
2
13
34
13
1
13
1
14
34
14
0
0
0
0
4
0
41
127
168
Very high
4
5
9
1
4
1
5
4
5
0
9
0
14
23
14
0
0
0
1
1
1
25
46
71
Total
16
35
51
4
24
4
20
43
20
1
25
1
29
58
29
0
0
0
1
6
1
71
191
262
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
269
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
2
11
2
0
3
0
3
4
3
0
2
0
2
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
29
36
Low
7
21
7
2
20
2
5
37
5
1
12
1
9
31
9
0
0
0
1
5
1
25
126
151
High
2
7
2
0
2
0
0
13
0
1
10
1
10
22
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
13
55
68
Very high
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
Total
11
40
11
2
26
2
8
55
8
2
24
2
23
64
23
0
0
0
1
6
1
47
215
262
Very low
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Low
2
4
2
1
2
1
3
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
14
22
High
8
28
8
0
19
0
4
43
4
0
14
0
19
29
19
0
0
0
1
3
1
32
136
168
Very high
1
8
1
0
5
0
1
8
1
1
8
1
3
34
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
65
71
Total
11
40
11
2
26
2
8
55
8
2
24
2
23
64
23
0
0
0
1
6
1
47
215
262
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
270
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 61: Change in women's decision making on sale and purchase of livestock (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
11
16
27
1
8
1
11
26
11
0
27
0
16
38
16
1
1
1
0
0
0
40
116
156
Low
13
11
24
3
22
3
11
39
11
3
17
3
15
50
15
1
1
1
1
5
1
47
145
192
High
2
10
12
6
8
6
13
8
13
1
12
1
16
17
16
1
0
1
0
2
0
39
57
96
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
5
Total
26
37
63
10
38
10
35
75
35
4
56
4
50
105
50
3
2
3
1
7
1
129
320
449
Very low
5
0
5
0
1
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
1
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
16
23
Low
2
1
3
0
4
0
2
8
2
0
5
0
1
9
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
28
33
High
9
18
27
9
27
9
18
36
18
3
33
3
27
46
27
1
1
1
1
4
1
68
165
233
Very high
12
18
30
1
5
1
14
25
14
1
18
1
20
41
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
50
110
160
Total
28
37
65
10
37
10
35
75
35
4
56
4
49
105
49
3
2
3
1
7
1
130
319
449
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
271
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
4
23
4
0
9
0
3
34
3
4
23
4
8
46
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
19
137
156
Low
5
19
5
3
22
3
12
38
12
1
19
1
15
50
15
0
2
0
1
5
1
37
155
192
High
1
11
1
1
13
1
5
16
5
0
13
0
10
23
10
0
1
0
1
1
1
18
78
96
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
Total
10
53
10
4
44
4
20
90
20
5
55
5
35
120
35
0
5
0
2
6
2
76
373
449
Very low
1
4
1
0
1
0
2
5
2
0
0
0
1
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
19
23
Low
0
3
0
1
3
1
4
6
4
0
5
0
4
6
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
24
33
High
7
20
7
3
33
3
9
45
9
5
31
5
24
49
24
0
2
0
1
4
1
49
184
233
Very high
2
28
2
0
6
0
5
34
5
0
19
0
6
55
6
0
2
0
1
2
1
14
146
160
Total
10
55
10
4
43
4
20
90
20
5
55
5
35
119
35
0
5
0
2
6
2
76
373
449
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
272
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 62: Change in women's decision making on purchase of house (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
15
13
28
0
4
0
9
23
9
0
25
0
18
45
18
1
0
1
0
0
0
43
110
153
Low
9
13
22
1
24
1
13
39
13
1
18
1
15
36
15
2
2
2
0
5
0
41
137
178
High
3
14
17
8
11
8
9
12
9
3
13
3
16
23
16
0
0
0
1
2
1
40
75
115
Very high
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
8
Total
27
40
67
10
39
10
32
76
32
4
56
4
51
106
51
3
2
3
1
7
1
128
326
454
Very low
4
1
5
0
1
0
1
5
1
0
2
0
1
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
19
25
Low
2
0
2
0
3
0
2
9
2
0
7
0
2
8
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
7
28
35
High
11
19
30
8
26
8
17
30
17
3
27
3
28
48
28
2
1
2
1
5
1
70
156
226
Very high
12
21
33
2
9
2
12
31
12
1
19
1
19
40
19
0
0
0
0
2
0
46
122
168
Total
29
41
70
10
39
10
32
75
