23
Reconstruction and Food Security and Livelihood December 2017 INTER AGENCY COMMON FEEDBACK PROJECT

FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Reconstruction and Food Security and Livelihood December 2017

INTER AGENCY COMMONFEEDBACK PROJECT

Page 2: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

THE INTER-AGENCY COMMON FEEDBACK PROJECT

Community perception surveys conducted with:

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies listedabove, DFID, OXFAM, World Vision or the UN.This publication has been produced with financial assistance from DFID

Inter-Agency Common Feedback Project funded by:

Page 3: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

KEY FINDINGS

Recomendations

Over the course of 2017 the Inter-AgencyCommon Feedback Project (CFP) hascollected feedback from earthquake affectedcommunities across the 14 priority affecteddistricts through six rounds of CommunityPerception Surveys. CFP enumeratorsinterviewed a total of 12,600 respondentsacross 380 VDCs/municipalities in 2017about their thoughts, feelings andperceptions around key aspects of theearthquake recovery and reconstructionprocesses.

Throughout the year significant progress hasbeen made on the rate of engineerconsultation. With each month that goes by agreat proportion of the earthquake affectedpopulation are reporting having consulted anengineer about their house reconstruction,from 37 percent in January to 63 percentnow. What remains worrying is that only 34percent of those who have consulted anengineer are being told that their home isbuilt correctly. That means the remaining 66percent will have to do corrections, or worse,start from scratch.

Ensure that technical assistance is available to homeowners at the pre-construction phase. Manypeople have reported starting, or even completing their homes, but when compared tocompliance rates and the proportion of people being approved for the next tranche versus thosebeing told to make corrections, it raises concerns. If engineer consultations are held withhomeowners before they begin, there is a better chance that they start their reconstructionproject on the right foot, and avoid costly errors that waste their precious resources.

Facilitate access to finance at reasonable rates and repayment terms to avoid long-term,detrimental economic impacts in earthquake affected areas.

2017 saw no improvement in the information gap between men and women. While informationabout reconstruction is getting out to people, it is often incomplete, and does not reach women asmuch as men. Women specific communication strategies must be developed in order to make realprogress on closing this gap in 2018.

Another important area of progress in 2017 is in communities’ perception that the reconstruction process isprogressing. In January only 49 percent of respondents felt the reconstruction was making any progress.Today, 70 percent see that progress is being made.

Information related questions are at an all-time high – both in terms of respondents’ perception that theyhave the information they need to get support, and that they understand safer building practices. However,there are two important caveats: the gap between women and men has not closed, or even narrowed, overthe course of the year, and that perception of being informed does not reflect respondents’ level of actualunderstanding of the reconstruction process, or safer building practices. When asked what they know aboutthe reconstruction process, only 37 percent knew that an engineer had to approve each tranchedisbursement, and 33 percent still believe they are required to use one of 17 house models.

One area that has grown faster than any other, is in the percentage of respondent reporting taking loans toreconstruct their homes. This is of great concern because, without low interest loans being made readilyavailable to the affected population, they may be borrowing under harsh terms and interest rate which couldhave a substantial impact on the overall economic recovery of the affected communities for years to come.

CFP surveyed VDCs in 2017

Page 4: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

PERCEPTION SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Sampling

Selection of households and respondents

2100Surveys completed across14 earthquake affecteddistricts in July 2017

December 2017 Survey Overview

To undertake the Community Perception Survey, 40 enumerators were trained over five days anddeployed across the 14 priority earthquake affected districts to collect data over the course of 12 daysfrom a total of 2100 respondents using a probability proportionate to size (PPS) methodology. All datacollection is completed with mobile tablets using KoBoToolbox.

All VDCs in the 14 priority affected districts in which 60 percent or more of the households are eligible forthe housing reconstruction grant will be considered part of the survey’s operating area, and eligible forrandom selection.

The population of each district will be considered the total population of all eligible VDCs, as per the 2011census. The first 2000 samples of the survey will then be distributed by district proportionally.

The remaining 100 surveys will be allocated to districts where the total proportional sample size is under100 respondents, in order to boost the population for an adequate district level analysis of the findings.

The number of VDCs selected in each district will vary, depending upon the number of samples allocatedto each district. Each VDC will have a minimum of two wards sampled, and each ward a minimum of 10surveys completed. Both VDCs and wards will be randomly selected from the list of eligible VDCs.

