local governance and community development …mofald.gov.np/mofald/userfiles/docs_100.pdf · table...

1

GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL MINISTRY OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (LGCDP)

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES (MCPMs) OF LOCAL

BODIES OF NEPAL

Khim Lal Devkota Fiscal Decentralization & Public Finance Management

Specialist, LGCDP, December 2009

2

List of Abbreviation

DAG Disadvantaged Group

DDC District Development Committee

DFDP Decentralized Financing and Development Program

GoN Government of Nepal

LBs Local Body

LBFC Local Body Fiscal Commission

LGs Local Governance

LFAR Local Body Financial Administration Regulation, 2056 (2000)

LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development Programme

LSGR Local Self‐Governance Rules and Regulation, 2056 (2000)

LSGA Local Self Governance Act, 2055 (1999)

MCs Minimum Conditions

MCPMs Minimum Condition and Performance Measures

M/E Monitoring and Evaluation

MLD Ministry of Local Development

MoF Ministry of Finance

OD Organization Development

PBGS Performance Based Grant System

PMs Performance Measures

SD Standard Deviation

VDC Village Development Committee

UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund

3

Few Words

The Local Governance and Community Development Programme (LGCDP) is a national programme, managed

and implemented by the Ministry of Local Development (MLD). It is financed by the Government of Nepal and

is supported by a wide range of Development Partners (DPs) such as the ADB, CIDA DFID, DANIDA, GTZ,

Norway, SDC, and UN Agencies including UNDP, UNCDF, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNV, UNIFEM etc. The overarching

goal of LGCDP is 'to contribute towards poverty reduction through inclusive, responsive and accountable local

governance and participatory community‐led development'. LGCDP’s implementation commenced in July

2008 and will last for four years – July 15, 2012.

The District Development Committees, Municipalities and Village Development Committees, (LBs) are

governed by the Local Self‐Governance Act, 2055; the Local Self Regulations, 2056; and the Local Body

(Financial Administration) Regulations, 2064. Rule 273(D) of the Local Self Governance Act allows for

assessments of LBs and permits subsidies to local bodies to be expanded or reduced, after having obtained a

recommendation from the Local Body Fiscal Commission (LBFC) and taking minimum conditions and

performance measures (MCPMs) into consideration. In this context, the Government’s budget speech of FY

2063/064 contained a provision "In order to promote the increment of local sources and effectively utilize

sources that are already obtained, the policy is such that subsidies to local bodies shall, depending upon their

work performances, be expanded or reduced." The Government of Nepal has adapted the principle that the

amount of subsidies to the LBs shall depend on assessments of their performance as specified by Act.

The MLD initiated the performance based grant system from FY 2004/05 in order to make LBs more

transparent, accountable and effective in providing public goods and services at the local level. The MLD has

linked fiscal transfer system first with the DDCs and afterwards VDCs and Municipalities with MCPMs.

The LGCDP is providing funds for the assessment of MCPM to LBFC. Furthermore, MLD provides fund to DDCs

for the assessment of minimum conditions of VDCs. The MLD commenced annual countrywide assessment of

DDCs since the FY of 2006/07 and LGCDP has provided Rs. 640 million capital grant to DDCs for the FY 2008/09.

The performance assessment for VDCs and Municipalities initiated from the FY 2007/08. The Government’s

unconditional capital block grant for the DDCs had been linked with the performance based measurement with

the government and LGCDP topping grants. However, in case of VDCs and municipalities, the performance

based measurement system has been commenced with LGCDP topping‐up grant only from the FY 2009/10.

LGCDP has allocated Rs. 850 million, Rs. 350 million and Rs. 1.20 billion capital grant, respectively, for DDCs,

municipalities and VDC.

I would like to thank Mr. Devkota for performing this daunting task. I am confident and hopeful that this report

will be of useful to those concerned including MLD, LBFC, LGCDP, development partners and other related

institutions and interested in research works. Finally, I would like to thank to all who are directly or indirectly

involved in operationalization of performance based grant system in Nepal.

Som Lal Subedi

Joint Secretary, Ministry of Local Development

and National Programme Director

Local Governance and Community Development Programme

December 20, 2009

4

Table of Contents Page

List of Abbreviation

Few Words

Maps

1. Background 6‐8

1.1 Objectives of the Performance Measures Based Grant System

1.2 Minimum Conditions (MCs)

1.3 Performance Measures (PMs)

2. Analysis of MCPMs assessment of DDCs 8 ‐28

2.1 Indicators of MCs

2.2 Indicators of PMs

2.2.1 Analysis of Assessment of Minimum Conditions (MCs) of DDCs 2.2.2 Analysis of Performance Measures (PMs) assessment during the period of 2007/08

and 2008/09

3 Analysis of MCPMs result of Municipalities in 2008/09 assessment 28‐35

3. Analysis of MCs result of all VDCs (FY 2064/65) (2007/08)

3.1: Overview of Minimum Conditions (MCs)

3.2: Overview of Performance Measures (PMs)

4 Analysis of MCs results of all VDCs in 2008/09 assessment. 36‐43 4.1 Overview of the MCs 4.2 Indicators of Minimum Conditions (MCs) 4.3: Result Analysis of MCs

5 Block Grant Allocation to LBs 43‐43 6 Issues on Performance Measures 44‐44 7 Lessons Learned 44‐44

8 Conclusion 45‐45 References 46‐46

Annexes 47‐70

Annex 1: The MCPMs Assessment tool Annex 2: The list of MCPMs conducted districts in 2005/06: 20 districts Annex 3: The list of Second MCPMs assessment districts on pilot basis ( 2006/07): 55 DDCs Annex 4. Status of MCPMs assessment during the period 2005/06‐2009/10 in Nepal Annex 5 : Result of Performance Measures (PMs) of all DDCs for the FY 2007/08 & 2008/09 Annex 6. Analysis of PMs Result of all Municipalities Annex 7: Overall results of Minimum Conditions (MCs) of VDCs

5

Districts with MCs non complying VDCs (2008/09 assessment)

Districts with MCs non comply (2008/09 assessment)

6

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES (MCPMS) IN LOCAL BODY OF NEPAL1 1. Background

The Government of Nepal (GoN) has implemented the system of allocation minimum grants and additional grants to Local Bodies (LBs) in order to carry out assigned duties according to clause 236 of the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA), 1999 , sine 2007/08 based on the result of MCPMs of DDCs. The system has replicated in VDCs and municipalities from 2009/10. As per the mandate and spirit of the LSGA, District Development Committees (DDCs), Village Development Committees (VDCs), and Municipalities are recognized as LBs and are responsible in delivering services to the people at local level.

The LSGA also mentions providing an additional grant based on population, level of development, possibility and capability of mobilizing revenues, degree of the resource gap, adequacy and quality of financial transactions, audit reports, and so on. Similarly, rule 273 “Gha” of the Local Self‐Governance Regulation (LSGR), 1999 provides for a performance based grant system to LBs. According to these provisions the Ministry of Local Development (MLD), on recommendation of the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) can develop minimum conditions and performance indicators for LBs and link the size of the capital development grant to the performance of the LBs. Under this system, the grants for LBs can be disbursed on the basis of the LBs performance. The grant under this system is based on the performance of the LB.

The performance‐based grant system was initiated in 20 districts (assessment in 2005/6, name of districts in annex 2) by MLD with the support of Decentralized Financing and Development Programme (DFDP). In November 2006, the Government of Nepal decided to roll out the performance based grant system2 in all 75 districts through the LBFC, as per the budget speech of FY 2006/07.

The Local Governance and Community Development Programme (LGCDP) has implemented performance based grant system to provide additional grant to DDCs from the fiscal year 2008/2009 and for VDCs and municipalities from the FY 2009/10.

After approving the separate manuals of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures (MCPMs) of all LBs, the Local Body Fiscal Commission (LBFC) is operating the MCPM programme on this same basis. In accordance to this program, the country wide assessment of DDCs and municipalities has started from the fiscal year 2007/08 and 2008/09 respectively. Likewise, the MCs system was also initiated in all VDCs from FY 2008/09. The system of MCPM assessment has been linked with the capital grants to be provided by the GoN to DDCs and additional block grants available from the LGCDP. The result of the MCPMs of the previous two years directly affects the capital grants of the current fiscal year (the MCPMs assessment tool and second MCPMs assessment on pilot basis are presented in annex 1 and 3 respectively).

Minimum conditions (MCs) must be met by LBs to be entitled to receive the unconditional capital grants. All minimum conditions refer to statutory requirements already in place in Nepal. Performance Measures (PMs) are necessary developing a method of measuring an

1 The analysis of the results is the author’s personal findings which do not necessarily reflect the views of MLD/LBFC/LGCDP.

2 Nepal is the first country in the world to roll out such a performance based grant system to all Local Bodies. The result of all three Local Bodies’ performances has been presented here. These are presented analytically in tabular form. Each and every table itself present the findings. There would have been a great achievement if these findings and issues can be addressed officially.

7

organizations performance with the purpose of external comparison to other organizations or for internal use as a way of monitoring improvement, efficiency or similar.

As said, the first annual nation‐wide MCPMs assessment (with budget implications for FY 2008/09) was conducted in June 2008 (assessment for 2007/8). Forty‐seven out of the 75 DDCs completed all the indicators of MCs, and all DDCs were adjusted accordingly in the grant allocation from the GoN unconditional capital grants. RS 148 million were allocated as entitlement (even for the non‐compliant DDCs) and Rs 223 million were allocated based on the actual performance of the DDCs on the MCPM scale. The 47 DDCs which complied with all MCs also received the topping up capital grant (for FY 2008/09) from LGCDP. The second nation‐wide MCPMs assessment (with implications for FY 2009/10) was carried out from March – June 2009 (assessment for 2007/8). In this assessment the number of DDCs, which complied with the MCs, increased to 67 DDCs and the performance of the DDCs within all composite performance areas improved significantly from previous years. As in the previous FY, the block grant schemes (GoN block grants and the topping‐up grants) was not blended due to delays in the approval of the joint financing arrangements with DPs. The 67 compliant DDCs have received extra topping‐up grant. The MCPMs assessment for the municipalities was conducted by using the same procedure as for the DDCs (ie. open competition to select an independent consultant) in May and June 2009 (assessment for 2007/8). Two municipalities, Kathmandu and Khadbari, could not comply with the MCs. The topping up budget of approximately Rs 350 Million was allocated to the MCs comply 56 municipalities. The MCs assessment of the VDCs (assessment for 2007/8) was organized for the first time May to July 2009 (impact on the topping up allocations in FY 2009/10). The assessment was contracted out to local firms by the DDCs. MCs assessment of VDCs was carried out in all the districts with the exception Mahotari (76 VDCs) and partially Sarlahi (9 VDCs) district, all districts were able to assess the MCs. Out of MCs assessed 3,830 VDCs, 3409 VDCs were passed in MCs to the given 5 indicators. The topping up budget Rs 1.2 billion was allocated to MCs comply 2749 VDCs with the DAG mapping (4 and 3). Status of MCPMs assessment during the period 2005/06‐2009/10 in Nepal is presented in annex 4. 1.1 Objectives of Performance Based Grant System

• To improve local governance/bodies performance through a penalty and incentives mechanism

• To adapt the size of the grants to the expenditure and performance capacity in the key functional areas

• To identify the capacity gaps of LGs in different functional areas

• To strengthen the general monitoring and evaluation (M/E) system through the annual assessment

The performance based grant allocation system was introduced to put pressure on the LBs for the compliance with rules/regulations, to improve service delivery and to improve accountability, transparency, good governance, etc. The system provides incentives to LGs for the improvement of institutional performance, change in functions, systems and procedures

8

and enhance accountability to citizens. The performances of LBs are assessed on the basis of indicators of Minimum Conditions (MCs) and Performance Measures (PMs). 1.2 Minimum Conditions (MCs)

Minimum conditions are such indicators by which the LBs are assessed to see whether they observed the laws which are compulsory to them. The amount of grants receivable by the LBs shall be determined on the basis of MCs assessment. They are the minimum safeguards for proper utilization of public resources and for identifying the basic absorption capacity followed by financial discipline. Indicators for MCs are statutory requirements of LBs as provisioned in the Local Self‐Governance Act 1999 (LSGA) and associated rules and regulations. Indicators for MCs are core service delivery functional areas of LBs such as planning and budgeting, financial management, functioning of various committees, transparency, accountability etc. In order to receive annual unconditional capital development grant, LBs must have meet all indicators of MCs. In case the LBs cannot fulfill the minimum conditions, there shall be reduction in grants receivable by them. The responsible officer and staffs may be awarded if additional grant is received, or sanctioned if allocated grant is deducted.

1.3 Performance Measures (PMs)

Performance Measures (PMs) are designed to create incentives for LGs to improve their performance. PMs provide a range of score in different functional areas that help to assess the service delivery capacity and efficiency. LBs annual grant will depend on the scores achieved in PMs. The indicator of the performance evaluates the procedures, result and quality of the different working areas of the LB. These indicators direct the LBs to monitor its own function, to improve internal working capacity and to compare its activities with other LBs. The assessment of MCs and PMs of LBs helps to establish data on service delivery status, accountability to citizens and also identified the capacity gap in various functional areas. Such information is used for developing a strategic and pragmatic capacity building programme. Furthermore, regular assessment of MCs and PMs will strengthen the general M/E system of LBs that promotes annual progress in various service delivery functions, responsibility and ensure that accountability can be measured. 2. Analysis of MCPMs assessment of DDCs

2.1 Indicators of MCs

The MCPMs assessment manual consists of 15 MCs indicators, which covers four functional areas. However, only 13 indicators within three functional areas have been applied. Other indicators would not be applicable unless political representatives are in place in DDCs. The functional areas and indicators of MCs are as follows.

1. Planning and Management

1.1 Approved annual plan and budget for the current year by District Council in previous Finance Year (LSGA, Art. 188, 195, 197 and LSGR Art. 199).

9

1.2 Annual budget ceiling and planning guidelines provided to Municipalities and VDCs (cf. LGSR, Art. 199) by DDC to all VDCs. In case central government did not provide such guidelines and ceilings to DDCs, even then the DDC should have provided them from its internal resources.

1.3 DDC has publicly informed the Municipalities, VDCs and relevant stakeholders (inhabitants) about the approved annual budget and programs (LSGA Art. 202, 2 (i)) of the previous FY.

1.4 Annual Progress Review of the previous year conducted by the DDC as per LSGA 211. The review workshop of the previous year has been conducted within the first 6 months of the current FY.

1.5 DDC has submitted its reports as per the provision mentioned in grant guideline. Being a Trigger MCs, grant to DDC could be stopped in the middle of a FY if not complied with.

2. Financial Management

2.1 Accounts from previous FY but one completed and submitted for final audit (LBFAR 203).

2.2 DDC has prepared the annual statement of income and expenditures of District Development Fund (DDF) and financial statements for the previous FY (LBFAR 196).

2.3 DDC must release the budget or grant from DDF (non‐operating account to) VDCs, Municipalities, sectors and other organizations as per approved work plans and budgets. No transfer should be made in the operating account prior to council approval.

2.4 Internal Audit Section established (LSGA art. 232) and functioning in accordance with (LBFAR art. 57 and 58) (to be complied by the end of Baisakh 2065).

2.5 Due and timely response have been made upon comments and reactions made in the Office of the Auditor's General Report. DDC must have had to respond on comments of Audit report within the given time or 35 days from the date of received report (LBFAR 205 ‐1).

2.6 Cumulative Records of unsettled irregularities documented and updated (LBFAR 60 Annex 75)

2.7 DDC appoints final auditors to audit last FY of the last FY of VDCs final accounts3.

3. Transparency 3.1 Information and records centre keeps all information and records as specified (LSGA Art.

212)

3 Simply revised in the second amendment

10

2.2 Indicators of PMs A total of 62 indicators covering eight functional areas have been fixed for PMs. Out of that 57 indicators representing eight functional areas have been applied. Out of remaining 5 indicators can be applied only after the appointment of political representatives in DDCs.

Table 1.1: Summary of PM indicators and Score

Performance areas Number of indicators

Maximum Score

Minimum Score Required

1. Planning and Program Management

8 15 6

2. Budget Management 6 11 4

3. Financial Management 9 15 6

4. Fiscal Capacity 6 11 4

5. Budget release and Program Execution

7 12 4

6. Communication and Transparency

8 14 5

7. Monitoring and Evaluation 5 10 3

8. Organization, Service Delivery and Property Management

8 12 4

Total 57 100 36

In order to receive allocated full capital grant, each DDC must have had to pass all indicators of MCs and also have to achieve minimum score in all functional areas of PMs in order not to be sanctioned. 20% sanction on allocated grant will be applied if DDCs fail to achieve minimum score in any one of the functional areas of PMs. The functional areas and indicators of PMs are as follows.

1. Planning & Programme Management

1.1 Budget ceiling and planning guidelines issued by the DDC to the VDCs, municipalities and sector agencies should mention pro‐poor policy, national and district development priorities, criteria for selecting projects (cf. LSGA 1999).

1.2 Participatory planning process followed (cf. LSGA 197, and LSGR, Art. 199)

1.3 Compliance with the procedures and checklists for selection of investment proposals are applied as an integral part of the planning cycle

1.4 Annual plan is prepared, using the resource map and poverty information and district sectoral plans.

1.5 Representatives from NGOs, civil society and organization related with women and children and disabled groups are invited in the sectoral meeting of plan formulation committee meeting

11

1.6 Pre‐feasibility of projects are done before plan approval. (Applicable in case of larger projects bigger than Rs 1.5 million) This ceiling is decided as per as per budget guideline by MoF, 2007.

