Government of Nepal Ministry of Local Development ... - raidp

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 Asian Development Bank LRUCs Local Road User Committees
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis MOLD Ministry of Local Government
CBAS Capacity Building and Advisory MTR Mid Term Review
Services
CBMP Community Based Performance PAF Project Affected Family
Monitoring
CEA Cost-Effective Analysis PCT Project Coordination Team
DDC District Development Committee PCU Project Coordination Unit
DDF District Development Fund PPMO Public Procurement Monitoring
Office
DFID Department of International
Development
RAIDP Rural Access Improvement and
Decentralization Project
DOLIDAR Department of Local
RED Road Economic Decision Model
Infrastructure Development and
Agricultural Roads
DOR Department of Road RTI Rural Transport Infrastructure
DPT District Participation Framework
DRILP Decentralization Rural
RTIA Right to Information Act
Infrastructure Development and
Livelihood Project
DTMP District Transport Master Plan SDC Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation
DTO District Technical Office SNV Netherlands Social Development
and Cooperation
EOP End of Project SPAF Severely Project Affected Family
ESMF Environment and Social
SRN Strategic Road Network
Management Framework
GAAP Governance and Accountability SWAP Sector Wide Approach
Action Plan
GON Government of Nepal VCDP Vulnerable Communities
Development Framework
GTZ Gernam Technical Cooperation VDC Village Development Committee
HDM-4 Highway Development and
Management Plan
VRCC Village Road Coordination
Committee
IDA International Development WFP World Food Program
Association
ILO International Labor Organization ZOI Zone of Influence
IME International Money Exchange
IRAP Integrated Rural Accessibility
Planning
ISAP Institutional Strengthening Action
Plan
JT
Junior technician
JTA Junior Technician Assistance
LID Local Infrastructure Development

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM
Project Period August 15, 2005 to June30, 2010
Executing Agency
Implementing Agencies
Geographical Coverage
Department of Local Infrastructure
Development and Agricultural Roads
(DoLIDAR), MLD
Local Bodies (District Development
Committees)
30 Districts (20 old & 10 new)
Development Partners 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
Financial Resources US$m 32.00
Program Components
(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: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan
Cluster II: Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa
Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur
Cluster IV: 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.
2

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
3

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.
4

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.
5

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.
6

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.
7

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
Blöndal, 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: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, and Salyan
Cluster II: Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Palpa
Cluster III: Rasuwa, Kaski, Syangja, Dhading, Nuwakot and Makawanpur
Cluster IV: 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 Cluster Total Roads
Total
Beneficiaries
Tarai Region
1 Kailali 1 1 19370
2 Bardiya 1 1 82440
3 Banke 1 1 24660
4 Kapilbastu 2 2 76161
5 Rupandehi 2 2 12482
6 Nawalparasi 2 2 34658
7 Rautahat 4 2 145088
8 Sarlahi 4 2 139722
9 Mahottari 4 2 141979
10 Dhanusa 4 2 47136
11 Siraha 4 2 81750
12 Udayapur 4 2 141630
Total 21 947076
Hill Region
1. Salyan 1 1 13169
2 Palpa 2 2 94288
3 Syanja 3 2 35968
4 Kaski 3 2 36226
5 Rasuwa 3 1 5533
6 Dhading 3 2 115292
7 Nuwakot 3 1 15644
8 Makawanpur 3 2 69406
Total 13 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
Tarai
Z0= is the zone lying at walking distance of 0- Z0= is the zone lying at walking distance of 0-
30 minutes from the road
10 minutes from the road
Z1= is the zone lying at walking distance of Z1= is the zone lying at walking distance of 10-
30mins-1hr from the road
30 minutes from the road
Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of Z2= is the zone lying at the walking distance of
1hr-2 hrs from the road
30minutes-1hrs from the road
Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 2 Z3= is the zone lying at walking distance of 1
hrs-4 hrs from the road
hrs-2 hrs from the road
Source: ESMF, RAIDP, 2005
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 (Trisuli-
Deurali-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 Before After
1 Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 9.15 8.46
2 Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 5.55 5.93
3 Banke Titeriya-Sonpur 10.7 6.06
4 Salyan Khalanga-Hospital-Simkharka 7.2 5.73
5 Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok 7.6 8.26
6 Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 6.45 6
7 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 10.25 5.4
8 Palpa Bastari-Jhadewa 6.8 4.93
9 Syangja Biruwa-Rangkhola 7.25 5.8
10 Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 7.05 5.33
11 Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 10.6 5.53
12 Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 7 5.13
13 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang 11.6 6.93
14 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 7.47 6.06
15 Rautahat Auraiya- Himalibas 8.6 5
16 Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiwol 10.45 6.53
17 Mahottari Matihani_pipra 7.25 7.66
18 Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 5.75 6.86
19 Siraha Mirchaya-Siraha 7.85 7.13
20 Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 6.85 6
Total 7.2 6.24
Source: Baseline Survey, 2007 and Field Survey, 2011
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
Zone of influence
Project area Control area
Total population
Male
Population 984 342 1326
% 52.56 51.82 52.37
Female
Population 888 318 1206
% 47.44 48.18 47.63
Total
Population 1872 660 2532
% 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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
Age interval
Program Control Total popn.
area area
Below 5 years
Population 104 31 135
% 5.56 4.70 5.33
5 - 14
Population 400 132 532
% 21.37 20.00 21.01
15 - 59
Population 1222 447 1669
% 65.28 67.73 65.92
60 and above
Population 146 50 196
% 7.80 7.58 7.74
Total
Population 1872 660 2532
% 100.00 100.00 100.00
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 Control Area Total
No % No % No %
High hill caste 558 29.81 119 18.03 677 26.74
Hill Janajati 474 25.32 218 33.03 692 27.33
Tarai Dalit 327 17.47 133 20.15 460 18.17
Tarai caste 242 12.93 80 12.12 322 12.72
Musalman 140 7.48 54 8.18 194 7.66
Tarai Janajati 78 4.17 21 3.18 99 3.91
Hill Dalits 53 2.83 35 5.30 88 3.48
Total 1872 100.00 660 100.00 2532 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Program area- Hill Districts
Groups Population % Population %
Hill high Caste 141 12.82 417 54
Hill Dalits 7 0.63 46 6
Hill Janajati 165 15 309 40
Terai caste 242 22 0 0
Terai Dalit 327 29.73 0 0
Terai Janajati 78 7.1 0 0
Musalman 140 12.72 0 0
Total 1100 100 772 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
(11)