Twenty-five percent of the total sample will be allocated for municipalities, and municipalities will berandomly selected where there is more than one municipality in a district. In municipalities a minimum ofthree wards will be sampled, with a minimum of 10 surveys collected per ward.

Once wards have been selected, enumerators will identify an entry point in their given ward, targeting aschool, temple or other communal spot to initiate the individual interview process. At that point they willspin a bottle. The enumerator will walk in the direction the bottle points to once it has finished spinning untila home is found to initiate the interview process.

The first house selected will form a basis to identify other households to complete the survey of that ward.After identifying a first house for interview then enumerator will leave the house, turn right and skip the nexttwo houses, completing the next interview at the third house. The enumerator will have leverage to move tonext adjoining ward to complete the interview process if in the ward the sample household numbers are notcovered.

Once in the household enumerators interviews an individual aged 15 years and above from the pool of alleligible respondents present in the home at the time of the survey. The enumerators select respondentsfrom different age groups and genders at each home, to ensure the sample is demographically diverse andreflects the population from the survey area.

50% 50%

Page 5: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Are your main reconstruction needs beingaddressed?

Main unmet reconstruction needs

Trend of reconstruction need beingaddressed since Jannuary

Among 2100 respondents across 14 priority affecteddistricts, 56 percent say their main reconstruction needsare being met. An overall increase of 15 percentagepoints has been observed over the course of the sixrounds of community perception surveys conducted in2017.

Among districts, Kavrepalanchok is the most dissatisfied,with a mere 39 percent of respondents saying their mainreconstruction needs are being met. This is closelyfollowed by Lalitpur, Dolakha and Dhading with only 45percent of respondents in each district saying completelyor somewhat yes. Responses are fairly consistent acrossage, gender and rural/urban respondents.

MAIN RECONSTRUCTION NEEDS BEING MET

Disaggregation by caste and ethnicity

Brahmin

Chhetri

Dalit

Gurung

Janajati

Magar

Newar

Tamang

Trend of unmet reconstruction need sinceJanuary

FinancialResourcesPERCENT

79 SkilledLabourPERCENT

5

Over 2017 the prioritization of financial resources amongthose who say their main problems are not addressed hasremained consistent. Access to reasonable financialmechanisms must be made available to those attemptingto reconstruct if the process is to advance withoutcreating long term detrimental impacts on communities’economic recovery.

Key findings in December

Reccomendation

Page 6: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Key findings in December Do you have the information you need toaccess reconstruction support?

Top information needs

Trend of information needs being addressedsince January

Seventy-six percent of respondents said they have theinformation they need to access housing reconstructionsupport. There has been no increase in this rate over thepast six months, with respondents reporting feeling thesame about their information needs being met since July2017.

However, there has been a change in respondent’s actuallevel of knowledge about the grant process since lastround. While the proportion of people who report feelingconfident they understand the grant processesthoroughly enough to access all necessary support hasnot changed, at 68 percent, the elements of the processthey report to be aware of signals some improvement.

As in all previous rounds, there are persistent andsignificant differences between genders, with 82 percentof men saying they have the information they need, and75 percent feeling confident they know all the grantprocedures. This is compared to only 70 percent ofwomen who feel they have the information they need and60 percent who feel confident in their understanding ofthe grant process. Likewise, when asked what they knowabout the process, the gap between women and men isbetween 10-20 percentage points across every aspect ofthe process.

INFORMATION NEEDED TO ACCESS SUPPORT

Confidence in understanding of grantprocess by mother tongue

Nepali

Gurung

Magar

Newari

Tamang

What do you know about the grant process

50,000

150,000

100,000

*percentage exceed 100 because of multiple responses

If i am eligibleor notPERCENT

31 ReconstructiondeadlinePERCENT

22

When will grievances beaddressedPERCENT

10

50,000 isthe firsttranche

PERCENT89 150,000 is

the secondtranche

PERCENT79 100,000 is

the thirdtranche

PERCENT62

Governmentapproveshouse design

PERCENT37

Engineerinspect/approve eachtranche

PERCENT37 17 models

PERCENT33

Reccomendation

Female focused communication strategies need to bedeveloped to ensure women are equally informed on thereconstruction process and are participating as well.