1.7 Plan and budget is clearly linked, especially in terms of infrastructure projects

(Limited to infrastructure projects that have total cost of Rs 500 thousand or more)

1.8 The plan specifies O & M arrangements (responsible body, costs, funding source etc.) for all projects.

(Limited to those approved projects larger than Rs 1.5 million)

2. Budget Management

2.1 Percentage (%) of infrastructure projects completed within the approved cost estimate and budget.

2.2 Percentage of previous Fiscal Year’s internal revenues collected against budgeted revenues.

2.3 Budget for target groups considers the need and concerns of DAG, ethnic groups, disabled and old people.

2.4 Annual plan allocate budget directly benefiting for women and children from internal resource. More emphasis is given to allocate resources for women and children from internal source.

2.5 All eight Special fund accounts established and budget provision has been ensured according to LBFAR 54 (ka).

2.6 DDC has deposited matching fund as per agreement with GON and other donors supported programs/projects

3. Financial Management

3.1 Status of outstanding advances at the end of the FY.

3.2 DDCs provide economic support or donation within the limit as mentioned in the financial rules/regulation.

3.3 Quality of audit report for the previous FY.

3.4 Volume of cumulative audit irregularities up to the end of previous year but one, settled during the previous fiscal year.

3.5 Liabilities of previous fiscal year not paid within the same FY as compared to total expenditure of that FY (these liabilities will impact on the next FY).

3.6 DDCs prepared annual procurement plan.

3.7 Utilization status of deposit account.

3.8 Computer accounting package installed and financial report prepared.

3.9 Document all recoverable amount as recommended by the OAG in the audit report and made due effort to recover such amount.

12

4. Fiscal Resource Mobilization Capacity

4.1 DDC has done study/estimation of potential internal revenue sources and projections are done accordingly. All possible internal revenue sources are identified and estimation has been done considering the capacity of the DDC to mobilize them.

4.2 Fiscal Effort: Percent increase in the internal revenue (tax, service charge, rent, sale, fee levied) as per LSGA and LBFAR compared to previous year (except for the revenue shared by the central government).

4.3 Adherence to the regulations on transfer of funds to Municipalities and VDCs of the applicable internal revenue sources.

4.4 Budget arrangement is done for the development and sustainability of the internal revenue sources.

4.5 Revenues shared by the central government are spent on those priority sectors (from where such revenue are obtained).

4.6 DDC has established internal revenue section and it is functional

5. Budget Release and Programme Execution

5.1 Percentage of actual expenditure on against planned development budget in the previous FY.

5.2 Percentage of actual capital development expenditure against capital development budget in the previous year.

5.3 Expenditure made on programs addressing the need and concerns of women, children, DAG, ethnic groups, disabled and old people.

5.4 DDC has complied with the limit regarding administrative/regular expenses as specified by law.

5.5 Income received from revenue sharing is not spend for administrative purpose.

5.6 Expenditures on Operational and maintenance of larger investments (projects larger than Rs 1.5 million) made as per budget.

5.7 Inventory of projects (larger than Rs 500 thousand) completed in the past 3 consecutive years maintained.

6. Communication And Transparency

6.1 DDC provides information to the public about project selection criteria, and approved annual plan and budget.

6.2 DDC provides information to the public about the DDC’s annual statements of incomes and expenditures.

6.3 Project Information board/hoarding boards are maintained at project sites in projects exceeding Rs 300 thousand.

6.4 Reports of Auditor General submitted to the Council and decision is made.

13

6.5 Information/record/documentation centre operational (LSGA 212) and opened to the public (access).

6.6 Public hearing system implemented about the services and development activities of DDC.

6.7 DDC should publish the results of the MC/PM‐assessment result through media, notice boards or public meetings.

6.8 Social Audit conducted within four months after the end of FY.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation

7.1 Implementation status of Monitoring and Evaluation System.

7.2 Reporting: Submission of monthly and annual statement of income and expenditure within the time limit and specified format.

7.3 Final inspections and clearance by DDC of projects within one month after completion report is received.

7.4 Impact studies/analysis of the DDC level projects about their implications on the poor.

7.5 DDC has carried out annual review about the status and budget of programs/projects implemented with donor support within first trimester of the FY.

7.6 Functioning of DDC supervision and monitoring sub‐committee.

8. Organizations, Service Delivery and Property Management

8.1 DDC has carried out study about organization development (OD).

8.2 DDC has prepared and updated the inventory/record of its assets/property.

8.3 Inspection (physical verification) of stores carried out during the previous year.

8.4 Internal control and audit procedures elaborated, disseminated and enforced.

8.5 Establishment and functioning of staff recruitment committee.

8.6 DDCs organize regular staff meeting.

8.7 Provision of help‐desk in the DDCs.

8.8 Capacity building plan of DDC is formulated.

14

2.2 .1 Analysis of Assessment of Minimum Conditions (MCs) of DDCs

The first annual nation‐wide MCPMs assessment (with budget implications for FY 2008/09) was conducted in June 2008 (assessment for 2007/8). Forty‐seven out of the 75 DDCs completed all the indicators of MCs, and all DDCs were adjusted accordingly in the grant allocation from the GoN unconditional capital grants. RS 148 million were allocated as entitlement (even for the non‐compliant DDCs) and Rs 223 million were allocated based on the actual performance of the DDCs on the MCPM scale. The 47 DDCs which complied with all MCs also received the topping up capital grant (for FY 2008/09) from LGCDP. The second nation‐wide MCPMs assessment (with implications for FY 2009/10) was carried out from March – June 2009 (assessment for 2007/8). In this assessment the number of DDCs, which complied with the MCs, increased to 67 DDCs and the performance of the DDCs within all composite performance areas improved significantly from previous years. As in the previous FY, the block grant schemes (GoN block grants and the topping‐up grants) was not blended due to delays in the approval of the joint financing arrangements with DPs. The 67 compliant DDCs have received extra topping‐up grant. Detail result of Performance Measures (PMs) of all DDCs for the FY 2007/08 & 2008/09 is analyzed in annex 5.

Table 2.1: Overall MCs result in 2007/8 and 2008/9 assessment

Areas and Indicators Name of districts not complying MCs

Indicator no

No of Not MCs

Complying districts

2007/08 2008/09

1. Planning and Budgeting

1.1 6 3 (Panchathar, Kathmandu &

Rauthahat) 3 (Saptari, Sarlahi & Bara)

1.2 23

21 (Ilam, Panchathar, Shankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha,

Mahottari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Palpa, Kaski, Baglung, Mustang, Dolpa, Humla, Kalikot, Pyuthan,

Dailekh, Dadeldhura & Kanchanpur)

2 (Sirha & Mahottari)

1.3 3 Rauthahat Mahottari & Sarlahi

1.4 17

16 (Ilam, Panchathar, Bhojpur, Saptari, Siraha, Mahottari,

Kathmandu, Rautahat, Palpa, Kaski, Manang, Mustang, Myagdi,

Pyuthan, Dadeldhura & Kanchanpur)

Saptari

1.5 2 ‐ Mahottari & Sarlahi 2. Financial Management

15

Areas and Indicators Name of districts not complying MCs

Indicator no

No of Not MCs

Complying districts

2007/08 2008/09

2.1 0 ‐ ‐ 2.2 0 ‐ ‐ 2.3 0 ‐ ‐

2.4 14 9 (Ilam, Bhojpur, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Sarlahi, Lamjunj, Kalikot &

Mugu)

5 (Saptari, Siraha, Sarlahi, Mugu & Bardia)

2.5 9 8 (Panchathar, Bhojpur, Sunsari, Parsa, Rautahat, Baglunj, Mustanj

& Dailekh) Siraha,

2.6 8 6 (Siraha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Palpa, Mustang & Dolpa)

Siraha &Sarlahi

2.7 5 ‐ 5 (Siraha, Bara, Kapilbastu,

Bardia & Mugu)

3. Transparency

3.1 5 Panchathar, Kathmandu &

Rauthat Saptari & Sarlahi

Table 2.2: Name of Districts which could not comply with MCs in two times in the same indicator

Indicator Area Districts Annual budget ceilings and planning guidelines Planning & Budgeting Sirha & Mahottari Annual progress review done Planning & Budgeting Saptari Internal Audit section established and functioning Financial Management

Saptari,Siraha,Sarlahi & Mugu

DDC updated document of irregularities (not settled) amount shown in the Auditor's Report Financial Management Siraha & Sarlai It is expected that the MLD and other concerned authorities would think seriously about these DDCs for the improvements in the above areas and indicators.

16

Table 2.3: Name of Districts complying MCs in 2007/08 but could not comply in 2008/09

It is of concern where DDCs previously passed assessments and now have failed. It is very essential to find out the reality why these DDCs failed in the last assessment. Table 2.4: Name of Districts not comply MCs in 2008/09 assessment

The number of DDCs which could not comply the MCs along with number of indicators in FY 2008/09 assessment are: Mugu (2), Bardia (2), Kapilbastu ( 1), Bara(2), Sarlai(6), Mahotari(3), Saptari(4) and Siraha(5). Non complying areas and indicators are given as follows:

Non Complying Indicators Area Districts

Approved annual plan and budget Planning & Budgeting Saptari,Sarlahi & Bara Annual budget ceilings and planning guidelines

Planning & Budgeting Sirha & Mahottari

Publicly information about the approved programmes and projects

Planning & Budgeting Mahottari &Sarlahi

Annual progress review done Planning & Budgeting Saptari Reporting compliance to MLD Planning & Budgeting Mahottari & Sarlahi Internal Audit section established and functioning

Financial Management Saptari,Siraha,Sarlahi,Mugu,

Bardia Reactions on the audit reports. Financial Management Siraha DDC updated document of irregularities (not settled) amount shown in the Auditor's Report

Financial Management Siraha &Sarlahi

DDC timely appoints final auditors to audit VDCs accounts

Financial Management Siraha,Bara,Kapilbastu,Bardi

a &Mugu Information and records centre established and keeps information/records as specified

Transparency Saptari & Sarlahi

The above table shows that all DDCs that could not comply MCs are in the Terai region except Mugu. This is most likely due to the poor security/political situation in the Terai. However, taking this into account it is required to find out the reason behind the none complying the MCs. Mugu is only one district which could not comply MCs in all assessments. The MLD and political parties need to give due attention and take action to improve the performance of Mugu district.

Failed Indicator Area District Approved annual plan and budget Planning & Budgeting Bara

DDC timely appoints final auditors to audit VDCs accounts Financial Management

Bara & Kapilbastu

Internal Audit Section established and functioning Financial Management Bardia

17

Table 2.5: The Major areas and indicators for not complying MCs

Indicators Areas Internal Audit section established and functioning Financial Management DDC timely appoints final auditors to audit VDCs accounts Financial Management Approved annual plan and budget Planning & Budgeting Publicly information about the approved programmes and projects

Planning & Budgeting

Reporting compliance to MLD Planning & Budgeting Information and records centre established and keeps information/records as specified

Transparency

DDC updated document of irregularities (not settled) amount shown in the Auditor's Report

Financial Management

Reactions on the audit reports. Financial Management Annual progress review done Planning & Budgeting

18

2.2.2 Analysis of Performance Measures (PMs) assessment during the period of 2007/08 and 2008/09 Table 2.6: Result of Performance Measures (PMs)

Zone Districts MCs Score of PMs

Average Score 2007/08 2008/09 2007/08 2008/09

Mechi

Illam Not met Met 51 69 60.00 Jhapa Met Met 61 73 67.00 Taplejung Met Met 52 67 59.50 Panchthar Not met Met 34 69 51.50

Koshi

Dhankuta Met Met 67 85 76.00 Shankhuwasabha Not met Met 36 86 61.00 Bhojpur Not met Met 49 51 50.00 Morang Met Met 63 84 73.50 Sunsari Not met Met 56 69 62.50 Terhathum Met Met 70 82 76.00

Sagarmatha

Khotang Met Met 67 83 75.00 Saptari Not met Not met 49 59 54.00 Solukhumbhu Met Met 53 52 52.50 Udayapur Met Met 71 81 76.00 Siraha Not met Not met 58 55 56.50 Okhaldhunga Met Met 47 45 46.00

Janakpur

Dhanusha Met Met 35 68 51.50 Dolakha Met Met 60 61 60.50 Mahottari Not met Not met 39 51 45.00 Ramechap Met Met 70 66 68.00 Sarlahi Not met Not met 44 50 47.00 Sindhuli Met Met 45 44 44.50

Bagmati

Bhaktapur Met Met 66 66 66.00 Dhading Met Met 77 93 85.00 Kathmandu Not met Met 80 56 68.00 Kavrepalanchok Met Met 79 81 80.00 Lalitpur Met Met 66 52 59.00 Nuwakot Met Met 55 77 66.00 Rashuwa Not met Met 43 69 56.00 Sindhupalchok Met Met 60 67 63.50

Narayani

Bara Met Not met 46 55 50.50 Chitwan Met Met 51 69 60.00 Makwanpur Met Met 68 73 70.50 Parsa Not met Met 43 52 47.50 Rautahat Not met Met 18 54 36.00

Lumbini

Arghakhanchi Met Met 66 67 66.50 Gulmi Met Met 50 81 65.50 Kapilvastu Met Not met 69 61 65.00 Nawalparasi Met Met 67 75 71.00 Palpa Not met Met 57 83 70.00 Rupandehi Met Met 53 49 51.00

Gandaki

Gorkha Met Met 47 65 56.00 Kaski Not met Met 54 82 68.00 Lamjung Not met Met 60 74 67.00 Manang Not met Met 43 71 57.00

19

Zone Districts MCs Score of PMs

Average Score 2007/08 2008/09 2007/08 2008/09

Syangja Met Met 58 81 69.50 Tanahun Met Met 64 83 73.50

Dhaulagiri

Baglung Not met Met 49 74 61.50 Mustang Not met Met 42 53 47.50 Myagdi Not met Met 45 63 54.00 Parbat Met Met 40 73 56.50

Karnali

Dolpa Not met Met 41 58 49.50 Humla Not met Met 62 70 66.00 Jumla Met Met 56 74 65.00 Kalikot Not met Met 38 65 51.50 Mugu Not met Not met 51 44 47.50

Rapti

Dang Met Met 64 68 66.00 Pyuthan Not met Met 67 64 65.50 Rolpa Met Met 58 55 56.50 Rukum Met Met 67 58 62.50 Salyan Met Met 77 78 77.50

Bheri

Banke Met Met 50 66 58.00 Bardia Met Not met 49 49 49.00 Dailekh Not met Met 42 62 52.00 Jajarkot Met Met 69 62 65.50 Surkhet Met Met 54 61 57.50

Seti

Achham Met Met 59 50 54.50 Bajhang Met Met 71 71 71.00 Bajura Met Met 63 67 65.00 Doti Met Met 59 66 62.50 Kailali Met Met 59 62 60.50

Mahakali

Baitadi Met Met 54 66 60.00 Dadeldhura Not met Met 52 59 55.50 Darchula Met Met 61 77 69.00 Kanchanpur Not met Met 58 58 58.00

Total marks in PMs 4174 4959 4567 Average 55.65 66.12 60.89

The above table shows that the average performance score of DDCs have increased by 18.81 percent to the previous year assessment and the average score for the two year is 60.89 percent. This indicated that the performance rate of DDCs is satisfactory.

20

Table 2.7: Criteria of grant allocation based on MCPMs assessment

Performance “rating” and conditions

Reward/ Sanction Staff Incentives based on

DDCs Performance MC not met Loose all grant amount ‐ MC met but failed in any one of the areas of PMs

loose by 20 % ‐

MC met & received 36‐50 marks in PMs

Static ‐


Bonus by 20 % Rs. 100 thousand



MC met & received 80 + marks in PMs


Table 2.8: Distribution of districts receiving and non receiving grants for two years

FY Loose All Grants

Static Loose 20 %

Bonus 20 %

Bonus 25%

Bonus 30%

2007/08 28 6 7 19 15 0 2008/09 8 3 4 18 29 13

Table 2.9: Top nine districts in average performance rate in the last two year’s assessment

District Average score Score in 2007/8 Score in 2008/9 Dhading 85 77 93 Kavrepalanchok 80 79 81 Salyan 77.5 77 78 Udayapur 76 71 81 Dhankuta 76 67 85 Terhathum 76 70 82 Khotang 75 67 83 Tanahun 73.5 64 83 Morang 73.5 63 84

21

Table 2.10: Last nine districts in average performance rate for the last two year’s assessment

District Average score Score in 2007/8 Score in 2008/9

Rautahat 36 18 54 Sindhuli 44.5 45 44 Mahottari 45 39 51 Okhaldhunga 46 47 45 Sarlahi 47 44 50 Mugu 47.5 51 44 Parsa 47.5 43 52 Mustang 47.5 42 53 Bardia 49 49 49

The above two tables show that Dhading district is in the number one position and Rauthat the last one in the performance rate in the last 2 years’ assessment. However, the following table shows that Rautahat district falls in the number one position in growth rate that increased the score from 18 to 54. While Kathmandu district decreased its score from 80 to 56 i.e. declined by 30 percent.

Table 2.11: Top ten districts in growth rate for the last two year’s assessment.