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
Total vehicles per
day
Number of sample roads
Average
Jeep/Sumo 43 10 4.3
Motorbicycles 890 19 46.8
Bus/minibus/micro 109 18 6.1
Truck/Minitruck/Triper 190 19 10.0
Tractor 392 18 21.8
Bicycle 1323 14 94.5
Tanga/Carriage 2 2 1.0
Rickshaw 3 2 1.5
Car 16 4 4.0
Cart 198 12 16.5
Taxi 5 1 5.0
Ambulance 1 1 1.0
Total 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 (Khutiya-
Matiyari 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 Non-motorized Increased percent
vehicles
Before After Before After Motorized
Nonmotorized
Kailali 80 193 70 111 59 37
Bardiya 74 138 96 128 46 25
Banke 69 97 67 87 29 23
Salyan 37 42 0 0 12 0
Kapilvastu 72 88 80 79 18 0
Rupandehi 114 146 64 90 22 29
Nawalparasi 63 111 59 93 43 37
Palpa 65 86 4 0 24 0
Rasuwa 9 9 0 0 0 0
Kaski 66 89 2 1 26 0
Syangja 16 31 0 0 48 0
Dhading 32 82 0 6 61 100
Nuwakot 44 118 0 0 63 0
Makawanpur 28 50 0 0 44 0
Rautahat 64 80 100 116 20 14
Sarlahi 26 39 103 197 33 48
Mahottari* 20 3 82 44 0 -86
Dhanusa 113 167 110 333 32 70
Siraha 30 49 117 152 39 23
Udayapur 18 28 66 89 35 26
1040 1646 1020 1526 37 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 Roads Traffic units
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 227.5
Bardiya Rajapur Ring Road 310
Banke Titihiriy-Sonapur 231
Salyan Khalangga 43.5
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labni-Lakhanchok 251
Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 337.5
Nawalparasi Daldle-Dhauwadi 276.5
Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 89.5
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 10
Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 86.5
Syangya Rangkhola-Biruwa 64
(13)

Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 115.5
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Mehang 83
Makwanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 37.5
Rautahat Auriya-Himalibas 214.5
Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol 195
Mahottari Matihani-Pipara 213.5
Dhanusa Janakpur-Khairahani 404
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 293
Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar 123.5
Total 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
Fare for
Distance in KM
Per km
Types of Vehicles
Passenger
fare (Rs)
No Mean No Mean
Jeep/Sumo 43 14.4 43 89.2 6
Bus/Minibus 109 13.8 109 49.4 3.6
Truck/minitruck 190 14.2 4 67.5 4.75
Tanga/carriage 2 6.6 2 32.5 4.9
Rickshaw 3 4 3 26.7 7
Bullock cart 198 12.9 1 300 23
Taxi 5 5 5 740 150
Ambulance 1 5 1 4500 900
Total 551 9.3 168
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Quantity of
Types of vehicle Number goods (KG) Distance
Mean
Truck/Minitruck/Triper 186 3809.1
14.3
Tractor 392 1854.1
12.0
Cart 197 92.4
12.9
Total 775 1875.5 12.8
Source: Traffic Survey, 2011
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
Project area
Control Area
Mode of Transport
Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%)
On foot 5 0 13 28
Bus 62 58 56 46
Motorcycle 3 14 3 6
Bicycle 24 22 18 18
Jeep 0 6 0 2
Missing 6 0 10 0
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: Baseline Survey, 2006/07 pp 5 &6, Impact Survey, 2011
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)

Name of
Districts
Table 4.7 Road wise travel time and time to key facilities before
and after RAIDP road upgrading
Name of Roads
Travel Time
(hrs)
Time for
market center
(hrs)
Time for
hospital (hrs)
Time for
higher
education
(hrs)
Before After Before After Before After Before After
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 1 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 1 0.4 1 0.4
Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 1.5 1 1.5 1 0.75 0.8 1.5 1
Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.4
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi 3 1.5 2 1 2 1 2 1
Syanja Rangkhola-Biruwa 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1
Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 3.2 1 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.7
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjayang 0.75 0.5 2 1.3 2 1.5 2 1.5
Dhadding Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5 3 1.5
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 2 1 2.5 2 1 0.6 1 0.6
Rautahat Himalibas-Auriya 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.7 3 1.4 3 1.4
Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathol 4 2 1.5 0.75 2 1 2 1
Dhanusa Janakpur-Khariyani 2 0.75 2 0.75 2 0.8 2 0.75
Siraha Siraha-Mirchaiya 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9
Mahottari Matiyani-Piparara-Brahmapur 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara 1.8 0.7 1 0.5 1.7 0.8 1.7 0.8
Average hours for travel 2 0.8 1.4 0.76 1.8 0.9 1.8 0.93
% of travel time reduction 60 46 50 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)

Type of
Vehicle
Table 4.8 Vehicle Ownership across sample households
and utilization pattern in project area
Purpose
Used in
Total
No.
Domestic Commercial Both
Within
project
area
Outside
project
area
Both
Average per
day trip in
project area
Non-motorized
transport* 233 193 4 38 86 31 118 4
Motorcycles 63 45 9 9 30 8 25 3
Bus 4 2 1 1 3 1 0 2
Tractor 10 3 5 2 7 2 1 4
Truck 15 3 10 2 8 4 3 8
Minibus 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 328 247 29 52 135 46 147 4
Source: Field Survey, 2011
*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
Travel
Total
Destination Mode of transportation Frequency Traveled by
distance
trips
(km)
Travel
time
(hrs)
Purpose
Nearest Town Bus/bicycle/byke/jeep Male/Female 816 19.6 1.2 Marketing
Rural Market Foot/bicycles/byke/bus/jeep 66 Male/Female 1285 1.4 0.26 Marketing
Gov Office Foot/bus/ibicycle 8 Male 200 2.2 0.41 Job
Work place Foot/bicycle/byke/bus 21 Male 535 98.7 3.4 Business
School Foot/bicycle/byke/bus 183 Male/Female 3094 1.9 0.45 Study
College Foot/Bicycles/bus/byke 17 MaleFemale 423 3 0.8 Study
Health centre Foot/Bus/bicycle/byke 47 Male/female 281 11.7 0.6 Treatment
Hospital Foot/Bus 41 Male/Female 173 13.3 0.85 Treatment
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Mode of
Total Travel Travel
Destination
Frequency Traveled by
Purpose
transportation
trips distance (km) time (hrs)
Nearest Town Foot/Bus 23 Male 253 19.13 1.5 Buying
Rural Market Foot 32 Both 722 2.2 0.48 Other
Gov Office Foot/Bus 7 Both 121 24.4 2.7 Job
Work place Foot 5 Male 210 3.9 0.75 Labor work
School Foot 49 Male/Female 975 2.8 0.75 Study
College Foot/Bus 7 Female/male 132 27.9 1.5 Study
Health centre Foot 18 Female/male 70 2.8 0.61 Treatment
Hospital Foot/Bus 10 Male/female 38 22.9 2.3 Treatment
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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 0-30 m 31 m to 2 hrs 2-4 hrs More than 4 hrs
Kailali 33 67 0 0
Bardiya 100 0 0 0
Banke 33 67 0 0
Salyan 40 25 10 25
Kapilbastu 0 0 100 0
Nawalparasi 47 53 0 0
Rupandehi 0 73 27 0
Palpa 0 20 80 0
Kaski 13 54 20 13
Syangja 7 66 20 7
Dhading 80 0 20 0
Makawanpur 7 27 33 33
Rasuwa 93 0 7 0
Nuwakot 47 26 27 0
Rautahat 0 100 0 0
Sarlahi 53 47 0 0
Mahottari 20 67 13 0
Dhanusa 0 100 0 0
Siraha 7 27 66 0
Udayapur 0 40 40 20
Total % 29 43 23 5
Source: Field Survey, 2011
(18)