32
4
55
4
50
106
50
3
2
3
1
7
1
129
325
454
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
273
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
25
3
0
4
0
2
30
2
4
21
4
7
56
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
137
153
Low
3
19
3
2
23
2
9
43
9
2
17
2
8
43
8
0
4
0
0
5
0
24
154
178
High
3
14
3
2
17
2
6
15
6
0
16
0
16
23
16
0
0
0
2
1
2
29
86
115
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
8
Total
9
58
9
4
45
4
17
91
17
6
54
6
32
125
32
0
5
0
2
6
2
70
384
454
Very low
1
4
1
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
24
25
Low
0
2
0
0
3
0
4
7
4
1
6
1
5
5
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
10
25
35
High
5
25
5
4
30
4
6
41
6
3
27
3
21
55
21
0
3
0
1
5
1
40
186
226
Very high
3
30
3
0
11
0
7
36
7
2
18
2
6
53
6
0
0
0
1
1
1
19
149
168
Total
9
61
9
4
45
4
17
90
17
6
53
6
32
124
32
0
5
0
2
6
2
70
384
454
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
274
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 63: Change in women's decision making on food for family members (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
6
12
18
0
1
0
4
18
4
0
21
0
14
22
14
1
0
1
0
0
0
25
74
99
Low
18
17
35
2
24
2
11
34
11
0
19
0
6
27
6
1
2
1
0
3
0
38
126
164
High
6
13
19
6
16
6
17
28
17
4
16
4
27
46
27
1
0
1
1
4
1
62
123
185
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
0
0
0
5
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
14
21
Total
30
42
72
8
41
8
34
84
34
4
56
4
52
105
52
3
2
3
1
7
1
132
337
469
Very low
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
Low
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
10
11
High
10
18
28
5
25
5
15
36
15
2
25
2
24
45
24
2
2
2
0
2
0
58
153
211
Very high
21
24
45
4
14
4
19
43
19
2
27
2
27
58
27
0
0
0
1
4
1
74
170
244
Total
32
42
74
9
40
9
34
83
34
4
56
4
51
105
51
3
2
3
1
7
1
134
335
469
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
275
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
15
3
0
1
0
4
18
4
3
18
3
6
30
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
83
99
Low
3
32
3
1
25
1
5
40
5
3
16
3
2
31
2
0
3
0
0
3
0
14
150
164
High
4
15
4
3
19
3
11
34
11
0
20
0
22
51
22
0
1
0
2
3
2
42
143
185
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
4
11
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
17
21
Total
10
62
10
4
45
4
20
98
20
6
54
6
34
123
34
0
5
0
2
6
2
76
393
469
Very low
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
Low
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
9
11
High
7
21
7
2
28
2
10
41
10
4
23
4
25
44
25
0
4
0
0
2
0
48
163
211
Very high
3
42
3
2
16
2
8
54
8
2
27
2
9
76
9
0
0
0
2
3
2
26
218
244
Total
10
64
10
4
45
4
20
97
20
6
54
6
34
122
34
0
5
0
2
6
2
76
393
469
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
276
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 64: Change in women's decision making on health treatment (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
6
14
20
0
3
0
2
17
2
0
17
0
14
21
14
1
0
1
0
0
0
23
72
95
Low
18
16
34
3
15
3
13
42
13
2
18
2
14
42
14
1
1
1
0
3
0
51
137
188
High
4
9
13
6
21
6
18
24
18
2
22
2
17
41
17
1
1
1
1
4
1
49
122
171
Very high
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
6
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
9
17
Total
28
39
67
9
41
9
35
86
35
4
57
4
51
108
51
3
2
3
1
7
1
131
340
471
Very low
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Low
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
10
12
High
15
16
31
4
14
4
17
40
17
3
20
3
29
52
29
0
1
0
0
2
0
68
145
213
Very high
14
22
36
5
24
5
18
41
18
1
35
1
21
55
21
2
1
2
1
5
1
62
183
245
Total
30
39
69
9
41
9
35
85
35
4
57
4
50
108
50
3
2
3
1
7
1
132
339
471
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
277
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
17
3
0
3
0
3
16
3
3
14
3
6
29
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
80
95
Low
3
31
3
1
17
1
11
44