Districts Average score Score in 2007/8 Score in 2008/9 Increased Score in %

Rautahat 36 18 54 200 Shankhuwasabha 61 36 86 139 Panchathar 51.5 34 69 103Dhanusha 51.5 35 68 94 Parbat 56.5 40 73 83 Kalikot 51.5 38 65 71Manang 57 43 71 65Gulmi 65.5 50 81 62 Rashuwa 56 43 69 60 Kaski 68 54 82 52

Table 2.12: Last ten districts in growth rate for the last two year’s assessment

District Average score Score in 2007/8 Score in 2008/9

Decreased score in %

Kathmandu 68 80 56 ‐30.00 Lalitpur 59 66 52 ‐21.21 Achham 54.5 59 50 ‐15.25 Mugu 47.5 51 44 ‐13.73Rukum 62.5 67 58 ‐13.43 Kapilvastu 65 69 61 ‐11.59 Jajarkot 65.5 69 62 ‐10.14 Rupandehi 51 53 49 ‐7.55Ramechap 68 70 66 ‐5.71 Siraha 56.5 58 55 ‐5.17

22

Table 2.13: The Mean and Standard deviation of the score of PMs in the last 2 year’s assessment

FY Mean SD Minimum Maximum

2007/8 55.65 11.87 18 80 2008/9 66.12 11.49 44 93

The above table shows that the DDCs have increased their performance rate by comparing with the previous year’s assessment.

Table 2.14: Aggregate Performance rate for the last 2 year’s assessment

PMs Areas

Marks Number

of indicators

Full marks Pass marks Marks

Received %

1.Planning & Programme Management

8 15 6 10.15 67.67

2.Budget Management 6 11 4 7.33 66.64 3.Financial Management 9 15 6 8.63 57.53 4.Fiscal Resource Mobilization Capacity

6 11 4 5.98 54.36

5.Budget Release and Programme Execution

7 12 4 6.15 51.25

6.Communication And Transparency

8 14 5 8.43 60.21

7.Monitoring and Evaluations 5 10 3 5.91 59.10 8.Organizations, Service Delivery and Property Management

8 12 4 8.38 69.83

57 100 36 60.96 60.96

Out of eight functional areas, organizations, service delivery and property management list highest score while budget release and programme execution received lowest score.

Table 2.15: List of Indicators with good performance in the last 2 year’s assessment

Areas Indicator

No Full mark

Marks received

%

Financial Management 3.5 2 1.89 94.67 Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.5 1 0.94 94.00

Communication & Transparency 6.5 2 1.84 92.00Planning & Programme Management 1.2 2 1.83 91.67 Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.6 1 0.90 90.00 Monitoring & Evaluation 7.2 2 1.78 89.00budget release & Programme Execution 2.1 2 1.76 88.00budget release & Programme Execution 2.6 2 1.69 84.33 Financial Management 3.7 2 1.68 84.00

23

Areas Indicator

No Full mark

Marks received

%

Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.7 1 0.84 84.00


8.2 2 1.65 82.67

Planning & Programme Management 1.5 2 1.64 82.00Financial Management 3.8 1 0.82 82.00 Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.6 1 0.81 81.33


8.1 2 1.57 78.33

budget release & Programme Execution 5.5 1 0.76 76.00 budget release & Programme Execution 5.7 1 0.76 76.00 Communication & Transparency 6.2 2 1.43 71.67Planning & Programme Management 1.1 2 1.43 71.33 Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.3 2 1.43 71.33

Planning & Programme Management 1.7 2 1.41 70.67 budget release & Programme Execution 2.2 2 1.40 70.00Communication & Transparency 6.1 2 1.39 69.67 Monitoring & Evaluation 7.5 2 1.37 68.33 Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.2 2 1.36 68.00 Monitoring & Evaluation 7.3 2 1.35 67.33Planning & Programme Management 1.3 2 1.33 66.67 budget release & Programme Execution 5.1 2 1.29 64.33 Planning & Programme Management 1.4 2 1.28 64.00 Communication & Transparency 6.4 1 0.63 63.33Financial Management 3.1 2 1.20 60.00 Financial Management 3.2 2 1.19 59.33 budget release & Programme Execution 5.2 2 1.19 59.33 Communication & Transparency 6.3 2 1.06 53.00Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.4 1 0.53 52.67

budget release & Programme Execution 2.3 2 1.05 52.33 Monitoring & Evaluation 7.1 2 1.04 52.00 Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.3 2 1.03 51.67budget release & Programme Execution 2.4 1 0.51 51.33 Communication & Transparency 6.7 2 1.02 51.00 Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.4 2 1.01 50.67

Indicators 3.5 and 3.3 which belongs to the same functional area (Financial Management) have placed in very good (94.67 %) and very bad (18.67 %) positions respectively.

24

Table 2.16: List of Indicators with bad performance in the last 2 year’s assessment

Areas Indicator

No Full mark

Marks received

%

Financial Management 3.3 2 0.37 18.67Monitoring & Evaluation 7.4 2 0.38 19.00 Budget release & Programme Execution 5.4 2 0.41 20.67 Financial Management 3.6 1 0.27 27.33Organizations, Service Delivery & Property Management

8.8 2 0.61 30.67

Communication & Transparency 6.8 1 0.31 31.33

Communication & Transparency 6.6 2 0.74 37.00 Financial Management 3.9 1 0.37 37.33 Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.1 2 0.77 38.33

Planning & Programme Management 1.6 1 0.39 39.33

budget release & Programme Execution 5.6 2 0.80 40.00

Planning & Programme Management 1.8 2 0.83 41.33

Financial Management 3.4 2 0.83 41.67Fiscal resource Mobilization Capacity 4.5 2 0.91 45.33

Table 2.17: Top 12 and last 12 districts with good and bad performance in planning & Development in the last 2 year’s assessment

Full Marks: 15, Pass Marks: 6 Top 12 Last 12

District Marks District Marks Kavrepalanchok 15 Sarlahi 3.5Morang 13.5 Rautahat 3.5 Salyan 13.5 Mahottari 5.5 Udayapur 13 Dhanusha 6 Bhaktapur 12.5 Okhaldhunga 7Dhading 12.5 Panchathar 7.5 Nuwakot 12.5 Rupandehi 7.5 Makwanpur 12.5 Mugu 7.5 Nawalparasi 12.5 Dailekh 7.5Lamjung 12.5 Sunsari 8 Tanahun 12.5 Mustang 8 Baglung 12.5 Parbat 8

25

Table 2.18: Top 5 and last 6 districts with good and bad performance in budget management


District Marks District Marks

Dhankuta 10.5 Dolpa 3.5 Morang 10.5 Solukhumbhu 4 Khotang 10 Bardia 4 Tanahun 10 Sindhuli 5

Kavrepalanchok 10 Chitwan 5 Rukum 5

Table 2.19: Top 8 and last 8 districts with good and bad Performance in financial management



Salyan 13 Rolpa 4 Terhathum 13 Parsa 4.5 Jumla 12.5 Bara 5.5 Sarlahi 12 Sindhuli 6 Dhankuta 12 Rukum 6 Nuwakot 11.5 Rupandehi 6 Sunsari 11.5 Bhojpur 6 Udayapur 11.5 Mugu 6

Table 2.20: Top 5 and last 5 districts with good and bad performance in fiscal resource mobilization capacity in the last 2 year’s assessment


District Marks District Marks Udayapur 10 Dailekh 2 Dhading 10 Illam 3 Nawalparasi 9.5 Rautahat 3 Kapilvastu 9 Bardia 3.5 Banke 9 Rolpa 3.5

26

Table 2.21: Top 8 and last 6 districts with good and bad performance in budget release and programme execution in the last 2 year’s assessment



Dhading 10.5 Rautahat 3 Darchula 9 Mustang 3 Illam 8.5 Bara 3.5Jhapa 8.5 Kalikot 3.5 Palpa 8.5 Rashuwa 3.5 Syangja 8.5 Lalitpur 3.5Khotang 8.5 Nawalparasi 8.5

Table 2.22: Top 9 and last 10 districts with good and bad performance in communication and transparency in the last 2 year’s assessment


District Marks District MarksSalyan 14 Sarlahi 3 Morang 12.5 Rautahat 3.5 Dang 12 Mahottari 3.5 Dhankuta 12 Bhojpur 4.5 Udayapur 12 Sindhuli 5 Terhathum 12 Dhanusha 5 Makwanpur 12 Mugu 5 Kavrepalanchok 12 Okhaldhunga 5.5 Dhading 12 Dolpa 5.5 Panchathar 5.5

Table 2.23: Top 7 and last 7 districts with good and bad performance in monitoring and evaluation in the last 2 year’s assessment



Ramechap 8.5 Rautahat 3 Dhading 8.5 Mahottari 3.5 Kaski 8 Solukhumbhu 3.5 Khotang 8 Sindhuli 4 Kavrepalanchok 8 Dolpa 4 Salyan 8 Dailekh 4 Nawalparasi 7.5 Parsa 4

27

Table 2.24: Top 5 and last 6 districts with good and bad performance in organizations, service delivery and property management in the last 2 year’s assessment


District Marks District MarksDhading 12 Bardia 4 Dang 11.5 Sarlahi 5 Rukum 11 Okhaldhunga 5 Terhathum 11 Sindhuli 5.5 Salyan 11 Mugu 5.5 Siraha 5.5

Graph 2.1 Districts with highest and lowest marks in each functional area in the last 2 year’s assessment

15

3.5

10.5

3.5

13

4

10

2

Kavrep

alan

chok

Sarlah

i

Dhank

uta

Dolpa

Salyan

Rolpa

Uda

yapu

r

Dailekh

Planning &Development

Budget Management Financial Management Fiscal ResourceMobilzation Capacity

28

Graph 2.2 Districts with highest and lowest marks in each functional area in the last 2 year’s assessment

10.5

3

14

3

8.5

3

12

4

Dhading

Rautahat

Salyan

Sarlahi

Ramechap

Rautahat

Dhading

Bardia

Budget Release andProgramme Execution

Communication AndTransperancy

Monitoring andEvalution

Service Delivery andProperty Mangement

3 Analysis of MCPMs result of Municipalities in 2008/09 assessment

3.1: Overview of Minimum Conditions (MCs) Minimum conditions are such indicators by which the municipalities are assessed to see whether they observed the laws which are compulsory to them. Currently, 15 indicators under 4 performance areas are included as an minimum conditions. For the purpose of internalizing the “Minimum Condition”, 13 out of 15 indicators will be accounted and it shall be regarded fulfilled if, any 7 out of 15 “Minimum Condition” are met for first phase. Similarly, at least any 10 in second year and all indicators of “Minimum Condition” in third year should be fulfilled.

Table 3.1: Working areas and number of indicators of MCs

Working areas No of Indicators

Local Self‐ Governance 2Financial Management 6

Service Delivery and Transparency 3

Formation and Function of Committees 4Total 15

29

The MCPMs assessment for the municipalities was conducted in May 2009 (assessment for 2007/8). Two municipalities, Kathmandu and Khadbari, could not comply with the MCs. The topping up budget of approximately Rs 350 Million was allocated to the MCs comply 56 municipalities. The detail result of performance measures of municipalities is tabulated in annex 6.

Table 3.2: Analysis of the MCs result

Working Areas

1. Local Self‐

Governance

2. Financial Management 3. Service

Delivery and Transparency

4. Formation

and Function of Committees

MC met

MC not met Overall

Result

Indicators No. → Municipalities↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15

Ratnanagar x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 1 Pass Banepa x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 1 Pass Baglung x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 1 Pass Bharatpur x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 1 Pass Damak √ √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Siraha √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Hetauda x √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Bidur √ x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Lekhnath x √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Tansen √ √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 11 2 Pass Dhangadhi x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 2 Pass Itahari x √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ x 10 3 Pass Dhankuta x √ √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 3 Pass Inaruwa x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 3 Pass Kalaiya x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x 10 3 Pass Waling x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 3 Pass Ghorahi x √ √ x √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 3 Pass Gulariya √ x √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 3 Pass Narayan √ x √ x √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ x 9 4 Pass Bhadrapur x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Dharan x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Biratnagar √ x √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Triyuga √ x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 9 4 Pass Kamalamai x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 9 4 Pass Kirtipur √ √ √ √ x x x √ √ √ √ x √ 9 4 Pass Panauti x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 9 4 Pass Bhimeshwor x x √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ x √ √ 9 4 Pass Gorkha x x √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Byas x x √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Pokhara x x √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Tulshipur x x √ x √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 4 Pass Mechinagar x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ x √ √ 8 5 Pass Lahan √ x √ x x x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 8 5 Pass Janakpur x x √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Jaleshwor x x √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass

30

Working Areas

1. Local Self‐

Governance

2. Financial Management 3. Service

Delivery and Transparency

4. Formation

and Function of Committees

MC met

MC not met Overall

Result

Indicators No. → Municipalities↓

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15

Gaur x x x √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Bhaktapur x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ x x √ 8 5 Pass Madhyapur- Thimi x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ x x √ 8 5 Pass Putalibazar x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 8 5 Pass Ramgram x x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Siddharthanagar x x √ x √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Kapilbastu x x x x √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Birendranagar x √ √ x x x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 8 5 Pass Nepalgunj √ x √ x x √ x √ √ √ √ x √ 8 5 Pass Tikapur x √ √ √ x x x x √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Dipayal-Silgadhi x √ √ x x x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Bhimdatta x x √ x √ x √ x √ √ √ √ √ 8 5 Pass Ilam x x √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ √ x 7 6 Pass Rajbiraj x x √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ x x x 7 6 Pass Malangawa x x x √ x x √ √ √ √ √ x √ 7 6 Pass Birjung x x √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ x √ 7 6 Pass Lalitpur x x √ √ √ x x √ √ √ x x √ 7 6 Pass Dhulikhel x x √ √ x x √ √ √ √ x x √ 7 6 Pass Butwal x x x x x x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 6 Pass Amargadhi √ x √ x x x x √ √ √ √ x √ 7 6 Pass Dashrathchand x x √ x √ x x √ √ x √ √ √ 7 6 Pass Kathmandu x x √ x x x √ x √ √ √ x √ 6 7 Fail

Khadbari x x √ x x x x x √ √ √ √ x 5 8 Fail

Total Fail 46 41 5 16 27 49 15 9 0 1 7 18 6

It is clear from the above table that the performance rate of municipalities are weaker in,” procurement planning” and “ planning and budget approval” and stronger in , “citizen charter “ and “provision of building permit “ respectively. Indicators of MCs are as follows Local Self‐Governance

1. Planning and Budget approval

2. Progress Assessment


3. Municipality Fund

4. Detail Record of Tax and Income Sources

5. Auditing System

6. Procurement Planning

7. Inventory Management

31

8. Financial Irregularities and Action for Clearance

Service Delivery and Transparency

9. Citizen Charter

10. Provision of Building Permit

11. Publicizing the Income‐Expenditure and Rates of Tax and Duties

Formation and Function of Committees

12. Formation and Function of Accounts Committee.

13. Formation and Function of Municipal level Revenue Advisory Committee

14. Formation and Function of Supervisor and Monitoring Committee

15. Formation and Function of Staff Recruitment Committee

32

Table 3.3: Overall MCs result in terms of functional and indicators of Municipalities in 2008/09 assessment

Areas and Indicators Non MCs compliance

MunicipalitiesName of Failed Municipalities

Local Self‐Governance

1 Planning and Budget Approval

46

Ratnanagar, Banepa, Baglung, Bharatpur, Hetauda, Lekhnath, Dhangadhi, Itahari, Dhankuta, Inaruwa, Kalaiya, Waling, Ghorahi, Bhadrapur, Dharan, Kamalamai, Panauti, Bhimeshwor, Gorkha, Byas, Pokhara, Tulshipur, Mechinagar, Janakpur, Jaleshwor, Gaur, Bhaktapur, Madhyapur‐Thimi, Putalibazar, Ramgram, Siddharthanagar, Kapilbastu, Birendranagar, Tikapur, Dipayal‐Silgadhi, Bhimdatta, Ilam, Rajbiraj, Malangawa, Birjung, Lalitpur, Dhulikhel, Butwal, Dashrathchand, Kathmandu, Khadbari.

2 Progress Assessment 41

Bidur, Inaruwa, Kalaiya, Waling, Gulariya, Bhadrapur, Dharan, Biratnagar, Triyuga, Kamalamai, Panauti, Bhimeshwor, Gorkha, Byas, Pokhara, Tulshipur, Mechinagar, Lahan, Janakpur, Jaleshwor, Gaur, Bhaktapur, Madhyapur‐Thimi, Putalibazar, Ramgram, Siddharthanagar, Kapilbastu, Nepalgunj, Bhimdatta, Ilam, Rajbiraj, Malangawa, Birjung, Lalitpur, Dhulikhel, Butwal, Amargadhi, Dashrathchand, Kathmandu, Khadbari.


3 Municipality Fund 5 Gaur, Ramgram, Kapilbastu, Malangawa, Butwal.

4 Detail Record of Tax and Income Sources

16

Siraha, Narayan, Ghorahi, Tulshipur, Lahan, Siddharthanagar, Kapilbastu, Birendranagar, Nepalgunj, Dipayal‐Silgadhi, Bhimdatta, Butwal, Amargadhi, Dashrathchand, Kathmandu, Khadbari.

5 Auditing System 27

Damak, Siraha, Dhangadhi, Bhadrapur, Dharan, Biratnagar, Triyuga, Kirtipur, Bhimeshwor, Mechinagar, Lahan, Janakpur, Jaleshwor, Gaur, Putalibazar, Birendranagar, Nepalgunj, Tikapur, Dipayal‐Silgadhi, Ilam, Malangawa, Birjung, Dhulikhel, Butwal, Amargadhi, Kathmandu, Khadbari.