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. Districts Before (2006) (%) After (2011) (%) Increased %
1 Kailali 5 0 100
2 Bardiya 4 0 100
3 Banke 0 0 100
4 Salyan 43.6 25 19
5 Kapilbastu 0 0 100
6 Nawalparasi 9 0 100
7 Rupandehi 1.8 0 100
8 Palpa 8 0 100
9 Kaski 9.28 13 -4
10 Syangja 25 7 18
11 Dhading 36 0 100
12 Makawanpur 5 33 -28
13 Rasuwa 23 0 100
14 Nuwakot 32.9 0 100
15 Rautahat 6 0 100
16 Sarlahi 6.03 0 100
17 Mahottari 6.03 0 100
18 Dhanusa 0 0 100
19 Siraha 0 0 100
20 Udayapur 33.65 20 13.65
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
No of
Farm input
trips
Mode of
transport
Market
distance(km)
Travel time
one way(hrs)
Per unit
transport
cost
Improve
seeds Bus 16.48 1.13 80 0.85
Fertilizers Bus 15.89 1.09 159 0.81
insecticides Bus 12.68 0.89 36 32.17
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Travel time No of
Farm input
Market
Per unit
Mode of transport
one trips
distance(km)
transport cost
way(hrs)
Improve
seeds Bicycle 4.92 0.65 16 0
Fertilizers
Man/bicycles/bullock
cart 5.33 1.55 32 1.36
insecticides Bicycle 12.68 1.25 4 0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
(20)

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
Control Area
Input
Percent of Average
Average
Percent of HH
HH consumption (kg)
consumption (kg)
Fertilizer 74 109 66 101
Pesticide 21 13
Seeds 34 40 31 24
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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 After
Paddy 339 1834 327 2154
HH 280 229 247 81
Maize 113 646 105 646
HH 50 165 60 49
Wheat 192 826 191 955
No 162 122 153 54
Source: Baseline Study; 2006/07 pp 4-5 and Impact study, 2011.
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 Auriya-
Himalibas 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
Crops
No of HH consumption
Agricultural output
Grown for sale (%)
HH (% of growing crops)
sold/HH (kg)
Paddy 229 58.43 41.57 2312.00
Maize 165 81.12 18.88 719.00
Wheat 122 72.61 27.39 790.00
Millet 60 68.73 31.27 407.00
Potato 81 35.21 64.79 1108.00
Mustard 94 86.67 13.33 229.00
Pulses 62 75.60 24.40 165.00
Vegetables 288 58.17 41.83 597.00
Fruits 9 27.28 72.72 2043.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
(22)