11
3
17
3
11
45
11
0
2
0
0
3
0
29
159
188
High
1
12
1
3
24
3
7
35
7
0
24
0
15
43
15
0
2
0
2
3
2
28
143
171
Very high
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
17
Total
7
60
7
4
46
4
21
100
21
6
55
6
34
125
34
0
5
0
2
6
2
74
397
471
Very low
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Low
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
11
12
High
5
26
5
3
15
3
15
42
15
3
20
3
27
54
27
0
1
0
0
2
0
53
160
213
Very high
2
34
2
1
28
1
5
54
5
3
33
3
7
69
7
0
3
0
2
4
2
20
225
245
Total
7
62
7
5
45
5
21
99
21
6
55
6
34
124
34
0
5
0
2
6
2
75
396
471
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
278
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 65: Change in women's decision making on number of children (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
2
14
16
0
4
0
2
11
2
0
19
0
13
19
13
2
1
2
0
2
0
19
70
89
Low
7
5
12
4
23
4
10
24
10
3
22
3
7
19
7
1
0
1
0
3
0
32
96
128
High
2
10
12
6
13
6
8
9
8
1
16
1
4
16
4
0
1
0
1
2
1
22
67
89
Very high
2
5
7
0
1
0
3
8
3
0
0
0
6
17
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
31
42
Total
13
34
47
10
41
10
23
52
23
4
57
4
30
71
30
3
2
3
1
7
1
84
264
348
Very low
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
15
Low
1
2
3
0
5
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
1
4
1
2
1
2
0
2
0
6
17
23
High
3
15
18
3
20
3
5
19
5
3
23
3
14
28
14
1
1
1
1
2
1
30
108
138
Very high
8
17
25
7
14
7
13
21
13
1
32
1
10
28
10
0
0
0
0
3
0
39
115
154
Total
14
34
48
10
40
10
21
47
21
4
57
4
27
63
27
3
2
3
1
7
1
80
250
330
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
279
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
2
14
2
0
4
0
0
13
0
3
16
3
8
24
8
0
3
0
0
2
0
13
76
89
Low
0
12
0
2
25
2
3
31
3
3
22
3
4
22
4
0
1
0
0
3
0
12
116
128
High
0
12
0
2
17
2
7
10
7
0
17
0
6
14
6
0
1
0
2
1
2
17
72
89
Very high
0
7
0
1
0
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
1
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
40
42
Total
2
45
2
5
46
5
10
65
10
6
55
6
19
82
19
0
5
0
2
6
2
44
304
348
Very low
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
5
2
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11
15
Low
0
3
0
0
5
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
4
19
23
High
2
16
2
2
21
2
2
22
2
5
21
5
11
31
11
0
2
0
1
2
1
23
115
138
Very high
0
25
0
3
18
3
3
31
3
1
32
1
3
35
3
0
0
0
1
2
1
11
143
154
Total
2
46
2
5
45
5
9
59
9
6
55
6
18
72
18
0
5
0
2
6
2
42
288
330
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
280
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 66: Change in women's decision making on use of family planning device (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
2
14
16
1
5
1
4
15
4
0
19
0
16
23
16
1
1
1
0
2
0
24
79
103
Low
9
3
12
2
14
2
8
26
8
1
20
1
5
18
5
2
1
2
0
1
0
27
83
110
High
3
13
16
7
22
7
14
13
14
3
16
3
8
25
8
0
0
0
1
2
1
36
91
127
Very high
1
8
9
0
0
0
3
9
3
0
1
0
7
19
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
37
48
Total
15
38
53
10
41
10
29
63
29
4
56
4
36
85
36
3
2
3
1
5
1
98
290
388
Very low
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
Low
0
2
2
4
3
4
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
4
19
23
High
7
17
24
1
16
1
12
28
12
2
16
2
21
38
21
3
0
3
0
0
0
46
115
161
Very high
8
18
26
5
20
5
17
31
17
2
35
2
14
41
14
0
0
0
1
2
1
47
147
194
Total
16
37
53
10
40
10
29
61
29
4
56
4
36
81
36
3
2
3
1
5
1
99
282
381
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
281
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
2
14
2
0
6
0
3
16
3
3
16
3
8
31
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
16
87
103
Low
0
12
0
2
14
2
4
30
4
3
18
3
4
19
4
0
3
0
0
1
0
13
97
110
High
0
16
0
2
27
2
6
21
6
0
19
0
6
27
6
0
0
0
2
1
2
16
111
127
Very high
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
11
1
0
1
0
2
24
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
45
48
Total
2
51
2
4
47
4
14
78
