case study: nepal · stakeholder mapping • identification of stakeholders based on project...

CASE STUDY: NEPAL AID FOR TRADE EXPERT DIALOGUE

BANGKOK, 18th Nov. 2013

Outline of presentation •Preparation Stage •Implementation Stage •Preliminary Results •Next steps

Research Team

• Mr. Puspa Sharma, Research Director, SAWTEE

• Mr. Asish Subedi, Programme Officer, SAWTEE

1. Preparation stage

Literature Review • A number of studies and reports on Aid for

Trade, including: – Aid for Trade at a Glance reports – Adhikari, Ratnakar. 2011. A Methodological

Framework for Conducting Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Aid for Trade. Geneva and Kathmandu: ICTSD and SAWTEE

– Adhikari, Ratnakar, Paras Kharel, and Chandan Sapkota. 2011. Evaluating Aid for Trade on the Ground: Lessons from Nepal. Geneva and Kathmandu: ICTSD and SAWTEE


Project Selection • Projects selected based on the following criteria:

– Category – Objectives – Time-frame – Availability of information – Donors – Modality of delivery – Willingness to cooperate – Private sector’s engagement

• Selected projects: – Micro-enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP) – High Value Agriculture Project (HVAP) in Hill and

Mountain Areas


Review of Project Documents and other Relevant Documents

• Project documents: Proposal, periodic reports, logical framework, budget, work plan, etc.

• Periodic plans, Trade Policy documents, Trade Integration Strategy documents, etc.


Stakeholder Mapping • Identification of stakeholders based on

project documents and consultation with project officials – Donors, Government, project implementing

partners, local level beneficiaries, private sector, etc.


Permission/Government Support

• Meetings with project personnel, and telephone and email conversations

• Briefings about the study, its objectives and expectations from them

• Gathering of resources


Overview of AfT in Nepal-I Sector/Time period 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Economic infrastructure 66.08 140.43 16.11 109.86 147.69 136.94 140.32 246.73 321.92 275.59

Transport & Storage 17.97 5.66 5.64 65.16 79.07 48.89 84.85 138.19 220.49 103.45

Communications 0.46 3.07 0.89 1.07 0.63 3.06 2.09 0.83 0.88 1.27

Energy 47.66 131.70 9.58 43.63 67.99 85.00 53.38 107.71 100.54 170.87

Building productive capacity

71.30 63.23 174.83 90.24 83.44 90.97 68.13 65.31 139.40 171.37

Banking & Financial Services 24.85 29.15 96.67 0.48 1.57 1.03 2.59 7.84 64.88 5.66

Business & Other Services 0.56 1.21 4.45 3.14 0.75 3.60 11.15 1.70 3.12 4.76

Agriculture 43.43 25.09 50.03 84.07 79.16 82.33 32.99 27.41 32.98 123.60

Forestry 0.78 5.01 18.23 0.72 0.09 1.69 19.89 12.27 4.35 33.22

Fishing 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.23 0.19 0.06 0.36 0.50

Industry 1.20 1.49 4.56 0.50 1.11 1.60 1.06 15.87 3.62 3.56

Mineral Resources & Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tourism 0.47 1.29 0.85 1.31 0.42 0.49 0.26 0.16 30.09 0.06

Trade Policies & Regulations 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.08 3.04 0.11 1.20 2.75 1.12 5.62 Total AfT

366.62 693.99 852.49 521.97 520.03 773.50 688.33 1024.16 1145.04 1071.07

2. Implementation stage

Aid for Trade commitments to Nepal, 2002-11 (USD million, constant 2011 prices); Source: OECD CRS.

Overview of AfT in Nepal-II 2. Implementation stage

AfT commitments (Global vis-à-vis Nepal), 2002-05 and 2006-11 (USD million, constant 2011 prices); Source: Calculations based on the OECD CRS database.