Table 5.6 Dispensation of crops grown in control villages
Crops No of HH
HH consumption Grown for sale Agricultural output
(% of growing crops) (%)
sold/HH (kg)
Paddy 71 64.94 35.06 1981.00
Maize 49 84.48 15.52 615.00
Wheat 54 59.88 40.12 1294.00
Millet 26 79.13 20.87 289.00
Potato 26 43.18 56.82 1125.00
Mustard 32 79.52 20.48 143.00
Pulses 20 62.80 37.20 186.00
Vegetables 94 74.69 25.31 410.00
Fruits 1 0.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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) Irrigated land (ha) Percent
Project area 171.52 74.77 43.59
Control area 75.04 21.41 28.53
Total 246.56 96.17 39.01
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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 Tractor Thresher
Project Control Project Control Project Control
Farmers using 74 20 104 30 102 29
Percent of
sample 24.66 20 34.67 30 34 29
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Market mean
distance(km)
Travel
time(hrs)
Total
trips
Transportation
cost/ per quintal
Food grain Truck/tractors 4.97 1.5 90 56.11
Pulses Truck/tractors 5.5 1.5 17 56.36
Potato Truck 13.92 1 46 135.75
Oilseeds Truck 4.33 1.83 4 46.67
Cash crop Bus 14.33 0.9 42 150.00
Fruits Bus 14 0.86 27 50.00
Vegetables Home market 0 0 28 0.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Major crops
Mode of Market Travel Total Transportation
transport distance(km) time(minute) trips cost/ per quintal
Foodgrain Bullock cart 9.31 105 78 61.56
Pulses Bullock cart 9.43 116 9 54.29
Potato Bullock cart 10.5 120 6 66.67
Oilseeds Bullock cart 11 140 3 48.33
Cash crop Man 6.67 105 10 100
Fruits Man 5 120 10 100
Vegetables Bullock cart 13 120 14 80
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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 Middlemen price Market
Prices
Project Area Control Project Area Control
Paddy 16.92 15 18.89 17 21.14
Maize 20.87 18 22.95 20 25
Wheat 16.75 16 18.5 18 20.87
Millet 13 12 15.5 14 17.5
Mustard 54.4 50 62 60 72
Pulses 37.67 35 40.33 40 44
Potato 9.33 8 11 10 12.83
Tomato 35 25 40 30 55
Ginger 23.25 20 27 25 32.5
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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
Goat and
Cattle
Item
sheep
Poultry
Pigs
Project Control Project Control Project control Project Control
Average Number of
5
3
13
1
Flock/Herd 3
5
60
2.69
Numbers of Farmer
76
68
47
14
keeping 208
190
96
16
Percent of total 69 76 63 68 32 47 5 14
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Zone of influence
Program area Control area
Total
Agriculture
No 382 161 515
% 36.04 46.80 39.25
Non-agriculture No 678 183 797
% 63.96 53.20 60.75
Total
No 968 344 1312
% 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Control area
Types of Transport
No % No %
Bus 44 38 1 2
Bicycle 35 31 12 27
Motorcycle 1 1 0 0
On Foot 30 26 32 71
Truck 1 1 0 0
Bullock cart 1 1 0 0
Jeep 2 2 0 0
Total 114 100 45 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 5. 15 Mode of transport for visiting to agricultural extension
Project area
Control area
Types of transport
No % No %
Bus 24 31 5 16
Cycle 28 36 10 31
MotorCycle 4 5 1 3
Bullock cart 12 15 0 0
Microbus 9 12 2 6
Jeep 1 1 0 0
On foot 0 0 14 44
Total 78 100 32 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Financial
S.
School
Market centre
District
Institutions institutions
N.
Before After Before After Before After Before After
1 Kailai 8 9 3 5 6 8 4 4
2 Bardia 18 20 8 10 1 4 5 7
3 Banke 5 7 5 5 5 5 4 5
4 Salyan 10 11 2 2 2 5 5 5
5 Palpa 13 13 14 14 0 4 10 10
6 Rupandehi 6 7 3 4 0 1 3 3
7 Kapilbastu 24 24 7 8 0 1 2 2
8 Nawalparasi 24 24 10 10 0 10 4 4
9 Syangja 8 9 2 2 1 5 6 6
10 Kaski 19 20 3 3 0 3 6 6
11 Makawanpur 16 16 2 2 0 3 2 2
12 Dhading 36 40 5 5 0 6 3 4
13 Rasuwa 4 15 1 2 1 2 2 2
14 Nuwakot 18 18 5 5 0 4 7 7
15 Rautahat 6 9 5 5 0 2 4 5
16 Sarlahi 14 15 13 15 0 8 5 5
17 Siraha 39 40 9 12 5 5 5 5
18 Mahottari 15 15 4 5 1 1 4 4
19 Dhanusa 15 16 4 6 1 3 4 4
20 Udayapur 19 19 9 11 2 5 4 6
Total 344 347 114 125 25 85 89 96
Source: Baseline Survey, 2006 and Field Survey, 2011.
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)
Project area
Control area
Items
Annual
Annual
HHs
HHs
expenditure
expenditure
Food 300 51296 100 45518
Clothing 300 18936 100 16671
School's fee, book, stationary 242 16573 85 16049
Medical treatment 262 11853 88 12951
Fuel 284 4634 79 4112
Rituals 209 6997 67 10383
Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages 140 2954 49 3840
Tax, levy, Fines 167 725 59 977
Others 53 1946 23 2770
Productive Expenditure
Gold, Silver ornaments 30 20850 14 10320
Income generation 50 50899 26 45000
Purchase land 13 18923 5 11300
Housing cost 82 14363 27 11120
Others 7 1006 6 990
Total 106041 78730
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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)
Project Area
Control Area
Items
HHs Annual income HHs Annual Income
Crop Farming 300 47059 100 49320
Vegetable and cash crops 86 8305 31 6745
Fruits 10 610 2 300
Livestock 134 10557 41 10011
Small cottage 6 2763 1 1200
Government Service 39 26500 16 23990
Pension 18 4906 4 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 2 3450
Others 26 5430 8 10846
Total 255562 245582
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Within Nepal
Outside Nepal
Project Control Project Control
Dhanusa 300 400 1000 300
Palpa 100 20 200 30
Makawanpur 120 3 20 7
Dhading 50 40 150 100
Kailali 40 23 212 45
Rupandehi 7 5 15 15
Kapilbastu 100 60 800 300
Udayapur 20 5 90 20
Kaski 40 20 500 80
Mahottari 50 21 130 120
Syangja 40 20 220 100
Salyan 50 100 200 100
Bardiya 50 10 220 20
Banke 40 20 300 40
Nawalparasi 50 20 100 30
Rasuwa 120 15 120 20
Rautahat 300 150 500 100
Siraha 400 200 1000 400
Sarlahi 80 20 300 30
Nuwakot 40 5 120 4
Total 1997 1157 6197 1861
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011
(30)

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)
Item
Average price Min and max price Modal Value
Program Control Program Control Program Control
Paddy 14 15.37 11-16 12-22 12 14
Maize 14.50 19.87 10-20 12-35 13 15
Wheat 15.90 17.22 10-20 15-18 14 16
Millet 10.50 18.50 10-11 11-20 11 14
Potato 8.80 14.33 5-13 8-25 9 12
Oil seeds 39.83 43.33 32-90 32-60 50 50
Pulses 37.85 37.37 35-45 28-46 40 35
Vegetables 22.80 27.50 5-40 20-35 25 25
Fruit 28.33 25 4-40 4-25 20 25
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011
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) Control Area (price in Rs)
Before After Before After
Mean 11778106.51 38053063.56 3967885.093 10869536.17
Sum 235562130.2 761061271.2 79357701.85 217390723.4
Minimum 322580.6452 1479289.941 295857.9882 483870.9677
Maximum 96774193.55 161290322.6 23668639.05 32258064.52
Range 96451612.9 159811032.6 23372781.07 31774193.55
Source: Field Survey (FGD), 2011.
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) Control Area(Price in Rupees)
Before After Before After
Mean 1345207 5393759 699276.1 1606839
Minimum 221565.7 443131.5 118168.4 147710.5
Maximum 6000000 32000000 2000000 4000000
Range 5778434 31556869 1881832 3852290
Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011
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
No
HH % HH %
Project area 78 26 222 75.25
Control area 27 27 73 24.75
Total 105 100.00 295 100.00
Source: Field survey (FGD), 2011
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
No of HH in Project
area
No of HH in Control
area
No % No %
Bank 29 32.22 11 40.74
Co-operative 37 41.11 10 37.04
Money lenders 19 21.11 6 22.22
Both of Bank & cooperative 5 5.56 0 00
Total loan browers HH 90 100 27 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
project area
control villages
No Percent No Percent
Male 34 37.78 5 18.52
Female 54 60.00 22 81.48
Both male & female 2 2.22 0 0.00
Total HH 90 100.00 27 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Survey Villages
Literate
Members
Literacy
Rate
% of Children
enrolled
Female-Male
student
Project area
Villages 1465 83.52 95.25 197/184
Control Villages 484 77.81 93.94 66/58
Total 1949 82.03 94.92 263/242
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Range of No of Households No of Households
Distance (km) Project Area Percent Control area Percent
Up to 1 30 16 5 13
1 to 3 85 47 4 11
3 to 5 40 22 9 24
5 to 10 24 13 10 27
Above 10 4 2 9 24
Total 183 100 37 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Mode of transport Project area
Control Area
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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
Mode of Transportation Project Area
Control Area
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011.
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)
Project area
Control area
HHs % No %l
Up to 1 14 8.86 4 10.81
1 to 3 30 18.99 10 27.02
3 to 5 54 34.18 7 18.92
5 to 10 24 15.18 3 8.11
Above 10 36 22.79 13 35.13
Total 158 100 37 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
(36)

