Impact Study Report March 20121

Government of Nepal
Ministry of Local Development

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and
Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)
Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project
(RAIDP)
Prepared by
Dr. Binod Pokharel
(Individual Consultant-Impact Study)
March 2012
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

ADB
CBA
CBAS
CBMP
CEA
DDC
DDF
Asian Development Bank

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Capacity Building and Advisory
Services
Community Based Performance
Monitoring
Cost-Effective Analysis
District Development Committee
District Development Fund
LRUCs
MOLD
MTR
Local Road User Committees

Ministry of Local Government
Mid Term Review
PAF
Project Affected Family
PCT
PCU
PPMO
RED
RTI
Rural Transport Infrastructure
RTIA
Right to Information Act
DTMP
Department of International
Development
Department of Local
Infrastructure Development and
Agricultural Roads
Department of Road
District Participation Framework
Decentralization Rural
Infrastructure Development and
Livelihood Project
District Transport Master Plan
Project Coordination Team

Project Coordination Unit
Public Procurement Monitoring
Office
Rural Access Improvement and
Decentralization Project
Road Economic Decision Model
SDC
DTO
District Technical Office
SNV
EOP
ESMF
End of Project
Environment and Social
Management Framework
Governance and Accountability
Action Plan
Government of Nepal
SPAF
SRN
Swiss Agency for Development and

Cooperation
Netherlands Social Development
and Cooperation
Severely Project Affected Family
Strategic Road Network
SWAP
Sector Wide Approach
VCDP
WFP
Vulnerable Communities
Development Framework
Village Development Committee
Village Road Coordination
Committee
World Food Program
ZOI
Zone of Influence
DFID
DOLIDAR
DOR
DPT
DRILP
GAAP
GON
GTZ
HDM-4
IDA
ILO
IME
IRAP
ISAP
JT
JTA
LID
Gernam Technical Cooperation

Highway Development and
Management Plan
International Development
Association
International Labor Organization
International Money Exchange
Integrated Rural Accessibility
Planning
Institutional Strengthening Action
Plan
Junior technician
Junior Technician Assistance
Local Infrastructure Development
RAIDP
VDC
VRCC
SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM

Project Period
August 15, 2005 to June30, 2010
Executing Agency
Department of Local Infrastructure

Development and Agricultural Roads
(DoLIDAR), MLD
Local Bodies (District Development
Committees)
Implementing Agencies
Geographical Coverage
Development Partners
Financial Resources
Program Components
30 Districts (20 old & 10 new)
World Bank
Swiss Agency for Development and
Co-operation (SDC),
Asian Development Bank
International Labor Organization
(ILO)
UK Department for International
Development (DFID),
The German Technical
US$m 32.00
(a) Rural Transport Infrastructures (RTI)
improvement in participating districts
and
(b) Capacity Building and Advisory
Services (CBAS).
The RTI Component:
(a) rehabilitation and upgrading of about
800 km of existing dry-season rural
roads to all season standard;
(b) upgrading of about 200 km of existing
rural trails and tracks
(c) maintenance of about 500 km of rural
roads, covering routine and recurrent
maintenance;
(d) construction of 350 short-span trail
bridges; and
(e) development of small, community
infrastructure, including rehabilitation
(R&R) of people affected by the project;
and implementation of a pilot rural
transport services scheme
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to thank the Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization
Project (RAIDP), Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural
Roads (DoLIDAR), Ministry of Local Development for assigning me to undertake this
impact study of rural road projects. My special thanks go to Mr. Asok Kumar Jha, Cocoordinator, RAIDP for his kind cooperation for the completion of this impact study. I
would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Shekhar Pokharel, Project Engineer of RAIDP
and Dr. Shambhu Kattel, Social Development Expert of RAIDP for their helpful
comments and feedback that allowed me to finalize the report. I would also like to
express my gratitude to Silva Shrestha, World Bank, for her insightful comments and
suggestions in different stages of impact study. I am also obliged to the participants of
draft report dissemination workshop including Director General of DoLIDAR, Mr.
Bhupendra Basnet for their valuable comments and feedback on draft report of the
present study.
Special thanks are due to Mr. Deepak Gyawali, Mr. Krishna Gyawali, Mr
Baikuntha Aryal, Rabindra Adhikari, Ms. Susma Kandu and Padam Adhikari from RAIDP
for their prompt logistical support and cooperation during the impact study period. I
would like to thank to Mr. Umesh Kumar Mandal, who was also research consultant of
baseline survey of RAIDP roads, for his input in research tool preparation and friendship
during my consultancy services.
I am also obliged to all local development officers, divisional engineers, SSDCs,
SDCs, PDEs of the sample districts for their kind cooperation and generous support
during the field work. My special thanks go to enumerators Mr. Ram Bharose Chaudhari
(Kailali), Mr. Durga Nath Tripathi (Bardiya), Ms. Garima Adhikari (Banke), Mr. Nim Thapa
(Salyan and Dhading), Mr. Dinesh Acharya (Kapilbastu), Mr. Amrit Bashyal (Palpa),
Sirjana Aryal (Nawalparasi), Anita Tiwari (Rupandehi), Mr. Jitendra Chaudhari
(Rautahat), Mr. Binod Kumar Mandal (Siraha), Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Jha (Dhanusa),
Mr. Tek Nath Tiwari (Rasuwa and Nuwakot), Ms. Babita Chaudhari (Udayapur), Mr. Bal
Krishna Paudel (Kaski), Dipesh Ghimire (Makawanpur), Prakash Ahdhikari (Syangja),
Mr. Ram Babu Paswan (Mahottari) and Tej Narayan Chaudhari (Sarlahi) for conducting
household survey, focus group discussion and traffic survey. I also thanks to statisticians
Mr. Shekhar Devkota and Mr. Risi Rijal for coding, editing and data entry of household
questionnaire and traffic survey data.
Finally, I indebted to the respondents of the surveyed districts for giving me accurate
information and hospitality through out the duration of fieldwork
Dr. Binod Pokharel
Individual Consultant of Impact Study of RAIDP Roads
Executive Summary
Impact Study of RAIDP Road Sub- Projects
Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) has been
implementing with the financial assistance of the World Bank in 20 districts since 2005.
Since 2010, program has extended into ten new districts. The executing agency is the
Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)
under the Ministry of Local Development (MLD) through RAIDP coordination office. The
project aims to improve the existing rural roads, construct trail bridges and support for
some Community Infrastructure Development to enhance the access of rural road
improvement, the project also includes the construction of three dry season rural roads.
The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural
areas by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that
can increase the quality of life of the poor.
This impact evaluation is designed to estimate the counterfactual- namely, what would
have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in two
phases, the overall objective of the impact study is to assess:
the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of
RAIDP on target populations, individuals, households, and
to determine the extent to which interventions under the RAIDP cause changes in
the well being of targeted population by examining how they change over time in
communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared with those that
do not (comparison groups)
The project development objective (PDO) is to assist for residents of participating

districts of the recipient to utilize improved rural transport infrastructure and services in
order to have enhanced access to social services and economic opportunities. The PDO
will be monitored with the following indicators:
a) 20 percent increase in motorize and non-motorized trips by beneficiaries by the
end of the Project (EOP), and
b) 20 percent reduction in travel time by beneficiaries by EOP,
c) 30 percent increase in annual average daily traffic (AADT) with the project
districts in the categories bus, truck, micro bus and jeep.
Participating Districts
There are altogether 34 rural roads in original 20 districts of the RAIDP. Of the total
roads 12 are laid in Tarai districts and remaining are in Hill districts. Eight Tarai districts
have two road projects. Broadly, project Districts can be grouped into four clusters. They
are:
Cluster I:
Cluster II:
Cluster III:
Cluster IV:
Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan

Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa
Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur
Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha and Udayapur
There are 226,309 households with 133, 2,602 populations, 248 VDCs with 1326
settlements under the zone of influence (project area) of rural road projects. Total length
of the roads is more than 907 km under the RAIDP original districts. Of the total roads 21
(nearly 62%) roads lies in Tarai districts 13 roads (38%) in the hill districts. Of the total
length of the roads, 520 km (nearly 58%) lies in Tarai districts 397 km (nearly 42%) in
the hill.
2. Impact Study Methodology

Impact evaluation has used both "with/without" and before and after - data. The impact
was compared between the project and control areas over time in settlement level. This
measure is a double difference, first measure change over time in the treatment group
and in the control group (using baseline and end line data), and then comparing the
relative difference in change.
The sampling method was based on a quasi-randomized design. Altogether 300
households from project area and 100 HHs from control area were selected for the
impact study. Multi- Stage Quasi- randomized design was adopted for the impact study
Structured questionnaire, FGD and traffic flow survey were major tools of data collection.
The quantitative data collected through the survey questionnaires were computerized by
statisticians using SPSS.
Limitation of Impact Study

There are several methodological flaws in baseline data (original survey) such as lack
of location of original respondents and places, lack of comparable data both treatment
and control groups, lacking of defined PSU. Despite the limitation of the baseline data,
this impact study has tried to use them for comparison as far as possible.
Due to limitations of baseline data this study has focused more on cross sectional
data. In some cases, longitudinal data have been used collected from focus group
discussion and DDCs and RAIDP office records.
RAIDP has been scaled up with the additional financing. Present impact study is only
for the roads/ districts cover under the original financing.
3. General Information of Survey Roads

Demography
Except Bardiya, Kapilvastu and Mahottari, in all sample districts, average
household size has decreased than baseline survey, 2006/07.
The highest population in project area is hill high caste (29.81%) followed by hill
Janajati(25.32%), Tarai Dalit (17.47%), Tarai caste (12.93%), Musalman (7.48%),
Tarai Janajati (4.17) and hill Dalit 2.83%) respectively. In control villages, the
largest population was hill Janajati followed by Tarai Dalit, hill high caste, Tarai
caste, Musalman, hill Dalit and Tarai Janajati respectively.
4. Major Findings
Traffic Count and Transportation Indicators
Between 2006/07 and 2011 number of all types of vehicles has increased.
Overall growth of motorized vehicles is 37 percent. Similarly, 33 percent
increment is seen of non-motorized vehicles during the same period. Increase
rate of vehicles is varied by districts. Among the vehicles, jeep/car/taxi is
increased by 52 percent followed by truck (44%), motorcycle (42%), bus (35%)
and tractor (20%) respectively.
Travel cost in all RAIDP remained relatively upward due to increased price of fuel
internationally. Travel time has come down 20-50 percent in the period of five
years. Average bus fare per kilometer was Rs. 3.6. Average length of sampled
road is 9.3 km.
Traffic volume is seen higher in Janakpur and lowest in Rasuwa. Average traffic
volume unit of RAIDP road is 180.
Travel Frequency to Market
Between 2006/2007 and 2011, the percent of going market on foot has come
down into zero percent in project area. Number of motorcycle users for marketing
has increased both project and control areas. Interestingly, jeep user has
increased by six percent in project area and two percent in control area.
Traveling time for market centre, hospitals and higher education centre has
reduced by 46%, 50%, and 50% respectively in project area. Travel time has
decreased by 81% in Rautahat and 79% in Salyan. There is no change on travel
time in Kailali and Mahottari.
More than 71 percent vehicles owned by the respondents are non-motorized in
type. Of the motorized vehicles, number of motorcycles is highest followed by
truck, tractor, bus and minibus.
Distance and Travel Time to the Nearest Roads and Bus stops
People in the participating hill districts that live within four hours of walking to all
season roads has increased by 100 percent in Tarai districts and 18 to 100
percent in the hill districts.
Average distance of road and bus stop from the sample households of project
area was 4.14 km for the residents of project area. Similarly; trip per month to
nearest road and nearest bus stop is 12.22 and 12.10 by project area sample
households. Minimum and maximum trip to market have in the range of 2 to
28.46 in a month. 73 percent from project area and 10 percent from control
villages' households are located 0 to 5 kilometer distance from nearest road.
Agriculture and Transportation
Bus is common means of transportation for getting farm inputs in project area.
The transport cost for improved seed and fertilizer is 0.85 and 0.81 paisa per kg
respectively. Meanwhile control villages have to pay Rs 1.36 per kg while
transporting chemical fertilizer to their farm land.
Transportation facilities through RAIDP road have increased total trips to go
market and transport cost of farm input has reduced by more than 37 percent.
Percentage of chemical fertilizer and average consumption of fertilizer and
improved seeds is slightly higher in project area than control villages. Agricultural
households use improved seeds for paddy, wheat and vegetables.
Trucks and tractors are very common means of transportation for agricultural
inputs in project area and bullock cart was found popular among the control
villages of Tarai.
The average cost was around 2 to 10 percent of the final sale price is consumed
by transport cost.
Prices of all agricultural commodities are higher in farm gate of project area than
control villages.
Almost 69 percent of 300 households kept some number of livestock and poultry
in project area. Altogether 367 poultry farm in project area and three in control
villages. Almost poultry farms in project area were established after RAIDP road
intervention
Of the total economically active population in project area and control villages 36.03
percent and 46.80 percent were in agriculture respectively. Remaining nearly 64
percent from project area and 53 from control villages were in non-agricultural works.
Agriculture Production
Average production of paddy, wheat and maize has increased 4 to 5 times more
than baseline study (2006/07). Causes of production increased may be several
such as timely monsoon, easy access to agricultural inputs and market access
through RAIDP road connection.
Residents of project area have grown more crops for market than control
villages. Market network and transportation facilities have encouraged the
residents to grow more for market.
Nearly 44 percent of the sample households have irrigated land in project area.
Irrigation data of pre-project are not available. Therefore, it is difficult to
speculate how much irrigated land increased in post-project period.
Use of Farm Equipment
Tractor and thresher machine are one of major farm technologies in Tarai
districts. Percentage of deep tube well, tractor and thresher were slightly higher
in project area than control villages.
Transport and agriculture Extension
38 percent households were found taking the services of veterinary extension.

Nearly 15 percent households were visited veterinary extension service center at
least one time in a year.
Major source of transportation for visiting the service centers is bus followed by
bicycles in project area.
Between 2006/07 and 2011, privately owned extension service centers have
increased in project area.
Non-Agricultural Activities
Between 2006/2007 and 2011, number of households operating non-farm

enterprises has increased. Many shops and enterprises were recently established
along the RAIDP roads.
3760 people in project area and 319 in control villages were working local level
business centers. Non-farm activities include wage labor, foreign labor,
government service, shop-keeping, school teacher, driving, etc.
Overall growth of social amenities has increased by more than 12 percent in
project area. Road connectivity has made possible to establish many social
institutions in the project area. Financial institutions have increased by 3.4 times
in the study area.
Income, Expenditure, and Entrepreneurship

Expenditure Indicators
Average consumption in food in project and control area is Rs 51296 and Rs
45518 respectively. Clothing and schooling fee and fuel consumption is also seen
higher in Project Area compared to control villages.
Expenditure on medical treatment, rituals and cigarettes, alcoholic beverage is
higher in control villages.
Productive sector expenditure is higher in all items in project area (mean
expenditure Rs. 106041 for project area and Rs 78730 for control villages).
Income composition
Average income from crop farming is slightly higher in control villages than
project area.
In other sectors such as cash crop, livestock, small cottage industry, government
services, and remittances incomes in project area are relatively higher than
control villages.
Income pattern in project area concentrates to non-agriculture activities than
control villages.
Mean income of project area and control villages has increased by more than four
times than baseline period (see Baseline Report, 2007 pp 35-37).
Employment
3760 people are employed in local level business centers. The total number of
locally employed in control villages is 317.
Local level employment includes working in rice mills, saw mills, store house,
construction work, brick factory, grocery shops, poultry farming, milk collection
centers, etc.
There are 96 market centers along with the 20 sample roads of RAIDP. There
are at least five shops in each market center. Agriculture goods, dry goods,
textiles and garments, fruits and vegetable shops, are the major group of
commodities in the markets.
Price of land
Residential land price is increased by 3.24 times in program area and 2.74 times
in control villages. RAIDP intervention on rural road is the possible reason for
increasing the land value in project area.
Land tenure by gender
26% of sample households in program area and 27 percent in control villages
have land under the ownership of women. This may be the cause of government
incentive policy for exemption of land registration fee for women owed land.
Access to credit by gender
Bank (32.22%), cooperatives (41.11%) and local money lenders (21.11%) are
major institution lending money in RAIDP project area. Of the loan takers 60
percent were female in the project area.
Road transportation has made easier to collect remittance sent by family

members from abroad. Most of the project area households reach to nearest
market centers within one to one and half hours to collect remittance.
Education, Health, Food Security and Social Safe Guard Indicators
Total literacy rate of the surveyed area was 82.03 percent. Literacy rate of project
area and control villages was 83.52 and 77.81 respectively.
Primary school enrolment percent in program and control villages is 95.25
percent and 93.94 percent respectively. Male female student ratio is 107:100 and
113:100 in program and control villages. There is 10 to 20 percent drop out in
lower secondary level. Similarly, absence from class and drop out ratio in primary
level has decreased between 2006/2007 and 2011.
Drop out ratio at primary level is low in all RAIDP roads. Drop out ratio has
gradually increased in lower secondary and secondary level. Higher drop out was
reported among Tarai and hill Dalit and Muslim compared to other groups. Drop
out due to poor accessibility has decreased in project area.
Nearly 85 percent students of program area have access to primary school within
five km distance while 54.05 percent students of control villages have access to
primary school within five km distance.
60 percent school going students have access to transportation in project area.
Rate of absenteeism of teacher was low in surveyed roads. Absenteeism of
students and teachers due to bad road has decreased in the survey roads.
Health Indicators
Hundred percent immunization rates were reported in both control and project
area. There is no report of death causality due to untimely getting treatment. In
Tarai, there were cases of death of snake bites in the past. However, at present
there is no report of death caused by snake bites. In the hill districts, road access
has made possible to call on doctor in the village in the time of emergency.
Majority of the respondents use public bus and bicycle in project area. Unlike to
project area, nearly 50 percent populations from control area go health post on
foot.
80 percent people have used bus service while going to hospital in project area.
Transport and food Security