6 Procurement Planning 49

Damak, Hetauda, Bidur, Lekhnath, Tansen, Narayan, Itahari, Dhankuta, Inaruwa, Waling, Ghorahi, Gulariya, Bhadrapur, Dharan, Biratnagar, Triyuga, Kamalamai, Kirtipur, Panauti, Gorkha, Byas, Pokhara, Tulshipur, Mechinagar, Lahan, Janakpur, Jaleshwor, Gaur, Bhaktapur, Madhyapur‐Thimi, Putalibazar, Ramgram, Siddharthanagar, Kapilbastu, Birendranagar, Tikapur, Dipayal‐Silgadhi, Bhimdatta, Ilam, Rajbiraj, Malangawa, Birjung, Lalitpur, Dhulikhel, Butwal, Amargadhi, Dashrathchand, Kathmandu, Khadbari.

7 7. Inventory Management

15 Dhankuta, Gulariya, Kirtipur, Gorkha, Byas, Pokhara, Ramgram, Siddharthanagar, Nepalgunj, Tikapur, Dipayal‐Silgadhi, Lalitpur, Amargadhi, Dashrathchand, Khadbari.

8 8. Financial Irregularities and Action for Clearance

9 Biratnagar, Janakpur, Jaleshwor, Tikapur, Bhimdatta, Ilam, Birguj, Kathmandu, Khadbari.

Service Delivery and Transparency

9 Citizen Charter 0

10 Provision of Building 1 Dashrathchand

33

Areas and Indicators Non MCs compliance

MunicipalitiesName of Failed Municipalities

Permit

11

Publicizing the Income‐Expenditure and Rates of Tax and Duties

7 Bhimeshwor, Mechinagar, Bhaktapur, Madhyapur‐Thimi, Rajbiraj, Lalitpur, Dhulikhel.

Formation and Function of Committees

13

Formation and Function of Municipal level Revenue Advisory Committee

18

Tansen, Triyuga, Kamalamai, Kirtipur, Panauti, Lahan, Bhaktapur, Madhyapur‐Thimi, Putalibazar, Birendranagar, Nepalgunj, Rajbiraj, Malangawa, Birjung, Lalitpur, Dhulikhel, Amargadhi, Kathmandu.

15 Formation and Function of Vacancy Fulfillment Committee

6 Narayan, Itahari, Kalaiya, Ilam, Rajbiraj, Khadbari.

3.2: Overview of Performance Measures (PMs)

For the measurement of the performance, five working areas consisting 40 indicators have been fixed; the total weighting score of which shall be 100. The details of the indicators and obtainable score under each of the working areas categories are as follows: Table 3.4: Working areas and number of indicators of PMs

Working areas No of Indicators weighting score

Local Self‐ Governance 9 22 Financial Management 11 28 Planning and Program Management 7 18 Organization and Human Resource development 6 14 Urban Basic Service Management 7 18 Total 40 100 In the Performance Measure indicators, each has given 2, 1 and 0 score, and each of the indicators have given weight by virtue of its importance. The score obtainable in each indicator shall be determined from the result of multiplication of designated weight with designated score. On the basis of this score, the performance shall be measured and allocated grant may be expanded or reduced. The name of indicators and detail analysis of PMs is highlighted in the annex 6.

34

Table 3.5: Score in each functional areas of PMs.

S.N Municipalities 1. Local Self‐

Governa

nce

2. Finan

cial

Man

agem

ent

3. Plann

ing an

d Program

Man

agem

ent

4. Organ

ization an

d Hum

an Resou

rce

Develop

men

t

5. Urban

Basic

Service

Man

agem

ent

Total Marks

FM : 22 FM :28 FM : 18 FM : 14 FM = 18 100

1 Ratnanagar 11 19 10 10 15 65

2 Tansen 18 11 6 14 14 63

3 Damak 12 18 4 12 16 62

4 Bhimdatta 15 13 5 14 14 61

5 Hetauda 12 9 7 14 18 60

6 Ghorahi 15 15 4 11 15 60

7 Dharan 10 16 5 12 16 59

8 Baglung 13 14 8 10 14 59

9 Tikapur 16 8 9 12 14 59

10 Dhankuta 13 14 3 12 16 58

11 Waling 14 14 6 12 12 58

12 Mechinagar 6 20 6 10 15 57

13 Birendranagar 16 13 7 11 10 57

14 Bhimeshwor 11 18 5 11 11 56

15 Tulshipur 14 13 8 9 12 56

16 Dhangadhi 9 8 9 14 16 56

17 Kalaiya 10 15 8 12 10 55

18 Putalibazar 13 17 4 8 13 55

19 Narayan 15 14 7 8 11 55

20 Bhadrapur 9 16 4 12 13 54

21 Janakpur 11 10 11 10 11 53

22 Jaleshwor 15 8 7 12 10 52

23 Lahan 10 8 9 13 11 51

24 Bhaktapur 9 12 6 11 13 51

25 Dhulikhel 7 15 4 11 14 51

26 Itahari 8 14 2 12 14 50

27 Bidur 12 10 4 14 10 50

28 Banepa 9 12 5 11 13 50

29 Lekhnath 10 11 5 10 13 49

30 Byas 8 11 3 10 16 48

31 Pokhara 10 14 2 8 14 48

32 Kapilbastu 11 12 3 8 14 48

33 Bharatpur 8 16 6 6 11 47

34 Panauti 8 12 2 12 13 47

35 Butwal 10 13 3 6 15 47

36 Amargadhi 11 9 4 10 12 46

37 Dipayal‐Silgadhi 13 8 4 9 12 46

38 Ilam 11 10 4 7 13 45

39 Birjung 11 7 6 8 13 45

40 Biratnagar 7 13 4 6 14 44

41 Triyuga 12 10 3 11 8 44

42 Siraha 10 9 9 9 7 44

43 Kirtipur 7 8 5 10 14 44

44 Lalitpur 9 8 5 8 14 44

45 Gulariya 11 11 3 7 12 44

46 Kamalamai 13 11 2 6 11 43

35

S.N Municipalities 1. Local Self‐

Governa

nce

2. Finan

cial

Man

agem

ent

3. Plann

ing an

d Program

Man

agem

ent

4. Organ

ization an

d Hum

an Resou

rce

Develop

men

t

5. Urban

Basic

Service

Man

agem

ent

Total Marks

FM : 22 FM :28 FM : 18 FM : 14 FM = 18 100

47 Nepalgunj 5 7 6 11 14 43

48 Dashrathchand 10 12 2 11 8 43

49 Gorkha 9 12 2 10 9 42

50 Ramgram 12 13 1 7 8 41

51 Madhyapur‐ Thimi 6 8 5 10 11 40

52 Gaur 11 8 2 7 10 38

53 Kathmandu 11 7 1 6 13 38

54 Malangawa 13 7 1 5 11 37

55 Siddharthanagar 9 9 2 3 14 37

56 Inaruwa 9 9 3 4 10 35

57 Khadbari 3 9 1 6 9 28

58 Rajbiraj 5 5 4 2 10 26

Graph 3.1: Municipalities with highest and lowest score in each working areas

Municipalities having highest and lowest marks in each working areas

18

3

20

5

11

1

14

2

18

7

Tansen

Khadbari

Mechinagar

Rajbiraj

Janakpur

Khadbari

Janakpur

Sidd

harthanagar

Dam

ak

Tansen

1. Local Self‐Governance

2. FinancialManagement

3. Planning andProgram

Management

4. Organizationand HumanResource

5. Urban BasicService

Mangement

36

4. Analysis of MCs results of all VDCs in 2008/09 assessment.

4.1 Overview of the MCs

The Village Development Committee, under the Local Body, is the very closest body of the

people, so this body is directly participated and involved in the task of delivering services

and daily activities of the people. As the functions performed by the VDCs reflect the

attitude of the people towards the government, so it is essential that there are uniformity,

transparency, accountability and expertise in the tasks of these bodies. In this context, the

indicators of the Minimum Conditions have been prepared by deeming the areas of

functions, to be performed by the Village Development Committee, on the basis of the

various provisions mentioned in the Local Self Governance Act, Local Self Governance

Regulation, the Local Body Fiscal Administration Regulation, the Village Development

Committee Grant Operation Guideline, and the Social Security Program Operation

Guideline.

Eleven indicators have been included for assessing the Minimum Conditions.

Provided that, the current condition of the absence of elected representatives and the

results of evaluation immediately affect the distribution of topping up grants, so only a total

of five indicators were applied to assess the Minimum Conditions in the fiscal year

2008/09. Eight indicators would be effective in 2009/10 and the remaining 3 indicators in

2010/11. The indicators of MCs are given as follows:

8.1 Indicators of Minimum Conditions (MCs)

1. The Village Council must have approved previous year’s VDC plan, programme and budget.

2. VDC must have conducted annual review of previous year’s programmes and projects. (This indicator will be effective in MCs assessment of 2008/09)

3. VDC must have used at least 80% of the total VDC Grant (capital) allocated by GoN of last FY.

4. VDC must have planned and budgeted for a certain amount of VDC grant to the targeted groups as instructed by the VDC Grant Guidelines. (This indicator will be effective in MCs assessment of 2009/10)

37

5. VDC must have publicized last year’s income and expenditure statement. (This indicator will be effective in MCs assessment of 2008/9)

6. Final audit of VDC account of the year before last year must have been completed. The audit report shall have to disseminate publicly by the auditor4.

7. VDC must have documented its all income –expenditure information in the given format5. (This indicator will be effective in MC assessment of 2008/09)

8. VDC must have maintained account of its cash receipts, expenditure and revenue ledger books, and advance ledger book, movable, immovable and other assets. (This indicator will be effective in MCs assessment of 2009/10 )

9. VDC must have updated list of people getting social security allowances every fiscal year.

10. VDC must have kept an account of Vital Registration and submitted a report of it to DDC.

11. VDC must have prepared Village Profile. ( This indicator will be effective in MC assessment of 2009/10 )

4.3: Result Analysis of MCs The MCs assessment of the VDCs (assessment for 2007/8) was organized for the first

time May to July 2009 (impact on the topping up allocations in FY 2009/10). The

assessment was contracted out to local firms by the DDCs. MCs assessment of VDCs was

carried out in all the districts with the exception Mahotari (76 VDCs) and partially Sarlahi

(9 VDCs) district, all districts were able to assess the MCs. Out of MCs assessed 3,830

VDCs, 3409 VDCs were passed in MCs to the given 5 indicators. The topping up budget

Rs 1.2 billion was allocated to MCs comply 2749 VDCs with the DAG mapping (4 and 3).

The overall result of Minimum Conditions (MCs) of VDCs is presented in annex 7.

Table 4.1: VDC non‐compliance with MCs

No. District No of VDCs

complying with MCs

No of VDCs failing to

comply with MCs

Notes Total no of VDCs not complying with MCs

1 Panchthar 41 0All VDCs qualify ‐ 33

Districts 0 2 Ilam 48 0

3 Jhapa 47 0

4 Simply revised in the first amendment 5 imply revised in the first amendment

38


complying with MCs


comply with MCs


4 Terhathum 32 05 Dhankuta 35 06 Morang 65 07 Sunsari 49 08 Khotang 76 09 Dhading 50 010 Kathmandu 57 011 Bhaktapur 16 012 Makwanpur 43 013 Chitwan 36 014 Manang 13 015 Lamjung 61 016 Kaski 43 017 Tanahun 46 018 Gulmi 79 019 Arghakhanchi 42 020 Mustang 16 021 Myagdi 41 022 Rukum 43 023 Rolpa 51 024 Salyan 47 025 Dolpa 23 026 Mugu* 24 027 Kalikot 30 028 Dailekh 55 029 Surkhet 50 030 Achham 75 031 Doti 50 032 Kailali 42 033 Kanchanpur 19 034 Rasuwa 17 1

One VDC failed to comply ‐ 12 Districts

12

35 Jajarkot 29 136 Dang 38 137 Udaypur 43 138 Pyuthan 48 139 Parbat 54 140 Nuwakot 60 141 Baitadi 61 142 Palpa 64 143 Nawalparasi 72 144 Kavre 86 145 Rautahat 95 146 Jumla 28 2

2‐5 VDCs failed to comply ‐ 11 Districts

44

47 Dadeldhura 17 348 Lalitpur 38 349 Siraha** 103 350 Humla 23 451 Bajhang 43 452 Bardiya* 26 553 Darchula 36 554 Banke 41 5

39


complying with MCs


comply with MCs


55 Taplejung 45 556 Syangja 55 557 Dolakha 45 6


25 58 Baglung 53 659 Sindhupalchok 73 660 Sankhuwasabha 26 761 Sindhuli 42 11


59 62 Rupandehi 58 1163 Bajura 15 1264 Gorkha 54 1265 Parsa 69 1366 Kapilbastu* 56 21

> 21 VDCs failed to comply ‐ 10 Districts

357

67 Saptari** 92 2268 Ramechhap 27 2869 Okhaldhunga 27 2970 Solukhumbu 1 3371 Bara* 65 3372 Bhojpur 28 3573 Sarlahi** 60 3074 Dhanusha 51 5075 Mahottari** ‐ 76 3,409 497

Notes: ‐ Districts in * failed to comply with DDC‐level MCs in 2008/09 assessment ‐ Districts in ** failed to comply with DDC‐level MCs in both 2007/08 and 2008/09 assessments. ‐ Not assessed VDCs have been included in not met category

40

Table 4.2: DAG6 category VDCs and MCs result

DAG Category Number of

VDCs

MCs % of MCs

Compliance DAG VDCs

Compliance (eligible for top up grants )

Non‐compliance or not assessed (not eligible for “top up” grants)

4 602 489 113 81.23

3B 1480 1261 219 85.2

3A 1129 999 130 88.49

Total 3211 27497 462 85.61 Table 4.3: Distribution of VDCs failing to comply with MCs

No of VDCs per DDC failing to comply with MCs

No of Districts Total no. of VDCs failing to comply with MCs

None 33 01 12 122‐5 11 446‐10 4 2511‐15 5 5916‐20 0 0≥ 21 10 357TOTALS 75 497

6 These ranking indicators are generated from analysis of the findings of the participatory DAG (Disadvantaged Group) mapping by MLD. As with the participatory indicators used in DAG mapping, these ranking indicators combine both economic and socio‐cultural dimensions of DAG‐ness. They are used together as a set to rank VDCs (or wards). Information is collected from readily available secondary sources. Criteria used are:

1. HHs with food sufficient <3 months 2. Concentration of marginalized HHs 3. Access to primary school 4. Access to health posts 5. Participation of women, dalit and janajati in planning, execution and decisions making 6. Prevalence of gender discrimination 7. Prevalence of vulnerable HHs

7 Total number of VDCs that received topping up block grant, the grant variation is from Rs 0.45 Ml to 0.724 Ml.

41

Table 4.4: No of VDCs that non comply with MCs: Indicator wise

Minimum Condition Number of VDCs non comply with

MCs

% of VDCs not able to comply with MCs to total assessed VDCs

% of VDCs not able to comply with MCs to total not

comply VDCs

Village Council must have approved previous year’s VDC plan, programme and budget.

83 2.17 19.71 VDC must have used at least 80% of the total VDC Grant (capital) allocated by GoN in the last FY

154 4.02 36.58 Final audit of VDC account of the year before last year must have been completed. The audit report should have been disseminate publicly by the auditor

87 2.27 20.67 VDC must have updated list of people receiving social security allowances every fiscal year.

110 2.87 26.13 VDC must have kept an account of Vital Registration and submitted a report of it to DDC.

269 7.02 63.90 Total number of assessed 3,830

10.99

Total number of VDCs failing to qualify for top‐up grant 421

The above table provides a summary of the number of VDCs which failed to comply with specific MCs. Accordingly, indicators no 10 (Vital registration) and 9 (Social security) have poor performance in the VDCs. It is recommended that the GON/MLD should focus to solve the issues of vital registration and social security. The table below shows that the documentation of vital registration of Solukhumbhu district is the worst. Out of 34 VDCs 33 have failed in this indicator and risk loose their topping up block grant.

42

Table 4.5: Detailed Information about the MCs non Compliance VDCs

S.N. District

No of VDCs and non

Compliance of MCs

% of n

on com

pliance VDCs Indicators

Village

Coun

cil must

have

approved

previous

year’s

VDC

plan

, prog

ramme

and

budg

et.

VDC must h

ave used

at least

80% of the

total VDC Grant

(cap

ital) a

llocated by

GoN

of

last FY.

Fina

l aud

it of V

DC accoun

t of

the year before last year

must h

ave be

en com

pleted

. Th

e au

dit rep

ort sha

ll ha

ve to

dissem

inate pu

blicly by the

auditor.

VDC must h

ave up

dated list

of peo

ple getting social

security allo

wan

ces every

fiscal year.

VDC must h

ave kept an

accoun

t of Vital Registration

and subm

itted a repo

rt of it

to DDC.