Page 7: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Have you consulted an engineer for yourhousing reconstruction needs?

Trend of engineer consultation forreconstruction needs since January

Sixty-three percent of respondents across the 14 priorityaffected districts have consulted an engineer for theirhousing reconstruction needs. This is one of the mostmarked, and persistent improvements over the course of2017, increasing from only 37 percent in January. Onlythree percent of respondents who claim theirreconstruction is complete did not consult an engineer;however, among those whose homes were completelydestroyed, 49 percent have not consulted an engineerand only six percent plan to consult one. Equallyconcerning is that among those who have consulted anengineer, 57 percent were advised to rebuild theirhomes, and only 34 percent were informed that theirhome was built as per criteria.

ENGINEER CONSULTATION FOR RECONSTRUCTION

Consultation by settlement type

Why have you not consulted an engineer? District highlights

of respondent in Ramechhap haveconsulted an engineer for reconstructionprocess.

88%

of respondent in Sindhupalchowk haveconsulted an engineer for reconstructionprocess.

81%

of respondent in Kavrepalanchowk haveNOT consulted an engineer forreconstruction process.

51%Have not startedrebuilding housePERCENT

89 No availabilityof engineer inthe VDC

PERCENT6

Engineer consultation must happen beforereconstruction begins in order to ensure householdsbegin construction correctly. Engineers should not beengaged only once houses have already been partiallyreconstructed. Pushing to ensure engineer consultationis expanded to households before they beginconstructing will reduce errors in construction andincrease compliance rates.

Key findings in December

Reccomendation

Page 8: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

When do you plan to reconstruct your house?

Across 14 districts, 21 percent of respondents said theyhad already completed construction, while 22 percentsaid they had started. Both of these figures reflect asteady increase over 2017, from zero having started inJanuary and 13 percent having completed in March (thefirst month this was captured). While these rates do notmatch up with official figures, this could be due to the factthat many families are rebuilding their homes withoutgoing through the proper approval mechanisms, and willtry to apply for the entire grant amount only after theirhome is complete. If this is the case, it is likely thatcompliance rates will be extremely low.

By district, eighteen percent of respondents in Sindhuliand 17 percent of respondents in Okhaldhunga said theywill only begin construction after taking a subsidy loanfrom the government. By caste/ethnic group 27 percentof Sherpas said they would wait until taking a subsidyloan from the government, which is seventeen percenthigher than any other ethnic group. A total of 73 percentof respondents said they expected to complete thereconstruction process within one year.

OVERALL RECONSTRUCTION PLANS

Reconstruction plans since January Reconstruction plans by settlement type

When do you expect to complete thereconstruction process?

" We have started reconstruction hoping that we get cashsupport from the government otherwise we are too poor toreconstruct house". Jogimaara VDC, Dhading

" We heard a rumor that reconstruction authority will not giveremaining cash support if we do not complete one level of work(DPC) in housing reconstruction within the deadline set by theNRA. Is that true?". Tokha Municipality, Kathmandu

What people are saying

Key findings in December

Page 9: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Have you received any housing reconstructionsupport?

Eighty-three percent of respondents’ report havingreceived housing reconstruction support. This is only atwo-percentage point increase since July 2017. Overall,there has been an increase over the course of 2017 from69 percent having received support in January. Thoseaged 55+ were ten percentage points more likely toreport having received assistance than the 15-24 agegroup.

Among those received support, 100 percent obtainedthat support from the NRA’s government housing grant,but only three percent have received the third trancheand 18 percent second tranche. An additional fourpercent also reported having received funding from anI/NGO. Of the respondents who have not receivedsupport, 72 percent say it is due to unaddressedgrievances, and an additional 25 percent say their name isnot on the eligibility list.

Ultimately, 53 percent of those who received thegovernment housing grant have started reconstruction.Of the 46 percent who have not, the predominantreasons cited included insufficient funds (64 percent),already spent the grant money (15 percent) and cannotget skilled labour (11 percent).

RECEIPT OF RECONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

Trend of receiving reconstruction supportsince JanuaryWhich tranche have you received to date

After receiving government tranchehave you started reconstruction?

Why have you not startedreconstruction after receiving

government tranche?