Of the total households, nearly 20 percent from project area and 24 percent from
control villages were food surplus households from their own agriculture
production. More than 30 percent in project area and 27 percent households in
control villages have ascertained that they meet their households' food
requirement for 10-12 months from their own agricultural production. Altogether
13.5 percent households have food sufficiency below three months.
Food supply in the project area has increased due to road transportation. Food
stores have established along the RAIDP road in the Tarai.
After the improvement of the RAIDP roads some effects are seen in the
livelihood. Respondents were asked to prioritize the impacts of road in terms of
comparative advantages. Almost households gave top priority to easy access
followed by increase in going hospital frequency. Similarly, respondents have
given top second priority to decreased transportation cost followed by increasing
income generation resource and increase in market going frequency.
RAIDP Road Condition and Quality
There were some complaints from the respondents RAIDP roads are too narrow that
is not suitable for bus and trucks and they suggested to widening the road.
In the hill district community efforts were reported to open the road after the
landslides.
In Tarai, couples of week roads are closed due to floods. Rules of operating less than
ten tons truck in RAIDP roads in Tarai were not followed. Local demand of
construction bridges across roads was repeatedly asked.
Poor quality of gravel and otta seal road was severely damaged in Kailali district just
after the completion of road.
In Rajapur ring road, big boulders were placed for graveling than regular size that
caused boulder flickers and hit pedestrian.
Landslides and floods, strikes, accidents and others are major reasons for closing
down RAIDP road for couple of the days in a year. Of the total sample districts,
14 districts were experienced flood and landslides in RAIDP road.
Social Safe Guards
35 percent sample households were affected by RAIDP roads. They were

affected due to land donation, damage of main structure and damage of minor
structures and loss of other structure.
Nearly 85 percent were affected giving land to project. Of the total affected family
36.29 percent got assistance from the project.
Among the assistance receiver most of them use their money for household
expenses and only three family were used their money for house repaired
Conclusion and Recommendation

Given the fact that the upgrading of RAIDP roads has begun demonstrating its
impacts through the reduction of travel time to reach the nearest town and social
amenities. Similarly, travel behavior of the beneficiaries has changed due to easier
access to work place and nearest town. People in the participating districts that live
within four hours of walking to all season roads has increased by 100 percent in Tarai
districts and 18 to 100 percent in the hill districts.
This impact study is limited to Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) (roads only)
improvement in participating districts. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct full
fledged impact of RAIDP incorporating all components in future.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviation and Acronyms...................................................................................................................... I
Summary of the Program ......................................................................................................................... II
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................III
List of Tables........................................................................................................................................... IV
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.
IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 5
2.1 THE PROJECT AND CONTROL AREA ............................................................................. 5
2.1.1 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 CONTROL AREA ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 EVALUATION DESIGN .................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 QUALITATIVE SURVEY ................................................................................................ 6
2.3 THE SAMPLE DESIGN ................................................................................................... 6
2.4 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 6
2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 LIMITATION OF IMPACT STUDY ................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.
GENERAL INFORMATION OF SURVEY ROADS .............................................................. 9
3.1 DEMOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 CASTE AND ETHNICITY .............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.
MAJOR FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 12
4. 1 TRAFFIC COUNT AND TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS ............................................. 12
4.1.1 MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN RAIDP ROADS .............................. 12
4.2 LOCAL FARE BY VEHICLES ........................................................................................ 14
4.3 ROAD WISE TRAVEL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER PROJECT .......................................... 15
4.3 OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES.......................................................................................... 16
4.4 DISTANCE AND TRAVEL TIME TO THE NEAREST ALL SEASON ROADS ...................... 18
CHAPTER V......................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................... 20
5.1.2 TRANSPORTATION FOR FARM INPUTS ....................................................................... 20
5.2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS ............................................................. 21
5.3 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 21
5.4 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ............................... 23
5.5 PRICES OF MAJOR CROPS IN FARM GATE ................................................................... 25
5.6 TRANSPORT AND AGRICULTURE EXTENSION............................................................ 26
5. 7 NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.............................................................................. 27
CHAPTER VI ....................................................................................................................... 29
6.
INCOME, EXPENDITURE, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP .................................................. 29
6.1 EXPENDITURE INDICATORS ....................................................................................... 29
6.2 INCOME COMPOSITION .............................................................................................. 29
6.3 EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN PROJECT AREA AND CONTROL AREA.......................... 30
6.3.1 PRICE OF LAND .......................................................................................................... 31
6.3.2 LAND TENURE BY GENDER ........................................................................................ 32
6.3.3 ACCESS TO CREDIT BY GENDER ................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER VII ...................................................................................................................... 34

7.
EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIAL SAFE GUARD .......................... 34
7.1 EDUCATION INDICATORS........................................................................................... 34
7.2 NUMBER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE VILLAGE....................................................... 34
7.2.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL .................................. 34
7.3 HEALTH INDICATORS ................................................................................................. 36
7.3.1 DISTANCE AND FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO HEALTH CENTER ...................................... 36
7. 4 TRANSPORT AND FOOD SECURITY ............................................................................ 37
7.7 SOCIAL SAFE GUARDS ............................................................................................... 39
8.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................... 39
8.1 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 39
References
Annexes
Terms of References
CHAPTER I
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Rationale and Objective
In recent years, rural roads and other infrastructure are being promoted by the
government and several donor agencies as rural development and economic growth in
Nepal. Very few studies however, have thoroughly examined the causal link between
rural roads and final welfare outcomes such as income, consumption, health and
education. Little is known for instance, about the extent and distribution of impacts of
rural road investment. It is argued that rural roads are key to raising living standards in
poor rural areas. By reducing transport cost, roads are expected to generate market
activity, affect input and output prices, and foster economic linkages that enhance
agricultural production, alter land use, crop intensity and other production decisions,
stimulate off-farm diversification and other income generating opportunities, and
encourage migration (Van de Walle 2008 p. 1). One study (Jacoby, 2000 cited in
Blndal, 2007 p. 12) looks at the distributional effects of rural roads in Nepal. Using the
data from the Nepal Living Standard Survey covering 4,600 households, the study finds
that road access to markets bring substantial social welfare benefits including cheaper
transport to and from agricultural markets, better access to schools and health facilities
and greater variety of consumer goods.
The empirical evidence at the macroeconomic level of the positive correlation between
road improvements and GDP per capita growth is extensive. Yet, the distributional
impact of road projects, especially the impact on the poor, is less known. Previous efforts
at assessing the impact of rural roads have typically been limited because of lack of
available baseline data and control or comparison groups, making it difficult to
disentangle the effects from the road improvements from those of other interventions and
overall development of the economy.
This impact evaluation is designed to estimate the counterfactual- namely, what would
have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in two
phases, the overall objective of the proposed study is to assess:
the magnitude and distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of
RAIDP on target populations, individuals, households, and
to determine the extent to which interventions under the RAIDP cause changes in
the well being of targeted population by examining how they change over time in
communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared with those that
do not (comparison groups) (See TOR )
Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) has been

implementing with the financial assistance of the World Bank in 20 districts since 2005.
Since 2010, program has extended into ten new districts. The executing agency is the
Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)
under the Ministry of Local Development (MLD) through RAIDP coordination office. The
project aims to improve the existing rural roads, construct trail bridges and support for
some Community infrastructure development to enhance the access of rural road
improvement, the project also includes the construction of three dry season rural roads.
The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural
areas by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that
can increase the quality of life of the poor. It is believed that eliminating the isolation of
populated areas with previously limited accessibility can provide the population greater
(1)
and stable access to critical goods as well as essential social services, such as medical
facilities, schools, visit by concerned officer, and health care. It also creates the
opportunity for development of these services in their localities. Improved access to jobs
provides opportunities for the poor to participate in the economy and thus they reap more
benefits of growth. Transport access, by increasing the ability of the poor to agriculture
inputs and resources such as capital and formal or informal trading links, reduced prices
of goods and agriculture inputs, all of which can spur rural development efforts. Rural
road improvements are also undertaken to promote agricultural development by
increasing the production and marketing of agricultural products as well as shift in
agriculture pattern to cash crops, particularly where lack of access had chocked
agricultural output or marketing facility. By alleviating constraints in the movement of
agricultural products, farmers revenues can increase and agricultural and non-farm rural
employment can also increase, contributing to a decline in poverty.
This report covers only the roads covered under the 20 districts financed under the
original financing for RAIDP and roads completed up to June 2010. It is primarily based
on follow up survey of the original/ baseline survey of the selected areas conducted in
2006/2007. This impact survey has included 20 rural roads of the 20 RAIDP districts by
comparing the relative change over time and space between the program (project area)
and control villages measuring a double difference, first by measuring change overtime
in the program villages and in the control villages (using baseline and end line data), and
then comparing the relative difference/change before and after project in program area.
1.2 Description of the Project

The project development objective (PDO) is to assist for residents of participating
districts of the recipient to utilize improved rural transport infrastructure and services in
order to have enhanced access to social services and economic opportunities. The PDO
will be monitored with the following indicators:
a) 20 percent increase in motorize and non-motorized trips by beneficiaries by the
end of the Project (EOP), and
b) 20 percent reduction in travel time by beneficiaries by EOP,
c) 30 percent increase in annual average daily traffic (AADT) with the project
districts in the categories bus, truck, micro bus and jeep.
Project Components:
The project components are: (a) Rural Transport Infrastructures (RTI) improvement in
participating districts and (b) Capacity Building and Advisory Services (CBAS) (c) Trail
bridge component. The RTI Component comprises (a) rehabilitation and upgrading of
about 800 km of existing dry-season rural roads to all-season standard; (b) upgrading of
about 200 km of existing rural trails and tracks to dry season standard in remote hill
districts; (c) maintenance of about 3500 km of rural roads, covering routine and recurrent
maintenance; (d) construction of 350 short-span trail bridges; and (e) development of
small, community infrastructure, including rehabilitation (R&R) of people affected by the
project; and implementation of a pilot rural transport services scheme.
The CBAS component comprises: (a) implementation of training related activities,
including preparation of training course materials, training of trainers and provision of
extensive training and certification on major aspects of rural infrastructure development
and management.
Provision of technical assistance and advisory services: (i) to participating DDCs to
support the implementation of their programs, subprojects, and associated local
(2)
initiatives, including financial management and accounting, project development and

implementation, design and supervision of works, environmental management, social
mobilization and community participation and monitoring; and (ii) to DoLIDAR for the
implementation of its Institutional Strengthening Action Plan (ISAP), capacity-building
priorities and long term functional and organizational change goals set by GON for the
rural transport sector, and for project coordination and implementation activities; (c) (i)
preparation of a GIS-based transport master plan, development of a spatial profile of
population/settlements that are or are not connected to an all season road and
undertaking of a hazard assessment and needs assessment to determine the investment
requirements for connecting settlements; (ii) preparation and updating of District
Transport Master Plans (DTMP); and (iii) identification and preparation of a follow-up
operation in the rural transport needs and travel patterns of the rural transport
infrastructure sector; (d) undertaking of a study to assess the mobility and transport
service providers and to formulate a pilot scheme and a rural transport policy of the
recipient; (e)Undertaking of a study to assess the magnitude and distribution of the direct
and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural access transport interventions and to
determine the extent to which interventions under the project cause changes in the well
being of target population; (f) provision of project implementation support, including
logistics and operations cost, to the DoLIDAR and the DDCs.
Output Indicators:
The project has following output indicators: (a) 15% increase in the number of people in
participating hill districts that live within four hours of walking to an all-season road, (b)
10% increase in the number of people in participating Tarai districts that live within two
hours of walking to an all-season road; (c) DoLIDAR and participating DDCs receive
favorable evaluation from independent reviews on their performance to execute the
project and manage the sector in a decentralized governance structure; (d) 30 districts
have updated DTMPs and use it for investment and maintenance prioritization and
budgeting; (e) GIS-based plan and sector outcome is developed and guides donor
support in the sector; (f) conducive regularity and institutional framework for rural
transport service provision is adopted in districts.
Participating Districts:
There are altogether 34 rural roads in original 20 districts of the RAIDP. Of the total
roads 12 are laid in Tarai districts and remaining are in Hill districts. Eight Tarai districts
have two road projects. Broadly, project Districts can be grouped into four clusters. They
are:
Cluster I:
Cluster II:
Cluster III:
Cluster IV:
Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan

Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa
Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur
Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha and Udayapur
According to social screening reports of RAIDP project districts; there are 226,309
households with 133, 2,602 populations, 248 VDCs with 1326 settlements under the
zone of influence (project area) of rural road projects. Total length of the roads is more
than 907 km under the project area. Of the total roads 21 (nearly 62%) roads lies in Tarai
districts 13 roads (38%) in the hill districts. Total length of the roads in the original
RAIDP districts is approximately 916 km. Of the total length of the roads, 520 km (nearly
58%) lies in Tarai and 397 km (nearly 42%) in the hill districts. Of the total beneficiaries
more than 71 percent are from Tarai and 29 percent from the hills. Table 1.1 presents
distribution of RAIDP roads by regions.
(3)
Table 1.1 Distribution of RAIDP road by regions

S.N.
Districts
Tarai Region
1
Kailali
2
Bardiya
3
Banke
4
Kapilbastu
5
Rupandehi
6
Nawalparasi
7
Rautahat
8
Sarlahi
9
Mahottari
10
Dhanusa
11
Siraha
12
Udayapur
Total
Hill Region
1.
Salyan
2
Palpa
3
Syanja
4
Kaski
5
Rasuwa
6
Dhading
7
Nuwakot
8
Makawanpur
Total
Cluster
Total Roads
Total
Beneficiaries
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
19370
82440
24660
76161
12482
34658
145088
139722
141979
47136
81750
141630
947076
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
13
13169
94288
35968
36226
5533
115292
15644
69406
385526
Source: Social Screening Reports, RAIDP, 2011.
(4)
CHAPTER II
2. IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY
2.1 The Project and Control Area
2.1.1 Project area
Generally, project area is defined as the village that the road passes through. An
alternative that is sometimes followed is to set maximum distance on either side of the
road link- and confine the search for impacts to this area (Van de Walle 2008). For this
study, the project area is that area where rural access program is operated/implemented
to encourage the location, linkage, population activity and market (for definition see
table-2.1). Internationally, zone of influence is defined in terms of walking distance from
the road. Project areas are classified into four groups based on its influence. Definition of
zone of influence is presented below.
Table- 2.1 Definition of Zone of Influence
Hill
Z0= is the zone lying at walking distance of 030 minutes from the road
Z1= is the zone lying at walking distance of
30mins-1hr from the road
Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of
1hr-2 hrs from the road
Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 2
hrs-4 hrs from the road
Source: ESMF, RAIDP, 2005
Tarai
Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of
30minutes-1hrs from the road
Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 1
hrs-2 hrs from the road
2.1.2 Control Area

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

Impact evaluation has used both "with/without" and before and after - data. The impact
was compared between the project and control areas over time in settlement level. This
measure is a double difference, first measure change over time in the treatment group
and in the control group (using baseline and end line data), and then comparing the
relative difference in change.
1. Single difference comparisons: Single difference comparisons can be either
reflexive (before and after) comparisons that track gains solely in project areas, or with
and without comparisons that take single differences in mean outcomes between
participants and non-participants using cross sectional data. Baseline data and cross
sectional data were the source of comparison.
2. Double difference: Double difference (DD) (difference in difference) a first difference
is taken between outcomes in the project areas after the program and before it.
Indicators
This study has concentrated on the analysis of 60 indicators suggested in TOR. These
indicators are categorized into five major groups of indicators such as transport
(5)
indicators; non-agriculture activities indicator, income and expenditure indicators, and

entrepreneurship indicator; education indicators and health indicators. (See attached
TOR).
2.2.2 Qualitative Survey
Qualitative survey includes focus group discussion (FGD) that was conducted in each
sampled villages to gain additional insights and to verify/augment quantitative survey
groups. This technique provided habitation level information including the information of
road placement. Both cross sectional and longitudinal data of socio-economic condition
volume of traffic in a normal day, people's view towards RAIDP roads were also asked to
people to substitute the limitation of baseline data.
2.3 The Sample Design
The sample was designed to facilitate comparative study between project areas
(treatment) and control villages. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of RAIDP
road projects in the household and community level. Theoretically, comparison of with or
without project in similar social condition is significant. Variations in social settings do not
provide sufficient ground for comparability. Therefore, this survey has utilized the method
of segregating the total respondents into two groups: people of the project area and
people of the control area (See Annex-1).
Sample size
The sampling method was based on a quasi-randomized design. Multi-staged sampling
was employed within the sampled districts and there were two sets of primary sample
units (PSUs): treatment PSUs and control PSUs. This impact study was conducted in the
same settlement of baseline survey. Original households were not found out, and then
alternative households from the same settlement were selected representing all
caste/ethnic groups and economic classes.
Multi- Stage Quasi- randomized design
Stage 1:
Selecting one road from each district containing 20 roads from 34 roads in 20
RAIDP districts
Stage 2: Total 40 PSUs, 2 PSUs from each road for project and control areas
separately.
Stage 3: 20 sampled households, 15 for project and 5 for control area
2.4 Data Sources

Various pre-existing data sources such as baseline study reports, remedial action plan,
previous social screening reports, local and district level archrivals were used for impact
study. The following survey tools were employed to gather the primary data:
1. Structured Questionnaire
A structured questionnaire was administered, which includes the following issues: i)
socio-demographic including health and education status of the surveyed households; ii)
transportation indicators iii) non-agricultural activities iv) income, expenditure, and
entrepreneurship indicator v). Survey questionnaire of baseline survey could not used
as it is. Baseline questionnaire seems like dummy table or they were not in the form of
questions. Therefore, the earlier questionnaire was modified without losing the content of
baseline questionnaire.
(6)
2. FGD with the community people

Focus group discussions were organized in each survey zone. Local road executive
members, personnel from local transportation, shop keepers, staff of health institution,
school teacher and other from different sector were the participants of the focus group
discussion.
3. Accessibility and Traffic Flow Survey
Consultant conducted traffic counts along the sample road. These traffic counts provided
a measure of the volume and composition of traffic passing on the roads. Traffic counts
entail directional count of passenger vehicles (car, buses, micro bus, etc) and freight
vehicle (truck) including non-motorized vehicles. Traffic count was held for twelve hours.
Supplementary information was also gathered from local syndicates and FGD.
2.5 Data Management