VDCs

Non

Com

pliance

of M

Cs

1 Solukhumbu 34 33 97.06 0 0 0 0 332 Bhojpur 63 35 55.56 3 8 3 9 353 Okhaldhunga 56 29 51.79 0 0 0 0 294 Ramechhap 55 28 50.91 2 0 1 4 255 Dhanusha 101 50 49.50 38 26 26 21 296 Bajura 27 12 44.44 0 7 0 6 0 7 Bara 98 33 33.67 10 11 24 9 9 8 Sarlahi 99 30 30.30 1 30 1 1 2 9 Kapilbastu 78 21 26.92 0 13 0 7 1610 Sankhuwasabha 33 7 21.21 7 0 0 0 1 11 Sindhuli 53 11 20.75 2 1 0 4 1112 Saptari 114 22 19.30 5 13 11 9 9 13 Rupandehi 58 11 18.97 0 11 0 0 6 14 Gorkha 66 12 18.18 0 3 1 8 6 15 Bardiya 31 5 16.13 0 4 2 1 0 16 Parsa 82 13 15.85 0 10 0 5 2 17 Dadeldhura 20 3 15.00 0 2 1 1 1 18 Humla 27 4 14.81 3 1 2 4 1 19 Darchula 41 5 12.20 5 1 0 0 1 20 Dolakha 51 6 11.76 0 0 0 1 6 21 Banke 46 5 10.87 3 3 3 4 3 22 Baglung 59 6 10.17 0 2 0 4 3 23 Taplejung 50 5 10.00 0 2 1 2 0 24 Bajhang 47 4 8.51 0 1 1 0 2 25 Syangja 60 5 8.33 0 0 5 0 4 26 Sindhupalchok 79 6 7.59 0 0 0 3 6 27 Lalitpur 41 3 7.32 0 0 0 2 1 28 Jumla 30 2 6.67 0 0 0 0 2 29 Rasuwa 18 1 5.56 1 1 1 1 1630 Jajarkot 30 1 3.33 0 0 0 0 1 31 Siraha 106 3 2.83 0 1 0 0 2 32 Udayapur 44 1 2.27 1 0 0 0 0 33 Dang 47 1 2.13 0 0 0 1 1 34 Pyuthan 49 1 2.04 0 0 1 0 0 35 Parbat 55 1 1.82 1 1 1 1 1 36 Nuwakot 61 1 1.64 0 0 0 0 2 37 Baitadi 62 1 1.61 0 0 1 0 1 38 Palpa 65 1 1.54 0 0 0 1 0 39 Nawalparasi 73 1 1.37 0 0 0 0 1 40 Kavrepalanchowk 87 1 1.15 0 1 0 0 0 41 Rautahat 96 1 1.04 1 1 1 1 1

Total 421 83 154 87 110 269

43

Table 4.6: Total no. of non compliance VDCs

Indicator no

Indicators Non Compliance VDCs

District VDCs

1 Village Council must have approved previous year’s VDC plan, programme and budget.

15 83

3 VDC must have used at least 80% of the total VDC Grant (capital) allocated by GoN in the last FY

24 154

6

Final audit of VDC account of the year before last year must have been completed. The audit report should have been disseminate publicly by the auditor

19 87

9 VDC must have updated list of people receiving social security allowances every fiscal year.

25 110

10 VDC must have kept an account of Vital Registration and submitted a report of it to DDC.

34 269

5. Block Grant Allocation to LBs

Table 5.1: Topping up grant to LBs in 2009/10

LBs

Budget ,000 Number of LBs Rs $ ( 1 $=Rs 75)

DDCs 855000 11554 67

VDCs 1200000 16216 2749

Municipalities 347910 4701 56

Total 2402910 32472 2872 Table 5.2: Summary of MCPMs results ( 2008/9 assessment) and grant allocation

LBs Number MCs met % MCs not met

Assessment cost (,000) %

MCPM related block grant ( Million)

Rs $ Rs $

DDCs 75 67 89.33 8 6040 81 17 1402 19

VDCs 39158 3409 89 421 25851 345 71 1200 16

Municipalities 58 56 97 2 4649 62 13 350 5 Total 4048 3532 92 431 36539 487 100 29529 39

8 Out of 3915 VDCs the MCs assessed VDCs is only 3830. 9 The GON budget to LBs , DDCs=Rs 2.08 billion, VDC Rs 7.83 billion and Rs 350 Ml to Municipalities ( Rs 2 billion of Local Development Fees).Out of Rs 2.08 billion budget of DDCs the performance based budget is Rs 547 Ml. Until now, the other LBs, GON budget has not been linked with performance based. As per MCPMs manual of municipalities the municipalities’ grant would be linked with performance based from the FY 2067/68.

44

6. Issues on Performance Measures There is no alternative to performance based grant system in Nepal. This system has been institutionalized in the country. As a result of successful implementation of MCPMs, the general public concerned is that if the LBs could perform in a better way the government would give more grants. There is a competition among LBs to improve the performance to receive additional grants. However, there are some issues to effectively implement this system, which are: 1. Capacity Issues

• Inadequate capacity in the implementation process • Lack of sufficient capacity building programs of LBs to those who do not comply with

the MCPM and remain failure. • Inadequate orientation about the MCPM manuals to LBs.

2. Administrative/ Management Issues • Lack of effectively implementation of reward/punishment system to responsible

staff, etc. • Vacant position of VDCs secretaries • Frequent transfer of staffs • Delay releases/authorization of budget

3. Political/ Security Issues • Absence of elected representatives • Threats from unidentified groups especially in the Terai and eastern hill • Political rivalry among the political parties

4. Monitoring/Evaluation Issues • Inadequate monitoring from central authority • Poor Quality Assurance/control • Inadequate dissemination of the results.

7. Lessons Learned

• Performance based funding systems enhances transparency and accountability. People

have become more aware and have been pressurizing LBs to deliver better services. It

has helped LBs to be more accountable, conscious and efficient.

• Objective performance based system helps institution building and motivates better

performance. Institutionalization and capacity building is visible in many respects, for

instance planning processes, documentation, information centers and real work

performance of the LBs.

• The MCPMs process has helped in creating awareness and ownership at community and

beneficiary levels.

• The LBs can meet their basic requirements and enhance capacity to achieve certain level

of performance with some strategic and meaningful support and continuous supervision

and monitoring.

45

• Some clear guidelines, strict enforcement of rules regarding “reward” and “punishment” do have strong positive impacts on the performance of the DDCs and Municipalities.

• Imparting requisite and need based trainings to the LBs staff may help to improve the performance.

As stated above, the overall efficacy of the procedures and systems envisaged under this

method are highly noteworthy and encouraging.

8. Conclusion

The overall assessment indicates that LBs are showing eagerness as well as capability to

improve their performance. The progress is also visible from the sharp decline in penalty

districts and ability of more and more districts to receive bonus. Non compliance districts have

come down to 8 from 28 . Similarly, districts able to secure different category of bonus have

risen from 2007/8 to 2008/9. This is a very encouraging outcome towards the effort to improve

basic service delivery and establish transparency and accountability in LBs. Another notable

factor is the perceived success of criteria based financing of LGCDP prompting many other

donors to think in similar lines. Out of assessed VDCs, 80 percent VDCs have complied with the

requirement of MCs. Similar situation appears with Municipalities. The performance rate of

DDCs and municipalities is 61 and 49 percent respectively. The overall results of the

performance based funding system have significantly improved in the planning, budgeting,

financial management, transparency, etc system of LBs. Finally, the overall performance of LBs

stands at average level. Therefore, there is a need to scale up the performance of LBs by

improving their actual operation of their activities in the days to come.

46

References

a) Block Grant Allocation ( including topping up) to LBs for the FY 2065/66 and FY 2066/67

b) LGCDP program document, 2008

c) Manual for MCPMs assessment of DDCs, 2008 (Second amendment)

d) Manual for MCs assessment of VDCs, 2066 (first amendment)

e) Manual for MCPMs assessment of Municipalities, 2066

f) MCPMs reports ( DDCs, Municipalities) submitted by consultants to LBFC

g) MCs reports submitted by DDCs to LBFC

h) Minutes of LBFCs 20 & 21 st meeting decision

i) Steffensen Jesper and Devkota Khim Lal. Review and Refinement of Fiscal Transfer

Mechanism for LBs ( DDCs and VDCs),October, 2009

47

Annexes Annex 1: The MCPMs Assessment tool

MCPMs Assessment= tFY =e.g.=FY 2009/10 (2066/67)

MCPMs Assessed= 1tFY − =e.g.=FY 2008/09(2065/66)

Effects on Grant allocation= 1tFY + =e.g. =FY 2010/11 (2067/68) Annex 2: The list of MCPMs conducted districts in 2005/06: 20 districts

Achham Jumla Salyan Kavre Baitadi Mugu Dolakha Bajhang Humla Rupandehi Udayapur Darchula Rukum Dhanusha Tehrathum Kailali Jajarkot Taplejung Kaski Solukhumbu

Annex 3: The list of Second MCPMs assessment districts on pilot basis ( 2006/07): 55 DDCs Bajura, Bardyia, Doti, Kanchanpur, Dadeldhura,Dailekh, Surkhet, Banke, Dolpa, Kalikot,Dang Pyuthan, Rolpa, Arghakhachi, Nawalparasi, Kapilbastu,Gulmi, Palpa, Syangia, Parbat, Baglung, Myagdi, Mustang, Manang, Gorakha, Lamjung, Tanahu, Dhading,Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Sindhupalchok, Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Chitawan, Makawanpur, Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi,Sindhuli, Ramechhap, Siraha, Mahottari, Saptari, Bhojpur, Khotang, Sankhuwashabha, Okhaldhunga, Sunsari,Panchthar, Ilam, Jhapa, Dhakuta, Morang

48

Annex 4. Status of MCPMs assessment during the period 2005/06‐2009/10 in Nepal DDCs

Assessment for No

Assessment Year

No of MCs failed DDCs

PMs score Remarks

2004/5 20 2005/6 3 54.5 DFDP assessment

2005/6 55 2006/7 45 42.47 LBFC assessment on Pilot

2006/7 75 2007/8 28 55.651st nation‐ wide assessment and linked with block grant allocation

2007/8 75 2008/9 8 66.122nd nation‐ wide assessment and linked with block grant allocation

2008/9 75 2009/10 Assessment is in progress 3rd nation‐wide assessment Municipalities

Assessment for No

Assessment Year

No of MCs failed Municipalities

PMs score Remarks

2007/8 16 2008/9 15 47.69 LBFC/UDLE assessment on Pilot

2007/8 58 2008/9 2 491st assessment of all municipalities and linked with topping up grant

2008/9 58 2009/10 Assessment is in progress 2nd assessment of all municipalities VDCs

Assessment for No

Assessment Year

No of MCs failed VDCs

PMs score Remarks

2007/8 3830 2008/9 421No PMs indicators

Rolled out to country wide. Not assessed DDCs: Mahotari all VDCs (76) and Sarlai 9. Total not assessed VDCs=85. Linked with topping up grant

2008/9 3915 209/10 Assessment is in progress 2nd nation‐ wide assessment

49

Annex 5.1 : Result of Performance Measures (PMs) of all DDCs for the FY 2007/08 & 2008/09: First four functional areas

Indicator No.→

1.Planning & Programme Management 2.Budget Management 3.Financial Management 4.Fiscal Resource Mobilization Capacity Result of Indicators Result of Indicators Result of Indicators Result of Indicators

Total Indicators : 9 , Active : 8, Full Marks : 15, Pass Marks : 6

Total Indicators : 6, Full Marks : 11, Pass Marks : 4

Total Indicators : 10 Active :9, Full Marks : 15, Pass Marks : 6


1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11

Illam

2007/8 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 2 0 2 1 1 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2008/9 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 13 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 9 2 2 0 0 0 1 5

Average 0.5 2 2 2 2 0 1 1

10.5 2 1 2 1

1.5 2 9.5 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 10 1 1 0 0 0 1 3

Jhapa

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 12 2 0 2 1 0 2 7 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 7 0 2 0 1 2 1 6 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 12 2 2 2 0 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 11 0 2 2 2 0 1 7

Average 2 2 1.5 2 2 0 1 1.5 12 2 1 2

0.5 0 2 7.5

1.5 1 0

0.5 2

0.5 2 1

0.5 9 0 2 1

1.5 1 1 6.5

Taplejung

2007/8 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 1 0 2 6 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2008/9 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 13 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 1 2 2 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 10 2 1 1.5 1 0 2 7.5 1 1 0.5

1.5 2

0.5 1 0.5 0 8 0 1 1 2 0

0.5 4.5

Panchathar

2007/8 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 2 7 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 12 2 2 1 0 0 2 7 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 9 0 2 2 2 0 1 7

Average 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 7.5 2 1 1.5

0.5 0 2 7

1.5 2

0.5 0

1.5

0.5 2 0 0 8 0 1 1 2 0

0.5 4.5

Dhankuta

2007/8 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 9 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 12 1 0 2 1 1 1 6 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 12 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 12 0 2 2 2 2 1 9

Average 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0

1.5

10.5 2 2 2 1

1.5 2

10.5 2 2 1

0.5 2 1 2 1

0.5 12

0.5 1 2

1.5

1.5 1 7.5

Shankhuwasabha

2007/8 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 8 1 2 0 0 2 2 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 14 2 2 2 0 2 2 10 2 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 11 2 2 0 2 1 1 8

Average 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 0 2 1 11

1.5 2 1 0 2 2 8.5 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0.5

0.5 8 1 1 0 1

0.5

0.5 4

Bhojpur

2007/8 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 8 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2008/9 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 11 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 4

Average 0 2 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 2 1 9.5 2 1.5 0 0 0 2 5.5

1.5 1

0.5 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 4

Morang

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 12 2 2 1 1 2 2 10 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 6 1 2 0 2 0 1 6 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 7 2 2 0 2 2 1 9

Average 2 2 2 2 2 0.5 2 1 13.

5 2 2 1.5 1 2 2 10.

5 1 1 0 0.5 2 0 1 1 0 6.5

1.5 2 0 2 1 1 7.5

Sunsari

2007/8 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 7 2 1 2 1 1 2 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 9 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 10 2 2 2 2 2 1 11

Average 1 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 0

0.5 8 2

1.5 2 1

0.5 2 9 2 1

0.5

1.5 2

0.5 2 1 1

11.5 1 1 1 2 2 1 8

Terhathum

2007/8 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 10 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 12 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 12 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 14 0 2 0 2 2 1 7

Average 2 2 2 1.5 1.5 0.5 0

1.5 11 2 2 1

0.5 2 2 9.5

1.5 2

0.5 2 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 2 1 1 1 1 6

50

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11

Khotang 2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 10 2 2 2 2 2 1 11 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 11 0 1 0 2 0 1 4

Average 1.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 0.5 2 1 12 2 1 2 1 2 2 10

1.5 2 1

0.5 2 0 2 1

0.5

10.5 1

1.5 1 2 1 1 7.5

Saptari

2007/8 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 7 1 0 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 10 2 1 1 0 2 2 8 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 7 1 2 0 2 0 1 6

Average 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 1 1 8.5

1.5

0.5 1.5

0.5 2 2 8 1 2 0

0.5 2 0 2 0 0 7.5

1.5 1 0 1 0 1 4.5

Solukhumbhu

2007/8 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 11 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 11 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 0 2 0 2 1 5

Average 1.5 2 2 1 1 0.5 2 0 10 2 0 0.5

0.5 0 1 4

1.5 1 0 2 2 0

1.5 1

0.5 9.5 0 1 2 0 1 1 5

Udayapur

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 12 2 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 12 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 14 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 11 1 2 2 2 2 1 10

Average 2 2 1.5 1.5 2 0 2 2 13 2

1.5 1.5

0.5

1.5 2 9 2 2

0.5

1.5 2

0.5 2 1 0

11.5

1.5 2 2 2

1.5 1 10

Siraha

2007/8 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 11 0 2 1 0 2 2 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 2 2 0 2 2 1 9 2008/9 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 11 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Average 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 11 1 1 1.5 0.5 2 2 8 0 2 0 1 2 0

1.5 0 0 6.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

Okhaldhunga

2007/8 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 2 0 0 2 8 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2008/9 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 8 2 2 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 4

Average 1 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 7 2 2 1 0.5 0 1 6.5 2 0

0.5 1 2 0

1.5 0.5 0 7.5 0 2

1.5 0 0

0.5 4

Dhanusha

2007/8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 0 2 1 1 1 1 6 2008/9 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 8 2 1 2 1 0 2 8 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 8 1 2 2 2 2 1 10

Average 1.5 1.5 1

0.5 0.5 0 1 0 6 2 1 1

0.5 0 2 6.5 1 0 0

0.5 2 0 2 1 0 6.5

0.5 2

1.5

1.5

1.5 1 8

Dolakha

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 2 1 2 1 1 2 9 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 8 0 1 2 0 2 1 6 2008/9 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 11 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 6 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 1 2 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 1 11 2

1.5 2 1

0.5 2 9

0.5 1 0 1 2 0 1 1

0.5 7 0

1.5 1 1 1 1 5.5

Mahottari

2007/8 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 1 1 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 2008/9 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 5 2 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 1 9 0 2 2 1 2 1 8

Average 1 1.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0.5 5.5 1 1 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 0

0.5 7.5 0 2 1

0.5

1.5 1 6

Ramechap

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 12 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 12 0 2 2 0 1 1 6 2008/9 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 11 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 2 0.5 2 1

11.5 2

1.5 2 1

0.5

1.5 8.5

1.5 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 9.5 0 2 1 1

0.5 1 5.5

Sarlahi 200607/8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 7 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 13 1 0 2 2 2 0 7

51

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 2008/9 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 11 0 2 2 2 1 1 8

Average 1.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 2

0.5 0.5

0.5

0.5 2 6 1 2 2 2

1.5 0 2 1

0.5 12

0.5 1 2 2

1.5

0.5 7.5

Sindhuli

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 0 11 1 1 2 1 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 4