14
6
54
6
20
101
20
0
5
0
2
4
2
48
340
388
Very low
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
Low
0
2
0
2
5
2
2
0
2
0
5
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
3
0
5
18
23
High
2
22
2
1
16
1
4
36
4
5
13
5
14
45
14
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
135
161
Very high
0
26
0
1
24
1
7
41
7
1
36
1
4
51
4
0
0
0
2
1
2
15
179
194
Total
2
51
2
4
46
4
13
77
13
6
54
6
20
97
20
0
5
0
2
4
2
47
334
381
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
282
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 67: Change in women's decision making on children's education (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
4
13
17
1
3
1
2
10
2
0
17
0
16
17
16
1
0
1
0
0
0
24
60
84
Low
8
5
13
2
26
2
8
31
8
2
21
2
4
16
4
1
2
1
0
4
0
25
105
130
High
7
11
18
7
10
7
11
14
11
2
18
2
7
27
7
1
0
1
1
2
1
36
82
118
Very high
4
8
12
0
2
0
7
14
7
0
1
0
12
36
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
61
84
Total
23
37
60
10
41
10
28
69
28
4
57
4
39
96
39
3
2
3
1
6
1
108
308
416
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
Low
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
13
15
High
12
19
31
5
26
5
10
34
10
3
21
3
18
33
18
0
1
0
0
3
0
48
137
185
Very high
12
17
29
4
12
4
19
32
19
1
33
1
19
60
19
2
0
2
1
2
1
58
156
214
Total
25
37
62
10
40
10
29
69
29
4
57
4
38
95
38
3
2
3
1
6
1
110
306
416
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
283
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
2
15
2
0
4
0
0
12
0
3
14
3
7
26
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
72
84
Low
2
11
2
3
25
3
7
32
7
3
20
3
4
16
4
0
3
0
0
4
0
19
111
130
High
2
16
2
1
16
1
6
19
6
0
20
0
6
28
6
0
1
0
2
1
2
17
101
118
Very high
1
11
1
0
2
0
3
18
3
0
1
0
4
44
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
76
84
Total
7
53
7
4
47
4
16
81
16
6
55
6
21
114
21
0
5
0
2
5
2
56
360
416
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Low
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
2
1
0
3
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
12
15
High
5
26
5
4
27
4
7
37
7
4
20
4
9
42
9
0
1
0
0
3
0
29
156
185
Very high
2
27
2
0
16
0
8
43
8
2
32
2
9
70
9
0
2
0
2
1
2
23
191
214
Total
7
55
7
4
46
4
16
82
16
6
55
6
21
112
21
0
5
0
2
5
2
56
360
416
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
284
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 68: Change in women's decision making on religious and social function (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
11
18
29
3
10
3
10
22
10
0
17
0
18
35
18
1
0
1
0
0
0
43
102
145
Low
15
17
32
5
29
5
18
40
18
4
28
4
23
56
23
1
1
1
1
5
1
67
176
243
High
3
5
8
1
2
1
4
16
4
0
11
0
9
17
9
1
1
1
0
1
0
18
53
71
Very high
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
11
Total
29
41
70
9
41
9
33
82
33
4
56
4
52
111
52
3
2
3
1
6
1
131
339
470
Very low
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
Low
3
2
5
2
11
2
4
9
4
0
3
0
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
10
33
43
High
14
22
36
5
25
5
20
41
20
4
31
4
32
56
32
1
1
1
1
5
1
77
181
258
Very high
10
17
27
2
4
2
9
30
9
0
22
0
19
47
19
1
1
1
0
1
0
41
122
163
Total
30
41
71
9
40
9
33
81
33
4
56
4
51
111
51
3
2
3
1
6
1
131
337
468
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
285
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
3
26
3
1
12
1
7
25
7
3
14
3
7
46
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
21
124
145
Low
6
26
6
3
31
3
10
48
10
3
29
3
17
62
17
0
2
0
2
4
2
41
202
243
High
1
7
1
0
3
0
4
16
4
0
11
0
9
17
9
0
2
0
0
1
0
14
57
71
Very high
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
11
Total
10
60
10
4
46
4
21
94
21
6
54
6
35
128
35
0
5
0
2
5
2
78
392
470
Very low
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Low
1
4
1
1
12
1
4
9
4
0
3
0
4
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
33
43
High
6
30
6
2
28
2
14
47
14
5
30
5
24
64
24
0
2
0
2
4
2
53
205
258