InsufficientmoneyPERCENT

64 Moneyalready spentPERCENT

15

No availability oftrained masonPERCENT

11

Key findings in December

Page 10: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Have you been able to commit your ownresources?

As of December 2017, 56 percent of respondents’ reporthaving committed their own resources to theirreconstruction project. Over the course of 2017, therehas been a total increase of 14 percent, but only a threepercent increase from March to December 2017.

A persistent concern is the steady increase in the numberof respondents who report having taken loans to financetheir reconstruction. Currently 66 percent say they havetaken loans, which reflects a drastic increase over thecourse of 2017, from only one percent in January.

COMMITMENT OF PERSONAL RESOURCES

Trend of commitment of resources sinceJanuary

Disaggregation by caste and ethnicity

Type of resources comitted

Brahmin

Chhetri

Dalit

Gurung

Janajati

Magar

Newar

Tamang

Money/LoanPERCENT

66 Self labourPERCENT

61

MoneysavingPERCENT

63 OwnmaterialsPERCENT

41

Trend of respondents who have taken loansince January

The sharply increasing rate of respondents reporting tohave taken loans is concerning, considering that thepromised low interest loans have not been made available.This implies that households are financing theirreconstruction under harsh conditions and repaymentrates. This issue must be prioritized by the recoverycommunity through endeavoring to understand it better,and take action to reduce the potentially harsh long termeconomic impacts on earthquake affected communities.

Key findings in December

Reccomendation

Page 11: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Are you aware of how to use building usingsafer building practices?

Seventy-seven percent of respondents claim to be awareof how to build using safer building practices. Thisrepresents an overall increase from 64 percent inJanuary 2017. It remains encouraging that 87 percent ofthose who have completed reconstruction and 83percent of those who have started reconstruction feelthey are aware of how to build using safer buildingpractices.

KNOWLEDGE OF SAFER BUILDING PRACTICES

Trend of safer building practices awarenesssince January

Where did you get the information from?

Which form of communication makes iteasiest to understand thereconstruction process?

Trend of awareness by gender sinceJanuary

CommunitymembersPERCENT

59 RadioPERCENT

56

EngineerPERCENT

51 VillagecouncilPERCENT

42

RadioprogramPERCENT

61Public servicesannouncementPERCENT

56

TelevisionPERCENT

49 InteractionprogramPERCENT

28

Interpersonal communication, whether through familymembers, engineers or village council, far outstrips anyother form of communication when it comes toinformation on how to build. Resources aimed atimproving homeowners’ understanding of the complextechniques and processes they need to employ to buildtheir homes in a safe manner should be invested in face-to-face methods. Though more time consuming, labourintensive and costly, this will have the greatest impact.

Reccomendation

Key findings in December

Page 12: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Do you face barriers to receivingreconstruction support?

Ten percent of respondents across 14 districts felt theydid not face any barriers at all to receivingreconstruction support. This is a 13 percent decreasefrom the April 2017 report, demonstrating a slide in thewrong direction, after relatively progress up untilSeptember 2017. Among the 25 percent who currentlyfeel they face barriers, the top barriers are not beingincluded on the eligibility list, not being able to accessadditional finances, and delays in addressing grievancefiles. In addition, women were more likely than men torespond “completely yes” when asked if they facebarriers to reconstruction support.

BARRIERS TO RECEIVING RECONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

Trend of barrier to receiving reconstructionsupport since January

Top barrier faced

Barriers faced by district

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Sin

dh

uli

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Mak

wan

pu

r

Kat

hm

and

u

Ras

uw

a

Nu

wak

ot

Do

lakh

a

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Bh

akta

pu

r

Ram

ech

hap

Not ineligibility listPERCENT

27 No access toadditional financePERCENT

26

Delay in addressinggrievances filesPERCENT

19

Key findings in December

Page 13: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Are you aware of any mason training availablein your area/community?

Across 2100 respondents from 14 districts, 55 percent ofrespondents are aware of mason training available intheir community/area. This is a five percent increase fromthe October 2017 report; however, men remain muchmore likely than women to be aware of trainingopportunities, with 64 percent of men aware comparedto 46 percent of women.

Of those who are aware of mason training, 14 percenthave already participated, while an additional 12 percentwould like to participate. Among those who participated,62 percent work as masons, while an additional 33percent have used the training to build their own homes.Interestingly half of the female respondents who havetaken mason training used the training to build their ownhomes compared to only 27 percent of males.