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
Mode of Transport Project Area
Control Area
No % No %
On foot 47 30 18 49
Bicycle 49 31 12 32
Bus 62 39 7 19
Total 158 100 37 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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 Project Area Control Area
No % No %
On foot 4 8 7 39
Bicycle 4 8 0 0
Motorcycle 1 2 1 5
Bus 41 80 10 56
Jeep 1 2 0 0
Total 51 100 18 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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 % No % No %
Surplus (well-off) 59 19.67 24 24.00 91 22.75
10 to 12 Months 91 30.33 27 27.00 110 25.00
6 to 9 Months 59 19.67 27 27.00 86 21.50
3 to 5 Months 51 17.00 8 8.00 59 14.75
Below 3 Months 40 13.33 14 14.00 54 13.5
Total 300 100 100 100.00 400 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Priority
Sector
1 2 3
Easy for access 259 21 20
Increase in going hospital 156 91 53
Increase in market frequency 112 117 71
Increase selling items in market 99 106 95
Increase in income generation resource 75 127 98
Employment opportunity 74 107 119
Decrease transportation cost 61 152 87
Total 837 723 546
Source: Field Survey, 2011
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
Bar Nu Rau Mak Ban Sir Sar Sal Nab Rasu Syan Uday Kaski Maho Rup Kapil Dhad Kail Pal Dhanu
District
Landslides & Floods
Strikes
Accidents
Others
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
Blöndal, 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 RAIDP-
Districts 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 Original place of sample Control VDC
(VDC)
1 Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda Chhatre Deurali Khari
2 Kaski Rakhi-Mijure Road Kalika Sardikhola
3 Syangja Rangkhola-Biruwa Rangbang Kitchnas
4 Rasuwa Kalikasthan- Dhunge Bhorle Dhaibung
5 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang Tupche Kalyanpur
Makawanpur Kulekhani- Humanebhanjayang Kulekhani Chhatiwan
7 Palpa Banstari Jhadewa Chitrungdhara Foksingkot
8 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi Pragatinagar Jahada
9 Rupandehi Madhauliya-Bhutaha Gangoliya Gajedi
10 Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk Patariya Patna
11 Rautahat Himalibas-Auriya Auraiya Mathiya
12 Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol Hajariya Sundarpur
13 Mahottari Matihani-Pipara-Brahmapur Matihani Suga Bhawani
14 Siraha Siraha-Mirchaiya Sarshwor Sikron
15 Dhanusa Janakpur-Khariyani Mansinghpatti Benga
16 Udayapur Ghaighat-Beltar-Chatara Beltar Rauta
17 Kailali Kutiya-Matiyari Beladevipur Urma
18 Bardiya Rajapur Ring road Dhadhawar Daulatpur
19 Banke MRM-Tirthiya Sonpur Titihiriya Sonapur
20 Salyan Khanga Hospital -Simkharka Khalanga Karagithi
Annex -2 Orientations Program for Baseline and Impact Study
SN Cluster Cluster districts
Venue for Date of Orientation
No
Orientation
1 1 Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke, Bardiya,
Salyan, Dang, Surkhet
Nepalgunj 17 October, 2011
(2068/6/30)
2 4 Rautahat, Sarlahi, Mahottari, Dhanusa,
Siraha, Udayapur, Bara, Parsa, Saptari
Bardibas 30 October, 2011
(2068/7/13)
3 3 Rasuwa, Kaski, Makawanpur, Nuwakot,
Syangja, Dhading Tanahu
Hetauda 3 November, 2011
(2068/7/17)
2 2 Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Palpa,
Pyuthan, Arghanchi, Gulmi
Palpa 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
i

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
Hill
Tarai Districts
Districts
Groups Pop % Pop %
Project Area High Caste hill 141 13 417 54
Hill Dalits 7 1 46 6
Hill Janajati 165 15 309 40
Terai 242 22 0 0
Terai Dalit 327 30 0 0
Terai Janajati 78 7 0 0
Musalman 140 12 0 0
1100 100 772 100
Control area
Hill high caste 48 12 71 27
Hill Dalits 3 1 32 12
Hill Janajati 64 16 154 59
Terai 80 20 0 0
Terai Dalit 127 32 6 2
Terai Janajati 21 5 0 0
Musalman 54 14 0 0
397 100 263 100
Annex 4 No of Vehicles before and after the RAIDP Road
District
Roads
Jeep/car/
Taxi
Bus/minibus
ii
Trucks/minitrucks
Tractors Motorcycles
Nonmotorized
vehicles
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 3 3 1 2 2 5 4 8 70 175 70 111
Rajapur Ring
Bardiya Road 0 0 9 12 7 14 48 61 10 51 96 128
Banke Titihiriy-Sonapur 0 3 5 9 8 11 39 51 17 23 67 87
Salyan Khalangga 1 2 2 4 1 2 13 9 20 25 0 0
Kapilvastu
Sibalawa-Labni-
Lakhanchok 2 0 2 2 8 11 35 43 25 32 80 79
Rupandehi
Madhauliya-
Bhutaha 2 3 6 10 12 14 54 65 40 54 64 90
Nawalparasi Daldle-Dhauwadi 2 21 7 10 1 2 19 38 34 40 59 93
Palpa Banstari-Jhadewa 4 10 6 11 6 8 8 6 41 51 4 0
Rasuwa
Kalikasthan-
Dhunge 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 6 5 0 0
Kaski Rakhi-Mujure 2 1 2 2 12 22 14 20 36 44 2 1
Syangja Rangkhola-Biruwa 0 4 3 6 10 13 1 1 2 7 0 0
Dhading
Bhimdhunga-
Lamidanda 4 5 6 10 2 37 0 4 20 26 0 6
Nuwakot
Trisuli-Deurali-
Mehang 1 0 2 4 10 14 1 0 30 100 0 0