Very high
3
24
3
1
5
1
2
37
2
1
21
1
7
59
7
0
2
0
0
1
0
14
149
163
Total
10
61
10
4
45
4
21
93
21
6
54
6
35
127
35
0
5
0
2
5
2
78
390
468
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
286
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 69: Change in women's decision making on investment of assets (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
16
21
37
2
9
2
11
30
11
0
24
0
21
42
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
126
176
Low
12
15
27
1
22
1
16
43
16
4
20
4
21
52
21
2
1
2
1
6
1
57
159
216
High
2
6
8
6
10
6
5
8
5
0
11
0
6
12
6
1
1
1
0
0
0
20
48
68
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
8
Total
30
42
72
9
41
9
33
82
33
4
55
4
51
109
51
3
2
3
1
6
1
131
337
468
Very low
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
10
Low
3
2
5
0
6
0
4
8
4
1
7
1
2
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
31
41
High
15
23
38
5
25
5
18
43
18
3
28
3
30
53
30
2
2
2
1
5
1
74
179
253
Very high
13
17
30
3
8
3
11
26
11
0
20
0
18
45
18
1
0
1
0
1
0
46
117
163
Total
32
42
74
9
40
9
33
81
33
4
55
4
50
109
50
3
2
3
1
6
1
132
335
467
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
287
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
5
32
5
0
11
0
7
34
7
3
21
3
9
54
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
152
176
Low
4
23
4
1
22
1
12
47
12
1
23
1
18
55
18
0
3
0
2
5
2
38
178
216
High
1
7
1
3
13
3
1
12
1
0
11
0
6
12
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
11
57
68
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
8
Total
10
62
10
4
46
4
20
95
20
4
55
4
35
125
35
0
5
0
2
5
2
75
393
468
Very low
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
10
Low
0
5
0
0
6
0
4
8
4
1
7
1
4
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
32
41
High
6
32
6
2
28
2
11
50
11
2
29
2
25
58
25
0
4
0
2
4
2
48
205
253
Very high
4
26
4
2
9
2
3
34
3
1
19
1
6
57
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
16
147
163
Total
10
64
10
4
45
4
20
94
20
4
55
4
35
124
35
0
5
0
2
5
2
75
392
467
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
288
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 70: Change in women's decision making on increased household assets (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
14
23
37
2
9
2
13
31
13
0
25
0
18
38
18
1
0
1
0
0
0
48
126
174
Low
15
13
28
1
21
1
13
44
13
3
19
3
26
56
26
1
1
1
0
4
0
59
158
217
High
1
7
8
6
10
6
7
10
7
1
12
1
6
14
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
55
78
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
6
Total
30
43
73
9
40
9
34
86
34
4
56
4
52
110
52
3
2
3
1
5
1
133
342
475
Very low
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
Low
1
2
3
2
5
2
2
12
2
0
5
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
6
29
35
High
13
24
37
5
26
5
19
45
19
3
25
3
26
55
26
2
1
2
1
5
1
69
181
250
Very high
18
16
34
2
8
2
12
27
12
1
26
1
24
49
24
0
1
0
0
0
0
57
127
184
Total
32
43
75
9
39
9
34
85
34
4
56
4
51
110
51
3
2
3
1
5
1
134
340
474
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
289
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
5
32
5
0
11
0
7
37
7
5
20
5
7
49
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
24
150
174
Low
4
24
4
1
21
1
12
45
12
1
21
1
20
62
20
0
2
0
1
3
1
39
178
217
High
1
7
1
3
13
3
2
15
2
0
13
0
6
14
6
0
2
0
1
1
1
13
65
78
Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
Total
10
63
10
4
45
4
21
99
21
6
54
6
35
127
35
0
5
0
2
4
2
78
397
475
Very low
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
Low
0
3
0
0
7
0
3
11
3
1
4
1
3
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
28
35
High
6
31
6
3
28
3
12
52
12
3
25
3
27
54
27
0
3
0
2
4
2
53
197
250
Very high
4
30
4
1
9
1
5
34
5
2
25
2
5
68
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
17
167
184
Total
10
65
10
4
44
4
21
98
21
6
54
6
35
126
35
0
5
0
2
4
2
78
396
474
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
290
