2. Launching SCDP2.3 Selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> VDCsThe Programme budget made it possible to provide both financial and technical support toabout 15 VDCs in each district. In the first phase districts, DDC's Sustainable DevelopmentCommittee (SDC) was resp<strong>on</strong>sible for identifying up to 15 VDCs that would benefit mostfrom the SCDP's assistance. The pre-c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for selecting VDCs was that the watershedc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> there had to be degraded. SCDP staff approached the VDCs and discussed theProgramme with VDC <strong>of</strong>ficials and community members. The DDC/SDC then made finalVDC selecti<strong>on</strong>.In Humla, Myagdi and Okhaldhunga (sec<strong>on</strong>d phase districts) the Programme wasimplemented in less than 10 VDCs. This was based <strong>on</strong> the experiences <strong>of</strong> the first phasedistricts where programme coverage and resources allocati<strong>on</strong> did not match. Humla had10VDC is a localdevelopment partner atthe community levelthe smallest number <strong>of</strong> VDCs because the operati<strong>on</strong> cost is relatively high there and thesettlement pattern is spread out.VDC selecti<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> a cluster basis especially in districts which had no road access.This was d<strong>on</strong>e keeping in mind the need to c<strong>on</strong>duct efficient micro watershed managementand regular m<strong>on</strong>itoring activities. M<strong>on</strong>itoring cost needed to be minimised withoutThehe village, Humla
compromising the quality. In additi<strong>on</strong>, as this was a pilot programme, m<strong>on</strong>itoring wasimportant to assist in the adaptati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the programme elsewhere. Some VDCs with arelatively easy access needed to be selected to facilitate informati<strong>on</strong> sharing anddisseminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> to interested visitors. In Myagdi's case, the envir<strong>on</strong>mentalimpacts created by trekking tourism in the Kali Gandaki Valley (part <strong>of</strong> the AnnapurnaCircuit) and Dhaulagiri route were c<strong>on</strong>sidered while selecting VDCs.Table 1 highlights the Programme coverage <strong>of</strong> VDCs, households and percentage <strong>of</strong> populati<strong>on</strong>who directly benefited from SCDP. The percentage <strong>of</strong> direct beneficiaries ranges from 8.9per cent in Kailali to 14.9 per cent in Surkhet. In additi<strong>on</strong>, a large number <strong>of</strong> men andwomen have indirectly benefited since many social and envir<strong>on</strong>mental projects benefit thesociety as a whole.Table 1: Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> SCDP DistrictsDistricts Total Total Number No. <strong>of</strong> SCDP Total Households Total HH % <strong>of</strong>populati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> VDCs implemented participating members populati<strong>on</strong>(2001 census)* VDCs participating in SCDPDang 462,380 39 15 10,185 57,036 12.3Humla 40,595 27 4 1,020 5,712 14.1Kailali 616,697 42 15 9,849 55,154 8.9Myagdi 114,447 40 7 2,511 14,062 12.3Okhaldhunga 156,702 56 8 3,430 19,208 12.2Surkhet 288,527 50 15 7,701 43,126 14.9Total 1,679,348 254 64 34,696 194,298 11.6*Source: District Demographic Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Nepal: Informal Sector Research and Study Centre 2002.2.4 Selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Support Organisati<strong>on</strong>sA variety <strong>of</strong> different approaches were used to implement the Programme activities inorder to be able to compare the relative effectiveness <strong>of</strong> those approaches. The approach toProgramme implementati<strong>on</strong> differed am<strong>on</strong>g the three first phase Programme districts,with regard to technical support arrangements and selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> entry points. First, twotypes <strong>of</strong> agencies (local government and n<strong>on</strong>-governmental) were used as SupportOrganisati<strong>on</strong>s (SOs) for the Programme (see Figure 3 for instituti<strong>on</strong>al structure <strong>of</strong> SOs).Sec<strong>on</strong>d, each <strong>of</strong> the districts (during Phase I) initiated Programme activities from a differententry point (envir<strong>on</strong>mental management, ec<strong>on</strong>omic development or social development),and then gradually started activities related to other two comp<strong>on</strong>ents.For each district a Support Organisati<strong>on</strong> was selected, either a local NGO (in Kailali andSurkhet) or a unit attached to DDC (in Dang). The main functi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the SOs was to set upand support the CBOs to carry out sustainable development activities at the district levelby running the Sustainable Development Facility (SDF 1 ). SDF provided the CBOs withtechnical assistance and c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s to other resources. SO had several staff members. Alocal staff member called a community activist (CA), also known as Social Mobiliser (SM),was assigned to every VDC. The Community Activists were permanent residents <strong>of</strong> theVDC. Each district was also assigned two Community Officers (COs) or EnterpriseDevelopment Officers. They were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for supervising the project activities in theVDCs. The SDF also had technical staff, who provided technical advice <strong>on</strong> ruralinfrastructure development, and Natural Resource C<strong>on</strong>servati<strong>on</strong> (NRC) Assistant whoadvised the SO <strong>on</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment and c<strong>on</strong>servati<strong>on</strong> issues.Reflecti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> Nepal Capacity <strong>21</strong> Initiative: Achievements and Less<strong>on</strong>s Learned (1996-2003)111 Both SO and SDF have been used interchangeably in the report