Once the completed questionnaires were brought back to the office of RAIDP, welltrained statistician edited all filled-in questionnaires, and assigned coding categories as
required before the data were computerized. Then, the quantitative data collected
through the survey questionnaires were computerized by statistician using SPSS.
Barring an exception to a few, the general quality of the survey responses was found to
be good. Data cleaning was done by meticulously looking at inconsistencies in the
responses. Simple statistical tools such as frequency distributions mean and
percentages have been used to organize or summarize the quantitative data.
Qualitative data were analyzed by the consultant himself. He did it using thematic
classification system.
Research Process
This study has properly investigated the transport indicators and identified the possible
impacts, in the field of non-agriculture activities, income, expenditure and
entrepreneurship indicator, education indicators, health indicators (See TOR).
Relevant project documents were reviewed in the earlier stage of the research. Two
meetings were carried out with RAIDP personnel and World Bank representative in
research designing phase. First meeting was held in July 29, 2011 and next one was
carried out in August 19, 2011. Former meeting decided sample size and PSU and were
discussed the shortcoming of baseline survey conducted in 2006/07. Second meeting
had exclusively discussed on research tools prepared by consultant. Research tools
prepared for impact study were presented and discussed during the meeting and
participants commented and gave feedback on it. Research tools were revised according
to feedback made by participants. After the designing the full-fledged research tools and
evaluation methodology a pilot survey was conducted in Nuwakot district (TrisuliDeurali-Meghang Road) taking a small sample size where research tools (Household
questionnaire, checklist of focus group discussion, traffic survey checklist) were tested.
On the basis of pilot survey research tools were modified and a brief report was prepared
and submitted to RAIDP. Four orientation programs for enumerators and SDCs/SSDCs
were organized in RAIDP clusters in different dates of October and November, 2011
(See Annex-2). All enumerators were hired from respective district. After the completion
of orientations for enumerators, they were deputed to respective district for data
collection. Fieldwork for impact evaluation was held from 17 October, 2011 to 30
November 2011.
The study result sharing workshop was held in March 1, 2012 after the submission of
final draft report. Participants of the workshop were from Ministry of Local development,
DoLIDAR, RAIDP, District Development Officers and Divisional Engineers from the
(7)
selected district. Comments and suggestions come from the workshop were also
incorporated in the final report.
2.2.1 Limitation of Impact Study
There are several methodological flaws in baseline data (original survey) such as lack
of location of original respondents and places, lack of comparable data both treatment
and control groups, lacking of defined PSU. Despite the limitation of the baseline data,
this impact study has tried to use them for comparison as far as possible.
The original baseline study was based on the highly influential area of the roads
without considering the zone of influences; therefore, this impact study has followed
the same place where baseline was conducted.
Control villages were also selected without considering level of accessibility to main
road network, basic economic and social facilities. Some of the control villages of
baseline survey were located closed to main high way. This hindered to compare
control and program area socio-economic conditions. In such cases, alternative
control villages were selected in few places.
Due to limitations of baseline data this study has focused on cross sectional data. In
some cases, longitudinal data have been used collected from focus group discussion
and DDCs and RAIDP office records.
Some modification and readjustment are made on baseline questionnaire in order to
incorporate output indicators of RAIDP roads.
RAIDP has been scaled up with the additional financing. Present impact study is only
for the roads/ districts cover under the original financing. It has not covered other
components of RAIDP except rural roads
In Mahottari, improvement of RAIDP roads did not happen due to local level disputes
and security reason. However, a road from Mahottari was selected for this study to
represent all RAIDP district under the impact study.
(8)
CHAPTER III
3. GENERAL INFORMATION OF SURVEY ROADS
3.1 Demography
This impact study survey was conducted in 20 roads from 20 RAIDP original districts. Of
the 2523 sample population, men constitute more than 4.74% (52.37) followed by
women (47.63%) (See table 3.1). Male population is seen higher both program and
control area.
Average household size in project area and control villages was 6.24 and 6.6
respectively which is higher than national level household size (5.2). Between 2006/07
and 2011, average family size of project area has slightly decreased (See table 3.1).
Except Bardiya, Kapilvastu and Mahottari, in all sample districts, average household size
has decreased than baseline survey, 2006/07.
Table 3.1 Average household size of the project area

S. N.
District
Roads
1
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
2
Bardiya
Rajapur Ring Road
3
Banke
Titeriya-Sonpur
4
Salyan
Khalanga-Hospital-Simkharka
5
Kapilbastu
Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok
6
Rupandehi
Madhauliya-Bhutaha
7
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
8
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadewa
9
Syangja
Biruwa-Rangkhola
10
Kaski
Rakhi-Mujure
11
Makawanpur
Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang
12
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda
13
Nuwakot
Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang
14
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
15
Rautahat
Auraiya- Himalibas
16
Sarlahi
Karmaiya-Hathiwol
17
Mahottari
Matihani_pipra
18
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Khairahani
19
Siraha
Mirchaya-Siraha
20
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
Total
Source: Baseline Survey, 2007 and Field Survey, 2011
Before
9.15
5.55
10.7
7.2
7.6
6.45
10.25
6.8
7.25
7.05
10.6
7
11.6
7.47
8.6
10.45
7.25
5.75
7.85
6.85
7.2
After
8.46
5.93
6.06
5.73
8.26
6
5.4
4.93
5.8
5.33
5.53
5.13
6.93
6.06
5
6.53
7.66
6.86
7.13
6
6.24
Table 3.1 shows that average household size in Bardiya, Makawanpur, Banke, Sarlahi
and Nawalparasi has significantly decreased during the period of 2006/07 and 2011. In
Kailali and Kapilbastu average family size is seen higher than other districts due to joint
family system among the Rana Tharu and Muslim respectively. Declining household size
may be due to urbanization process accelerated by the RAIDP interventions and other
factors.
Sex composition of a population has multiple socio-economic implications for the
development of a region. The table 3.2 presents sex composition of sample households.
(9)
Table 3.2 Sex composition by project area and control villages

Sex
Male
Population
%
Female
Population
%
Total
Population
%
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
Zone of influence
Project area
Control area
984
342
52.56
51.82
888
318
47.44
48.18
1872
660
100.00
100.00
Total population
1326
52.37
1206
47.63
2532
100.00
Population of the sample households has been classified into four broader age groups
namely non-school going age, school going age, economically active population and old
age population. Among the broader age groups, one sees that 65.92 percent of
population is in 15-59 age groups. The population distribution by age is presented in
table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Age composition by project areas and control villages
Zone of influence
Program
Control
area
area
104
31
5.56
4.70
400
132
21.37
20.00
1222
447
65.28
67.73
146
50
7.80
7.58
1872
660
100.00
100.00
Age interval
Below 5 years
5 - 14
15 - 59
60 and above
Total
Population
%
Population
%
Population
%
Population
%
Population
%
Total popn.
135
5.33
532
21.01
1669
65.92
196
7.74
2532
100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
3.2 Caste and Ethnicity

This study has made attempt to include the respondents from different caste and ethnic
groups with a view to represent them in sample. However, the proportion of the sample
does not actually represent the proportion at national level because of the predominance
of particular caste and ethnic groups at the local level sample sites of the study.
The population of the sample area has classified into seven broader categories based on
caste and ethnicity. Table 3.4 shows that the highest population in project area villages is
hill high caste followed by hill Janajati, Tarai Dalit, Tarai caste, Musalman, Tarai Janajati
and hill Dalit respectively. In control villages, the largest population was hill Janajati
followed by Tarai Dalit, hill high caste, Tarai caste, Musalman, hill Dalit and Tarai
Janajati respectively.
(10)
Table 3.4: Population distribution by caste/ethnicity in sample area

Caste/Ethnic Groups
Project area
No
High hill caste

Hill Janajati
Tarai Dalit
Tarai caste
Musalman
Tarai Janajati
Hill Dalits
Total
Control Area
%
558
474
327
242
140
78
53
1872
No
29.81
25.32
17.47
12.93
7.48
4.17
2.83
100.00
%
119
218
133
80
54
21
35
660
18.03
33.03
20.15
12.12
8.18
3.18
5.30
100.00
Total
No
%
677
692
460
322
194
99
88
2532
26.74
27.33
18.17
12.72
7.66
3.91
3.48
100.00
In hill districts, hill high caste is major groups of beneficiary (54%) followed by hill
Janajati (40%) and hill dalit (6%) respectively. However, of the total sample household
population Tarai dalit is seen largest population (30%) in Tarai followed by Tarai caste
group (22%), hill Janajati (15%), hill high caste (13%), Musalman (13%), Tarai Janajati
(7%) and hill dalit less than one percent respectively. This indicates that all social groups
of the sample households of project area have transportation access to go to nearest
markets and other social institutions. Access of sample households to roads by caste
and ethnicity in terms of region has been presented in 5.5 (See Annex 3).
Table 5.5 Population distributions of sample households by caste and ethnicity
in project area
Program area -Tarai Districts
Groups
Population
141
Hill high Caste
7
Hill Dalits
165
Hill Janajati
242
Terai caste
327
Terai Dalit
78
Terai Janajati
140
Musalman
1100
Total
Program area- Hill Districts

%
12.82
0.63
15
22
29.73
7.1
12.72
100
(11)
Population
417
46
309
0
0
0
0
772
%
54
6
40
0
0
0
0
100
CHAPTER IV
4.
MAJOR FINDINGS
4. 1 Traffic Count and Transportation Indicators

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

day
Number of sample roads
Average
43
890
109
190
392
1323
2
3
16
198
5
1
10
4.3
19
46.8
18
6.1
19
10.0
18
21.8
14
94.5
2
1.0
2
1.5
4
4.0
12
16.5
1
5.0
1
1.0
3172
20
158.6
Note: Traffic survey was conducted in starting point of RAIDP roads it was held on different dates
of the months of October and November, 2011 from 6 am to 6 pm.
4.1.1 Motorized and Non-motorized Vehicles in RAIDP Roads

Between 2006/07 and 2011 number of all types of vehicles has increased. Overall
growth of motorized vehicles is 37 percent. Similarly, 33 percent increment is seen of
non-motorized vehicles during the same period. Increase rate of vehicles is varied by
districts. Table 4.2 shows that motorized vehicles are augmented by 63 percent in
Nuwakot district while number of vehicles is decreased in Mahottari district because of
not upgrading RAIDP road. According to FGD, factional politics at local level and
insecurity were the major causes of not implementation of RAIDP road in Mahottari.
Among the vehicles, jeep/car/taxi is increased by 52 percent followed by truck (44%),
motorcycle (42%), bus (35%) and tractor (20%) respectively (See Annex 4). Of the total
upgraded sample RAIDP roads, high traffic volume is seen in Kailali district (KhutiyaMatiyari road) and lowest in Rasuwa district (See table 4.2). Of the non-motorized
vehicles, bicycles share more than 86 percent of the total.
(12)
Table 4.2 Number of vehicles before and after RAIDP Road

District
Motorized vehicle
Before
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Kapilvastu
Rupandehi
Nawalparasi
Palpa
Rasuwa
Kaski
Syangja
Dhading
Nuwakot
Makawanpur
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari*
Dhanusa
Siraha
Udayapur
80
74
69
37
72
114
63
65
9
66
16
32
44
28
64
26
20
113
30
18
1040
After
193
138
97
42
88
146
111
86
9
89
31
82
118
50
80
39
3
167
49
28
1646
Non-motorized
vehicles
Before
70
96
67
0
80
64
59
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
100
103
82
110
117
66
1020
Increased percent
After
111
128
87
0
79
90
93
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
116
197
44
333
152
89
1526
Motorized
59
46
29
12
18
22
43
24
0
26
48
61
63
44
20
33
0
32
39
35
37
Nonmotorized
37
25
23
0
0
29
37
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
14
48
-86
70
23
26
33
Source: Districts Records, RAIDP Office Records, 2011, Traffic Survey and FGD, 2011
Note: Non-motorized Vehicles includes bicycle, animal cart, rickshaw
* RAIDP road upgrading was not held due to security and local dispute reasons in Mahottari
Traffic Unit
Various traffic volumes have been quantified in terms of a standard traffic unit transport
unit (TU) or passenger car unit (PCU). Traffic volume is seen higher in Janakpur followed
by Rupandehi and Nawal parasi districts (See Table 4.3). Lowest volume of traffic is
seen in Rasuwa district. Traffic volume is higher in Tarai districts than hill districts.
Average traffic volume unit of RAIDP roads is 180. Volume of traffic by its type and roads
has presented in Annex 4a.
Table 4.3 Traffic units by districts
Districts
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Kapilbastu
Rupandehi
Nawalparasi
Palpa
Rasuwa
Kaski
Syangya
Roads
Khutiya-Matiyari
Rajapur Ring Road
Titihiriy-Sonapur
Khalangga
Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok
Madhauliya-Bhutaha
Daldle-Dhauwadi
Banstari-Jhadewa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
Rakhi-Mujure
Rangkhola-Biruwa
(13)
Traffic units
227.5
310
231
43.5
251
337.5
276.5
89.5
10
86.5
64
Dhading
Nuwakot
Makwanpur
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Siraha
Udayapur
Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang
Auriya-Himalibas
Karmaiya-Hathiol
Matihani-Pipara
Janakpur-Khairahani
Mirchaiya-Siraha
Gaighat-Beltar
Total
115.5
83
37.5
214.5
195
213.5
404
293
123.5
3606.5
Source field Survey: 2011
4.2 Local Fare by Vehicles

Travel time, according to FGD, has come down 20-50 percent in the period of five years.
Travel cost was varied according to type of vehicles. Average bus fare per kilometer was
Rs. 3.6. Average length of sampled road is 9.3 km.
Table 4.4 Mean Transportation fare by vehicles and distance
Types of Vehicles
Fare for
Passenger
Distance in KM
No
Jeep/Sumo
Bus/Minibus
Truck/minitruck
Tanga/carriage
Rickshaw
Bullock cart
Taxi
Ambulance
Total
43
109
190
2
3
198
5
1
551
Mean
14.4
13.8
14.2
6.6
4
12.9
5
5
9.3
No
43
109
4
2
3
1
5
1
168
Mean
89.2
49.4
67.5
32.5
26.7
300
740
4500
Per km
fare (Rs)
6
3.6
4.75
4.9
7
23
150
900
Bus fare has slightly increased than baseline survey. Per kilometer bus fare was 2.86
rupees in 2006/07 (Baseline Report, 2007) and now it has reached 3.6 rupees per
kilometer in 2011. This fare is more or less the same as fixed by the government of
Nepal for rural roads. Jeep/sumo fare is 40 percent expensive than bus (see table 4.4).
Travel cost in all RAIDP remained relatively upward due to increased price of fuel
internationally.
Total 775 motorized and non-motorized vehicles were operated in the sample RAIDP
roads carrying goods. Average weight carried by vehicles was 1875.5 kg. Many
residents of RAIDP road in Tarai use bicycles to import and export small amount of
commodity.
(14)
Table 4.5 Mean number of weight of goods carried by vehicles
Truck/Minitruck/Triper
186
Quantity of
goods (KG)
Mean
3809.1
Tractor
392
1854.1
Cart
197
92.4
775
1875.5
Types of vehicle
Total
Source: Traffic Survey, 2011
Number
Distance
14.3
12.0
12.9
12.8
Travel Frequency to Market

Between 2006/2007 and 2011, the percent of going market on foot has come down into
zero percent in project area. However, at the same time the percent of going to market
on foot in control village has increased. Number of motorcycle users for marketing has
increased both project and control areas. Interestingly, jeep user has increased by six
percent in project area and two percent in control area (See Table 4.6).
Table 4.6 Average travel frequency by mode of transport
Mode of Transport
Project area
Control Area
Before (%)
After (%)
Before (%)
On foot
5
0
13
Bus
62
58
56
Motorcycle
3
14
3
Bicycle
24
22
18
Jeep
0
6
0
Missing
6
0
10
Total
100
100
100
Source: Baseline Survey, 2006/07 pp 5 &6, Impact Survey, 2011
After (%)
28
46
6
18
2
0
100
Table 4.6 indicates that mode of transport for market town has increased in project area.
However, the situation in control area has declined compared to baseline survey.
4.3 Road wise travel time before and after project

Travel time has significantly decreased in most of the surveyed roads after the RAIDP
intervention. Table 4.5 shows that traveling time for market centre, hospitals and higher
education centre has reduced by 46%, 50%, and 50% respectively. Travel time has
decreased by 81% in Rautahat and 79% in Salyan. There is no change on travel time in
Kailali and Mahottari (See Table 4.7).
(15)
Table 4.7 Road wise travel time and time to key facilities before
and after RAIDP road upgrading
Name of
Districts
Name of Roads
Travel Time
(hrs)
Before
After
Time for
market center
(hrs)
Time for
hospital (hrs)
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Time for
higher
education
(hrs)
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
Bardiya
Rajapur Ring Road
2.2
0.7
0.3
3.1
1.8
3.1
1.8
Banke
Titiriya MRM
1.1
0.5
1.8
0.7
1.6
0.8
1.6
0.8
Salyan
Khalanga-Simkharka
2.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
3.3
1.8
3.3
1.8
Kapilbastu
Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchok
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
Palpa
Banstari-Jhadewa
1.5
1.5
0.75
0.8
1.5
Rupandehi
Madhauliya-Bhutaha
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dawadi
1.5
Syanja
Rangkhola-Biruwa
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Kaski
Rakhi-Mujure
3.2
1.2
0.7
1.7
0.9
1.2
0.7
Makawanpur
Kulekhani-Humanebhanjayang
0.75
0.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
Dhadding
Nuwakot
Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
2.5
0.6
0.6
Rautahat
Himalibas-Auriya
2.7
0.5
1.3
0.7
1.4
1.4
Sarlahi
Karmaiya-Hathol
1.5
0.75
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Khariyani
Siraha
Siraha-Mirchaiya
Mahottari
Matiyani-Piparara-Brahmapur
Udayapur
Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara
Average hours for travel
0.75
0.75
0.8
0.75
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.8
0.7
0.5
1.7
0.8
1.7
0.8
0.8
1.4
0.76
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.93
% of travel time reduction
60
46
50
Source: RAIDP Records and Field Survey, 2011.

