reflections on nepal capacity 21 initiative - Department of Applied ...

2. Launching SCDP4 . The overall levels of formal education and literacy are low.5. Government agencies have not been effective in overall development of the VillageDevelopment Committees (VDCs).6 . The commitment of DDCs and VDCs in collaboration and building partnership with theProgramme is high.7 . The system of local governance is weak.Based on these criteria, the HMG/NPC in consultation with UNDP selected Surkhet, Kailaliand Dang. SCDP formed partnerships with the DDC in each district, and to ensure itscommitment to and support for the Programme, the DDC signed a Terms of Partnership(ToP) with SCDP.8In 1999 it was decided that the Programme needed a more national outlook. So theprogramme had to include more districts during Phase II to implement that decision. Itwas agreed to extend the programme in three more districts in the hill and mountain zonescovering a range of ecoregions and the eastern parts of Nepal. UNDP also wished to promotecoherence and co-ordination with other UNDP assisted projects which was reflected in thecriteria. Eventually the criteria for selecting the new Programme districts were:1. Presence of UNDP-assisted PDDP, LGP, SGP or REDP programmes and SNV-assisted DPPin the district;2 . Degraded watershed districts as identified by HMG/UNDP/FAO in a report on WatershedConditions of the Districts of Nepal;3 . Overall composite index of development (using the ICIMOD & SNV, 1997. Districts ofNepal - Indicators of Development 1997;4 . 1996 District Human Development Index (UNDP. 1998. Nepal Human DevelopmentReport);5. The commitment of DDCs and VDCs in collaboration and building partnership with theProgramme is high; and6 . The system of local governance is weak.Interaction amongdevelopment partners inSimikot, Humla.It was accepted that there would be many more districts qualified for SCDP support thanthe Programme could support. So, other factors were also taken into account after thedistricts were short-listed. The natural resource potentials in those districts had to be high.The districts needed to have regular access to transportation (there should be airports ifthere were no roads) so that monitoringwould be easier. In some cases, the strengthof the DDC leadership, tourism potential, etc.were also considered. Preference was alsogiven to have at least one districtrepresented from all the DevelopmentRegions in the Programme. Districts fromthe Central Development Region that isrelatively prosperous were excluded.Considering all these factors, theProgramme was extended to threeadditional districts Humla, Myagdi, andOkhaldhunga in 2000. Implementation ofthe activities in these districts were basedon the experiences of Phase I.