Global Average Nepal Average

Sector/Time period 2002-05 2006-11 Growth (%) 2002-05 2006-11 Growth (%)

Economic infrastructure

13,896.66 21,620.39 55.58 83.12 211.53 154.49

Building productive capacity

10,702.85 15,085.73 40.95 99.90 103.10 3.20

Trade policies & regulations

656.31 927.11 41.26 0.09 2.30 2,421.51

Total AfT 72,699.20 105,844.50 45.59 608.77 870.36 42.97

Overview of AfT in Nepal-III


Source: Adhikari et al. (2011)

Overview of AfT in Nepal-IV



Overview of AfT in Nepal-V



Overview of AfT in Nepal-VI



Overview of AfT in Nepal-VII



Overview of AfT in Nepal-VIII



Overview of AfT in Nepal-IX



Project Overview-I • Micro-enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP)

– Designed to support the Government of Nepal’s (GoN) overriding goal of poverty alleviation through the development of micro-enterprises among low-income families

– Initiated in 1998, and two phases completed. Third phase (2008-2013) running

– Initially started with the financial and technical support of UNDP; later had multiple donors: DFID, NZAID, AusAID, CIDA

– More focus on “software” and less on “hardware” – Has partnership with the District Chamber of Commerce and

Industry in every project district; also, many individual private sector entities have been participating as project partners


Project Overview-II • High Value Agriculture Project (HVAP)

– Aims to integrate the rural poor in high value agriculture and non-timber forest product (NTFP)/medicinal and aromatic plant (MAP) value chains and markets

– Officially in implementation since 2010/11 – Being implemented with financial support from International

Fund for Agriculture Development. SNV is an implementing partner

– More focus on “software”; occasionally provides “hardware” support

– Has partnered with the Agro Enterprise Centre of the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI)


Data Gathering Method • Secondary sources: Project websites and

documents • Primary sources: Interviews, key informant

surveys/FGDs


Analysis • High Value Agriculture Project

– Overall goal: Poverty reduction – Purpose: To integrate the rural poor, especially

women and marginal groups in high value agriculture and NTFP/MAP value chains and markets, and improve income, employment opportunities and ability to respond to market demand and opportunities based on marketing agreements with private agribusiness.

– Focus on high value agriculture and NTFP/MAP value chains: Ginger and some medicinal herbs, among others

3. Preliminary Results

Evaluation-I – Relevance

• In line with Nepal’s Trade Policy, Three Year Plan, and Nepal Trade Integration Strategy

– Poverty reduction – Employment generation – Focus on women, and disadvantaged and marginalized population – Commercialization of agriculture – Focus on high value crops – Import substitution and export promotion


Evaluation-II – Efficiency

• Project design – Designed in consultation with a range of stakeholders

(government, private sector, national/local NGOs, district agriculture offices, among others)

– Project implementation manual developed for joint and smooth implementation of the project

• Governance and management – Ministry of Agriculture has responsibility for overall

project implementation, with the Project Management Unit based in one of the project implemented districts

– SNV and AEC mainly focus on pro-poor value chain development


Evaluation-III • Governance and management (contd…)

– Project’s collaborative framework comprises of three main bodies: Project Steering Committee, HVAP Agribusiness Working Group, and Project Consultative and Coordination Group

– Staff recruitment could complete only in the second year

• Implementation – Although officially started from 5 July 2010, the project

got implemented only from 15 July 2011 because of the delay in appointing the Project Manager

– Thus, activities as planned could not be completed


Evaluation-IV – Effectiveness

• In FY 2010/11, only 65% of the budget allocated for the year was spent, and of which 85% was capital expenditure and 15% programme expenditure

• In FY 2011/12, the project could spend only 43.85% of the budget for the year


Evaluation-V – Effectiveness (contd…)

• Of the 12 commodities identified by the project for value chain development in the first two years, value chain implementation plan for three commodities has been developed and value chain analysis of seven commodities has been carried out

• Lack of capacity of district-based project implementing entities hindering effectiveness


Evaluation-VI – Impact

• Pre-mature to evaluate impacts since the project had a late start and is still running.

– Sustainability

• Since the major focus of the project is on value chain development, if successful, the work could continue even after the project terminates


Evaluation-VII – Sustainability (contd…)

• Many bilateral donors are interested and are supporting value chain development of different commodities. Therefore, after the project ends, even if IFAD would not be able to continue to support value chain development of other commodities, it is possible that other donors would be willing to support this, if the project outputs and outcomes are in line with what have been envisaged

• Participation of all relevant stakeholders—and that too from the centre to the local level—and demand driven nature of the project should also help in making the project sustainable


Next steps • Key informant surveys/Interviews with

relevant stakeholders • Additional findings as well as validation of

information available in project documents • Concrete evaluation of the projects

4. Next steps

THANK YOU