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

Table 4.8 shows that more than 71 percent vehicles owned by the respondents are nonmotorized in type. Of the motorized vehicles, number of motorcycles is highest followed
by truck, tractor, bus and minibus. If we divide the vehicles among the sample
households, there would be more than one vehicle (both motorized and non-motorized)
to each household.
(16)
50
Table 4.8 Vehicle Ownership across sample households

and utilization pattern in project area
Type of
Vehicle
Total
No.
Non-motorized
transport*
Motorcycles
Bus
Tractor
Truck
Minibus
Total
233
63
4
10
15
1
328
Purpose
Used in
Domestic
Commercial
Both
Within
project
area
193
45
2
3
3
1
247
4
9
1
5
10
0
29
38
9
1
2
2
0
52
86
30
3
7
8
1
135
Outside
project
area
Both
Average per
day trip in
project area
31
8
1
2
4
0
46
118
25
0
1
3
0
147
4
3
2
4
8
1
4

*Bicycle and bullock cart
There is no data of baseline survey (2006/07) regarding the vehicle ownership by the
respondents. However, participants of FGDs reported that number of motorcycle owners
has increased after the upgrading of RAIDP roads. After the upgrading of the RAIDP
roads some residents of project area were encouraged to invest motorized vehicles. For
example, 14 residents of Trisuli-Mehang-Deurali road (Nuwakot) have bought trucks
which are operated in the project area for transporting goods and passengers.
Mode of Transportation for the residents
Residents of the sample roads go to various destinations using different means of
transportation. As reported in the field, both male female from different social groups
used public bus to go to nearest towns, health centre and hospitals. However, only
males were found going to government office and work place. Similarly, bicycles or
walking is common for the visiting of rural market. Average travel distance in project area
was 13.3 km (See Table 4.9). Travels have made for various purposes such as
marketing, job, business studying and treatment.
Table 4.9 Number of family member going outside for work and
vehicle type used for travel in project area
Destination
Mode of transportation
Nearest Town
Rural Market
Gov Office
Work place
School
College
Health centre
Hospital
Bus/bicycle/byke/jeep
Foot/bicycles/byke/bus/jeep
Foot/bus/ibicycle
Foot/bicycle/byke/bus
Foot/bicycle/byke/bus
Foot/Bicycles/bus/byke
Foot/Bus/bicycle/byke
Foot/Bus
Frequency
Traveled by
Total
trips
66
8
21
183
17
47
41
Male/Female
Male/Female
Male
Male
Male/Female
MaleFemale
Male/female
Male/Female
816
1285
200
535
3094
423
281
173
Travel
distance
(km)
19.6
1.4
2.2
98.7
1.9
3
11.7
13.3
Travel
time
(hrs)
1.2
0.26
0.41
3.4
0.45
0.8
0.6
0.85
Purpose
Marketing
Marketing
Job
Business
Study
Study
Treatment
Treatment
Unlike to project area, residents of control villages have spent more time to travel from
their house. They go to nearest road on foot and then they get public transportation.
Travel frequency, total travel trips in control villages is low compared to project area.
(17)
Table 4.10 Number of family member going outside for work

and vehicle type used for travel in control villages
Destination
Mode of
transportation
Nearest Town
Foot/Bus
Rural Market
Foot
Gov Office
Foot/Bus
Work place
Foot
School
Foot
College
Foot/Bus
Health centre
Foot
Hospital
Foot/Bus
Frequency
Traveled by
Total
trips
Travel
distance (km)
Travel
time (hrs)
Purpose
23
32
7
5
49
7
18
10
Male
Both
Both
Male
Male/Female
Female/male
Female/male
Male/female
253
722
121
210
975
132
70
38
19.13
2.2
24.4
3.9
2.8
27.9
2.8
22.9
1.5
0.48
2.7
0.75
0.75
1.5
0.61
2.3
Buying
Other
Job
Labor work
Study
Study
Treatment
Treatment
Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show travel time and travel distance in project and control areas.
Having no baseline data of travel time, it is difficult to say precisely how much travel time
has declined in project area. Participants of FGDs reported that travel time has
significantly declined after the upgrading the roads. According to them, travel time has
declined 20 to 50 percent in Project area. As reported in the field survey, with the decline
of travel time frequency of travel trips has increased.
4.4 Distance and Travel Time to the nearest all Season Roads
Average distance of road from the project area has classified on the basis of walking
time such as 0-30 minutes, 31 minutes to 2 hours, 2-4 hours, more than 4 hours. The
distance of respondents' households to nearest all season roads is in the range of 0 to
more than four hours. Forty-three percent households are located in the distance of 31
minutes to 2 hours from the all season roads. Similarly, 29 percent households have
reached the nearest all season roads within 0 -30 minutes. Households having access
to 2- 4 hours to arrive at nearest all season roads is 23 percent. Five percent households
have got to nearest all season roads more than four hours (See Table 4.11).
Table 4.11 Average distance to road
Districts
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Kapilbastu
Nawalparasi
Rupandehi
Palpa
Kaski
Syangja
Dhading
Makawanpur
Rasuwa
Nuwakot
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Siraha
Udayapur
Total %
0-30 m
33
100
33
40
0
47
0
0
13
7
80
7
93
47
0
53
20
0
7
0
29
31 m to 2 hrs
67
0
67
25
0
53
73
20
54
66
0
27
0
26
100
47
67
100
27
40
43
(18)
2-4 hrs
0
0
0
10
100
0
27
80
20
20
20
33
7
27
0
0
13
0
66
40
23
More than 4 hrs

0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
13
7
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
5
People living within four hours of walking distance to all season roads have increased by
cent percent in eleven Tarai districts and four in hill districts. Percent of increment in
Salyan, Syangja and Udyapur is 19%, 18%, and 14% respectively. However,
accessibility of people living within four hours walking distance to all season roads in
Kaski and Makawanpur has decreased (See Table 4.12)
Table 4.12 Accessibility of people living within four hours walking
distance to all season roads
S.N.
Increased %
Districts
Before (2006) (%)
After (2011) (%)
1
100
Kailali
5
0
2
100
Bardiya
4
0
3
100
Banke
0
0
4
19
Salyan
43.6
25
5
100
Kapilbastu
0
0
6
100
Nawalparasi
9
0
7
100
Rupandehi
1.8
0
8
100
Palpa
8
0
9
-4
Kaski
9.28
13
10
18
Syangja
25
7
11
100
Dhading
36
0
12
-28
Makawanpur
5
33
13
100
Rasuwa
23
0
14
100
Nuwakot
32.9
0
15
100
Rautahat
6
0
16
100
Sarlahi
6.03
0
17
100
Mahottari
6.03
0
18
100
Dhanusa
0
0
19
100
Siraha
0
0
20
13.65
Udayapur
33.65
20
Source: Field Survey, 2011 and Preliminary Accessibility Profile of Districts of Nepal, 2006.
Trip per month to nearest road and nearest bus stop is 12.22 and 12.10 by project area
sample households (See Annex 5 & 6). Minimum and maximum trip to market have in
the range of 2 to 28.46 in a month.
Ninety percent residents of the control area spend substantial amount of time to get the
nearest road from their settlements. In project area, spatial mobility of residents has
increased after the RAIDP intervention because of knowledge enhanced about the
market opportunities, employment and so on.
(19)
CHAPTER V
5.1 AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION

5.1.2 Transportation for Farm Inputs
Bus is common means of transportation for getting farm inputs in project area. The
transport cost for improved seed and fertilizer is 0.85 and 0.81 paisa per kg respectively.
Urea, DAP and potash were major type of chemical fertilizers applied by the sample
households. Generally, vehicles do not charge for pesticides transportation being a small
bottle, therefore travel cost of passenger is added as pesticide transportation fare (See
Table 5.1). According to respondents, transportation cost for farm input has decreased
by 15 to 20 percent in project area. Transportation cost of chemical fertilizer has
decreased by 75% in Nuwakot. As discussed in FGD transportation cost of a sack of
fertilizer (50 kg) was 200 rupees. Now the transportation cost has declined in 50 rupees
per sack.
Table 5.1 Mode of transport used for getting farm inputs in project area villages
Farm input
Mode of
transport
Market
distance(km)
Improve
seeds
Bus
Fertilizers
Bus
insecticides
Bus
Travel time
one way(hrs)
16.48
15.89
12.68
1.13
1.09
0.89
No of
trips
80
159
36
Per unit
transport
cost
0.85
0.81
32.17
Data presented in table 5.1 came from household survey. General trend is that residents
of the project area have brought one or two sacks of fertilizer, some kilograms of
improved seeds and small bottles of pesticides at a time while traveling to nearest town.
In such a situation they bring agricultural inputs along with passenger bus. However, as
observed in the field and reported in the FGD residents also use other means of
transportation such as truck, tractor, bullock cart if they need huge quantity of fertilizer. In
some cases bicycle is used to transport chemical fertilizer.
In control villages, transportation cost for farm input is relatively dearer. Sample
households from control villages have to pay Rs 1.36 per kg while transporting chemical
fertilizer to their farm land (See Table 5.2). In the hill districts of control villages, farm
inputs are transported by men. However, bicycle and bullock cart are means of transport
in control villages of Tarai.
Table 5.2 Mode of transport used for getting farm inputs in Control villages
Farm input
Improve
seeds
Mode of transport
Bicycle
Man/bicycles/bullock
Fertilizers
cart
insecticides
Bicycle
Market
distance(km)
Travel time
one
way(hrs)
No of
trips
4.92
0.65
16
5.33
12.68
1.55
1.25
32
4
1.36
0
(20)
Per unit
transport cost
Table 5.1 and 5.2 clearly show that transportation facilities through RAIDP road has
increased total trips to go market and transport cost of farm input has reduced by more
than 37 percent.
Use of Purchased Inputs
Percentage of chemical fertilizer and average consumption of fertilizer and improved
seeds is slightly higher in project area than control villages. Agricultural households have
used improved seeds in selected crops such as paddy, wheat and vegetables.
Table 5.3 Use of purchased inputs in the project and control areas
Project area
Percent of
Average
HH
consumption (kg)
109
Fertilizer
74
Pesticide
21
40
Seeds
34
Input
Control Area
Average
Percent of HH
consumption (kg)
101
66
13
24
31
5.2 Agriculture Productivity Indicators

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

Paddy, maize, wheat, millet, potato, oil seeds, pulses and different kinds of vegetables
are major crops and cash crops grown in the survey villages. Annex tables (7-14) show
the percent of the agricultural households cultivating selected crops. The proportion of
households cultivating paddy is 76%, wheat 41 %, maize 55%, millet 20%, potato 27%,
oil seeds 31.%, pluses 21% and vegetables 93%. Paddy, maize, wheat, millet, potato,
pluses, oil seeds oil and vegetables were grown in 143.49 ha, 54.94 ha, 52.22 ha, 14.84
ha, 6.47 ha, 41.54 ha, 23.44 ha and 10.31 ha respectively in project area (See Annex 8
to 15).
Production of main crops has enormously increased than baseline study to present both
in control and project area. Table 5.4 presents the average production of major crops
before project and after project.
(21)
Table 5.4 Mean production of major cereal crops before and after project (kg)
Crops
Mean value project area
Mean Value Control Villages
Before
After
Before
Paddy
339
1834
327
HH
280
229
247
Maize
113
646
105
HH
50
165
60
Wheat
192
826
191
No
162
122
153
Source: Baseline Study; 2006/07 pp 4-5 and Impact study, 2011.
After
2154
81
646
49
955
54
Table 5.4 shows that average production of paddy, wheat and maize have increased 4 to
5 times more than baseline study (2006/07). Reasons of production increased may be
several such as timely monsoon, easy access to agricultural inputs and market access
through RAIDP road connection, improvement of irrigation facilities, etc.
Much of the production of food staples in the study area is produced both for domestic
use and for market. Small quantities of cereal crops are sold even by the food deficient
household during harvesting time to arrange the household expenses. Marketed crops
such as potato, oil seeds, pulses, fruits and vegetables are clearly important sources of
income for farm household. More than 96 percent of the sample households from project
area were found growing more or less vegetable crops in their garden. Vegetable
farming (both seasonal and off seasonal) is very common in all project area. More
specifically, residents of Makawanpur, Dhading, Rautahat and Kailali districts have
grown more vegetables for market than other districts. Residents under the AuriyaHimalibas road of Rautahat have grown the vegetables targeting to the market of
Kathmandu valley. As mentioned in the FGD, whole sellers from Kalimati (Kathmandu)
vegetable market directly collect the vegetables from farm gate of sample households in
Rautahat. Similarly, oil seeds from Bardiya and potato from Rasuwa are also grown for
targeting the Kathmandu market as well as domestic consumption. As reported in
Syangja and Palpa, ginger and citrus are exported in large amount from Rankhola Biruwa and Banstari-Jhadewa roads. In the group discussion, it was informed that
around NRs 50 million citrus and ginger exported by local farmers. Commonly grown
crops frequency, disposition and yield estimates from survey household for the study
area is reported in Tables 5.5 and 5.6.
Table 5.5 Dispensation of crops grown in project area villages
No of
HH consumption
HH
(% of growing crops)
Paddy
229
58.43
Maize
165
81.12
Wheat
122
72.61
Millet
60
68.73
Potato
81
35.21
Mustard
94
86.67
Pulses
62
75.60
Vegetables
288
58.17
Fruits
9
27.28
Crops
(22)
Grown for sale (%)

41.57
18.88
27.39
31.27
64.79
13.33
24.40
41.83
72.72
Agricultural output
sold/HH (kg)
2312.00
719.00
790.00
407.00
1108.00
229.00
165.00
597.00
2043.00
Table 5.6 Dispensation of crops grown in control villages

Crops
No of HH
Paddy
71
Maize
49
Wheat
54
Millet
26
Potato
26
Mustard
32
Pulses
20
Vegetables
94
Fruits
1
HH consumption
(% of growing crops)
64.94
84.48
59.88
79.13
43.18
79.52
62.80
74.69
0.00
Grown for sale

(%)
35.06
15.52
40.12
20.87
56.82
20.48
37.20
25.31
100.00
Agricultural output
sold/HH (kg)
1981.00
615.00
1294.00
289.00
1125.00
143.00
186.00
410.00
100.00
Tables 5.5 and 5.6 clearly show that residents of project area have grown more crops for
market than control villages. Market network and transportation facilities, according to
FGDs, have encouraged the residents to grow more for market in the project area.
Irrigation
Nearly 44 percent of the sample households have irrigated land in project area. Irrigation
data of pre-project are not available. Therefore, it is difficult to speculate how much
irrigated land increased in post-project period. However, as reported from FGDs
indicates that installers of deep tube well have increased in some Tarai districts for last
five years.
Table 5.7 Share of irrigated land in project area and control area
Sector
Total land (ha)
Project area
171.52
Control area
75.04
Total
246.56
Irrigated land (ha)

74.77
21.41
96.17
Percent
43.59
28.53
39.01
Use of Farm Equipment

Farming practices were mixed up with respect to technology. Tractor and thresher
machine are one of major farm technologies in Tarai districts. Percentage of deep tube
well, tractor and thresher were slightly higher in project area than control villages.
However, sample households in the hills were found using hand tools, plough and oxen
power as farm technology.
Table 5.8 Farming practice with respect to technology used
by farmers in the project area
Sample using
Deep Tube Well

Project
Control
20
74
Farmers using
Percent of
sample
24.66
20
Tractor
Project Control
30
104
34.67
30
Thresher
Project
Control
29
102
34
29
5.4 Means of Transportation for Agricultural Products

Trucks and tractors are very common means of transportation for agricultural products in
project area and bullock cart was found popular among the control villages of Tarai.
Bicycles and motorcycles were not only use for day today travel but also use for
transporting petty agriculture and market commodities from one place to another.
(23)
Respondents reported that on the improvement of road, tractors have increasingly

available in project area and many tractor owners have rented out their services to
farmers for a fee. Table 5.9 below reports the mode of transportation for supply
agricultural commodities in the village.
Table 5.9 Mode of Transport for selling agricultural products in project area
Major crops
Mode of
transport
Food grain
Truck/tractors
Pulses
Truck/tractors
Potato
Truck
Oilseeds
Truck
Cash crop
Bus
Fruits
Bus
Vegetables
Home market
Market mean
distance(km)
4.97
5.5
13.92
4.33
14.33
14
0
Travel
time(hrs)
1.5
1.5
1
1.83
0.9
0.86
0
Total
trips
90
17
46
4
42
27
28
Transportation
cost/ per quintal
56.11
56.36
135.75
46.67
150.00
50.00
0.00
Travel time and travel costs data were taken from household survey and FGD. As
reported in various places of project area 20-50 percent of transportation cost for
supplying agricultural commodities has declined after the improvement of RAIDP roads.
Travel cost and traveling time is not the same for all roads of RAIDP. Fare of
trucks/tractors varied from one season to another and one district to another in the hill
districts. In bound and out bound of truck fare is also different in Palpa district. For
example, trucks charge full fare if the trucks are booked timely while transporting from
Butwal to Bastari-Jhadewa road. If empty trucks are going down or if truck was already
booked, and if still remained surplus capacity, then one could bargain, and thus the rate
might fall for the additional capacity. A truck driver in Banstari-Jhadewa road says that
they transport fifty percent below fare rate if the truck is not booked and it is out bounded
for own destination. According to a driver, running empty truck is better than taking fifty
percent below fare.
In control villages of the hill districts, most of the goods are carried out by men up to
nearest roads while control villages of Tarai use bullock cart and bicycles to transport the
agricultural commodities.
Syangja and Palpa district export ginger and citrus fruits. According to a local estimate,
about 40 million worth of citrus are exported from Syangja district via Rang-Khola Biruwa
Road. A sharp decline of travel fare was reported in Syangja. A participant of FGD told
"British and India armies when they came back home in their vacation used to pay Rs
800 to porters for carrying their goods to reach Biruwa from Rangkhola, now they pay
only 120 rupees for the same destination by bus".
With respect to transport cost, respondents were asked what percentage of their final
sale price was consumed by transport costs. Of farmers who provided a response to this
question, some said that transport costs were zero as they carry their products by their
own bullock cart or bicycles. The average cost among the non-zero responses was
around 2 to 10 percent.
(24)
Table 5.10 Mode of transport for selling agricultural products in control villages
Mode of
transport
Foodgrain
Bullock cart
Pulses
Bullock cart
Potato
Bullock cart
Oilseeds
Bullock cart
Cash crop
Man
Fruits
Man
Vegetables
Bullock cart
Major crops
Market
distance(km)
9.31
9.43
10.5
11
6.67
5
13
Travel
time(minute)
105
116
120
140
105
120
120
Total
trips
78
9
6
3
10
10
14
Transportation
cost/ per quintal
61.56
54.29
66.67
48.33
100
100
80
5.5 Prices of Major Crops in Farm Gate