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 71: Change in women's decision making on increase of business assets (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
15
23
38
2
10
2
12
31
12
0
29
0
27
53
27
1
0
1
0
0
0
57
146
203
Low
13
15
28
3
20
3
13
42
13
4
16
4
16
42
16
2
2
2
0
3
0
51
140
191
High
2
3
5
4
7
4
5
7
5
0
10
0
5
12
5
0
0
0
1
2
1
17
41
58
Very high
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
Total
30
42
72
9
38
9
31
82
31
4
55
4
51
108
51
3
2
3
1
5
1
129
332
461
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Low
1
2
3
1
5
1
3
10
3
1
4
1
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
7
27
34
High
7
16
23
6
24
6
12
33
12
3
27
3
23
44
23
1
2
1
0
5
0
52
151
203
Very high
24
24
48
2
8
2
16
35
16
0
24
0
27
57
27
1
0
1
1
0
1
71
148
219
Total
32
42
74
9
37
9
31
82
31
4
55
4
50
108
50
3
2
3
1
5
1
130
331
461
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
291
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
4
34
4
0
12
0
7
36
7
5
24
5
11
69
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
27
176
203
Low
5
23
5
2
21
2
12
43
12
1
19
1
16
42
16
0
4
0
1
2
1
37
154
191
High
1
4
1
2
9
2
2
10
2
0
10
0
6
11
6
0
0
0
1
2
1
12
46
58
Very high
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
9
Total
10
62
10
4
43
4
21
92
21
6
53
6
35
124
35
0
5
0
2
4
2
78
383
461
Very low
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
Low
0
3
0
0
6
0
3
10
3
1
4
1
3
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
27
34
High
6
17
6
3
27
3
10
35
10
3
27
3
25
42
25
0
3
0
1
4
1
48
155
203
Very high
4
44
4
1
9
1
6
45
6
2
22
2
7
77
7
0
1
0
1
0
1
21
198
219
Total
10
64
10
4
42
4
21
92
21
6
53
6
35
123
35
0
5
0
2
4
2
78
383
461
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
292
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 72: Change in women's decision making on use of labour (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
20
22
42
1
8
1
9
32
9
0
30
0
22
50
22
0
1
0
0
1
0
52
144
196
Low
8
12
20
6
25
6
19
37
19
3
19
3
18
39
18
2
1
2
0
6
0
56
139
195
High
1
3
4
3
4
3
3
1
3
1
7
1
2
6
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
12
21
33
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
6
Total
29
37
66
10
38
10
32
71
32
4
56
4
45
95
45
3
2
3
1
7
1
124
306
430
Very low
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
Low
1
0
1
1
8
1
1
7
1
0
13
0
3
5
3
0
1
0
0
3
0
6
37
43
High
12
19
31
6
24
6
17
33
17
3
30
3
22
49
22
1
1
1
1
4
1
62
160
222
Very high
14
18
32
3
5
3
14
27
14
1
13
1
19
40
19
2
0
2
0
0
0
53
103
156
Total
29
37
66
10
37
10
32
70
32
4
56
4
44
95
44
3
2
3
1
7
1
123
304
427
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
293
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
5
37
5
0
9
0
8
33
8
4
26
4
9
63
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
26
170
196
Low
1
19
1
3
28
3
7
49
7
1
21
1
9
48
9
0
3
0
1
5
1
22
173
195
High
0
4
0
1
6
1
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
31
33
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
6
Total
6
60
6
4
44
4
15
88
15
5
55
5
19
121
19
0
5
0
2
6
2
51
379
430
Very low
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
Low
0
1
0
1
8
1
1
7
1
1
12
1
3
5
3
0
1
0
0
3
0
6
37
43
High
3
28
3
2
28
2
7
43
7
4
29
4
13
58
13
0
2
0
2
3
2
31
191
222
Very high
3
29
3
1
7
1
5
36
5
0
14
0
3
56
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
12
144
156
Total
6
60
6
4
43
4
15
87
15
5
55
5
19
120
19
0
5
0
2
6
2
51
376
427
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
294
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 73: Change in women's decision making on wage of labour (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Response
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Very low
19
24
43
2
8
2
10
28
10
1
35
1
25
40
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
135
192
Low
8
8
16
4
23
4
17
38
17
1
14
1
15
48
15
