23 April2013
PRESENTATION OUTLINE






Background of DPMAS
Why DPMAS ?
Components of DPMAS and Its Guidelines and
indicators
Institutional Mechanism
Issues
Way forward
DPMAS
BACKGROUND



MDG, SAARC Devt. goal
The Three Year Interim Plan (2007/8 – 2009/10),
Current Plan which followed the 10th Plan highlighted
the importance of MfDR for achieving development
results.
Decentralization being significant strategy in TYIP/TYP
further stress the importance of data collection and
dissemination at the district level for evidence based
planning,
good
governance
and
equitable
development.
BACKGROUND....



Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (PMAS) and
DPMAS in particular are core elements of MfDR in
Nepal requiring additional support for their
meaningful operationalization.
Draft guidelines and software were ready in 2005
but was not fully tested and operational.
UNICEF supported to pilot DPMAS in Dang and
Jumla in 2008. Experience from piloting exercise
contributed to development of national
implementation guidelines and software by NPC in
2010.
WHY DPMAS?




Compliment central level (PMAS) and Project Performance
Information System (PPIS) - monitoring Periodic Plan,
poverty reduction strategy and MDGs, SAARC
Development Goals (SDGs) & Results-based M&E strategy.
To monitor inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes and
impacts of poverty reduction and development projects at
the district level.
LSGA 1999 requires the monitoring and evaluation of
programmes and District Periodic Plans (DPPs). DIDCs
exist for this purpose and should be strengthened with a
system.
LGCDP supports DPMAS to obtain poverty data with
disaggregation level.
DPMAS

DPMAS builds upon existing systems to improve horizontal
and vertical linkages for information flows, and promote
use of data at all levels






Consolidates data and information received from already
established sectoral monitoring systems like EMIS, HMIS, line
agencies, NGOs
Stores it in a systematic manner; disaggregated by age, sex and
ethnicity
Data and indicators will be available at theDDC/ VDC level.
Analyze and disseminate to support decentralized planning and
monitoring system
Make the data and information easily accessible both at VDC,
district and central level.
Highly recognized in current TYP (2067/68-2069/70) as one of
the key monitoring and evaluation system

1) Implementation monitoring (Updated every four
months)

2) Outcome and impact monitoring (Updated
Annually and Five years)







Health (13 Impact level and 12 implementation level)
Water and Sanitation (6 and 9)
Primary Education (11and 8)
Agriculture, livestock, forestry, tourism and finance
(11 and 18)
Capacity building/empowerment of targeted groups
(15 and 4)
Rural Infrastructure (6 and 16)
Local Development (11)
INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
SYSTEM
Datasets submitted districts
Achham
Rukum
Taplejung
Bajura
Kalikot
Jhapa
Bajhang
Jajarkot
Dolakha
Dadeldhura Kaski
Rasuwa
Chitwan
Kavre
Myagdi
Kapilvastu
Udaypur
Pyuthan
Saptari
Nawalparasi
Banke
Tanahu
Doti
Kailali
Darchula
Sunsari
Issues
• Getting information segregated by social groups (caste and ethnicity) by
VDCs is hardly possible in the existing sectoral MIS system.
• District line offices found unaware of their roles & responsibilities on
DPMAS implementation & sectoral support.
• Lack of harmonization between DPMAS and Sectoral MIS indicators
• District offices unable to report according to DPMAS format (VDC as well
as by social groups) .
• DPMAS needs to demonstrate that it can support planning, review and
monitoring as envisioned in results-based M&E guideline.
• Only 84 impact indicators are covered in DPMAS and strengthening the
system would be more important than further expansion of indicators.
Way forward
• Existing sectoral MIS systems need to be harmonized with DPMAS information
system (segregated by VDC, social groups-caste and ethnicity)
• Line Ministries need to provide clear instructions to its district offices
• Line Ministries could use DPMAS/CFLG information formats in their reporting
system
• Operational definition of Indicators (DPMAS/CFLG) as a part of M&E
framework need to be developed for uniformity and consistency of the
information. There are Indicators in surveys regularly covered by periodic
surveys and some could be included in surveys.
• Remaining quantifiable CFLG Indicators should be reviewed for incorporation
in DPMAS in consultation with line ministries after DPMAS is well established.
• NPC/MLD should consider mobilizing more NDVSs in districts with human
resources constraints.