Table 3.15 shows that prices of all agricultural commodities are higher in farm gate of
project area than control villages. Residents of control village get lower price for their
agricultural products. According to FGD, middlemen have to transport commodity from
control village to nearest road head using local porters and bullock cart. Therefore,
generally middlemen bargain for lower price in the farm gate of control villages. Cereal
crops such as paddy, wheat, maize and millet are produced for both domestic and
market consumption. On the other hand, marketed crops such as oil seeds, pulses,
vegetables, ginger and sugarcane were clearly important sources of income for farm
households. Potatoes were grown almost all the farms for household use and market
product. Average price of agricultural products in farm gate of project area and control
villages have presented in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11 Farm gate prices of key crops (kg)
Crops
Farm gate price
Project Area
Paddy
16.92
Maize
20.87
Wheat
16.75
Millet
13
Mustard
54.4
Pulses
37.67
Potato
9.33
Tomato
35
Ginger
23.25
Control
15
18
16
12
50
35
8
25
20
Middlemen price
Control
Project Area
18.89
17
22.95
20
18.5
18
15.5
14
62
60
40.33
40
11
10
40
30
27
25
Market
Prices
21.14
25
20.87
17.5
72
44
12.83
55
32.5
In addition to cropping questions, households were asked to report on the number of

poultry and livestock they had. Almost 69 percent of 300 households kept some number
of livestock and poultry in project area (See Table 5.12). According to FGD discussions,
poultry farming has tremendously increased in the project area. There were altogether
367 poultry farm in project area and three in control villages. As informed that this was
happened just after the road improvement (See Annex table 16) in project area. Of the
total poultry farms 150 were in project area of Palpa district.
(25)
Table 5.12 Livestock and Poultry Enterprise of the sample Households

in project area & control area
Item
Cattle
Project
Average Number of
Flock/Herd
3
Numbers of Farmer
keeping
208
Percent of total
69
Control
5
76
76
Goat and
sheep
Project Control
3
5
68
190
68
63
Poultry
Project
Pigs
control
13
60
Project
Control
1
2.69
47
96
32
47
14
16
5
14
Except cattle, average livestock holding seems higher in project area than control areas.
Increase of poultry farming is directly associated with RAIDP road improvement.
According to field survey, residents of project area started keeping poultry farm for
market when their access enhanced to transportation facilities.
Wage Rate
Wage rate for agriculture, construction and skill labor has varied from one district to
another. There is similar wage rate for male and female for agricultural works in 14
project area out of 20. In six districts, female wage rate is lower than male. Daily wage
rate for agricultural labor is in the range of 150 -300 rupees (see Annex table 17).
According to field survey lowest wage for agricultural labor is in Banke and highest in
Dhading district.
Number of people working on farm
A remarkable change seen in wage employment in the last five years is probably the
shift in shares of agriculture and non-agriculture sectors. According to FGD discussions,
percent share of agriculture has decreased than before project situation. However, we
can not say exactly how much percent of non- agriculture occupation has increased in
project area due to lack of data of occupational distribution in original survey, 2006/07.
Of the total economically active population in project area and control villages 36.03
percent and 46.80 percent were in agriculture respectively. Remaining nearly 64 percent
from project area and 53 from control villages were in non-agricultural works.
Table 5.13 Number of people working in agriculture and non-agriculture
Main occupation
Agriculture
Non-agriculture
Total
No
%
No
%
No
%
Zone of influence
Program area Control area
382
161
36.04
46.80
678
183
63.96
53.20
968
344
100.00
100.00
Total
515
39.25
797
60.75
1312
100.00
5.6 Transport and agriculture Extension

Of the total household, 38 percent households were found taking the services of
veterinary extension. Table 5.15 shows that 26 percent households were visited
agriculture extension service center at least once a year. Most of the veterinary and
agricultural extension centers are located within one hour distance. Major means of
transportation for visiting the veterinary service centers is bus followed by bicycles in
project area (See table 5.14). However, 71 percent household in control area go
(26)
veterinary center on foot (See Table 5.14). Unlike to veterinary service center, major
means of transportation going to agricultural center is bicycle followed by bus (Table
5.15) in project area.
Table 5.14 Mode of transport for visiting to veterinary extension
Project area
Types of Transport
Bus
Bicycle
Motorcycle
On Foot
Truck
Bullock cart
Jeep
Total
No
44
35
1
30
1
1
2
114
38
31
1
26
1
1
2
100
Control area
No
%
1
12
0
32
0
0
0
45
2
27
0
71
0
0
0
100
Table 5. 15 Mode of transport for visiting to agricultural extension

Types of transport
Bus
Cycle
MotorCycle
Bullock cart
Microbus
Jeep
On foot
Total
Project area
No
24
28
4
12
9
1
0
78
31
36
5
15
12
1
0
100
Control area
No
%
5
10
1
0
2
0
14
32
16
31
3
0
6
0
44
100
Frequency of JT visiting in the villages of project area and control was very low. Respondents
say that they use to go to private agro-vet office while getting the service. They reported that
government agriculture and veterinary experts were visited rarely in the villages. Like in
baseline survey, the condition of government extension services is poor. The JTs and JTAs
of agriculture and veterinary extension worked only sporadically in few Tarai districts.
Services of extension were reported to be low in hill districts. Between 2006/07 and 2011,
privately owned extension service centers increased in project area villages.
5. 7 Non-Agricultural Activities
Between 2006/2007 and 2011, number of households operating non-farm enterprises has
increased. Similarly, access has increased almost across all type of facilities (See Table
5.16). There are 1479 shops and 564 small enterprises in project area. The number of shops
and enterprises in control villages were 158 and 50 respectively. Many shops and enterprises
were recently established along the RAIDP roads (See Annex 18). According to FGDs, there
are 3760 people in project area and 319 in control villages working local level business
centers (See Annex 19). Non-farm activities include wage labor, foreign labor, government
service, shop-keeping, school teacher, driving, etc.
Many social amenities have increased in project area after the improvement of RAIDP roads
in sample districts. Number of schools, health institutions, financial institutions and market
centers has increased in all sample roads. Financial institutions have increased by 3.4 times
in the study area (see Table 5.16).
(27)
Table 5.16 Name and number of social amenities

Health
Institutions
Before
After
Before
After
1
Kailai
8
9
3
5
2
Bardia
18
20
8
10
3
Banke
5
7
5
5
4
Salyan
10
11
2
2
5
Palpa
13
13
14
14
6
Rupandehi
6
7
3
4
7
Kapilbastu
24
24
7
8
8
Nawalparasi
24
24
10
10
9
Syangja
8
9
2
2
10
Kaski
19
20
3
3
11
Makawanpur
16
16
2
2
12
Dhading
36
40
5
5
13
Rasuwa
4
15
1
2
14
Nuwakot
18
18
5
5
15
Rautahat
6
9
5
5
16
Sarlahi
14
15
13
15
17
Siraha
39
40
9
12
18
Mahottari
15
15
4
5
19
Dhanusa
15
16
4
6
20
Udayapur
19
19
9
11
Total
344
347
114
125
Source: Baseline Survey, 2006 and Field Survey, 2011.
S.
N.
District
School
Financial
institutions
Before
After
6
8
1
4
5
5
2
5
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
10
1
5
0
3
0
3
0
6
1
2
0
4
0
2
0
8
5
5
1
1
1
3
2
5
25
85
Market centre
Before
4
5
4
5
10
3
2
4
6
6
2
3
2
7
4
5
5
4
4
4
89
After
4
7
5
5
10
3
2
4
6
6
2
4
2
7
5
5
5
4
4
6
96
Overall growth of social amenities has increased by more than 12 percent in project area.
Road connectivity has made possible to establish many social institutions in the project area.
(28)
CHAPTER VI
6. INCOME, EXPENDITURE, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
6.1 Expenditure Indicators
In nominal terms, per capita average consumption in food, clothing, and schooling fee
and fuel consumption is seen higher in Project Area compared to control villages. Food
consumption includes own farm production and market commodities. However,
expenditure on medical treatment, rituals and cigarettes, alcoholic beverage is higher in
control villages. Productive sector expenditure is higher in all items in project area. Table
6.1 compares the mean expenditure of project area and control villages by items.
Table 6.1 Annual expenditure by items in project and control areas
(mean value in Rs)
Items
Food
Clothing
School's fee, book, stationary
Medical treatment
Fuel
Rituals
Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages
Tax, levy, Fines
Others
Productive Expenditure
Gold, Silver ornaments
Income generation
Purchase land
Housing cost
Others
Total
HHs
300
300
242
262
284
209
140
167
53
30
50
13
82
7
Project area
Annual
expenditure
51296
18936
16573
11853
4634
6997
2954
725
1946
20850
50899
18923
14363
1006
106041
Control area
HHs
100
100
85
88
79
67
49
59
23
14
26
5
27
6
Annual
expenditure
45518
16671
16049
12951
4112
10383
3840
977
2770
10320
45000
11300
11120
990
78730
6.2 Income composition

Average income from crop farming is slightly higher in control villages than project area.
However, in other sectors such as cash crop, livestock, small cottage industry,
government services, and remittances incomes in project area are relatively higher than
control villages. Income pattern in project area concentrates to non-agriculture activities
than control villages. However, some spill over impacts of income also seen in control
villages. Mean income of project area and control villages has increased by more than
four times than baseline period (see Baseline Report, 2007 pp 35-37). Crop farming
income is common to all sample households both in project area and control villages.
The second largest category of income group is livestock. As mentioned earlier, poultry
faming is new sector of business in project area and milk selling business is also
emerged in the area under study. Table 6.2 presents major area of sources of income in
project area and control villages of RAIDP.
(29)
Table 6.2 Annual incomes by item in project area (mean value in Rs)
Items
HHs
Project Area
Annual income
HHs
Control Area
Annual Income
Crop Farming
300
47059
100
49320
Vegetable and cash crops
86
8305
31
6745
Fruits
10
610
300
Livestock
134
10557
41
10011
Small cottage
2763
1200
Government Service
39
26500
16
23990
Pension
18
4906
8200
Remittance
74
90400
29
83350
Agricultural wage
64
4766
16
4430
Construction wage
49
4873
16
5140
Non-agricultural wage
73
16627
19
15300
Trade
77
29483
14
23300
Tender commission
10
3283
3450
Others
26
5430
10846
Total
255562
245582
6.3 Employment Situation in Project Area and Control Area

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

District
Dhanusa
Palpa
Makawanpur
Dhading
Kailali
Rupandehi
Kapilbastu
Udayapur
Kaski
Mahottari
Syangja
Salyan
Bardiya
Banke
Nawalparasi
Rasuwa
Rautahat
Siraha
Sarlahi
Nuwakot
Total
Within Nepal
Project
Control
300
400
100
20
120
3
50
40
40
23
7
5
100
60
20
5
40
20
50
21
40
20
50
100
50
10
40
20
50
20
120
15
300
150
400
200
80
20
40
5
1997
1157
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011
(30)
Outside Nepal
Project
Control
1000
300
200
30
20
7
150
100
212
45
15
15
800
300
90
20
500
80
130
120
220
100
200
100
220
20
300
40
100
30
120
20
500
100
1000
400
300
30
120
4
6197
1861
Rural Markets
The average service area for the shops is 2.5 km for rural markets. Total 96 market
centers are recorded along with the 20 sample roads of RAIDP. There are at least five
shops in each market center. Agriculture goods, dry goods, textiles and garments, fruits
and vegetable shops, are the major group of commodities in the markets. Most of the
markets in RAIDP roads had 1-2 pharmaceutical shops, one or two agro-vet centers.
Unlike to project area, few rural shops are located in control areas.
Prices of key traded commodities
Prices of the traded commodities are seen slightly higher in control area compare to
program area. The prices for the goods listed varied somewhat, as might be expected in
control villages where there was little competition and substantial transportation costs.
Table 6.4 Prices of key food staples in the markets of the project area
and control villages (per kg)
Average price
Program
Control
Paddy
14
15.37
Maize
14.50
19.87
Wheat
15.90
17.22
Millet
10.50
18.50
Potato
8.80
14.33
Oil seeds
39.83
43.33
Pulses
37.85
37.37
Vegetables
22.80
27.50
Fruit
28.33
25
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011
Item
Min and max price

Program
Control
11-16
12-22
10-20
12-35
10-20
15-18
10-11
11-20
5-13
8-25
32-90
32-60
35-45
28-46
5-40
20-35
4-40
4-25
Modal Value
Program
Control
12
14
13
15
14
16
11
14
9
12
50
50
40
35
25
25
20
25
6.3.1 Price of land

Residential land and agricultural land price has increased both program and control area
after the RAIDP intervention. However, residential land price is increased by 3.24 times
in project area and 2.74 times in control villages. Table 6.5 shows that a price of
agricultural land has increased by 4 and 2.29 times in project and control villages
respectively. Table 6.5 below shows the prices of land value mean with range of
minimum and maximum prices.
Table 6.5 Residential land Price in project area and control villages (ha)
Program Area (price in Rs)
Before
After
11778106.51
38053063.56
Mean
235562130.2
761061271.2
Sum
322580.6452
1479289.941
Minimum
96774193.55
161290322.6
Maximum
96451612.9
159811032.6
Range
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011.
Control Area (price in Rs)

Before
After
3967885.093
10869536.17
79357701.85
217390723.4
295857.9882
483870.9677
23668639.05
32258064.52
23372781.07
31774193.55
After the improvement of the RAIDP roads, not only the prices of residential land has
increased but also increased agricultural land prices. As reported in almost places in
migration has increased in project area of roads. As reported in all places, there is a
trend of migration in road head side of RAIDP road. As discussed in Palpa, twenty to
twenty-five houses have been constructed in Banstari Jhadewa road annually. Out
migration has declined, according to FGDs, in various RAIDP districts particularly Kaski
and Syangja districts.
(31)
Table 6.6 Agriculture land value before and after project

Project area (Price in Rupees)
Before
After
1345207
5393759
Mean
221565.7
443131.5
Minimum
6000000
32000000
Maximum
5778434
31556869
Range
Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011
Control Area(Price in Rupees)

Before
After
699276.1
1606839
118168.4
147710.5
2000000
4000000
1881832
3852290
RAIDP intervention on rural road is the possible reason for increasing the land value in
project area.
6.3.2 Land tenure by gender
The survey has revealed that 26 percent of sample households in project villages and 27
percent in control villages have land under the ownership of women. This may be the
cause of government incentive policy for exemption of land registration fee for women
owed land.
Table 6.7 Land ownership status of women
Ownership
Villages
Yes
HH
No
%
Project area
78
Control area
27
Total
105
Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011
26
27
100.00
HH
222
73
295
%
75.25
24.75
100.00
6.3.3 Access to credit by gender

Bank, cooperatives and local money lenders are major institution lending money in
RAIDP project area. Of the loan takers 60 percent were female in the project area.
Generally, such loans are small and use for small scale income generating and
household expenditure.
Table 6.8 Major Institution of loan taking in project and control area
Institutions
Bank
Co-operative
Money lenders
Both of Bank & cooperative
Total loan browers HH
No of HH in Project
area
%
No
32.22
29
41.11
37
21.11
19
5.56
5
100
90
No of HH in Control
area
%
No
40.74
11
37.04
10
22.22
6
00
0
27 100
Of the total loan borrowers sixty percent were from female members of the project area
sample households. As mentioned in the FGDs, more women are members of the local
cooperative than men in project area. Therefore, women have easy access to cooperatives to take loan in the time of emergency. Nearly, 24 percent of the total survey
households have to credit access in project area villages. Between 2006/2007 and 2011,
percent of households having access to credit has increased from 5 percent to 24
percent (See Baseline Report, 2007).
(32)
Road transportation has made easier to collect remittance sent by family members from
abroad. Most of the project area households reach to nearest market centers within one
to one and half hours to collect remittance. In Rajapur Ring Road, IME has recently
established within project area.
Table 6.9 Loan borrowed by gender in project area & control village
Gender
Male
Female
Both male & female
Total HH
project area
No
Percent
34
37.78
54
60.00
2
2.22
90
100.00
No
control villages
Percent
5
18.52
22
81.48
0
0.00
27
100.00
Loan borrowing from formal institutions has increased in project area. As reported in
FGDs, in the past loans were exclusively borrowed for household expenditure and
medical treatment, but now loan is also borrowed for starting small enterprises such as
small grocery, poultry, animal husbandry, etc. Of the total loan borrowers more than 56
percent form project area and 20 percent from control area has used bus while going to
financial institutions to take loan (See Annex 20).
(33)
CHAPTER VII
7. EDUCATION, HEALTH, FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIAL SAFE GUARD

INDICATORS
7.1 Education Indicators
Total literacy rate of the surveyed area was 82.03 percent. Literacy rate of project area
and control villages was 83.52 and 77.81 respectively. These figures are higher than
national level literacy rate. Number of schools establishment in project area and control
villages, government/non-government agencies non-formal education programs over the
year might be the cause of higher literacy in the project area. Recently established
privately owned schools in project area have also accelerated the literacy rate of the
residents.
7.2 Number of primary school in the village
Primary schools are seen both project area and control villages within one hour distance.
However, private schools are established in project area recently. In some RAIDP roads
such as Kailali and Banke private school buses run to pick up and drop out the children
in each day from project area villages. Number of school has increased in 14 districts
between 2006/2007 and 2011 (See Table 5.16).
Primary school enrolment rate by gender
Primary school enrolment percent in project and control villages is 95.25 percent and
93.94 percent respectively. Male female student ratio is 107:100 and 113:100 in project
and control villages. As reported in FGDs, 10 to 20 percent drop out in lower secondary
level. Similarly, absence from class and drop out ratio in primary level has decreased
between 2006/2007 and 2011.
Table 7.1 Literacy rate of Household members and access of children to School
Literate
Survey Villages
Members
Project area
Villages
1465
Control Villages
484
Total
1949
Literacy
Rate
% of Children
enrolled
83.52
77.81
82.03
95.25
93.94
94.92
Female-Male
student
197/184
66/58
263/242
Primary school drop out rate by gender