AWARENESS OF MASON TRAINING

Awareness of mason training by gender

Reason for not participating in mason training District highlights

of respondent in Okhaldhunga district areaware about the mason training in theirarea.

90%

of respondent in Sindhupalchowk districtare aware about the mason training intheir area

78%

of respondent in Kathmandu district areNOT aware about the mason training intheir area

76%

of respondent in Ramechhap district areNOT aware about the mason training intheir area.

49%

LimitednumberPERCENT

58 HouseholdchoresPERCENT

38

AgricultureworkPERCENT

24 Focused onmenPERCENT

13

Women are less likely to be aware of mason training, butmore likely to remain in their communities if they receivetraining, and use their skills to reconstruct their homes.Men are more likely to migrate to urban areas for morehighly paid masonry work. Training organisations shouldinvest in training women if they want to build ther u r a l workforce. Mason training opportunitiesavailable to women should be expanded, particularlysingle gender training, in which there is greater likelihoodwomen will participate in all aspects of the training.

Key findings in December

Reccomendation

Page 14: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Are you satisfied with grant process?

Sixty-six percent of respondents are satisfied with thegrant dispersal process. These findings are fairlyconsistent across age, gender and rural/urbancategories. Those respondents who have completedreconstruction or started reconstruction are the mostsatisfied, whereas those who have minor damage totheir house were the least satisfied.

The main reasons respondents were not satisfied withthe grant dispersal process was because the firsttranche was insufficient to begin reconstruction work,the complicated nature of the process and how timeconsuming it was.

SATISFACTION WITH GRANT DISPERSAL PROCESS

Why are you not satisfied with grantdispersal process

Trend of satisfaction with grant process since January

District highlights

of respondent in Rasuwa are satisfiedwith the grant process.91%

of respondent in Sindhupalchowk aresatisfied with the grant process.82%

of respondent in Okhaldhunga are NOTsatisfied with the grant process.57%

of respondent in Dhading are NOTsatisfied with grant process.55%

First trancheinsufficientPERCENT

30 Complicatedin naturePERCENT

29

Time consumingprocessPERCENT

24

Key findings in December

Page 15: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Beside building your home, what is thebiggest reconstruction need in your

community?Across 14 districts, 37 percent of respondents said watersupply is the biggest community reconstruction need.This number has increased since the October 2017report, but it remains below the year’s high of 44 percent,reported in May 2017. Other needs include schools,roads and trails/lanes. Ramechhap and Dhading reportedthe highest water supply reconstruction need, with 54and 52 percent respectively, while 67 percent ofrespondents from Okhaldhunga reported roads as thebiggest need.

COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES

Community reconstruction priorities by district

Bh

akta

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a

Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Recomendation

Over the course of 2017 water needs have persistentlytopped the list of community recovery needs.Encouragingly, there have been several initiatives tocoordinate and invest more in addressing the watersupply issue for communities. The momentum that hasbeen gained towards this end in 2017 should be furtherbuilt on moving into 2018 with the continuedcommitment of partners working together to restoreaccess to necessary water supply for affectedcommunities.

Trend of community reconstruction priorities since January

Key findings in December

Page 16: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Do you think reconstruction is makingprogress?

Seventy percent of respondents across 14 districts saidthe post-earthquake reconstruction process is makingprogress. There has been a gradual, but mostly steadyincrease in perceptions of progress amongst earthquakeaffected communities over the course of 2017. With aslight dip in July 2017, potentially due to monsoonrelated reconstruction delays, the overall sense ofprogress being made has increase from only 49 percent inJanuary.

Findings were fairly consistent across caste/ethnicity,except in the case of Sherpa, where 67 percent were notsatisfied with the process, compared to the average of 24percent. Among districts, 68 percent of respondents fromOkhaldhunga were not satisfied, whereas Rasuwa andSindhuli both have over 90 percent satisfaction. The topthings most preventing progress reported by those whodo not feel the process is making progress were:government policies unclear (30 percent), lack of moneyto finish house (17 percent), delays in decisions regardinggrievance filed (13 percent), delays in fund disbursement(12 percent), and installment basis of tranchedisbursement (11 percent).