Makawanpur
Kulekhani-
Humanebhanjyang 2 7 3 0 5 5 5 4 13 34 0 0
Rautahat Auriya-Himalibas 1 1 0 1 5 7 18 20 40 50 100 116
Sarlahi Karmaiya-Hathiol 0 0 5 7 4 6 10 12 7 14 103 197
Mahottari Matihani-Pipara 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 1 11 1 82 44
Dhanusa
Janakpur-
Khairahani 3 0 6 7 4 8 33 35 67 117 110 333
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0 0 3 7 3 6 4 12 20 24 117 152
Udayapur Gaighat-Beltar 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 8 17 66 89
Total 31 64 71 109 106 190 315 392 517 890 1020 1526
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
Districts
Kailali
Bardiya
Banke
Salyan
Kapilbastu
Rupandehi
Nawalparas
i
Palpa
Rasuwa
Kaski
Syangya
Dhading
Nuwakot
Makwanpur
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Siraha
Udayapur
Roads
Jeep
Motorcycle
Bus/
Minibus
Light
truck
Trucks
upto 10
tonnnes
Tractor
Bicycle
Tanga/
Carriage
Rickshaw
N N N N N N N N N N
Khutiya-
Matiyari 3 87.5 6 6 3 12 50 0 0 60 227.5
Rajapur Ring
Road 0 25 36 18 6 90 57 0 0 78 310
Titihiriy-
Sonapur 3 12 24 15 3 75 38 0 1 60 231
Khalangga 2 13 12 3 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 43.5
Sibalawa-
Labni-
Lakhanchok 0 16 6 15 0 64.5 29.5 0 0 120 251
Madhauliya-
Bhutaha 3 27 30 18 6 97.5 34 0 2 120 337.5
Daldle-
Dhauwadi 21 20 30 3 0 57 37.5 0 0 108 276.5
Banstari-
Jhadewa 10 25.5 33 12 0 9 0 0 0 0 89.5
Kalikasthan-
Dhunge 0 2.5 3 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Rakhi-Mujure 1 22 6 30 0 27 0.5 0 0 0 86.5
Rangkhola-
Biruwa 4 21 18 19.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 64
Bhimdhunga-
Lamidanda 11 13 30 55.5 0 6 0 0 0 0 115.5
Trisuli-Deurali-
Mehang 0 50 12 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 83
Kulekhani-
Humanebhanjy
ang 7 17 0 7.5 0 6 0 0 0 0 37.5
Auriya-
Himalibas 2 25 3 10.5 0 30 24 6 0 114 214.5
Karmaiya-
Hathiol 0 7 21 6 6 18 95 0 0 42 195
Matihani-
Pipara 0 3 0 0 0 1.5 5 6 0 198 213.5
Janakpur-
Khairahani 0 88.5 21 9 6 52.5 161 0 0 66 404
Mirchaiya-
Siraha 0 12 21 6 6 18 62 0 0 168 293
Gaighat-Beltar 3 8.5 12 3 0 3 40 0 0 54 123.5
Total 70 495.5 324 262.5 36 582 633.5 12 3 1188
Source:Trafic Survey, 2011 and FGD, 2011
Cart
iii

Annex Table 5 Nearest all season road distance from the sample HHs in project area
(mean)
District
Name of Road
Distance
(km)
Trips in
months
Travel time per
trip (hrs)
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 1.69 9.80 0.39
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.53 20.67 0.10
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 2.07 23.87 0.37
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 1.58 23.20 0.27
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 13.60 5.07 1
Rupendehi 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 Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 2.77 10.07 0.41
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 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 1
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 11.43 2.87 1
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 9.53 3.00 0.95
Total Average 4.14 12.31 0.62
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Annex Table 6 Nearest bus stop distance from the sample HHs in project area (mean)
District Name of Road Distance Trips in months Travel time per trip
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 4.87 2.40 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 Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 13.93 5.07 1
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 1
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 Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 2.59 11.53 0.52
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 1.77 16.20 0.33
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 5.00 9.20 1
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
Total average 4.1 12.1 0.6
Source: Field Survey, 2011
iv

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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 3 7 10 20
Rajapur Ringroad 8 7 5 20
Titiriya-Soanpur 1 7 10 2 20
Hospital-Simkharka 13 6 1 20
Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 2 9 1 8 20
Madhauliya-Bhutaha 13 6 1 20
Daldale-Dhobidi 12 6 2 20
Bastari-Jhadeba 2 13 3 2 20
Kalikasthan-Dhunge 8 8 4 20
Rakhi-Mijure 13 5 2 20
Biruwa-Rankhola 2 9 5 4 20
Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 17 3 20
Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 8 5 7 20
Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 16 4 20
Auriya-Himalibas 6 9 3 2 20
Karmiya-Hathiwon 11 4 5 20
Matihani-Pipra 5 9 4 2 20
Janakpur-Kharihani 13 3 4 20
Mirchaiya-Siraha 8 2 10 20
Gaighat-Chatara 10 7 3 20
Total 18 209 99 74 400
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Annex: 8 Area and Production of Paddy
Surveyed Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
district
Production
Production
Area (ha) HH (quintal) Area (ha) HH (quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 17.81 12 350.00 4.23 4 109.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 4.75 14 169.30 1.85 4 50.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 4.14 10 174.00 1.79 2 76.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.00 0 0.00 1.95 5 43.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 7.61 14 302.00 2.15 4 98.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 10.30 13 312.00 8.13 5 324.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 3.51 11 171.00 1.40 5 40.50
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 1.45 7 19.50 0.20 1 4.00
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 6.37 11 236.00 1.30 4 47.50
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 5.45 15 145.50 1.95 4 31.50
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 1.20 8 38.50 2.60 4 53.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 5.75 14 161.50 2.02 4 70.00
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 4.75 14 122.00 1.75 4 27.50
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 8.94 14 217.20 2.02 4 37.60
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 10.76 15 227.00 3.09 5 100.00
Kapilbastu
Sibalawa-Labani-
Lakhanchowk 14.95 14 677.00 5.23 5 238.00
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 1.38 6 25.50 0.90 5 16.50
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 20.41 15 595.00 5.75 4 291.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 5.75 12 181.50 1.50 5 41.50
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 8.22 10 74.40 7.09 3 46.40
Total 143.49 229 4198.90 56.87 81 1745.00
v

Annex: 9 Area and Production of Maize
Surveyed district Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
Area
(ha) HH
Production
(quintal)
Area
(ha) HH
Production
(quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 1.69 4 13.50 0.16 1 1.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 9.85 15 190.40 2.18 5 36.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 0.46 4 24.00 0.00 0 0.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 3.50 15 86.00 1.92 5 38.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 1.38 9 11.55 0.36 2 6.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 7.28 14 243.00 2.60 4 48.00
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 4.30 15 65.10 2.05 5 38.44
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 1.69 6 26.04 0.81 3 4.34
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 8.00 15 126.48 3.85 5 37.82
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 3.75 15 50.50 3.60 4 35.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 5.10 14 109.74 1.30 4 30.38
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 1.08 15 15.81 0.40 4 7.44
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 2.50 13 45.88 1.75 5 29.14
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 4.35 11 57.66 0.55 2 4.96
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Total 54.92 165 1065.66 21.53 49 316.52
Annex: 10 Area and Production of Wheat
Surveyed Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
district
Production
Production
Area (ha) HH (quintal) Area (ha) HH (quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 6.50 8 95.00 2.44 4 35.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 3.49 10 156.00 1.79 2 78.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 2.89 8 50.00 0.55 3 14.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 6.86 13 157.50 5.36 5 156.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 0.88 2 18.00 0.00 0 0.00
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 3.50 14 28.14 1.35 5 6.70
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 1.40 9 26.80 1.01 4 11.39
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 0.45 3 10.39 0.40 4 4.02
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 0.20 1 4.00 2.15 4 23.50
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.20 2 4.69 0.00 0 0.00
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 5.79 13 83.60 0.91 4 14.40
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 1.76 10 33.00 0.72 5 17.00
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.70 3 5.36 0.35 2 2.35
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 13.98 15 286.00 3.32 5 118.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 1.30 5 15.41 0.60 2 4.02
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 2.34 6 34.40 2.18 5 31.20
Total 52.22 122 1008.29 23.12 54 515.58
vi