Drop out ratio at primary level is low in all RAIDP roads. As reported in focus group
discussion drop out ratio has gradually increased in lower secondary and secondary
level. Higher drop out was reported among Tarai and hill Dalit and Muslim compared to
other groups. Drop out due to poor accessibility has decreased in project area.
7.2.1 Distance to nearest primary and secondary school
The percentage of children enrolled in primary schools was the highest in project area
and control villages (see table 7.2). Nearly 85 percent students of program villages have
access to primary school within five km distance while 54.05 percent students of control
(34)
villages have access to primary school within five km distance. As observed both project
and control area primary schools are located in walking distance.
Table 7.2 Distance to nearest Primary School from sample household
in project area and Control Villages
No of Households
Range of
Percent
Distance (km)
Project Area
16
Up to 1
30
47
1 to 3
85
22
3 to 5
40
13
5 to 10
24
2
Above 10
4
100
Total
183
No of Households
Percent
Control area
13
5
11
4
24
9
27
10
24
9
100
37
Table 7.2 shows that 85 percent households have access to primary school within five
kilometer distance in project area. Only 2 percent were found more than 10 km distance
from the project area.
Mode of Transportation for Schooling
Bus, bicycles, motorcycles are means of transport for school going children both in
project and control area. Eighty two percent children in control area and 40 percent in
project area go to school on foot.
Table 7.3 Number of students going to schools and vehicle types used
Project area
Control Area
Mode of transport
Project
%
Control
%
On foot
73
40
40
82
Bicycle
47
26
6
12
Motorcycle
7
4
1
2
Bus
54
30
2
4
Total
181
100
49
100
Table 7.3 shows that 60 percent school going students have access to transportation in
project area. A large number of students (40%) have still gone to school on foot due to
close proximity. According to settlement level discussions, access of school going
students have increased after the RAIDP road upgrading. However, we cannot say
accurately how much percent of students have increased access from baseline survey
(2006/07) on transportation having no comparable data of school accessibility.
Like school going children, bicycle, bus and motor, bicycles are popular means of
transportation among the campus going students. 63 percent from project area and 74
percent from control area use at least one means of transportation while going to
college. However, unlike to project area students of control area, according to focus
group discussion, have to walk a substantial amount of time to get public transportation.
Table 7.4 presents modes of transportation for campus going student.
(35)
Table 7.4 Number of students going to campus and vehicle types used
Project Area
Control Area
Mode of Transportation
Project
%
Control
%
On foot
17
37
4
27
Bicycle
13
28
3
20
Bike
4
9
1
7
Bus
12
26
7
47
Total
46
100
15
100
Qualification of teachers
In project area and control villages, all teachers were reported qualified according to
requirements of teaching. No report of teachers' absent was found in project area
villages. The teachers are relatively qualified in survey villages.
Rate of absenteeism of teacher was low in surveyed roads. As reported in the focus
group discussion, "teacher used to absent during monsoon, flood and landslides, now
there is no such problems". Absenteeism of students and teachers, according to
settlement survey, due to bad road has decreased in the survey roads.
7.3 Health Indicators

7.3.1 Distance and Frequency of Visit to Health Center
As reported in all places, distance of heath centers and hospitals has decreased due to
upgrading of RAIDP roads. Number of health institutions has increased in ten districts
(See Table 5.16). Frequency of visit to health centre by male, female and children were
higher in project area than control villages. According to settlement level survey, number
of women visiting to health center during prenatal and post natal period of pregnancy has
increased after the improvement of RAIDP roads. Most of the RAIDP roads have an
ambulance service that is availed in the time of emergency. Participants of FGD have
expressed that travel time has decreased with the improvement of the roads. More than
62 percent residents of the project area have access to health centers within 5 km.
Distance of health centers from control villages is longer than project area (See Table
7.5). In project area, private clinical services are established. There is a tendency to go
private clinics and pharmacy for treatment in project area.
Hundred percent immunization rates were reported in both control and project area.
There is no report of death causality due to untimely getting treatment. In Tarai, there
were cases of death of snake bites in the past. However, at present there is no report of
death caused by snake bites in the project area. In the hill districts, road access has
made possible to call on doctor in the village in the time of emergency.
Table 7.5 Distance to Health Care Centre from the sample households
in project area and control villages
Range of Distance (km)
Up to 1
1 to 3
3 to 5
5 to 10
Above 10
Total
Project area
HHs
%
8.86
14
18.99
30
34.18
54
15.18
24
22.79
36
100
158
(36)
Control area
%l
10.81
4
27.02
10
18.92
7
8.11
3
35.13
13
100
37
No
Qualifications of medical personnel as reported in the settlement level survey are

reasonable and absent of such personnel was not reported in project area. At least one
trained health assistant is availed in the project area. There are records of hospital in
sample roads. However, access to hospital was noticeable in within one to two hours
travel distance.
Health treatment and means of Transport
Of the total visitors in health post majority of the respondents use public bus and bicycle
in project area. Unlike to project area, nearly 50 percent populations from control area go
to health post on foot.
Table 7.6 Vehicle types used for going health center
Project Area
No
%
47
30
49
31
62
39
158
100
Mode of Transport
On foot
Bicycle
Bus
Total
Control Area
No
%
18
49
12
32
7
19
37
100
RAIDP intervention on road has made significant contribution for going hospital. Table
7.7 shows that 80 percent people have used bus service while going to hospital in
project area.
Table 7.7 Vehicle types used for going hospitals
Mode of Transport
On foot
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Bus
Jeep
Total
Project Area
No
%
4
8
4
8
1
2
41
80
1
2
51
100
Control Area
No
%
7
39
0
0
1
5
10
56
0
0
18
100
Accessibility on health institutions has increased in project area compared to control with
the enhancement of road by RAIDP.
7. 4 Transport and food Security

Of the total households, nearly 20 percent from project area and 24 percent from control
villages were food surplus households from their own agriculture production. More than
30 percent in project area and 27 percent households in control villages have
ascertained that they meet their households' food requirement for 10-12 months from
their own agricultural production. Altogether 13.5 percent households have food
sufficiency below three months.
(37)
Table 7.8 Number of month of food sufficiency

Project area
Control area
Total
Months
No
Surplus (well-off)
10 to 12 Months
6 to 9 Months
3 to 5 Months
Below 3 Months
Total
59
91
59
51
40
300
No
19.67
30.33
19.67
17.00
13.33
100
24
27
27
8
14
100
No
24.00
27.00
27.00
8.00
14.00
100.00
%
91
110
86
59
54
400
22.75
25.00
21.50
14.75
13.5
100.00
Food supply in the project area has increased due to road transportation. As observed in
the survey villages food stores were established along the RAIDP road in the Tarai.
7.5 Rural Road Improvement and Livelihood

After the improvement of the RAIDP roads some effects are seen in the livelihood.
Respondents were asked to prioritize the impacts of road in terms of comparative
advantages. Almost households gave top priority to easy access followed by increase in
going hospital frequency (See Table 7.9). Similarly, respondents have given top second
priority to decreased transportation cost followed by increasing income generation
resource and increase in market going frequency. Table 7.9 presents respondents'
prioritization according to their judgment.
Table 7.9 Livelihood priority in different sector in project area
Sector
Priority
2
Easy for access

Increase in going hospital
Increase in market frequency
Increase selling items in market
Increase in income generation resource
Employment opportunity
Decrease transportation cost
Total
259
156
112
99
75
74
61
837
3
21
91
117
106
127
107
152
723
20
53
71
95
98
119
87
546
Table 7.9 shows that there are many impacts of RAIDP roads in village level.
Accessibility on various social amenities has helped to reduce poverty to some extend.
7.6 RAIDP Road Condition and Quality
RAIDP has improved the rural roads based on the demand and DTMP prioritization. The
road improvement has enhanced the access of locals to market centers, physical facilities
and district and national roads. However, there were some complaints from the respondents
RAIDP roads are too narrow that is not suitable for bus and trucks and they suggested to
widening the road. In Nawalparasi and Rupandehi, as reported in FGD, more accidents were
occurred due to narrow road. In the hill district community efforts were reported to open the
road after the landslides. In Tarai, couples of week roads are closed due to floods. Rules of
operating less than ten tons truck in RAIDP roads in Tarai were not followed. Local demand
of construction bridges across roads was repeatedly asked.
Poor quality of gravel and otta seal road was severely damaged in Kailali district just after the
completion of road. In Rajapur ring road, big boulders were placed for graveling than regular
size that caused boulder flickers and hit pedestrian.
(38)
Landslides and floods, strikes, accidents and others are major reasons for closing down
RAIDP road for couple of the days in a year. Of the total sample districts, 14 districts were
experienced flood and landslides in RAIDP road. There was no report of road closing down in
Palpa, Rupandehi and Kapilbastu in any reason. In Salyan, road was blocked due to strikes
and accidents while road was closed down other reasons in Kailali district. Figure 1 presents
the causes of road blocked with frequency.
Couses of Road Block
20
18
16
14
12
Cause 10
8
6
4
2
0
Landslides & Floods

Strikes
Accidents
Others
Bar
Nu
Rau Mak Ban
Sir
Sar
Sal
Nab Rasu Syan Uday Kaski Maho Rup Kapil Dhad Kail
Pal Dhanu
District
Figure 7.1- Causes of Road blocked in RAIDP Districts
7.7 Social Safe Guards

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

8.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, a few conclusions have been drawn and presented
hereunder:
1. Given the fact that the upgrading of RAIDP roads has begun demonstrating its
impacts through the reduction of travel time to reach the nearest town and social
amenities. Similarly, travel behavior of the beneficiaries has changed due to
easier access to work place and nearest town. People in the participating districts
that live within four hours of walking to all season roads has increased by 100
percent in Tarai districts and 18 to 100 percent in the hill districts.
2. Traffic volume is higher in almost RAIDP sample roads compare to baseline
condition. Overall growth of motorized and non-motorized vehicles is 37 and 33
percent respectively due to up grading of the roads. These figures are more than
PDO target of 20% increment of vehicle at the end of the project.
3. Transportation cost of goods has slightly decreased in the hill districts compared
to the past. However, passenger fare of bus and jeep has increased due to
augment of fuel price internationally.
4. It is seen that accessibility of beneficiaries to private (e.g. bicycles, motorcycles)
and public means (bus, jeep) of transport has increased along the RAIDP road.
(39)
There is impact of roads on social sector outcomes mostly in health and

education sectors. For example, number of health institutions and schools has
increased along the upgrading of the RAIDP road. Overall growth of social
amenities in the project area is 12 percent. Due to RAIDP roads upgrading,
people have timely got treatment in the time of the emergency.
5. Some impacts of RAIDP roads are seen on agriculture sector of the project
districts. Due to improvement of the roads, farmers of project districts have
started to produce traded commodities such as vegetables, fruits, poultry, etc.
Bus, truck, bicycle, motorcycles and tractors are major means of transportation
for agriculture inputs and agriculture production. Production of main crops has
enormously increased than baseline study to present both in control and project
areas. Reasons of production increased may be several such as timely monsoon,
easy access to agricultural inputs and market access through RAIDP road
connection, improvement of irrigation facilities, etc.
6. Despite the fact that RAIDP districts are overwhelmingly based on agriculture,
there are some new trends of shifting towards non-agricultural activities in the
project areas. With the improvement of roads, migration in search of work has
increasedd in various districts of Tarai. Employment opportunities through new
business sector i.e. grocery shops, store houses, poultry farming, etc have
recently started in the project area.
8.2 Recommendations
Present impact study is limited to RAIDP road sub projects. In order to know the full
effect of the RAIDP, the study comes up with following recommendations.
1. This impact study is limited to Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) (roads only)
improvement in participating districts. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct full
fledged impact of RAIDP in future.
2. RAIDP has given various types of trainings and constructed income generating
buildings to project affected households under the social safeguards component.
Therefore, it is suggested to incorporate such activities under the scope of impact
study in future.
3. Present study is largely based on the sample survey. It is recommended to adopt
mixed up method (Qualitative and quantitative techniques) while to understand
the impacts of road in individual level. People's experiences, case studies and life
history would also enhance our understanding on impact brought by RAIDP road
project.
4. Present endeavor has not covered the sustainability of roads-maintenance cost;
therefore, it is suggested to incorporate such issue under impact study in future.
5. This impact study has covered the livelihood aspect of the people of participating
districts in general. In future, it is suggested to examine linkage of rural road and
livelihood of people living in the project area rigorously.
6. RAIDP has been contributing for rural accessibility enhancement and poverty
reduction, therefore, it is recommended to continue the project for further
accessibility of rural population to social amenities and market town.
(40)
REFERENCES
Bista, Raghab (2006). Preliminary Accessibility Profile of Districts of Nepal,

RAIDP/DoLIDAR, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur
Blndal, Nina (2007). Evaluating the Impact of Rural Roads in Nicaragua. Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Danida
CBS (2004). Nepal Living Standards Survey 2003/04. Statistical Report, Volume I
& II, Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics
Development Grant Agreement between Kingdom of Nepal and International

Development Association, 2005
DoLIDAR/RAIDP (2009). Environmental and Social Management Framework.

Kathmandu: DoLIDAR/RAIDP
Khana, S.K. and Justo, C.E.G. (1984). Highway Engineering. India: New Chand
Bros
Pokharel, Binod (2011) Pilot Survey of Trisuli- Deurali-Meghang RAIDP Road,

Nuwakot (Project Report), DoLIDAR/RAIDP, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur
RAIDP (2009) Remedial Action Plan for the Project Affected People, RAIDP,
Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads,
Government of Nepal
Sharma, Vallabha (2007). Final Report on Baseline Study of Twenty RAIDPDistricts of Nepal (Project Report), DoLIDAR/RAIDP, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur
The World Bank (2005). Project Appraisal Document
The World Bank (2009) Aid Memo
The World Bank (2009). Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Credit and
Proposed Additional Grant
The World Bank (2010) Aid Memo
The World Bank (November 20, 2009). Project Paper on a proposed additional
credit, Sustainable Development Unit, Nepal Country Unit, South Asia region, The
World Bank
Van de Walle, Dominique (2008). Impact Evaluation of Rural Road Projects, World
Bank 1818 HST, NW Washington, DC
(41)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviation and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. I
Summary of the Program ................................................................................................................ II
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................III
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................IV
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Impact Study Methodology ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 THE PROJECT AND CONTROL AREA ............................................................................. 5
2.1.1 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 CONTROL AREA ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 EVALUATION DESIGN ................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 QUALITATIVE SURVEY ................................................................................................. 6
2.3 THE SAMPLE DESIGN .................................................................................................... 6
2.4 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 6
2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 LIMITATION OF IMPACT STUDY ................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.
General Information of Survey Roads ................................................................................... 9
3.1 DEMOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 CASTE AND ETHNICITY .............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................................ 12
4.
Major Findings ............................................................................................................... 12
4. 1 TRAFFIC COUNT AND TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS .............................................. 12
4.1.1 MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN RAIDP ROADS ............................... 12
4.2 LOCAL FARE BY VEHICLES......................................................................................... 14
4.3 ROAD WISE TRAVEL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER PROJECT .......................................... 15
4.3 OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES .......................................................................................... 16
4.4 DISTANCE AND TRAVEL TIME TO THE NEAREST ALL SEASON ROADS ...................... 18
CHAPTER V ......................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Agriculture and Transportation .......................................................................................... 20
5.1.2 TRANSPORTATION FOR FARM INPUTS........................................................................ 20
5.2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS ............................................................. 21
5.3 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 21
5.4 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ................................ 23
5.5 PRICES OF MAJOR CROPS IN FARM GATE ................................................................... 25
5.6 TRANSPORT AND AGRICULTURE EXTENSION ............................................................ 26
5. 7 NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 27
CHAPTER VI ........................................................................................................................ 29
6.
Income, Expenditure, and Entrepreneurship ......................................................................... 29
6.1 EXPENDITURE INDICATORS ....................................................................................... 29
6.2 INCOME COMPOSITION ............................................................................................... 29
6.3 EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN PROJECT AREA AND CONTROL AREA .......................... 30
6.3.1 PRICE OF LAND ........................................................................................................... 31
6.3.2 LAND TENURE BY GENDER ........................................................................................ 32
6.3.3 ACCESS TO CREDIT BY GENDER ................................................................................. 32
(42)
CHAPTER VII ....................................................................................................................... 34

7.
Education, Health, Food Security and Social Safe Guard ........................................................ 34
7.1 EDUCATION INDICATORS ........................................................................................... 34
7.2 NUMBER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE VILLAGE ....................................................... 34
7.2.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL .................................. 34
7.3 HEALTH INDICATORS ................................................................................................. 36
7.3.1 DISTANCE AND FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO HEALTH CENTER ...................................... 36
7. 4 TRANSPORT AND FOOD SECURITY ............................................................................. 37
7.7 SOCIAL SAFE GUARDS ................................................................................................ 39
8.
Conclusions and Recommendation ..................................................................................... 39
8.1 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 39
References
Annexes
Terms of References
(43)
REFERENCES
(44)
ANNEXES
(45)
ANNEXES
Annex-1 Name of Sample Roads of Baseline Survey and Impact Study of RAIDP, 2006/07
and 2011
SN
District
Name of Road
Rakhi-Mijure Road
Original place of sample

(VDC)
Chhatre Deurali
Kalika
1
2
Dhading
Kaski
3
4
5
Control VDC
Khari
Sardikhola
Syangja
Rangkhola-Biruwa
Rangbang
Kitchnas
Rasuwa
Nuwakot
Makawanpur
Palpa
Kalikasthan- Dhunge
Kulekhani- Humanebhanjayang
Banstari Jhadewa
Bhorle
Tupche
Kulekhani
Chitrungdhara
Dhaibung
Kalyanpur
Chhatiwan
Foksingkot
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dawadi
Pragatinagar
Jahada
9
10
Rupandehi
Kapilbastu
Madhauliya-Bhutaha
Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk
Gangoliya
Patariya
Gajedi
Patna
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Siraha
Dhanusa
Udayapur
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Himalibas-Auriya
Karmaiya-Hathiol
Matihani-Pipara-Brahmapur
Siraha-Mirchaiya
Janakpur-Khariyani
Ghaighat-Beltar-Chatara
Kutiya-Matiyari
Rajapur Ring road
MRM-Tirthiya Sonpur
Khanga Hospital -Simkharka
Auraiya
Hajariya
Matihani
Sarshwor
Mansinghpatti
Beltar
Beladevipur
Dhadhawar
Titihiriya
Khalanga
Mathiya
Sundarpur
Suga Bhawani
Sikron
Benga
Rauta
Urma
Daulatpur
Sonapur
Karagithi
Annex -2 Orientations Program for Baseline and Impact Study

SN
Cluster
Cluster districts
Venue for
No
1
Orientation
Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke, Bardiya,
Nepalgunj
Salyan, Dang, Surkhet

2
Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa,
Bardibas
Rasuwa, Kaski, Makawanpur, Nuwakot,
30 October, 2011
(2068/7/13)
Hetauda
Syangja, Dhading Tanahu