PROGRESS IN RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Perception of progress trend since JanuaryTop things preventing progress

Uncleargovernment

policiesPERCENT

30Lack ofmoneyPERCENT

17

Delay indecisionPERCENT

13 Delay in funddisbursementPERCENT

12

Perception of progress by district

Bh

akta

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a

Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Key findings in December

Page 17: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Are your daily food needs being met?

Ten percent of respondents’ families daily food needs arenot being met. This is a three percent improvement fromAugust 2017 and a nine percent improvement fromMarch 2017. Findings are consistent across gender, ageand rural/urban settings; however, there are largediscrepancies among caste/ethnic groups. For example,26 percent of Dalits said their family’s daily food needsare not being met, as well as 22 percent of Gurungrespondents. On the other hand, only four percent ofBrahmin, five percent of Magar and five percent of Newarrespondents said their daily food needs were not beingmet. There were significant differences amongoccupations as well, with 26 percent of labourers sayingtheir daily food needs are not being met.

The top two things respondents’ families required tomeet their daily food needs were paid work (52 percent)and new skills (49 percent). It is worthwhile to note thatamong those whose daily food needs are not being met,there is no mention of food assistance, or even cashassistance, to help meet their daily needs. Instead, needsfocus on developing skills and findinggainful employment, demonstrating strongly the desirefor self-sufficiency.

DAILY FOOD NEEDS BEING MET

If yes, how do you meet your daily food needs

If no, requirement to meet needs

Grow ownfoodPERCENT

85 Buy mostfoodPERCENT

84

Cash forworkPERCENT

8

Paid workPERCENT

52 New skillsPERCENT

49

Land to farmPERCENT

31 ImprovedseedsPERCENT

16

District highlights

of respondent in Kathmandu said theirfood needs are being met.99%

of respondent in Sindhupalchowk saidtheir food needs are being met.98%

of respondent in Ramechhap said theirfood needs are NOT being met.30%

of respondent in Gorkha said their foodneeds are NOT being met.27%

It is time that livelihood recovery interventions areexpanded and scaled up to help open up more options tothose seeking ways to recover their livelihoods andsupport their families’ food and economic needs.

Key findings in December

Recomendation

Page 18: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

What is your primary source of livelihood?

Across 2100 respondents, only seven percent do notgrow any of their food. Most respondents grow half theirfood (36 percent), while an additional 26 percent grow alittle bit. Just ten percent of respondents grow all theirown food. Ramechhap district had the most respondentssay they grow all of their food, with 31 percent.Kathmandu district respondents were least likely to growany of their food, with 53 percent of respondents sayingnone.

Findings were fairly consistent across gender and age,while 22 percent of urban respondents said they don’tgrow any of their own food, compared to just two percentof rural respondents.

PRIMARY SOURCE OF LIVELIHOOD

How much of your own food do you grow?

Reliance on agriculture by district

Bh

akta

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a

Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Where do you buy supplemental food?

MarketPERCENT

44 ShopPERCENT

56

Key findings in December

Page 19: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Has damage from earthquake impacted yourlivelihood?

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that damagefrom the earthquake has impacted their livelihood. Onlyfour percent of respondents replied “not at all”. Sherparespondents claimed to be least affected, with 80 percentof respondents saying not at all or not very much. Therewas a large difference compared to the next caste/ethnicgroup, with 56 percent of Magar respondents sayingtheir livelihoods were not at all or not very much affectedby the earthquake.

Among those whose livelihood have been impacted, onlyfour percent say they have completely recovered, while63 percent have recovered somewhat. Those whosehomes were completely destroyed or heavily damagewere most likely to say they have not yet recovered fromdamages (55 and 54 percent respectively).

IMPACT OF EARTHQUAKE ON LIVELIHOOD

Main type of damagesTrend of recovery from damages sinceMarch

Assest lossPERCENT

86 Storage lossPERCENT

55

Livestockshelter damagePERCENT

36 Water resourcedamagePERCENT

24

Key findings in DecemberB

hak

tap

ur

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a

Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

kRecovery from the damage by district

Page 20: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Do you face any constraints to livelihoodrecovery?