Annex: 11 Area and Production of Millet
Surveyed Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
district
Production Area
Production
Area (ha) HH (quintal) (ha) HH (quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 6.75 14 94.20 1.68 5 36.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.15 2 2.00 0.00 0 0.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 0.50 1 2.88 0.05 1 0.43
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 2.90 12 52.56 1.20 4 13.68
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 3.00 12 34.30 1.35 3 15.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.16 2 1.73 1.66 3 5.04
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.58 10 10.08 0.40 5 8.28
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.80 7 9.79 0.70 5 6.48
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Total 14.84 60 207.54 7.03 26 84.91
Annex: 12 Area and Production of Potato
Surveyed district Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
Area (ha) HH
Production
(quintal)
Area
(ha) HH
Production
(quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.03 1 7.00 0.00 0 0.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 0.65 7 69.60 0.36 2 22.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.00 0 0.00 0.26 1 100.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 0.54 10 30.75 0.14 3 20.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0.97 11 68.00 0.65 4 33.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 0.03 1 5.00 0.00 0 0.00
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 2.10 12 245.00 0.00 0 0.00
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.03 1 4.00 0.01 1 2.00
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.23 3 22.00 0.00 0 0.00
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 0.39 6 34.80 0.05 2 6.00
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 0.39 11 13.50 0.26 4 3.30
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 0.00 0 0.00 0.01 1 0.30
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.59 7 45.00 0.70 4 18.00
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 0.46 8 31.50 0.20 2 26.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 0.06 3 6.50 0.08 2 7.00
Total 6.47 81 582.65 2.72 26 237.60
vii

Annex: 13 Area and Production of Mustard
Surveyed Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
district
Area
Production Area
Production
(ha) HH (quintal) (ha) HH (quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 2.80 10 10.05 0.56 3 1.45
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 1.55 3 3.90 0.43 1 0.80
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 0.91 5 3.10 0.25 1 0.40
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 0.00 0 0.00 0.40 2 0.80
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 1.67 11 8.80 0.46 2 3.00
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 1.66 11 14.15 2.54 4 11.20
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 0.54 3 2.10 0.50 3 1.40
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 0.35 3 1.50 0.25 1 2.00
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 2.93 11 26.20 0.36 3 2.40
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 1.00 3 4.55 0.00 0 0.00
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.15 1 0.60 0.00 0 0.00
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 1.01 5 3.10 0.15 1 0.30
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 1.14 9 11.50 0.41 3 5.00
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 1.94 5 8.80 0.26 1 0.40
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.10 1 1.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 3.64 9 14.30 1.14 5 9.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 1.20 2 2.50 0.00 0 0.00
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 0.87 2 4.00 0.80 2 3.50
Total 23.44 94 120.15 8.50 32 41.65
Annex: 14 Area and Production of Pulses
Surveyed Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
district
Production Area
Production
Area (ha) HH (quintal) (ha) HH (quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 2.10 2 7.50 2.00 3 3.00
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 3.00 1 1.50 0.00 0 0.00
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 2.75 6 17.20 0.75 2 6.00
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 1.00 1 2.00 0.00 0 0.00
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 8.50 13 41.00 0.57 2 7.25
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 1.35 2 4.40 1.10 2 3.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 2.35 3 7.00 0.00 0 0.00
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 4.30 8 18.50 0.55 3 1.90
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 3.00 2 0.70 0.00 0 0.00
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 2.50 2 1.30 0.00 0 0.00
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.25 1 1.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 0.72 1 0.70 0.00 0 0.00
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 0.05 1 1.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kapilbastu Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk 0.50 2 2.50 0.35 1 0.60
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 6.60 11 23.50 2.40 5 19.00
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 2.57 6 19.60 0.60 2 10.00
Total 41.54 62 149.40 8.32 20 50.75
viii

Annex: 15 Area and Production of Vegetables
Surveyed
district
Name of road
Project Area villages
Control villages
Area
(ha) HH
Production
(quintal) Area (ha) HH
Production
(quintal)
Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 0.37 15 19.88 0.11 5 6.05
Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 0.43 15 26.55 0.09 5 5.06
Rautahat Aouriya-Himalibas 0.17 12 14.65 0.06 2 3.42
Makawanpur Kulekhani-Humanebhanjyang 1.85 15 93.00 0.09 5 4.74
Banke Titiriya-Soanpur 0.36 14 11.88 0.69 5 9.32
Siraha Mirchaiya-Siraha 0.94 13 38.05 1.05 5 36.00
Sarlahi Karmiya-Hathiwon 0.23 14 12.60 0.12 5 6.42
Salyan Hospital-Simkharka 0.34 15 28.10 0.06 5 3.32
Nawalparasi Daldale-Dhobidi 0.41 14 26.44 0.23 5 9.05
Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 0.41 15 24.13 0.22 5 12.48
Syangja Biruwa-Rankhola 0.36 13 8.20 0.40 5 11.63
Udayapur Gaighat-Chatara 0.22 15 17.07 0.10 5 5.71
Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 0.64 15 77.44 0.16 5 6.20
Mahottari Matihani-Pipra 0.55 10 20.88 0.08 4 3.68
Rupendehi Madhauliya-Bhuthawa 0.19 15 10.42 0.07 5 3.95
Kapilbastu
Sibalawa-Labani-
Lakhanchowk 0.46 14 24.96 0.07 4 3.77
Dhading Bhimdhunga-Lamidada 1.14 14 116.03 0.19 5 7.47
Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 0.60 15 32.92 0.21 5 10.12
Palpa Bastari-Jhadeba 0.19 14 10.45 0.05 4 2.67
Dhanusa Janakpur-Kharihani 0.44 12 14.52 0.20 5 10.53
Total 10.31 279 628.16 4.26 94 161.61
Annex Table 16 Number of Poultry farms in project Area and control areas
District Program Villages Control Villages
Kailai 60
Bardia 0
Banke 0
Salyan 0
Palpa 150
Rupandehi 10 3
Kapilbastu 0
Nawalparasi 0
Syangja 2
Kaski 3
Makawanpur 2
Dhading 45
Rasuwa 55
Nuwakot 10
Rautahat 4
Sarlahi 6
Siraha 0
Mahottari 0
Dhanusa 0
Udayapur 20
367
ix