2
17 October, 2011
(2068/6/30)
Siraha, Udayapur, Bara, Parsa, Saptari

3
Date of Orientation
3 November, 2011
(2068/7/17)
Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Palpa,
Palpa
Pyuthan, Arghanchi, Gulmi
8 November, 2011
(2068/7/22)
Persons to be participated in orientations

1. All SDCs of the respective cluster
2. SSDC of the respective cluster
3. Local Development Officer from orientation organizing district
4. Mr. Shambhu Prasad Kattel, SDE, RAIDP
5. Dr. Binod Pokharel, Impact Study Consultant, RAIDP

6. Mr. Umesh Kumar Mandal, Baseline Survey Consultant, RAIDP
7. Enumerators two from each district
Annex-3 Population distribution by caste and ethnicity of sample households
Project Area
Tarai Districts
Groups
High Caste hill
Hill Dalits
Hill Janajati
Terai
Terai Dalit
Terai Janajati
Musalman
Pop
141
7
165
242
327
78
140
1100
13
1
15
22
30
7
12
100
Hill
Districts
Pop
417
46
309
0
0
0
0
772
12
1
16
20
32
5
14
100
71
32
154
0
6
0
0
263
%
54
6
40
0
0
0
0
100
Control area
48
3
64
80
127
21
54
397
Hill high caste

Hill Dalits
Hill Janajati
Terai
Terai Dalit
Terai Janajati
Musalman
27
12
59
0
2
0
0
100
Annex 4 No of Vehicles before and after the RAIDP Road

Motorcycles
Nonmotorized
vehicles
After
Before
After
Before
70
175
70
111
48
61
10
51
96
128
39
51
17
23
67
87
13
20
25
11
35
43
25
32
80
79
10
12
14
54
65
40
54
64
90
10
19
38
34
40
59
93
11
41
51
12
22
14
20
36
44
10
13
10
37
20
26
10
14
30
100
Jeep/car/
Taxi
Bus/minibus
Trucks/minitrucks
Tractors
District
Roads
Before
After
Before
Before
After
Before
Kailali
Bardiya
Khutiya-Matiyari
Rajapur Ring
Road
12
14
Banke
Titihiriy-Sonapur
11
Salyan
Rupandehi
Khalangga
Sibalawa-LabniLakhanchok
MadhauliyaBhutaha
Nawalparasi
Daldle-Dhauwadi
21
Palpa
10
Rasuwa
Banstari-Jhadewa
KalikasthanDhunge
Kaski
Rakhi-Mujure
Syangja
Rangkhola-Biruwa
BhimdhungaLamidanda
Trisuli-DeuraliMehang
Kapilvastu
Dhading
Nuwakot
ii
After
After
Makawanpur
KulekhaniHumanebhanjyang
13
34
Rautahat
Auriya-Himalibas
18
20
40
50
100
116
Sarlahi
Karmaiya-Hathiol
10
12
14
103
197
Mahottari
11
82
44
Dhanusa
Matihani-Pipara
JanakpurKhairahani
33
35
67
117
110
333
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
12
20
24
117
152
Udayapur
Gaighat-Beltar
17
66
89
31
64
71
109
106
190
315
392
517
890
1020
1526
Total
increase %
52
35
44
20
42
33
Source: Districts Records, RAIDP Office Records, 2011, Traffic Survey and FGD, 2011
Note: Non-motorized Vehicles includes bicycle,animal cart, Rickhaw.
Annex 4a Traffic Unit by Roads
Types of Traffic
Roads
Jeep
Motorcycle
Bus/
Minibus
Light
truck
Trucks
upto 10
tonnnes
Tractor
Bicycle
Tanga/
Carriage
Rickshaw
Cart
Districts
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Kapilbastu
Rupandehi
Nawalparas
i
Palpa
Rasuwa
Kaski
Syangya
Dhading
Nuwakot
Makwanpur
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Siraha
Udayapur
KhutiyaMatiyari
Rajapur Ring
Road
TitihiriySonapur
Khalangga
SibalawaLabniLakhanchok
MadhauliyaBhutaha
DaldleDhauwadi
BanstariJhadewa
KalikasthanDhunge
Rakhi-Mujure
RangkholaBiruwa
BhimdhungaLamidanda
Trisuli-DeuraliMehang
KulekhaniHumanebhanjy
ang
AuriyaHimalibas
KarmaiyaHathiol
MatihaniPipara
JanakpurKhairahani
MirchaiyaSiraha
Gaighat-Beltar
87.5
12
50
60
227.5
25
36
18
90
57
78
310
12
24
15
75
38
60
231
13
12
13.5
43.5
16
15
64.5
29.5
120
251
27
30
18
97.5
34
120
337.5
21
20
30
57
37.5
108
276.5
10
25.5
33
12
89.5
2.5
4.5
10
22
30
27
0.5
86.5
21
18
19.5
1.5
64
11
13
30
55.5
115.5
50
12
21
83
17
7.5
37.5
25
10.5
30
24
114
214.5
21
18
95
42
195
1.5
198
213.5
88.5
21
52.5
161
66
404
12
21
18
62
168
293
8.5
123.5
Total
70
495.5
Source:Trafic Survey, 2011 and FGD, 2011
12
40
54
324
262.5
36
582
633.5
12
1188
iii
Annex Table 5 Nearest all season road distance from the sample HHs in project area
(mean)
District
Name of Road
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
Distance
(km)
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
Kapilbastu
Rupendehi
Trips in
months
Travel time per

trip (hrs)
1.69
9.80
0.39
0.53
20.67
0.10
2.07
23.87
0.37
0.27
1.58
23.20
13.60
5.07
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
4.20
6.67
0.95
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
1.59
15.80
0.28
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
4.60
7.53
0.83
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
0.89
28.47
0.21
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
5.27
5.93
1.25
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
4.02
14.47
0.75
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
1.16
24.00
0.24
Nuwakot
2.77
10.07
0.41
Makawanpur
7.08
8.87
1.16
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
2.00
9.20
0.44
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
1.61
11.40
0.35
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
3.12
11.60
0.5
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
4.00
2.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
11.43
2.87
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
9.53
3.00
0.95
12.31
0.62
Total Average
4.14
Annex Table 6 Nearest bus stop distance from the sample HHs in project area (mean)
District
Name of Road
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
Distance
4.87
Trips in months
2.40
Travel time per trip

0.92
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
0.53
20.67
0.1
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
2.90
15.87
0.57
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
2.48
21.20
0.41
Kapilbastu
13.93
5.07
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
5.33
6.47
0.92
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
0.46
23.67
0.1
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
4.60
7.53
0.83
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
9.97
12.07
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
5.40
5.80
1.05
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
0.69
26.53
0.12
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.19
24.00
0.03
Nuwakot
2.59
11.53
0.52
Makawanpur
1.77
16.20
0.33
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
5.00
9.20
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
1.27
14.73
0.25
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
4.40
2.93
0.80
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
4.93
5.40
0.88
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
1.40
8.00
0.25
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
10.20
2.80
0.95
4.1
12.1
0.6
Total average
iv
Annex: 7 Distribution of land by household and road

Name of Road
Landless
.01 to .49
.50 to .99
1 and above
HH
Khutiya-Matiyari
10
20
Rajapur Ringroad
20
Titiriya-Soanpur
Hospital-Simkharka
Madhauliya-Bhutaha
Daldale-Dhobidi
12
Bastari-Jhadeba
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
10
Rakhi-Mijure
11
Biruwa-Rankhola
12
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
13
14
15
Auriya-Himalibas
16
Karmiya-Hathiwon
17
Matihani-Pipra
18
Janakpur-Kharihani
19
20
1
2
6
5
10
20
13
20
20
13
20
20
13
20
20
13
20
17
20
20
20
16
20
20
11
20
20
13
20
Mirchaiya-Siraha
10
20
Gaighat-Chatara
10
20
209
99
74
400
Total
18

Annex: 8 Area and Production of Paddy
Surveyed
district
Name of road
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
Nuwakot
4.75
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
4.14
Makawanpur
0.00
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
7.61
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
Salyan
Project Area villages

Production
Area (ha)
HH
(quintal)
17.81
12
Control villages
Production
Area (ha)
HH
(quintal)
350.00
4.23
109.00
14
169.30
1.85
50.00
10
174.00
1.79
76.00
0.00
1.95
43.00
14
302.00
2.15
98.00
10.30
13
312.00
8.13
324.00
3.51
11
171.00
1.40
40.50
Hospital-Simkharka
1.45
19.50
0.20
4.00
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
6.37
11
236.00
1.30
47.50
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
5.45
15
145.50
1.95
31.50
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
1.20
38.50
2.60
53.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
5.75
14
161.50
2.02
70.00
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
4.75
14
122.00
1.75
27.50
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
8.94
14
217.20
2.02
37.60
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
Sibalawa-LabaniLakhanchowk
10.76
15
227.00
3.09
100.00
14.95
14
677.00
5.23
238.00
Kapilbastu
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
1.38
25.50
0.90
16.50
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
20.41
15
595.00
5.75
291.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
5.75
12
181.50
1.50
41.50
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
Total
8.22
143.49
10
229
74.40
7.09
46.40
4198.90
56.87
81
1745.00
Annex: 9 Area and Production of Maize

Surveyed district
Name of road
Area
(ha)

Production
HH
(quintal)
Area
(ha)
Control villages
Production
HH
(quintal)
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
1.69
13.50
0.16
1.00
Nuwakot
9.85
15
190.40
2.18
36.00
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
0.46
24.00
0.00
0.00
38.00
Makawanpur
3.50
15
86.00
1.92
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
1.38
11.55
0.36
6.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
7.28
14
243.00
2.60
48.00
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
4.30
15
65.10
2.05
38.44
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
1.69
26.04
0.81
4.34
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
8.00
15
126.48
3.85
37.82
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
3.75
15
50.50
3.60
35.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
5.10
14
109.74
1.30
30.38
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
1.08
15
15.81
0.40
7.44
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kapilbastu
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
2.50
13
45.88
1.75
29.14
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
4.35
11
57.66
0.55
4.96
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
0.00
Total
54.92
165
0.00
0.00
1065.66
21.53
0
49
0.00
316.52
Annex: 10 Area and Production of Wheat

Surveyed
district
Name of road
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
6.50
Nuwakot
0.00
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
3.49
Makawanpur
0.00
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
2.89
50.00
0.55
14.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
6.86
13
157.50
5.36
156.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
0.88
18.00
0.00
0.00
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
3.50
14
28.14
1.35
6.70
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
1.40
26.80
1.01
11.39
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
0.45
10.39
0.40
4.02
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
0.20
4.00
2.15
23.50
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.20
4.69
0.00
0.00
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
5.79
13
83.60
0.91
14.40
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
1.76
10
33.00
0.72
17.00
Kapilbastu
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.70
5.36
0.35
2.35
118.00

Production
Area (ha)
HH
(quintal)
8
Control villages
Production
Area (ha)
HH
(quintal)
95.00
2.44
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
156.00
1.79
78.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
13.98
15
286.00
3.32
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
1.30
15.41
0.60
4.02
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
2.34
34.40
2.18
31.20
1008.29
23.12
Total
52.22
vi
122
54
515.58
Annex: 11 Area and Production of Millet

Surveyed
district
Name of road
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad

Production
(quintal)
Area (ha)
HH
Control villages
Production
(quintal)
HH
Area
(ha)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Nuwakot
6.75
14
94.20
1.68
36.00
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Makawanpur
0.15
2.00
0.00
0.00
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
0.50
2.88
0.05
0.43
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
2.90
12
52.56
1.20
13.68
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
3.00
12
34.30
1.35
15.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.16
1.73
1.66
5.04
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.58
10
10.08
0.40
8.28
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kapilbastu
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.80
9.79
0.70
6.48
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
207.54
7.03
Total
14.84
60
26
84.91
Annex: 12 Area and Production of Potato

Surveyed district
Name of road

Production
(quintal)
Area (ha)
HH
Area
(ha)
Control villages
Production
(quintal)
HH
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
0.03
7.00
0.00
0.00
Nuwakot
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
0.65
69.60
0.36
22.00
Makawanpur
0.00
0.00
0.26
100.00
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
0.54
10
30.75
0.14
20.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
0.97
11
68.00
0.65
33.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
0.03
5.00
0.00
0.00
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
2.10
12
245.00
0.00
0.00
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.03
4.00
0.01
2.00
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.23
22.00
0.00
0.00
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
0.39
34.80
0.05
6.00
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
0.39
11
13.50
0.26
3.30
Kapilbastu
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.30
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.59
45.00
0.70
18.00
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
0.46
31.50
0.20
26.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
0.06
6.50
0.08
7.00
582.65
2.72
Total
6.47
vii
81
26
237.60
Annex: 13 Area and Production of Mustard

Surveyed
district
Name of road
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
2.80
10
10.05
0.56
1.45
Nuwakot
1.55
3.90
0.43
0.80
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
0.91
3.10
0.25
0.40
Makawanpur
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.80
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
1.67
11
8.80
0.46
3.00
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
1.66
11
14.15
2.54
11.20
Area
(ha)

Production
(quintal)
HH
Area
(ha)
Control villages
Production
(quintal)
HH
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
0.54
2.10
0.50
1.40
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
0.35
1.50
0.25
2.00
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
2.93
11
26.20
0.36
2.40
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
1.00
4.55
0.00
0.00
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.15
0.60
0.00
0.00
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
1.01
3.10
0.15
0.30
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
1.14
11.50
0.41
5.00
Kapilbastu
1.94
8.80
0.26
0.40
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.10
1.00
0.00
0.00
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
3.64
14.30
1.14
9.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
1.20
2.50
0.00
0.00
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
0.87
4.00
0.80
3.50
120.15
8.50
Total
23.44
94
32
41.65
Annex: 14 Area and Production of Pulses

Surveyed
district
Name of road

Production
Area (ha)
HH
(quintal)
Area
(ha)
Control villages
Production
HH
(quintal)
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
2.10
7.50
2.00
3.00
Nuwakot
3.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
2.75
17.20
0.75
6.00
Makawanpur
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
8.50
13
41.00
0.57
7.25
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
1.35
4.40
1.10
3.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
2.35
7.00
0.00
0.00
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
4.30
18.50
0.55
1.90
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
3.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
2.50
1.30
0.00
0.00
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.25
1.00
0.00
0.00
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
0.72
0.70
0.00
0.00
Rupendehi
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
0.05
1.00
0.00
0.00
Kapilbastu
0.50
2.50
0.35
0.60
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
6.60
11
23.50
2.40
19.00
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
19.60
0.60
149.40
8.32
Total
2.57
41.54
viii
6
62
2
20
10.00
50.75
Annex: 15 Area and Production of Vegetables

Surveyed
district
Name of road

Area
Production
(ha)
(quintal)
HH
Control villages
Production
(quintal)
Area (ha)
HH
Bardiya
Rajapur Ringroad
0.37
15
19.88
0.11
6.05
Nuwakot
0.43
15
26.55
0.09
5.06
Rautahat
Aouriya-Himalibas
0.17
12
14.65
0.06
3.42
Makawanpur
1.85
15
93.00
0.09
4.74
Banke
Titiriya-Soanpur
0.36
14
11.88
0.69
9.32
Siraha
Mirchaiya-Siraha
0.94
13
38.05
1.05
36.00
Sarlahi
Karmiya-Hathiwon
0.23
14
12.60
0.12
6.42
Salyan
Hospital-Simkharka
0.34
15
28.10
0.06
3.32
Nawalparasi
Daldale-Dhobidi
0.41
14
26.44
0.23
9.05
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-Dhunge
0.41
15
24.13
0.22
12.48
Syangja
Biruwa-Rankhola
0.36
13
8.20
0.40
11.63
Udayapur
Gaighat-Chatara
0.22
15
17.07
0.10
5.71
Kaski
Rakhi-Mijure
0.64
15
77.44
0.16
6.20
Mahottari
Matihani-Pipra
0.55
10
20.88
0.08
3.68
Rupendehi
0.19
15
10.42
0.07
3.95
Kapilbastu
Madhauliya-Bhuthawa
Sibalawa-LabaniLakhanchowk
0.46
14
24.96
0.07
3.77
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada
1.14
14
116.03
0.19
7.47
Kailali
Khutiya-Matiyari
0.60
15
32.92
0.21
10.12
Palpa
Bastari-Jhadeba
0.19
14
10.45
0.05
2.67
Dhanusa
Janakpur-Kharihani
0.44
12
14.52
0.20
10.53
628.16
4.26
Total
10.31
279
94
Annex Table 16 Number of Poultry farms in project Area and control areas
District
Kailai
Bardia
Banke
Salyan
Palpa
Rupandehi
Kapilbastu
Nawalparasi
Syangja
Kaski
Makawanpur
Dhading
Rasuwa
Nuwakot
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Siraha
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Udayapur
Program Villages
60
0
0
0
150
10
0
0
2
3
2
45
55
10
4
6
0
0
0
20
367
ix
Control Villages
161.61
Annex: 17 Local wage rate for various works by gender

District
Type of labor
Wage rate Program

Male
Female
Wage rate control

Male
Female
Danusa
Agriculture labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agricultural labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agriculture labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Porter
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Brick factory
Skilled labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Trade labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Industrial labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri.labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Trade labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Trade & industry labor
Agri. Labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Road labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
Industrial labor
Agri labor
Construction labor
Skilled labor
250
300
600
300
250
500
200
400
500
Rs. 2 per kg
400
400
600
200
250
200
500
200
500
600
200
450
600
300
350
500
200
400
700
200
300
600
200
250
400
250
300
150
225
200
400
Rs. 2 per kg
300
300
200
250
200
200
250
200
250
150
350
200
200
200
300
150
150
-
300
300
500
200
200
400
150
200
400
300
350
500
500
250
250
600
100
200
400
250
250
300
500
200
300
500
500
200
300
500
200
250
200
200
150
200
250
400
400
250
500
100
250
300
200
300
450
200
300
500
300
300
500
250
150
400
200
300
400
150
350
500
160
200
180
400
200
300
500
200
200
450
600
300
250
250
500
200
200
400
200
300
500
300
300
600
500
300
300
450
150
250
400
150
200
400
280
350
500
500
150
250
400
100
200
400
250
300
500
350
350
400
200
250
500
Palpa
Makawanpur
Dhading
Kailai
Rupandehi
Kapilbastu
Udayapur
Kaski
Mahottari
Syangja
Salyan
Bardiya
Banke
Nawalparasi
Rasuwa
Rautahat
Siraha
Sarlahi
Nuwakot
300
300
125
300
150
200
100
100
160
200
180
250
250
150
200
250
300
150
200
200
200
200
300
150
300
300
300
300
150
300
150
200
300
400
400
150
300
100
250
300
350
350
200
250
500
Annex Table 18 Type and Number of Business Centres small scale enterprise
Districts
Dhanusa
Palpa
Makawanpur
Dhading
Kailai
Rupandehi
Kapilbastu
Udayapur
Kaski
Mahottari
Syangja
Salyan
Bardiya
Banke
Nawalparasi
Rasuwa
Rautahat
Siraha
Sarlahi
Nuwakot
Project Area
Control Area
Shops
Small enterprise
Shops
Small enterprise
20
200
22
25
210
20
15
90
23
130
10
141
200
112
26
6
85
82
37
25
5
188
2
53
67
13
1
40
3
10
2
3
20
9
5
57
16
60
6
4
18
4
0
3
39
15
5
7
2
9
6
1
3
6
7
5
8
15
2
3
6
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
6
0
5
20
0
3
Annex 19 Number of people employed in local level business centers

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

Trips
1 time
2 Times
3Times
4 times
More than four
Total
Project Area
No
%
10
62.5
4
25
0
0
0
0
2
12.5
16 100
Control Area
No
3
0
1
1
0
5
Annex 21 Number of Project Affected Family

HHs
Percent
yes
105
No
195
Total
300
35.00
65.00
100.00
Annex 22 Type of Effects

HHs
Giving land
Damage main structure
Damage minor structure
Other asset loss
Total
Percent
89
3
11
2
105
Annex 23 Compensation received or not ?