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 2 0

1.5

0.5 10

1.5

0.5 1

0.5 0

1.5 5

1.5 0 0 0 2

0.5 1 1 0 6

0.5 1

0.5

0.5

0.5 1 4

Bhaktapur

2007/8 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 13 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 11 2 2 0 2 0 1 7 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 12 2 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 10 2 0 1 2 0 1 6

Average 1.5 2 1.5 1 2 1 2

1.5

12.5 2

1.5 0.5 0

1.5 2 7.5 2 2 0

1.5 2 0

1.5 1

0.5

10.5 2 1

0.5 2 0 1 6.5

Dhading

2007/8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 10 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 0 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 10 1 2 2 2 2 1 10 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 2 1 1 2 2 10 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 11 2 2 2 1 2 1 10

Average 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.5 2 1 2

1.5

12.5 2 2 0.5

0.5 2 2 9

0.5 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0

10.5

1.5 2 2

1.5 2 1 10

Kathmandu

2007/8 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 14 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 12 1 0 2 2 1 1 7 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 9 2 1 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 8 2 0 1 2 0 1 6

Average 2 2 2 0.5 1.5 0.5 2 1

11.5 2

1.5 2

0.5

1.5 2 9.5 2 0 1 1 2

0.5 2 1

0.5 10

1.5 0

1.5 2

0.5 1 6.5

Kavrepalanchok

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 11 1 0 1 2 2 1 7 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 10 0 1 2 2 2 1 8

Average 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 1 2 1 2 2 10 1 1 0.5

1.5 2 1 2 1

0.5

10.5

0.5

0.5

1.5 2 2 1 7.5

Lalitpur

2007/8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 11 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 9 2 2 0 2 2 1 9 2008/9 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 8 2 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 8 2 1 0 2 0 1 6

Average 1.5 2 0.5 2 1 0.5 2 0 9.5 2

1.5 0.5 0

0.5 2 6.5

1.5 0 0 1 2

0.5 2 1

0.5 8.5 2

1.5 0 2 1 1 7.5

Nuwakot

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 0 2 0 0 1 2 5 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 10 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 14 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 13 2 2 1 1 2 1 9

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 2 1 2

1.5

12.5 1 2 0 0

0.5 2 5.5

1.5 2

0.5

1.5 2

0.5 2 1

0.5

11.5 2 2

0.5

0.5 2 1 8

Rashuwa

2007/8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 2 6 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 9 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 2008/9 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12 2 0 0 0 2 2 6 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 13 1 1 2 0 2 1 7

Average 1 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 0.5

1.5

0.5 9 2

0.5 0.5 0 1 2 6

1.5 2

1.5 1

1.5 0 2 1

0.5 11

0.5

0.5 2

0.5 1 1 5.5

Sindhupalchok

2007/8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 13 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 6 2 2 0 0 1 1 6

Average 1.5 1.5 1

1.5 1.5 0

1.5 1 9.5 2 1 2 1

1.5 2 9.5 1 1 0 1 2 0

1.5 1 0 7.5

1.5 1 1 0

0.5 1 5

Bara 2007/8 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 8 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 1 2 0 1 1 1 6 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Average 1 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 2 0 9 2 1 0 0 0. 2 5.5 0 0 0 0 2 0. 1. 1 0. 5.5 0. 1 0 1 0. 1 4

52

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 5 5 5 5 5 5

Chitwan

2007/8 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 8 2 1 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 10 0 0 2 2 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 14 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 7 0 1 2 2 2 1 8

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 1.5 0.5 2 1 11 2

0.5 0 0 1

1.5 5

0.5 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 8.5 0

0.5 2 2 1 1 6.5

Makwanpur

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 12 2 0 2 1 1 2 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 7 1 2 1 2 2 1 9 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 13 2 2 2 1 1 0 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 6 2 2 0 2 1 1 8

Average 2 2 1.5 2 2 0 2 1 12.

5 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 1.5 1 0 6.5

1.5 2

0.5 2

1.5 1 8.5

Parsa

2007/8 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 8 2 2 1 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 1 0 2 2 0 1 6 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 11 2 0 1 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 0 1 1 9.5 2 1 1 0

0.5

1.5 6 0 0 0 0 2 0

1.5 1 0 4.5

1.5 1 1 1 0 1 5.5

Rautahat

2007/8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2008/9 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 7 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 10 0 2 1 1 0 1 5

Average 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 3.5 2

0.5 1

0.5 1 2 7 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0.5

0.5 7 0 1

0.5

0.5 0 1 3

Arghakhanchi

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 10 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 11 1 2 2 0 2 0 7 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 13 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 6 1 2 0 2 2 1 8

Average 2 2 1 1.5 2 0

1.5

1.5

11.5 2 2 0 0 1 2 7

1.5 1 0

0.5

1.5 0 2 1 1 8.5 1 2 1 1 2

0.5 7.5

Gulmi

2007/8 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 10 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 13 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 11 0 1 2 2 1 1 7

Average 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 0

1.5 1

10.5 2 1 1

0.5 1 2 7.5 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 1

0.5

10.5 0

1.5 1 1 1 1 5.5

Kapilvastu

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 2 1 0 1 0 2 6 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 11 1 2 2 2 2 1 10 2008/9 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 10 2 2 1 0 0 2 7 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 10 0 2 2 2 1 1 8

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 1.5 0.5

1.5

0.5 10 2

1.5 0.5

0.5 0 2 6.5

1.5 2 0 1 2

0.5 2 1

0.5

10.5

0.5 2 2 2

1.5 1 9

Nawalparasi

2007/8 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 11 2 1 2 1 1 2 9 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 14 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 9 1 2 2 2 2 1 10

Average 2 2 1 2 2 1 1.5 1

12.5 2

1.5 1.5 1 1 2 9

0.5 2

0.5 1 2 0 2 1 0 9

1.5 2 2

1.5

1.5 1 9.5

Palpa

2007/8 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 10 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 9 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 14 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 9 2 0 2 2 2 1 9

Average 1.5 1 1.5 2 2 0.5

1.5 2 12 2 1 2 1

1.5 2 9.5 1 2

0.5 0 2

0.5 2 1 0 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 7

Rupandehi

2007/8 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 0 2 0 6 2008/9 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 11

Average 2 1.5 1 1 1 0 0.5

0.5 7.5

1.5 1 0 0 1 2 5.5

0.5 0 0 1 1 0

1.5 1 1 6

1.5 2

1.5 1 2

0.5 8.5

Gorkha 2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 2 5 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 2 1 4

53

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 2008/9 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 13 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 6 0 2 2 0 2 1 7

Average 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 1

0.5 10 1 2 0 0

0.5 2 5.5

0.5 2 0 0

1.5 0 2 1 0 7

0.5 1 1 0 2 1 5.5

Kaski

2007/8 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 9 0 0 2 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 14 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 7 2 2 2 2 2 1 11

Average 1 2 1.5 1 2 0.5 1 2 11 2 2 1 0.5 2 2 9.5 1 0 0

1.5 2

0.5 2 1 0 8 1 1 2 1 2 1 8

Lamjung

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 12 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 11 0 0 2 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 13 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 10 0 2 2 0 2 1 7

Average 2 2 2 2 2 0.5 1 1 12.

5 2 2 0 0 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 0 1.5 1 1

10.5 0 1 2 0 2 1 6

Manang

2007/8 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 9 0 0 2 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 14 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 1 7

Average 2 2 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 1 1

10.5

1.5 1 1 0 0 2 4.5 1 1 0 1 2

0.5 2 0.5 1 9 1 0 2 0 2 1 6

Syangja

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 9 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 2 1 2 1 2 2 10 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 8 2 2 2 2 0 1 9

Average 1.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 0.5 2 1 12 2

1.5 2 1 1 2 9.5

0.5 0 0

1.5 2

0.5 2 1 0 7.5 2 1 1 1 1 1 7

Tanahun

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 12 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 6 2 0 2 2 0 1 7 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 13 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 1 1 9

Average 2 2 2 2 2 0.5 2 0 12.

5 2 1 2 1 2 2 10 1 0 0 1.5 2

0.5 2 1

0.5 8.5 2 1 2

1.5

0.5 1 8

Baglung

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 2 2 1 1 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 14 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 4

Average 1.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 1 2 1

12.5 2 2 0.5

0.5 1 1 7 2 1 1 0 2

0.5

1.5 1

0.5 9.5 0 1 0 1

1.5 1 4.5

Mustang

2007/8 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 6 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 10 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 2 0 0 1 5

Average 0.5 1.5 1 1 1.5 0.5 2 0 8 2

1.5 0 0

0.5 2 6 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 7 1 1 1 0 1 1 5

Myagdi

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 11 2 1 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 2008/9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 12 2 2 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 0 2 0 2 1 6

Average 1.5 2 1 1 2 0.5

1.5 2

11.5 2

1.5 0.5

0.5

0.5 1 6

0.5 0 0 0 2

0.5 2 1

0.5 6.5

0.5 1 1 0 1 1 4.5

parbat

2007/8 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 8 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 13 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 9 0 2 2 0 2 1 7

Average 1.5 1 1.5

1.5 1 0.5 1 0 8 2 2 0 0

0.5 1 5.5 0 2 0 0 2

0.5 2 1 1 8.5

0.5 1 1 0

1.5 1 5

Dolpa 2007/8 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 2 1 7 2008/9 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 8 2 0 2 0 0 2 6 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 10 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 Average 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 0 2 0 8 1 0. 1 0 0 1 3.5 1 2 0 1 2 0. 2 0 0 8.5 1 1 1 1 2 1 7

54

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 5 5

Humla

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 13 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 0 2 1 5 2008/9 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 2 2 2 0 1 8 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 13 2 2 0 2 2 1 9

Average 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2

0.5 12

1.5 2 1 1

0.5

1.5 7.5 2 1

0.5 1 2

0.5

1.5 1

0.5 10

1.5

1.5 0 1 2 1 7

Jumla

2007/8 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 12 2 2 2 0 2 1 9 2008/9 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 13 2 2 0 0 0 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1

0.5 2 0 2 0 9 1

1.5 2

0.5

1.5 1 7.5 2 2

0.5

1.5 2 1 2 1

0.5

12.5 2 2 1 0 1 1 7

Kalikot

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 7 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 10 2 1 0 0 0 1 4

Average 2 2 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 10 2 1.5 0 0 1 1 5.5 1 1 0 1 2 0

1.5 1 1 8.5 1

1.5 1 0 0 1 4.5

Mugu

2007/8 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 7 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 4

Average 1 2 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 7.5 2 2 1

0.5 0 2 7.5

0.5 0

0.5

0.5 2 0 2 0.5 0 6

0.5 2 1 0 0 1 4.5

Dang

2007/8 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 10 2 2 2 1 1 0 8 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 8 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 9 0 1 2 1 1 2 7 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 9 0 2 0 2 2 1 7

Average 0.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 0 1 1 9.5 1

1.5 2 1 1 1 7.5

1.5 2 0

0.5 2 0

0.5 1 1 8.5 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

Pyuthan

2007/8 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 13 2 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2008/9 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 10 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 9 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 2 2 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 2 0

11.5 2

1.5 1

0.5 2

0.5 7.5

0.5 1 0

0.5 2

0.5 1 1 1 7.5 0 2 1 1 0

0.5 4.5

Rolpa

2007/8 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 10 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2008/9 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 9 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 2 1 1.5 1 2 0 2 0 9.5 2 1 1 0.5

1.5 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 1 0

0.5 3.5

Rukum

2007/8 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 13 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 2 0 0 1 7 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 11 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 6 0 2 2 0 2 1 7

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 2 0 2 2 12 2 1 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 2

0.5 1 0.5 0 6 1 2 2 0 1 1 7

Salyan

2007/8 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 13 2 2 1 0 1 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 14 2 1 1 0 2 0 6 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 0 2 2 1 1 6

Average 2 2 2 1.5 2 0.5 2

1.5

13.5 2

1.5 1 0

1.5 1 7 2 2

0.5

1.5 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 1 1 2

0.5 1 5.5

Banke

2007/8 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 2 5 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 8 2 2 0 2 2 1 9 2008/9 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 10 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 8 2 0 2 2 2 1 9

Average 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 0 8 1 2 1

0.5

0.5 2 7

1.5 2 0 0 2

0.5 1 1 0 8 2 1 1 2 2 1 9

Bardia 2007/8 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 9 1 2 0 0 0 1 4

55

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 2008/9 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

Average 2 2 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 2 1 10

0.5 1 0 0

1.5 1 4 1 1

0.5 1 2 1 2 0 1 9.5

0.5 1 0 0 1 1 3.5

Dailekh

2007/8 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008/9 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 9 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 9 1 0 0 2 0 1 4

Average 1 2 1 0.5 2 0 1 0 7.5 2 1 1

0.5

0.5 1 6

1.5 2

1.5 1 2 0 2 1 0 11

0.5 0 0 1 0

0.5 2

Jajarkot

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 12 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 12 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 10 0 1 2 0 1 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1

1.5 2 0 2

1.5

11.5 2 2 1

0.5

0.5 1 7 2 2 0 1 2

0.5

1.5 1 1 11 0

1.5 2 0

0.5 1 5

Surkhet

2007/8 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 2 1 1 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 7 2 2 0 0 1 1 6 2008/9 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 12 0 2 1 0 1 2 6 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 9 2 2 0 2 0 1 7

Average 1.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 0.5 1 0 10 1

1.5 1 0

0.5 2 6

1.5 1 0

0.5

1.5 0 2 1

0.5 8 2 2 0 1

0.5 1 6.5

Achham

2007/8 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 9 0 2 1 1 0 2 6 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 2008/9 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 0 2 1 1 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 8 2 0 0 2 0 1 5

Average 2 2 2 1 1.5 0.5 0 0 9 0 2 1 1 0 1.5 5.5 2 0 1

0.5 2 0 2 1

0.5 9 1 1 0 1 0 1 4

Bajhang

2007/8 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 9 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 11 2 2 0 2 1 0 7 2008/9 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 11 2 2 0 1 2 2 9 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 8 0 2 2 0 0 1 5

Average 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 2 2 0.5 1 2 1.5 9 1 2 1 1 1

0.5

1.5 1

0.5 9.5 1 2 1 1

0.5

0.5 6

Bajura

2007/8 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 13 2 1 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 11 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 7 0 2 2 0 0 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1.5

1.5 2 1 1

1.5 12 2

1.5 1

0.5 1 2 8

0.5 2 0 0

1.5 0 2 0.5 0 6.5 0 2 2 0 0 1 5

Doti

2007/8 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 7 2 2 0 0 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 10 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 0 2 0 2 0 1 5

Average 1.5 2 1.5 1 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 2 0 1 1 1 0

1.5 0.5 1 8 1 2 0 1 0 1 5

Kailali

2007/8 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 9 2 1 0 1 1 2 7 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 9 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 2008/9 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 11 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 10 0 2 0 1 0 1 4

Average 1 2 1 1.5 1.5 1

1.5

0.5 10

1.5

1.5 1 1 1 2 8 1 2 0 1 2

0.5

1.5 1

0.5 9.5 0 2 0

1.5 0 1 4.5

Baitadi

2007/8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 2 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 6 2 2 0 2 2 1 9 2008/9 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 12 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 8 0 2 2 0 0 1 5

Average 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 0.5

0.5 1 9 1 2 0 0

1.5 2 6.5 1 2 0 0

1.5 0

1.5 1 0 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 7

Dadeldhura 2007/8 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 7 2 2 2 0 0 2 8 2 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 2 1 0 0 5 2008/9 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 7 1 2 0 2 0 0 5 Average 1. 1.5 1 1. 1.5 0 1. 0. 9 2 2 2 0. 0 2 8.5 1. 0 1 1 2 0 1. 0.5 0 7.5 0. 2 1 1. 0 0 5

56

Indicator No.→






1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7

1.8

Total

2.1

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

Total

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

15

2 2 2 1 2 2

11

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

15

2 2 2 2 2 1

11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Darchula

2007/8 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 9 0 2 2 1 1 0 6 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 10 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 2008/9 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 11 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 10 0 2 2 2 2 1 9

Average 1.5 2 1.5

0.5 2 0.5 1 1 10 1 2 1.5 1 1 1 7.5 2 2 1

0.5 1 0 2 1

0.5 10

0.5

1.5

1.5 1 1 1 6.5

Kanchanpur

2007/8 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 1 5 2008/9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 1 4

Average 1.5 1.5 1 1 1.5 0.5

1.5 1 9.5 2 2 1.5 1

0.5

1.5 8.5

1.5 1 0

0.5 2 0 1 0.5 0 6.5 0

0.5 1 2 0 1 4.5

Annex 5.2: Result of Performance Measures (PMs) of all DDCs for the FY 2007/8 and 2008/9: remaining four functional areas and total score

Districts

Indicator No.→

5.Budget Release and Programme Execution 6.Communication And Transperancy 7.Monitoring and Evalution 8.Organizations, Service Delivery and Property Mangement

Result of Indicators Result of Indicators Result of Indicators Result of Indicators


Total Indicators : 9 Active : 8, Full Marks : 14, Pass Marks : 6

Total Indicators : 7, Active : 5, Full Marks : 10, Pass Marks : 3

Total Indicators : 8, Active : 7, Full Marks : 12, Pass Marks : 4 Ove

rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Full Mark→ FY↓

2 2 2 2 1 2 1

12

2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

14

2 2 2 2 2

10

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2

12

100

Illam

2007/8 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 7 51 2008/9 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 9 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 9 0 2 2 0 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 69