Across 14 districts, 44 percent of respondents feel theyface constraints to their livelihood recovery. This is a ninepercent increase in those who feel they face constraintsfrom August 2017; however, over the course of 2017 itrepresents a ten percent decrease from the 54 percentwho felt they faced constraints in March. Dalit andJanajati respondents were the mostly likely to reportfacing “a lot of constraints”, at 22 and 20 percentrespectively.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would takeout a loan to cope with their current loss of livelihood,while 31 percent of respondents will search foralternative livelihood, followed by 26 percent will dolivestock raising.

CONSTRAINTS TO LIVELIHOOD RECOVERY

Top constraints to livelihood recovery

Trend of constraints to livelihood recoverysince March

Lack of jobsPERCENT

40 No skillPERCENT

28Plan to cope with current loss of livelihood

Most loans, particularly in rural areas, come with highinterest rates and harsh repayment conditions that cancripple the economic recovery they were taken in then a m e of. Government and partner organisations alikemust work diligently, and collectively to understand, andaddress, issues of access to reasonable finance in order toprevent long term economic impacts in earthquakeaffected communities.

Key findings in December

Recomendation

Page 21: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

What one skill would you like to develop insupport of your livelihood?

Forty-seven percent of respondents across 14 districtswould like to develop new farming skills to support theirlivelihood. An additional 19 percent are interested inentrepreneurship, followed by ten percent in tailoring.There were vast differences across caste/ethnic groups.Eighty percent of Sherpas want to learn new farmingskills, compared to only 30 percent of Dalits. Seventeenpercent of Dalits were interested in tailoring, comparedto five percent of Gurungs.

SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF LIVELIHOOD

Gender disaggregation on skill development

FarmingskillsPERCENT

47 EnterpreneurshipPERCENT

19

TailoringPERCENT

10

Age disaggregation on skill development

Bh

akta

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Skill development by district

Key findings in December

Page 22: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Do you feel that your source of livelihoodwould survive another disaster?

This round of survey demonstrated a slight increase inthe number of respondents who felt their livelihoodwould survive another disaster, with 27 percent thisround, compared to 20 percent in March and August2017. Overall, in December, 65 percent of respondentsfeel that their source of livelihood would not surviveanother disaster. Rural respondents were less likely tofeel confident in the resilience of their livelihood, with 69percent responding “no” compared to 56 percent ofurban respondents. By occupation, 83 percent oflabourers did not feel their livelihoods would surviveanother disaster.

RESILIENCE OF LIVELIHOOD TO ANOTHER DISASTER

What would make your livelihood moreresilient to future risks?

Trend of resilience to future risk since March

Bh

akta

pu

r

Dh

adin

g

Do

lakh

a

Go

rkh

a

Kat

hm

and

u

Kav

rep

alan

cho

wk

Lalit

pu

r

Mak

wan

pu

r

Nu

wak

ot

Okh

ald

hu

nga

Ram

ech

hap

Ras

uw

a

Sin

dh

uli

Sin

dh

up

alch

ow

k

Resilience of livelihood to another disaster by district

SavingPERCENT

82PERCENT

Preparednessplan

48

AlternativelivelihoodPERCENT

26 AlternativeshelterPERCENT

25

Key findings in December

Page 23: FEEDBACK PROJECT - ReliefWeb · the inter-agency common feedback project Community perception surveys conducted with: The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

Has any member of your family migrated tosupport recovery?

Fifteen percent of respondents have had familymembers migrate to support their family’s recovery. Thiswas found to be particularly high in Sindulpalchowk (23percent), Sindhuli (21 percent) and Okhaldhunga (20percent).

Among those respondents who reported family membermigration, 78 percent were migrating for foreignemployment, while eight percent were migrating forconstruction labour.

MIGRATION TO SUPPORT FAMILY RECOVERY

Type of employment

ForeignemploymentPERCENT

78Construction

labourPERCENT8

Private jobsPERCENT

6

Among 2100 respondents across 14 districts, 67 percentof respondents are satisfied with the services receivedfrom I/NGOs; however, this question has an extremelyhigh don’t know/refusal rate, at 18 percent. Seventy-onepercent of male respondents were satisfied, compared tojust 61 percent of females. Twenty percent of femalerespondents responded with don’t know/refused.

SERVICES RECEIVED FROM I/NGOs

Are you satisfied with the services you arereceiving from I/NGOs?

Key findings in December

Key findings in December

Photo credit: Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform(HRRP)