No
yes
36
No
69
Total
105
84.76
2.86
10.48
1.90
100.00
Percent
34.29
65.71
100.00
Annex 24 Use of support

No
Use of economic support
Home expense
House mentainance
Total
Percent
33
3
36
91.67
8.33
100.00
xii
%
60
0
20
20
0
100
TERMS OF REFERENCES
(46)
Government of Nepal
Ministry of Local Development
Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads

(DoLIDAR)
RURAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION PROJECT
(RAIDP)
Terms of References
For
Consultancy Services for Impact Study

1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Government of Nepal (G0N) has received development grant and credit of 45 million U.S. $ to
implement the Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP), with
additional financial assistance from the International Development Association (IDA). A Part of
this additional financial assistance is to be used for consultancy services for hiring individual
consultant for baseline survey to monitor the socio-economic impact in participating districts.
1.2
The RAIDP- Additional Finance (AF) is a continuation to the Rural Access Improvement and
Decentralization Project (RAIDP) started at 2005 and aims to support the completion of
remaining works in the existing twenty (20) project districts and scale up the project to ten (10)
additional districts. It also aims the good practices and positive lessons learned from
implementation of the prevailing RAIDP. The primary objective of RAIDP-AF is to provide
beneficiary rural communities with improved and sustainable physical access to economic
opportunities and social services. The project comprises of:
1.3
Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI) Improvement Components :Sub-components are:

(i) All season rural roads; (ii) Dry season rural roads (iii) Rural roads maintenance, (iv)
Trail bridges construction at national level, (v) Demand-driven community
Infrastructure and Support (vi) River Crossing Structures.
Capacity Building and Advisory Services (CBAS) Component :Sub-components are: (i)
Training/Workshops (ii) Institutional Strengthening (iii) Planning (iv) Baseline survey &
Socioeconomic Impact Monitoring Study (v) Implementation Support.
The
participating
districts
grouped
in
four
clusters
are
as
follows
Cluster I: Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Salyan, Surkhet and Dang;
ClusterII: Puthan, KapiIvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Palpa, Gulmi and
Arghakhanchi;
Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syanga, Tanhun, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makwanpur;
Cluster IV: Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha, Saptari and
Udyapur.
2.
RATIONALE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
The RAIDP program is designed to support efforts to promote poverty reduction in rural areas
by promoting economic development and providing access to basic services that can increase
the quality of life for the poor. It is believed that eliminating the isolation of populated areas
with previously limited accessibility can provide the population greater and stable access to
critical goods, as well as essential social services, such as medical facilities, schools, visit by
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
concerned officer, and health care. It also creates the opportunity for development of these
services in their localities. Improved access to jobs provides opportunities for the poor to
participate in the economy and thus they reap more benefits of growth. Transport access, by
increasing the ability of the poor to travel to financial and urban centers, and reduced
transport costs facilitates the access of the poor to agriculture inputs and resources such as
capital and formal or informal trading links, reduced prices of goods and agriculture inputs, all
of which can spur rural development efforts. Rural road improvements are also undertaken to
promote agricultural development by increasing the production and marketing of agricultural
products as well as shift in agriculture pattern to cash crops, particularly where lack of access
had choked agricultural output or marketing facility. By alleviating constraints in the movement
of agricultural products, farmers revenues can increase and agricultural and non-farm rural
employment can also increase, contributing to a decline in poverty.
The empirical evidence at the macroeconomic level of the positive correlation between road
improvements and GDP per capita growth is extensive1. Yet, the distributional impact of road
projects, especially the impact on the poor, is less known. Previous efforts at assessing the
impact of rural roads have typically been limited because of lack of available baseline data
and control or comparison groups, making it difficult to disentangle the effects from the road
improvements from those of other interventions and overall development of the economy2.
The proposed impact evaluation will be designed to estimate the counterfactual namely,
what would have happened in the absence of the RAIDP intervention. To be carried out in
two phases, the overall objective of the proposed study is to assess (i) the magnitude and
distribution of the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of the RAIDP on target
populations , individuals, households, and (ii) to determine the extent to which interventions
under the RAIDP cause changes in the well being of targeted populations by examining how
they change over time in communities that have RAIDP projects (project groups) compared
with those that do not (comparison groups).
The impact assessment phase of this study will comprise of the following steps:
Review the project documents including baseline study undertaken previously under
original RAIDP.
Revisit survey instruments.
Development of evaluation methodology
Undertaking of the impact survey
Carrying out the descriptive and statistical analysis of the surveyed data in comparison
with the base line information.
Organizing Workshops/Seminars for consultations with different governmental and
non-governmental stakeholders and experts.
The DoLIDAR/RAIDP-PCU now wish to hire an expert consultant to undertake the following
terms of reference relating to the implementation of the impact survey assessment study road
sub-projects and community infrastructure projects completed in following twenty (20) districts
groped in cluster as below:.
Cluster I: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan
ClusterII: KapiIvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparas and, Palpa
Cluster III:Rasuwa, Kaski, Syanga, , Dhading, Nuwakot and Mmakwanpur
Cluster IV:Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa, Siraha, and Udyapur.
See, for example, Fan, Shenggen, Peter Hazell, and Sukhadeo Thorat, (1999) Linkages between Government Spending, Growth, and
Poverty in Rural India, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
2
See, for discussion, Baker, Judy (2000) Evaluating the Impacts of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners.
Washington, D.C.: The Word Bank., and De Walle and Cratty (2002) Impact Evaluation of Rural Road Rehabilitation Project. Mimeo,
World Bank.
3.
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES
3.1 General
The general objectives of this consultancy service are to:
Determine possible socioeconomic benefits of the RAIDP. This will in future help to,
(i)
adapt policy overtime as result of the evidence from the impact assessment, and
(ii)
support future funding request for rural access improvement
3.2 Specific
. The specific objectives of this consultancy services are to:
(i)
develop a scientific evaluation methodology and survey design to conduct
statistical
analysis to determine the magnitude and distribution of the direct and
indirect
socioeconomic impacts of rural roads improvement, and the extent to which
RAIDP interventions cause changes in the well being of targeted populations
overtime compared to those without project intervention;
(ii)
conduct impact survey of a sample of individuals and households in areas that
received RAIDP support (Project Areas), and on a small sample of households not
receiving any kind of rural road improvement support from RAIDP or other sources
(Control/Comparison Areas). The survey will be repeated with the same respondentsindividuals and households who had responded in the original baseline survey; and
(iii)
conduct descriptive statistical analysis of the impact by comparing the baseline
information with the results from this follow-up survey.
4.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Review of the related documents

The consultant will review the related documents of the projects including baseline study
reports, remedial action plan and other related documents for the development of
methodology to be adopted in impact survey.
Task 2: Development of Study Methodology and Piloting
2.1 The Consultant will develop a detailed survey design and evaluation methodology. The
methodology should be rigorous enough to ensure a sound statistical analysis of impact
assessment, and draw statistically valid inference on the impact of rural roads on socioeconomic benefits to the communities.
2.2 The Consultant will visit the Project Areas and Control Areas as defined in the original
baseline survey and refine survey questionnaires, if necessary. This will include ways of
organizing and tabulating the information collected in electronic format.
2.3 Detailed indicators used for baseline and proposed for follow up surveys, as well as impact
evaluation are provided in Annex 1.
2.4 The consultant shall prepare a detailed report on its survey design and evaluation
methodology as described above. The report should include, but not limited to:
I. Detailed description of the Project and Control Areas to be surveyed
II. Description of performance indicators to be used.
III. Draft survey questionnaire to be used.
2.5 Pilot the survey design and evaluation methodology developed for both the impact
assessment study and road user satisfaction survey in a small sample of households and
habitations with a
view of refining them both before finalization and use in the main survey
stage. A short report on the outcome of this pilot and the changes necessary shall be
prepared.
Task3: Conducting follow-up Survey

3.1
Once the methodology is developed, tested, and accepted by the client, the Consultant shall
conduct a full-scale impact survey on selected Project and Control villages.
3.2
Undertake qualitative survey (e.g. focus group meetings) in a subset of the habitations to
gain additional insights and to verify/augment quantitative survey.
3.3
The impact survey should include a detailed survey of transportation, economic/income, and
social variables on both the project and comparison groups
3.3.1 Transportation variables should include accessibility index, transportation costs and times,
modal choice, a detailed survey of transport needs, preferences, and demands of the rural
communities and household (See Annex 1.
3.3.2 Economic/Income Variables should include a detailed survey of economic activities in
habitations, measuring agriculture productivity and non-agriculture employment, as well as
prices of major commodities, income and expenditure of households (see Annex 1)
3.3.3 Social variables should include survey of availability and access of education and health
facilities. .
3.4
The consultant shall submit in electronic form of the impact survey data. The data collected
should be classified into habitation-level, household-level, and project-level database. The
database should be easily searchable and accessible enough to conduct statistical analysis
by
the user. This should be in format compatible with the baseline survey data.
Task 4: Impact Evaluation
The Consultant shall carry out a descriptive statistical analysis of the impact survey. This
will include the following.
4.1
Compare the changes in both project and comparison groups how they rank with respect to
the indicators in Annex 1.
4.2
Conduct statistical correlation between selected socioeconomic variables on the one hand
and the level of current accessibility to motorized transport on the other. This will include a
quantitative analysis of how limitations in accessibility contribute to rural poverty.
4.3
Prepare a report (maximum 30 pages including Annexes) detailing the findings of the analysis
of the baseline and impact survey data to determine the true impact of the project
interventions and draw lessons.
5
OUTPUTS AND REPORTS

The consultant will deliver the following outputs.
Item
No
Inception Report, including work

plan, detailed survey design and
evaluation of methodology
Report on the pilot of the impact
survey
5 (draft)
10 (final)
Impact Survey( Draft Report)
Impact Evaluations Report (Final

Report)
5 (draft)
10 (final)
Due Date
20 (Twenty) days
from the effective
date of the contract
40(Forty) days from
the effective date of
the contract
120(Hundred
twenty) days from
the effective date of
the contract
180(hundred and
eighty days) days
from the effective
date of the contract
5 (draft)
10(final)
Remarks
Detailed
methodology and
work plan
Including
electronic copy
Including
electronic copy
DURATION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICE

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

The consultant shall be paid as per following payment schedule:
i.
15 percent of the contract amount after signing the contract.
ii.
15 percent of the contract amount after submission of inception report and
accepted by the client
iii.
10 percent of the contract amount after submission of the report on pilot of the
impact survey and accepted by the client.
iv.
25 percent of the contract amount after submission of the draft report and
accepted by the client.
v.
35 percent of the contract amount after submission of the Final report and
accepted by the client.
11.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT
10.1 The individual consultant will be short listed with reference to the following
minimum qualifications:
(i)
Bachelor Degree in social sciences. The social sciences shall include Economics,
Development
Studies,
Population
Studies,
Rural
Development,
Sociology/Anthropology, Geography and Human Geography. Master's degree in
Sociology
/Anthropology/
Transportation
Engineering/Transportation
Management/Transportation Economics will be preferable.
(ii)
At least 7 years of work experience in the related field
(iii)
Completed at least one such similar nature of work
10.2 The consultant obtaining the highest score with reference to the evaluation criteria
approved by the DoLIDAR ; shall be selected among the short listed consultants.
10.3 The number of points to be assigned to the assigned services shall be determined
considering the following two sub criteria :
(a) Qualifications and relevant trainings 30 Points
(b) Experience in the related assignment 70 Points
________________
Total = 100 Points
ANNEX 1
SURVEY INDICATORS
Below are suggested indicators to be used by the consultant in carrying out the habitation and
household surveys. The Consultant is free to suggest its own list of indicators.
1.1
Transport Indicators
(i)
Number of trips taken outside village disaggregated by gender, income, and social
status to various destination-- colleges/schools, hospitals/health centers, markets,
government service office, and nearest city
(ii)
Purpose of trips taken -- work, business,
(iii)
Time required to reach selected destinations (nearest city, market, school, health
center, work)
(iv)
Distance (and travel time) to the nearest all season road
(v)
Distance (and travel time) to nearest bus stop
(vi)
Passability Index Number of weeks/months road is closed for motorized access.
(vii)
Vehicles per day (by type of vehicle)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(xix)
(xx)
(xxi)
(xxii)
(xxiii)
(xxiv)
(xxv)
(xxvi)
(xxvii)
(xxviii)
(xxix)
(xxx)
1.2
1.2
Frequency of bus service

Frequency of auto rickshaws
Passenger fares (by mode of transport)
Rate of truck-load of merchandize over a given distance
Transport cost of farming inputs (seeds, fertilizers)
Transport cost of agriculture products
Ownership of motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles
Agriculture Productivity Indicator
Produced quantities of crops
Output of key crops per unit of cultivated land
Amount of harvest sold in markets
Use of fertilizers
Use of herbicides
Use of pesticides
Use of improved seeds
Use of farm equipment (tractors, machines)
Farm-gate prices of key crops
Local market prices of key crops
Unit price of farm inputs
Number of people working on farm
Agricultural day wage
Number of yearly visits of agricultural extension agent
Livestock ownership
Non-agriculture Activities Indicator

(i)
Number of stores in village
(ii)
Ownership of non-agricultural household enterprise (by type)
(iii)
Number of days worked outside farm
Income, expenditure, and entrepreneurship Indicator
(i)
Level and source of income (by gender)
(ii)
Expenditure composition
(iii)
Distance to markets
(iv)
Number of sellers/shops in nearest market
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Number of products available at market

Price of key traded commodities
Price of land
Price of housing
Land tenure (by gender)
Access to credit (by gender)
1.3
Education Indicators
(i)
Number of primary schools in village
(ii)
Primary school enrollment rate (by gender)
(iii)
Secondary school enrollment rate (by gender)
(iv)
Primary school dropout rate (by gender)
(v)
Distance to nearest primary/secondary school
(vi)
Qualification of teachers
(vii)
Rate of absenteeism of teachers
(viii)
Availability of school supplies
1.4
Health Indicators
(i)
Distance to nearest health center/hospital
(ii)
Number of visits to health facilities (by age/gender)
(iii)
Days of work lost due to illness
(iv)
Immunization rate of children
(v)
Pregnant women receiving prenatal care
(vi)
Qualifications of medical staff
(vii)
Number of days present
(viii)
Availability of drugs and medical supplies
(ix)
Available hospital beds
(x)
Number of qualified doctors/health expert within the village
Photographs
Trisuli Meghang Road, Nuwakot
Focus Groups in Banke
Titiriya road in Banke
Orientation in Palpa
Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali
Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali

Impact Study Report March 20121

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Impact Study Report March 20121

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Government of Nepal

Ministry of Local Development

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

Asian Development Bank

Local Road User Committees

Project Affected Family

Rural Transport Infrastructure

Right to Information Act

Project Coordination Team

District Technical Office

Swiss Agency for Development and

Sector Wide Approach

Gernam Technical Cooperation

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM

August 15, 2005 to June30, 2010

Department of Local Infrastructure

30 Districts (20 old & 10 new)

The project development objective (PDO) is to assist for residents of participating

Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan

2. Impact Study Methodology

Limitation of Impact Study

3. General Information of Survey Roads

Travel Frequency to Market

Agriculture and Transportation

Use of Farm Equipment

Transport and agriculture Extension

38 percent households were found taking the services of veterinary extension.

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

Income, Expenditure, and Entrepreneurship

Road transportation has made easier to collect remittance sent by family

Education, Health, Food Security and Social Safe Guard Indicators

Transport and food Security

RAIDP Road Condition and Quality

Social Safe Guards

35 percent sample households were affected by RAIDP roads. They were

Conclusion and Recommendation

CHAPTER VII ...................................................................................................................... 34

Rationale and Objective

Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) has been

1.2 Description of the Project

initiatives, including financial management and accounting, project development and

Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan

Table 1.1 Distribution of RAIDP road by regions

Source: Social Screening Reports, RAIDP, 2011.

2.1.2 Control Area

2.2 Evaluation Design

indicators; non-agriculture activities indicator, income and expenditure indicators, and

2.4 Data Sources

2. FGD with the community people

2.5 Data Management

Table 3.1 Average household size of the project area

Table 3.2 Sex composition by project area and control villages

Source: Field Survey, 2011

3.2 Caste and Ethnicity

Table 3.4: Population distribution by caste/ethnicity in sample area

High hill caste

Source: Field Survey, 2011

Program area- Hill Districts

4. 1 Traffic Count and Transportation Indicators

Total vehicles per

Number of sample roads

4.1.1 Motorized and Non-motorized Vehicles in RAIDP Roads

Table 4.2 Number of vehicles before and after RAIDP Road

Source field Survey: 2011