1. Assessing the Livelihoods Options in the Post conflict Nepal
Bishnu Raj Upreti, PhD, Director,
Sony KC, Researcher
Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research, (NCCR)

2. Overview
Rationale
Research context
Findings
Discussion

3. Rationale
Livelihoods sector in Nepal gained enormous attention after the conflict
Government, national and international organisations support
However, evidences show:
Lack of proper interventions and targeting
Lack of commitment towards sustainability (5 capitals)
Many options but limited reach
Research objective:
To explore the various livellihoods options provided to Nepalese and understand the issues of sustainibilty

4. Research Context Where: Rolpa, Bardiya and Ilam districts in Nepal
N=3174 households, 15,823 household members
Average Household size: 5.0
47.4% Janjatis/ indigenous groups, 33.2% Brahmins/Chhetris, 7.8% Dalits, 6.4% Madhesi
81.4% Hindu, 7.9% Kirats, and 5% Buddhist
76.6% literacy rate
43 % of the total respondents have been living in the village since their birth
57 % migrated respondents
94.8%, Rolpa, 85.9% Ilam, 63.8% Bardiya engaged in cultivation, livestock and fishery for livelihood
82.0% rural HH 73.2% urban HH engaged in cultivations, livestock and fishery than urban households

5. Livelihoods options
Recipients of Livelihoods Support in the Past one year = less than 10%
Livelihood service No
Yes
Total
Count
Percent
seeds and tools distribution
2956
93.1
218
6.9
3174
seed money for revolving fund (saving and credit)
3133
98.7 41
1.3
extension
3124
98.5 49
1.5
3173
fertiliser voucher
3129
98.6 45
1.4
Goats and pigs for income generation
3011
94.9
163
5.1
Skill enhancement Trainings
3024
95.3
150
4.7
Micro-finance credit system management
3149
99.2 25
0.8
Teaching women about mobilisation of funds in their areas
3140
99.0 33
1.0
Marketing information
3158
99.5 16
0.5
Exposure visit
3146
99.1 28
0.9
Farmers Field School
3154
99.4 20
0.6
Source: Field 2012

6. Seeds and tools distribution
Which household member received the most support?
Frequency
Percent
Household Head 74
33.9
Women
126
57.8
Men 14
6.4
Boys 2
0.9
Girls 1
0.5
Other (Specify)
Total
218
100.0
Source: Field 2012

7. Knowledge of the service provider
Who provides the services/transfer?
Frequency
Percent
Government 60
27.5
National/NGO
121
55.5
International NGO 21
9.6
UN organisation or donor 2
0.9
Religious institution
Don’t know 12
5.5
Total
218
100
Source: Field 2012

8. Overall Picture livelihoods support is very low
issue of sustainability is a question
country’s context looks vulnerable despite having various types of support
option targeted towards specific groups excludes the other groups that are poor
Rolpa seems to have grabbed more attention in receiving livelihoods support after the conflict if compared to Bardiya and Ilam
majority of Dalits are aware of the livelihoods activities and receiving some form of support – most livelihoods supports targets these groups

9. Constraints – further findings
supply side- there are institutions that do not want to reach the remotest areas with their programs due to logistic/geographical complications – eg in Rolpa
issue of sustainability- not seriously taken into account– one capital vs the other (SLF)
problems with targeting (major one!)
designs and distributions short term still – projects phase out

10. From the people…
I received some loan money from the poverty alleviation fund to buy chicken. I had around 50 chicken and they all died of disease. I did not know how to save them. (Female, Chhetri ethnicity, Rolpa)
“We receive seeds and support but sometimes they just don’t come out to be good. The main problem we have is irrigation as well. There is no water here and it is difficult to spray water in the vegetables.”(Male, Farmer, Dalit, Rolpa)

11. Contd..
“I have not received anything and neither my neighbors have. If they had I would have known. Nobody comes to this area and nobody cares about our lives” (Female, Tharu, Bardiya)
I work for the public sector and I do not know of any organisations that have actually committed to providing support. They come, do their work and go and they don’t leave a good trace in the lives of people. If they did leave good marks, the outcomes would have been good.” (Male, Bardiya, Madhesi)

12. Discussion
Source:

13. THANK YOU