Average 2 2 1.5 0 1 1 1 8.5 1.5 1.5 0 0.5 2 0

1.5 0 7 0 1.5

1.5 0.5 1 4.5 2 1 1 1 0.5

0.5 1 0 7

60

Jhapa

2007/8 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 9 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 7 0 0 2 0 2 4 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 61 2008/9 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 8 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 10 1 2 2 0 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 73

Average 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 1.5 1.5 0 1 2

0.5 2 0 8.5 0.5 1 2 0 2 5.5 2 2 2

0.5 1 1 1 0 9.5

67

Taplejung

2007/8 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 7 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 52 2008/9 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 8 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 9 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 67

Average 1.5 1 2 1 1 0 1 7.5 1.5 1 1 1 1.5 0 1 0 7 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0 9

59.5

Panchathar

2007/8 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 34 2008/9 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 9 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 9 1 2 2 0 2 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 69

Average 2 1.5 1 1 1 1

0.5 8 1 1 0

0.5 0.5

1.5 1 0 5.5 0.5 1 2 0 1 4.5

0.5 2 1.5

0. 1

0. 0.5 0 6.5

51.5

57

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

5 5

Dhankuta

2007/8 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 9 67 2008/9 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 85

Average 1 1.5 1 0 1 0.5 1 6 2 2 2

0.5 2

1.5

1.5 0.5 12 1.5 1.5

1.5 1

1.5 7

1.5 2 2

0.5 1 1 1 1.5 11

76

Shankhuwasabha

2007/8 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 36 2008/9 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 12 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 11 2 2 2 1 2 9 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 86

Average 1 1 1 1 0.5 2 1 7.5 1.5 1 0 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 7.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 5.5

1.5 2 1.5 0 1 1 0.5 1.5 9

61

Bhojpur

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 49 2008/9 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 8 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 51

Average 1.5 1.5 0 0 1 2 1 7 1 1 0 0 2 0

0.5 0 4.5 0 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 1.5 0 1 1 1 0 7.5

50

Morang

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 11 0 2 0 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 8 63 2008/9 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 8 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 84

Average 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 0.5 13 1 2 1 0.5 1.5 6

1.5 2 2 1 1 1 0.5 1 10

73.5

Sunsari

2007/8 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 1 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 56 2008/9 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 9 0 2 1 1 2 6 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 69

Average 1.5 1 2 0 1 1 1 7.5 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 1.5 0

0.5 0.5 7 0 2 1 1 1 5 1 1.5 2 0 1

0.5 0.5 0 6.5

62.5

Terhathum

2007/8 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 70 2008/9 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 82

Average 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 6.5 2 2 1.5 1 2

1.5

1.5 0.5 12 1.5 2 2 0

1.5 7 2 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 2 11

76

Khotang

2007/8 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 67

2008/9 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 9 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 83

Average 2 2 2 0 0.5 1 1 8.5 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 10 1 2 2 1.5

1.5 8

1.5 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0 8.5

75

Saptari

2007/8 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 7 2 2 0 1 0 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 49 2008/9 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 7 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 59

Average 0.5 0.5 2 1 1 0 1 6 1 1

1.5

0.5 2 0 0 1 7 2 2 1 0.5 1 6.5 2 1.5 1 0 0.5

0.5 0.5 0 6

54

Solukhumbhu

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 8 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 8 53 2008/9 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 9 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 52

Average 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 1.5 1 1 2 0 1.5 0.5 8.5 0.5 2

0.5 0

0.5 3.5

1.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 7

52.5

Udayapur 2007/8 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 6 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 11 2 2 0 1 1 6 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 71

58

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

2008/9 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 0 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 81

Average 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 1.5 1.5 2 1 2 2 1.5 0.5 12 1 2 1 0.5

1.5 6

1.5 1.5 2

0.5 1 1 1 0 8.5

76

Siraha

2007/8 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 6 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 7 0 2 2 1 0 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 58 2008/9 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 6 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 11 0 2 2 0 2 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 55

Average 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 6 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 1 0

1.5 1 9 0 2 2 0.5 1 5.5

1.5 1.5 1 0 0.5

0.5 0.5 0 5.5

56.5

Okhaldhunga

2007/8 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 1 2 2 0 1 6 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 47 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 0 1 6 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 45

Average 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 4.5 1.5 1

0.5 0 1.5

0.5

0.5 0 5.5 1 2 2 0 1 6 0 2 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 5

46

Dhanusha

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 35 2008/9 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 9 2 2 2 0 1 7 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 10 68

Average 2 2 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 6.5 0.5 0.5 1

0.5 1.5 0

0.5 0.5 5 1 2 2 0.5

0.5 6

1.5 1.5 0

0.5 1

0.5 0.5 1.5 7

51.5

Dolakha

2007/8 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 1 0 1 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 60 2008/9 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 11 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 61

Average 1.5 1 1 0 0 1 1 5.5 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5

1.5 1 9.5 1 2

1.5 0.5 1 6

1.5 1 1.5 0 1 1 1 0 7

60.5

Mahottari

2007/8 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 39 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 51

Average 1.5 2 1.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 7 0.5 1 0

0.5 1 0

0.5 0 3.5 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1 3.5

1.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 0 0 0.5 6

45

Ramechap

2007/8 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 12 2 2 2 0 2 8 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 70 2008/9 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 2 2 2 1 2 9 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 66

Average 0.5 1 2 0 0 1.5 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1.5 2 1 12 2 2 2 0.5 2 8.5 1 1.5 1.5 0 1 1 1 0 7

68

Sarlahi

2007/8 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 44 2008/9 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 6 50

Average 1 1 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0 0 3 0.5 1.5 2 0.5

0.5 5

1.5 0.5 0 0 1

0.5 0 1.5 5

47

Sindhuli

2007/8 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 2 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 7 45 2008/9 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 44

Average 1.5 1.5 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 1

0.5 1 0 0 0.5 5 0.5 1

1.5 0 1 4

0.5 0 1

0.5 1 1 0.5 1 5.5

44.5

Bhaktapur

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 0 2 2 1 0 5 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 66 2008/9 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 6 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 9 1 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 66

Average 1.5 1.5 0.5 0 1 1

0.5 6 1.5 2 1

0.5 2 0

1.5 0 8.5 0.5 2

1.5 1.5 1 6.5 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8

66

59

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Dhading

2007/8 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 10 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 10 1 2 2 1 1 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 77 2008/9 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 11 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 93

Average 2 1.5 1.5 2 1 1.5 1 11 1.5 1.5 2 1 2 2

1.5 0.5 12 1.5 2 2 1.5

1.5 8.5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12

85

Kathmandu

2007/8 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 7 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 1 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 80 2008/9 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 5 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 8 0 2 1 0 2 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 56

Average 0.5 0 2 1 1 1 0.5 6 2 1.5 2

0.5 2 0 1 0 9 0.5 2

1.5 1 2 7 2 1.5 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0 8.5

68

Kavrepalanchok

2007/8 2 0 2 0 1 2 1 8 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 11 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 79 2008/9 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 8 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 2 2 0 2 2 8 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 81

Average 2 1 1.5 0 1 2 0.5 8 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 12 2 2 1 1 2 8 2 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0 9

80

Lalitpur

2007/8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 0 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 66 2008/9 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 52

Average 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5

0.5 3.5 2 1.5 1 1 2

1.5 1 0 10 0.5 2 1 0 2 5.5 2 1.5 1

0.5 1 1 1 0 8

59

Nuwakot

2007/8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 0 1 5 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 55 2008/9 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 7 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 9 2 2 2 1 2 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 77

Average 1 2 0 0 1 1 0.5 5.5 1 1.5 2 0 2 0 1 0 7.5 1 2 2 0.5

1.5 7 2 1.5 2

0.5 1

0.5 1 0 8.5

66

Rashuwa

2007/8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 9 43 2008/9 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 9 1 2 2 0 2 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 69

Average 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 0

0.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1

0.5 2 0 0 0 6.5 0.5 2 1 0

1.5 5 1 2 2

0.5 1 1 1 1 9.5

56

Sindhupalchok

2007/8 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 7 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 10 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 60 2008/9 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 67

Average 1.5 1.5 2 0 0.5 0 1 6.5 1.5 2 1

0.5 1.5 1

1.5 1 10 1.5 2 2 0

1.5 7 2 2 1.5 0 1 1 1 0 8.5

63.5

Bara

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 7 46 2008/9 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 11 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 10 55

Average 1 0.5 0 0 1 0 1 3.5 1.5 1.5 1

0.5 2

0.5

1.5 0 8.5 1 1

1.5 1

1.5 6

1.5 1.5 2 0 1

0.5 1 1 8.5

50.5

Chitwan

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 51 2008/9 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 11 1 2 2 1 2 8 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 8 69

Average 1 1.5 1 0 1 1 1 6.5 2 2 1

0.5 2 0

1.5 0.5 9.5 0.5 1.5 1 1

1.5 5.5 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0.5 7.5

60

Makwanpur 2007/8 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 12 2 1 2 0 2 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 68 2008/9 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 12 1 2 1 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 10 73

60

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Average 1 0 1.5 1 1 1 1 6.5 2 2 1.5

0.5 2

1.5 2 0.5 12 1.5 1.5

1.5 0.5 2 7

1.5 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 1 9.5

70.5

Parsa

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 43 2008/9 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 9 1 2 1 0 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 8 52

Average 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 4.5 1.5 1.5 1

0.5 1.5

0.5 1 0 7.5 0.5 1.5 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0 6

47.5

Rautahat

2007/8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 18 2008/9 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 54

Average 1 0.5 1 0 0 0

0.5 3 0.5 0.5 1 0 1.5 0 0 0 3.5 0.5 1 1 0

0.5 3 2 1 0.5 0 1

0.5 0.5 0.5 6

36

Arghakhanchi

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 7 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 9 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 9 66 2008/9 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 11 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 9 67

Average 2 1.5 0 0 1 2

0.5 7 2 1.5

1.5 1 2 1 1 0 10 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 9

66.5

Gulmi

2007/8 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 0 0 5 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 50 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 10 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 12 1 2 2 0 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 81

Average 2 2 1 0 0.5 1 1 7.5 1.5 1.5 0 1 2 1 1.5 0.5 9 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1.5

0.5 1

0.5 1 0.5 9

65.5

Kapilvastu

2007/8 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 9 1 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 9 1 2 1 0 2 6 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 69 2008/9 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 61

Average 1.5 1.5 0 2 1 1

0.5 7.5 1.5 2

0.5

0.5 2

1.5 0 0 8 1 2

0.5 0 2 5.5 2 1 1

0.5 1 1 1 0.5 8

65

Nawalparasi

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 2 1 2 0 2 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 67 2008/9 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 9 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 7 2 1 2 1 2 8 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 75

Average 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 2

0.5 8.5 1 1 1 1 2 0

0.5 0 6.5 2 1 2 0.5 2 7.5 2 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 0 8.5

71

Palpa

2007/8 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 57 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 10 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 12 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 83

Average 2 2 2 0 1 1 0.5 8.5 1.5 1.5 1

0.5 2

0.5

1.5 0 8.5 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1 6.5 2 2 1.5

0.5 1

0.5 1 0.5 9

70

Rupandehi

2007/8 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 6 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 5 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 53 2008/9 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 1 1 2 0 2 6 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 49

Average 0.5 0.5 0 2 1 0.5 0 4.5 2 2

0.5 0 2 0 0 0 6.5 1 1.5 1 0 2 5.5

1.5 1.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 0.5 7

51

Gorkha

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 47 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 9 2 2 2 0 1 7 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 65

Average 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 1.5 1.5 1 2

0.5 0 0 7.5 1.5 2 1 0 1 5.5 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 10

56

61

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Kaski

2007/8 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 1 0 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 54 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 10 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 10 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 82

Average 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 1 1 1 7.5 1.5 1

1.5

0.5 2 1 0 0 7.5 1.5 2 2 1.5 1 8 2 2 1.5 0 1

0.5 1 0.5 8.5

68

Lamjung

2007/8 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 8 0 1 2 0 2 5 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 10 60 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 12 2 2 2 1 1 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 74

Average 1 0.5 0 0 1 1.5 1 5 2 2 1

0.5 2 1

1.5 0 10 1 1.5 2 0.5

1.5 6.5 2 2 1

0.5 1 1 1 2 11

67

Manang

2007/8 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 43 2008/9 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 11 2 2 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 71

Average 1 1 0 1 0 1.5 1 6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 0 1 0 8.5 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 1 5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 0 7.5

57

Syangja

2007/8 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 7 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 58 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 10 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 11 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 81

Average 2 2 1 0 0.5 2 1 8.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 0.5 1 0 8.5 1.5 2 2 0

1.5 7 2 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0.5 9.5

69.5

Tanahun

2007/8 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 12 2 1 0 0 2 5 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 9 64 2008/9 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 9 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 11 2 2 2 1 2 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 83

Average 0.5 1 2 0 0.5 1.5 1 6.5 2 2 2 1 2 1 1.5 0 12 2 1.5 1 0.5 2 7 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.5

73.5

Baglung

2007/8 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 2 2 0 1 5 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 49 2008/9 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 12 1 2 2 0 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 74

Average 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1.5 1 4.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 2 1

1.5 0 8.5 0.5 2 2 0

1.5 6 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 9

61.5

Mustang

2007/8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 42 2008/9 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 8 1 2 2 0 2 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 53

Average 1 1.5 0 0 0 0

0.5 3 1.5 1.5

0.5 0 1.5 0 1 0 6 1 2 1 0 1 5 1 2 1 1 1

0.5 1 0 7.5

47.5

Myagdi

2007/8 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 7 45 2008/9 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 10 1 2 1 0 2 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 63

Average 1 0.5 1 0 0 2

0.5 5 1 1.5

0.5

0.5 2

0.5

1.5 0 7.5 1 2

0.5 0

1.5 5 1 1 2 1 1

0.5 1 0.5 8

54

parbat

2007/8 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 8 40 2008/9 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 73

Average 1.5 1.5 0 0 0.5 0 1 4.5 1.5 1.5

1.5

0.5 2

1.5

1.5 0 10 1 2 1 0

1.5 5.5 2 2 1.5 1 1

0.5 1 0.5 9.5

56.5

Dolpa 2007/8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 41 2008/9 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 7 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 58

62

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Average 1.5 1.5 2 0 0.5 0 0 5.5 1 1 0

0.5 2

0.5

0.5 0 5.5 0.5 1.5 1 0 1 4

1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5

49.5

Humla

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 10 1 2 2 0 2 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 62 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 9 1 2 1 0 1 5 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 7 70

Average 1.5 1.5 1 0 1 0 1 6 1.5 1.5 1 1 1.5

1.5 1 0.5 9.5 1 2

1.5 0

1.5 6 1 2 2

0.5 1 1 0.5 0 8

66

Jumla

2007/8 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 56 2008/9 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 10 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 11 74

Average 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 6 1 1.5 0.5

0.5 2 1 1 0.5 8 1.5 1.5 1 0

1.5 5.5 2 1 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 1.5 9.5

65

Kalikot

2007/8 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 38 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 2 2 1 2 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 65

Average 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0.5 1 3.5 1 1

0.5 1 2

0.5 1 0.5 7.5 1 2 1 0.5

1.5 6

0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1

0.5 1 0 6

51.5

Mugu

2007/8 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 8 51 2008/9 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 44

Average 2 1.5 0 1 1 1

0.5 7 1 1 0 1 1.5 0 0 0.5 5 0.5 2

0.5 0

1.5 4.5

0.5 1 2 0 0.5

0.5 0.5 0.5 5.5

47.5

Dang

2007/8 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 12 1 2 2 0 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 64 2008/9 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 12 1 2 0 1 2 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 68

Average 1.5 0 2 0 0.5 1 0.5 5.5 2 2

1.5 1 1.5 2

1.5 0.5 12 1 2 1 0.5 2 6.5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1.5 12

66

Pyuthan

2007/8 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 13 2 2 2 0 2 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 11 67 2008/9 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 8 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 9 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 8 64

Average 2 0.5 1 2 1 0 1 7.5 2 2

1.5

0.5 2

1.5 1 0.5 11 1.5 2 1 0 2 6.5

0.5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 9.5

65.5

Rolpa

2007/8 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 58 2008/9 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 55

Average 2 2 1 0 0 0 0.5 5.5 1.5 1.5 2

0.5 2 1

1.5 0.5 11 1.5 2 1 0 2 6.5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 10

56.5

Rukum

2007/8 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 9 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 67 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 9 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 58

Average 1.5 1.5 0 0 0.5 2 1 6.5 1.5 1.5

1.5

0.5 2

0.5

1.5 0 9 2 2 1 0 1 6 2 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 2 11

62.5

Salyan

2007/8 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 77 2008/9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 78

Average 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 5.5 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 14 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2

0.5 1 1 1 1.5 11

77.5

63

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

Banke

2007/8 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 5 0 2 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 9 50 2008/9 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 8 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 9 66

Average 1 1 1.5 0 1 0 0.5 5 1 0.5 0

0.5 2

0.5

1.5 0.5 6.5 1 2 1 0

1.5 5.5 2 2 2

0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 9

58

Bardia

2007/8 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 8 1 2 1 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 49 2008/9 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 1 2 0 2 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 49

Average 1 1.5 0 0 1 0 1 4.5 1 1 1

0.5 1.5

0.5 1 0.5 7 1 2

0.5 1 2 6.5

0.5 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 4

49

Dailekh

2007/8 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 42 2008/9 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 9 0 2 2 0 1 5 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 62