3
2
3
0
6
0
48
139
187
High
1
3
4
4
6
4
3
3
3
2
8
2
3
6
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
14
27
41
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
5
Total
28
35
63
10
38
10
31
70
31
4
57
4
45
94
45
3
2
3
1
7
1
122
303
425
Very low
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
Low
1
1
2
2
8
2
3
5
3
1
17
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
36
44
High
16
15
31
7
22
7
13
39
13
2
27
2
27
54
27
2
1
2
1
4
1
68
162
230
Very high
9
19
28
1
8
1
15
25
15
1
12
1
16
35
16
1
1
1
0
2
0
43
102
145
Total
28
35
63
10
38
10
31
70
31
4
56
4
44
94
44
3
2
3
1
7
1
121
302
423
Before MEDEP
After MEDEP
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
295
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Response
HC NHC
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
HC NHC T
Total
HC
NHC
T
HC
NHC
T
Before MEDEP
Very low
5
38
5
2
8
2
7
31
7
6
30
6
8
57
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
164
192
Low
1
15
1
1
26
1
8
47
8
1
14
1
11
52
11
0
5
0
1
5
1
23
164
187
High
0
4
0
1
9
1
0
6
0
0
10
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
39
41
Very high
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
Total
6
57
6
4
44
4
15
86
15
7
54
7
20
119
20
0
5
0
2
6
2
54
371
425
Very low
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
Low
0
2
0
2
8
2
2
6
2
1
17
1
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
37
44
High
6
25
6
2
27
2
10
42
10
5
24
5
15
66
15
0
3
0
2
3
2
40
190
230
Very high
0
28
0
0
9
0
2
38
2
0
13
0
3
48
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
5
140
145
Total
6
57
6
4
44
4
15
86
15
6
54
6
20
118
20
0
5
0
2
6
2
53
370
423
After MEDEP
Note: HC: Hardcore Poor, NHC: Non-Hardcore Poor
Source: Field Survey, 2014
296
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 74: Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP (Treatment)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Status
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased
17
31
48
5
8
13
10
45
55
1
9
10
17
41
58
1
0
1
1
1
2
52
135
187
Decreased
15
16
31
6
34
40
18
28
46
4
54
58
29
55
84
2
2
4
1
6
7
75
195
270
Same
7
7
14
1
0
1
17
27
44
0
2
2
8
21
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
57
90
Total
39
54
93
12
42
54
45
100
145
5
65
70
54
117
171
3
2
5
2
7
9
160
387
547
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Status
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased
5
43
48
0
13
13
5
50
55
0
10
10
5
53
58
0
1
1
0
2
2
15
172
187
Decreased
2
29
31
4
36
40
11
35
46
7
51
58
11
73
84
0
4
4
2
5
7
37
233
270
Same
8
6
14
0
1
1
7
37
44
1
1
2
15
14
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
59
90
Total
15
78
93
4
50
54
23
122
145
8
62
70
31
140
171
0
5
5
2
7
9
83
464
547
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
297
Final Report, GESI Impact Study, MEDEP
Annex 75: Change on time pressure before and after MEDEP (Control)
1. By caste/ethnicity and sex
Hill Dalit
Status
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
6
8
2
9
11
0
0
0
1
0
1
9
18
27
Decreased
11
15
26
2
6
8
5
10
15
6
11
17
19
17
36
0
0
0
3
2
5
46
61
107
Same
6
16
22
3
1
4
11
7
18
1
4
5
19
13
32
0
0
0
0
1
1
40
42
82
Total
18
32
50
6
8
14
18
18
36
9
21
30
40
39
79
0
0
0
4
3
7
95
121
216
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
2. By caste/ethnicity and poverty
Hill Dalit
Status
Madhesi Dalit
Hill Indigenous
Terai Indigenous
Hill Brahman/
Chhetri
Other Madhesi
Caste
Muslims
Total
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
M
F
T
Increased
1
1
2
0
2
2
0
3
3
3
5
8
4
7
11
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
19
27
Decreased
7
19
26
1
7
8
3
12
15
3
14
17
7
29
36
0
0
0
2
3
5
23
84
107
Same
15
7
22
2
2
4
7
11
18
0
5
5
8
24
32
0
0
0
0
1
1
32
50
82
Total
23
27
50
3
11
14
10
26
36
6
24
30
19
60
79
0
0
0
2
5
7
63
153
216
Note: M: Male, F: Female, T: Total
Source: Field Survey, 2014
298