Annex: 17 Local wage rate for various works by gender
District
Type of labor
Wage rate Program
Wage rate control
Male Female Male Female
Danusa Agriculture labor 250 250 300 300
Construction labor 300 300 300 300
Skilled labor 600 - 500
Palpa Agricultural labor 300 150 250 125
Construction labor 250 225 150 300
Skilled labor 500 - 400 -
Makawanpur Agriculture labor 200 200 200 150
Construction labor 400 400 300 200
Skilled labor 500 - 400 -
Porter Rs. 2 per kg Rs. 2 per kg - -
Dhading Agri. Labor 400 300 150 100
Construction labor 400 300 350 100
Skilled labor 600 - 500 -
Kailai Agri labor 200 200 160 160
Construction labor 250 250 200 200
Brick factory 200 200 180 180
Skilled labor 500 - 400 -
Rupandehi Agri labor 200 200 200 250
Construction labor 500 250 300 250
Skilled labor 600 - 500 -
Trade labor - - 200 150
Kapilbastu Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200
Construction labor 450 250 450 250
Skilled labor 600 - 600 -
Industrial labor - - 300 300
Udayapur Agri. Labor 300 150 250 150
Construction labor 350 350 250 200
Skilled labor 500 - 500 -
Kaski Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200
Construction labor 400 200 200 200
Skilled labor 700 - 400 -
Mahottari Agri. Labor 200 200 200 200
Construction labor 300 300 300 300
Skilled labor 600 - 500 -
Syangja Agri.labor 200 150 300 150
Construction labor 250 150 300 300
Skilled labor 400 - 600 -
Trade labor 500 300
Salyan Agri. Labor 300 200 300 300
Construction labor 300 250 300 300
Skilled labor 500 - 450 -
Bardiya Agri. Labor 200 200 150 150
Construction labor 200 200 250 300
Skilled labor 400 - 400 -
Banke Agri. Labor 150 150 150 150
Construction labor 200 200 200 200
Skilled labor 400 - 400 -
Nawalparasi Agri. Labor 300 250 280 300
Construction labor 350 400 350 400
Skilled labor 500 - 500 -
Trade & industry labor 500 400 500 400
Rasuwa Agri. Labor 250 250 150 150
Construction labor 250 500 250 300
Skilled labor 600 - 400 -
Rautahat Agri labor 100 100 100 100
Construction labor 200 - 200 -
Skilled labor 400 - 400 -
Road labor 250 - - -
Siraha Agri labor 250 250 250 250
Construction labor 300 300 300 300
Skilled labor 500 - 500 -
Sarlahi Agri labor 200 200 350 350
Construction labor 300 300 350 350
Skilled labor 500 - 400 -
Industrial labor 500 450 - -
Nuwakot Agri labor 200 200 200 200
Construction labor 300 300 250 250
Skilled labor 500 500 500 500
x

Annex Table 18 Type and Number of Business Centres small scale enterprise
Districts Project Area Control Area
Shops Small enterprise Shops Small enterprise
Dhanusa 20 5 18 6
Palpa 200 188 4 0
Makawanpur 22 2 0 0
Dhading 25 53 3 0
Kailai 210 67 39 0
Rupandehi 20 13 15 5
Kapilbastu 15 1 5 0
Udayapur 90 40 7 2
Kaski 23 3 2 0
Mahottari 130 10 9 0
Syangja 10 2 6 1
Salyan 141 3 1 0
Bardiya 200 20 3 0
Banke 112 9 6 2
Nawalparasi 26 5 7 6
Rasuwa 6 57 5 0
Rautahat 85 16 8 5
Siraha 82 60 15 20
Sarlahi 37 6 2 0
Nuwakot 25 4 3 3
Annex 19 Number of people employed in local level business centers
District Project area Control area
Dhanusa 48 35
Palpa 800 0
Makawanpur 49 0
Dhading 156 6
Kailali 535 35
Rupandehi 66 39
Kapilbastu 25 5
Udayapur 260 10
Kaski 39 2
Mahottari 180 10
Syangja 24 14
Salyan 51 1
Bardiya 515 3
Banke 180 10
Nawalparasi 153 28
Rasuwa 78 10
Rautahat 181 20
Siraha 274 75
Sarlahi 88 4
Nuwakot 58 12
Total 3760 319
xi

Annex 20 Number of visit to loan taking institution
Trips Project Area Control Area
No % No %
1 time 10 62.5 3 60
2 Times 4 25 0 0
3Times 0 0 1 20
4 times 0 0 1 20
More than four 2 12.5 0 0
Total 16 100 5 100
Annex 21 Number of Project Affected Family
HHs
Percent
yes 105 35.00
No 195 65.00
Total 300 100.00
Annex 22 Type of Effects
HHs
Percent
Giving land 89 84.76
Damage main structure 3 2.86
Damage minor structure 11 10.48
Other asset loss 2 1.90
Total 105 100.00
Annex 23 Compensation received or not
No
Percent
yes 36 34.29
No 69 65.71
Total 105 100.00
Annex 24 Use of support
No
Percent
Use of economic support
Home expense 33 91.67
House mentainance 3 8.33
Total 36 100.00
xii

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:
a
b
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.
1.3 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
0

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.
2.2 The empirical evidence at the macroeconomic level of the positive correlation between road
improvements and GDP per capita growth is extensive 1 . 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 2 .
2.3 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).
2.4 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.
2.5 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.
1 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.
1

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.
2

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 Due Date Remarks
5 (draft) 20 (Twenty) days
10 (final) from the effective
Inception Report, including work
plan, detailed survey design and
evaluation of methodology
Report on the pilot of the impact
survey
5 (draft)
10(final)
date of the contract
40(Forty) days from
the effective date of
the contract
Impact Survey( Draft Report) 5 120(Hundred
twenty) days from
the effective date of
the contract
Impact Evaluations Report (Final
Report)
5 (draft)
10 (final)
180(hundred and
eighty days) days
from the effective
date of the contract
Detailed
methodology and
work plan
Including
electronic copy
Including
electronic copy
3

6 DURATION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICE
The consulting services for the proposed work shall be of Six (6) months period effective
from date of contract
7 LOGISTICS
The individual expert will be provided with an office space within the premises of RAIDP PCU
office during data analysis period.
8 TAXATION
The consultant is fully responsible for all taxes imposed by the relevant laws of Government
of Nepal.
9 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
4

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)
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
1.2 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
1.2 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
5

(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
6

Photographs
Trisuli Meghang Road, Nuwakot
Focus Groups in Banke

Titiriya road in Banke
Orientation in Palpa

Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali
Khutiya Matiyani, Kailali