Average 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 0.5

0.5 2

1.5

0.5 0 7 0 2 1 0 1 4

1.5 2 1

0.5 1 1 1 0.5 8.5

52

Jajarkot

2007/8 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 8 2 2 2 0 2 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 10 69 2008/9 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 7 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 8 0 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 11 62

Average 1.5 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 5.5 1 1.5 1 1 2 0

1.5 0 8 1 2 2 0 2 7 2 2 2

0.5 1 1 0.5 1.5 11

65.5

Surkhet

2007/8 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 1 2 2 0 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 54 2008/9 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 8 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 10 61

Average 1 1 1 0 0.5 1 1 5.5 1 1 1 1 2 0.5

0.5 0 7 0.5 2

1.5 0

0.5 4.5 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 10

57.5

Achham

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 9 2 1 2 0 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 59 2008/9 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 50

Average 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 0

0.5 6.5 1 1.5 1

0.5 2

0.5 0 0.5 7 2 1.5 1 0

1.5 6 1 1 1

0.5 1 1 1 1 7.5

54.5

Bajhang

2007/8 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 12 1 2 1 0 2 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 71 2008/9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 10 2 2 2 1 1 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 71

Average 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1.5 1.5 2 1 2 1.5 1 0.5 11 1.5 2

1.5 0.5

1.5 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.5 11

71

Bajura

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 8 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 8 1 2 2 0 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 11 63 2008/9 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 6 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 12 0 2 2 0 2 6 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 10 67

Average 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.5 1.5 2 0.5 2 1

0.5 1 10 0.5 2 2 0

1.5 6 1 2 2 1 0.5 1 1 2 11

65

Doti

2007/8 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 6 2 2 2 0 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 9 59 2008/9 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 2 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 10 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 66

Average 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1.5 1 6.5 1.5 1.5

1.5 0 2 0

0.5 1 8 2 2 1 0

1.5 6.5

1.5 2 1.5

0.5 1 1 1 0 8.5

62.5

Kailali 2007/8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 10 59 2008/9 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 7 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 6 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 62 Average 1.5 1. 0 1 1 0.5 0 5.5 1 1 1 0. 2 0. 1 0.5 7.5 1.5 1.5 0. 0.5 1 5 2 2 1.5 1 1 0 1 1.5 11 60.5

64

Districts

Indicator No.→







rall Total 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

Total 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

6.7 6.8

Total 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5

Total

8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5

8.6 8.7 8.9

Total

5 5 5 5 .5

Baitadi

2007/8 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 12 1 1 0 0 2 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 54 2008/9 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 8 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 9 1 2 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 66

Average 1.5 1.5 0 1 1 1

0.5 6.5 1.5 2

1.5 1 2 1 1 0.5 11 1 1.5

0.5 0.5

1.5 5 2 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 0 8.5

60

Dadeldhura

2007/8 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 52 2008/9 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 8 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 59

Average 1.5 1.5 1 0 0 1 0 5 0.5 1 1 1 2

0.5 1 1 8 1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5

1.5 5.5 2 1.5 1 0 1

0.5 1 0 7

55.5

Darchula

2007/8 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 9 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 10 0 1 2 0 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 8 61 2008/9 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 11 1 2 2 1 1 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 77

Average 1.5 1.5 2 1 0 2 1 9 1.5 1.5 2

0.5 2 1

1.5 0.5 11 0.5 1.5 2 0.5

1.5 6

1.5 2 2 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 9.5

69

Kanchanpur

2007/8 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 2 1 2 1 0 6 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 9 58 2008/9 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 8 1 2 1 0 2 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 10 58

Average 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 4.5 2 1 1 0.5 2

1.5

0.5 0.5 9 1.5 1.5

1.5 0.5 1 6 2 1.5 2 1 1

0.5 1 0.5 9.5

58

65

Annex 6. Analysis of PMs Result of all Municipalities Working Areas 1. Local Self‐Governance 2. Financial Management

3. Planning and Program Management

4. Organization and Human Resource Development

5. Urban Basic Service Management

Total Marks

Indicator No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

38

39

40

Score → Municipalities↓

4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 100

Ilam 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 45 Mechinagar 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 2 4 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 57 Bhadrapur 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 2 2 2 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 2 2 54 Damak 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 0 2 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 4 2 62 Itahari 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 50 Dharan 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 4 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 59 Dhankuta 0 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 0 4 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 58 Khadbari 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 28 Biratnagar 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 44 Inaruwa 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 35 Rajbiraj 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 26 Triyuga 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 44 Siraha 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 44 Lahan 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 51 Janakpur 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 53 Jaleshwor 4 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 52 Malangawa 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 37 Gaur 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 2 38 Kamalamai 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 43 Birjung 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 45 Kalaiya 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 55 Ratnanagar 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 4 2 2 4 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 2 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 65 Bharatpur 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 47 Kathmandu 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 4 2 2 0 1 2 2 38 Kirtipur 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 44 Hetauda 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 60 Lalitpur 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 44 Bhaktapur 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 0 2 2 2 51 Madhyapur‐ Thimi 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 0 0 2 2 2 40 Bidur 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 50 Dhulikhel 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 51 Banepa 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 50 Panauti 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 4 2 47 Bhimeshwor 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 56 Gorkha 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 1 0 0 2 42 Byas 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 48 Lekhnath 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 0 2 2 2 49 Pokhara 2 0 1 0 4 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 48 Baglung 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 59

66

Working Areas 1. Local Self‐Governance 2. Financial Management 3. Planning and Program

Management 4. Organization and Human Resource Development

5. Urban Basic Service Management

Total Marks

Indicator No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

38

39

40

Score → Municipalities↓

4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 100

Putalibazar 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 55 Waling 4 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 58 Tansen 4 2 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 63 Butwal 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 4 2 0 1 2 4 2 47 Ramgram 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 41 Siddharthanagar 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 2 0 1 4 2 37 Kapilbastu 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 48 Ghorahi 2 1 1 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 60 Tulshipur 2 0 1 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 56 Birendranagar 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 57 Narayan 2 1 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 55 Nepalgunj 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 43 Gulariya 4 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 44 Tikapur 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 59 Dhangadhi 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 2 0 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 56 Amargadhi 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 46 Dipayal‐Silgadhi 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 4 2 46 Dashrathchand 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 43 Bhimdatta 4 0 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 61

Functional areas and indicators of Performance Measures Local Self‐Governance 15. Public Private Partnership Organization and Human Resource Development1. Participatory Town Planning Formulation 16. Abiding by the optimum limitation of Administrative

Expenses 28. Organization and Capacity Development

2. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion 29. Employees‐Terms of Reference (TOR) 3. Social Mobilization and Urban Poverty Reduction 17. Accrual/Corporate Accounting System 30. Bylaws, Working Procedure and Directives 4. Regulatory Service Management 18. Status of Security/Deposit Accounts 31. Monthly Staff Meeting5. Management Information System and Transparency 19. Accounting Quality and Status of Advance Payment 32. Employees Welfare Fund 6. Code of Conduct and Property Detail 20. Abiding by the Limitation of Financial Assistance Expenses 33. Service Contract Management 7. Implementation of Social Security Programmes 8. Abiding by policy and directives, and report 9. Social Audit and Public Hearing Planning and Program Management Urban Basic Service Management 21. Thematic Area Master plan 34. Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Financial Management 22. Feasibility Study 35. Park, Greenery and Environment Management10. Feasibility Study on Revenue Potentiality and its Projection 23. Annual Work Plan/ Calendar 36. Vehicle Parking Management 11. Actual Income/Expenditure and Budget Implementation 24. Final Clearance and Settlement 37. Slaughter House Management 12. Assets/ Property Management 25. Provision of Repairs and Maintenance 38. Public Health Promotion13. Revenue Administration Management 26. Public Audit 39. Emergency Service/ Disaster Management 14 Integrated Property Tax 27. Impact Evaluation 40. Vital Registration Management

67

Annex 7: Overall results of Minimum Conditions (MCs) of VDCs

S.N. Name of DDC No of VDC

MCs Name of non MCs compliance VDCs

Met Not Met

1 Taplejung 50 45 5 Tellok, Chaksibote, Fawakhola, Tapethok, Fakumba 2 Panchthar 41 41 0 3 Ilam 48 48 0 4 Jhapa 47 47 0

5 Sankhuwasabha 33 26 7 Chainpur, Mamiling, Chepuwa, Hatiya, Nundhaki, Mawadin, Num

6 Terhathum 32 32 0

7 Bhojpur 63 28 35

Khatamla, Domane, Mulpani, Helauchha, Yangpang, Pyauli, Charambi, Jarayotar, Yaku, Shyamsila, Amtek, Chyange, Sanodumma, Thulodumpa, Timma, Kot, Gauyane, Lekharka, Okhe, Dalgaun, Bhulke, Dhedlekhani, Uyun, Basithapu, Ranibas, Homtang, Sindrang, Patlepani, Hasanpur, Dummana, Pawala, Pancha, Walakha, Thindikha, Dewantar

8 Dhankuta 35 35 0 9 Morang 65 65 0 10 Sunsari 49 49 0

11 Solukhumbu 34 1 33

Taksindu, Beni, Salleri, Khumjung, Namche, Charikharka, Juving, Payai, Baku, Kaku, Basa, Gudel, Bung, Sotang, Chheskam, Garma, Nele, Deusa, Mukli, Lokhim, Jubu, Kangel, Panchan, Tingla, Salyan, Nechabatase, Nechabetagha, Tapting, Kerung, Gorakhani, Goli, Chaulakharka, Bhakanje

12 Khotang 76 76 0

13 Okhaldhunga 56 27 29

Kuibhir, Pokhare, Diyale, Shreechaur, Prapcha, Harkpur, Biguwatar, Ragadeep, Jantarkhani, Patlu, Ragani, Khijichandeswari, Pokal, Bilandu, Fediguth, Kalikadevi, Flapu, Sisneri, Balkhu, Toksel, Thakle, Manebhanjyang, Madhavpur, Ubu, Baksa, Moli, Kettuke, Betini, Tarkerabari

14 Udaypur 44 43 1 Hadiya

15 Saptari 114 92 22

Banaula, Boriya, Bhardaha, Bishariya, Bodebarsain, Chhinnamasta, Dadha, Gobargadha, Hanumannagar, Itahari Bishnupur, Jamunimadhepura, Khadgapur, Madhawapur, Mahadewa, Mainakderi, Maleth, Manraja, Patairwa, Raypur, Simarasingiyaun, Terhauta, Tikuliya

16 Siraha 106 103 3 Bariyarpatti, Belhi, Kalyanpur Kalabanjar

17 Dolakha 51 45 6 Jungu, Namdu, Chyama, Dandakharka, Katakuti, Tamchetududh

18 Ramechhap 55 27 28

Gumdel, Bamti, Kubukasthali, Those, Betali, Priti, Gupteswar, Bhuji, Duragaun, Saipu, Deurali, Saghutar, Rampur, Okhani, Sunarpani, Kathjor, Bhaluwajor, Pakarbas, Bhirpani, Rakathum, Majhuwa, Makadum, Khaniyapani, Hildevi, Gunsi, Lakhanpur, Puranagaun, Pingkhuri

19 Sindhuli 53 42 11 Ratnawati, Solpathana, Sirthauli, Bhuwaneswari, Bitijor, Jalkanya, Hariharpurgadhi, Harshadi, Ladabhir, Dudhauli, Nipane

68



Met Not Met

20 Dhanusha 101 51 50

Khajurichinha, Nanupatti, Chakkar, Bafai, Hansapur Kathputla, Suga Nikas, Mithileswar Nikas, Kajara Ramaul, Kurtha, Binhi, Begashivpur, Paudeswar, Prakhemuhuwa, Inarwa, Yagyabhumi, Umaprempur, Dubarkot Hathaletawa, Patnuka, Ekrahi, Thadhijhijha, Bhuchakrapur, Hariharpur, Tulasi, Pushpalpur, Laxmi Nikas, Dhanushdham, Baramjhiya, Raghunathpur, Dhanusha Govindapur, Satoshar, Makhnaha, Sapahi, Samdaiya Bhawadi, Gopalpur, Sakhuwa Mahendranagar, Lagma Gadha Gadhi, Auarahi, Jhajhi Kataiya, Kharihani, Chorakoyalpur, Hathipur Hadwada, Yadukoha, Balabakhar, Dhanauji, Dhabauli, Bahuharwa, Balha Saghara, Gothkoyalpur, Harine, Bisarbhaora

21 Mahottari10 76 0 76 Not assessed

22 Sarlahi11 99 60 30

Narayankhola, Atrali, Ghurkauli, Mohanpur, Farhadwa, Chhartauna, Salempur, Babargunj, Bhadsar, Harkathwa, Bhawanipur, Gaurishankar, Batraul, Bramhapuri, Fulparasi, Godaita, Baraudhoran, Nokailwa, Khutauna, Basantapur, Motipur, Arnaha, Rajghat, Simara, Narayanpur, Dhankaulap Pa, Ramban, Sisautiya, Sudama, Dhankaulap pu.

23 Rasuwa 18 17 1 Yarsa

24 Dhading 50 50 0

25 Nuwakot 61 60 1 Thanapati

26 Kathmandu 57 57 0

27 Bhaktapur 16 16 0

28 Lalitpur 41 38 3 Nallu, Chhampi, Luvu

29 Kavre 87 86 1 Pokharichauri

30 Sindhupalchok 79 73 6 Sunkhani, Kunchok, Sipapokhare, Selang, Sindhukot, Duwachaur

31 Makwanpur 43 43 0

32 Rautahat 96 95 1 Dumariya

33 Bara 98 65 33

Pipara Basatpur, Bisunpurwa, Tedhakatti, Pathara, Inarwamal, Paterwa, Bhagwanpur, Laxmipur Kotwali, Shreenagar Bairiya, Golagunj, Kachorwa, Kakadi, Prasauna, Umjan, Gadahal, Narahi, Bisanpur, Baghawan, Piparpati Jabdi, Da. Bhitkaiya, Amlekhgunj, Pipapra Simara, Rampur Tokani, Buniyad, Feta, Inarwasira, Khutbajabdi, Purainiya, Dahiyar, Kudwa, Sinhasani, Prasauni, Bhaluhi Bharbaliya

34 Parsa 82 69 13

Nirmalbasti, Mahadevpati, Bijabaniya, Janakitola, Ghaoddaudapipra, Sabaithawa, Kauwabankataiya, Mahuwan, Ramnagari, Amarpati, Bahurwabhatha, Bindabasini, Madhubanmathbal

35 Chitwan 36 36 0

36 Gorkha 66 54 12 Hansapur, Tandrang, Baguwa, Panchkhuwa, Tanlichok, Ghyalchok, Dhawa, Thumi, Aruchnaute, Taklung, Ghaurung, Kerabari

10 Not assessed of all VDCs 11 Not assessed VDCs; Pidari, Hemapur,Jamunia, Mahinaphapur, Kaudena, Aurahi, Khoria, Haripurwa, and Laxmipur Chukhachaina ( 9 )

69



Met Not Met

37 Manang 13 13 0

38 Lamjung 61 61 0

39 Kaski 43 43 0

40 Tanahun 46 46 0

41 Syangja 60 55 5 Wangsing, Aruchaur, Malyangkot, Nibuwakharka, Pidikhola

42 Gulmi 79 79 0

43 Palpa 65 64 1 Archale

44 Arghakhanchi 42 42 0

45 Nawalparasi 73 72 1 Ramnagar

46 Rupandehi 69 58 11 Chho Ramnagar, SiKtahan, Patkhauli, Bogadi, Lumbini, Raypur, Farena, Asuraina, Silautiya, Majhgawa, Aama

47 Kapilbastu 77 56 21

Abhirao, Ajigra, Bahadurgunj, Balarampur, Baluhawa, Bedauli, Bhagawanpur, Bhaluwari, Bithuwa, Dhankauli, Harnampur, Hardaina, Hathihawa, Kajarhawa, Lawani, Patthardehiya, Sauraha, Sirsihawa, Somdih, Titirkhi, Bidyanagar

48 Mustang 16 16 0

49 Myagdi 41 41 0

50 Baglung 59 53 6 Malma, Pandavkhani, Rajkut, Darling, Bhinggithe, Gwalichuar

51 Parbat 55 54 1 Bhorle

52 Rukum 43 43 0

53 Rolpa 51 51 0

54 Pyuthan 49 48 1 Okharkot

55 Salyan 47 47 0

56 Dang 39 38 1 Koilabas

57 Dolpa 23 23 0

58 Mugu 24 24 0

59 Jumla 30 28 2 Depalgaun, Bumramadichaur

60 Kalikot 30 30 0 61 Humla 27 23 4 Muchu, lali, Saya, Gothi 62 Jajarkot 30 29 1 Majkot 63 Dailekh 55 55 0 64 Surkhet 50 50 0 65 Banke 46 41 5 Baijapur, Kalafanta, Kachanapur, Fattepur, Bankatawa 66 Bardiya 31 26 5 Bagnaja, Patabhar, Gola, Pashupatinagar, Thakurdwara

67 Bajura 27 15 12 Kotila, Jaganath, Gatri, Sappata, Badhu, Rugin, Bichchhiya Kolti, Pandusain, Jayabageswari, Toli, Chhatara

68 Achham 75 75 0 69 Bajhang 47 43 4 Chaudhari, Kafalseri, Parakatne, Gadaraya 70 Doti 50 50 0 71 Kailali 42 42 0

local governance and community development …mofald.gov.np/mofald/userfiles/docs_100.pdf · table...

Documents