Document Abstract
Published:
2008
Don't call it shangri-la economic programs for displaced populations in Nepal
Programmes targeting displaced and returning populations in Nepal
In 1996, an armed Maoist insurgency grew out of the Communist Party of Nepal and resulted in 10 years of conflict, human rights violations perpetrated by both the government and the Maoists, and large-scale
displacement that affected nearly all of Nepal’s 75 administrative districts. This report examines projects and economic programmes targeting the displaced and returning populations and offers policy recommendations in programme design and implementation.
Some highlighted projects in this report include:
Assisting former child soldiers: Many of these programmes have an assistance package that allows the children, generally youths aged between 13 to 20, to make choices about their future. The assistance can be used either for school-related costs (books, supplies, uniforms) or for an income generation activity.
Off-season vegetable production: This is a lucrative livelihood activity as there is a market for the products and families can also supplement their diets through the harvests. Off-season production generally requires irrigation and in a lot of cases low-cost, appropriate technology is being utilised. Initial investment input is reportedly $50-$100 per targeted family, while income earned per household is approximately $250 per year—generally a doubling of household income.
Distilling herbs and medicinal plants: Forest-users groups collect herbs and medicinal plants and the NGOs, with the support of the government, provide inputs for building small distillation units to extract the vital oils and provide training, technical support and assistance with marketing. These development projects have reportedly increased the incomes of more than 100,000 poor households (over 600,000 people) by more than 50 percent since 2003.
The report also highlights missed opportunities that often characterise current humanitarian livelihood responses such as not preparing refugees to work in camp or out-of camp markets and not teaching them skills vital for third-country resettlement. Additionally, it notes the benefits that can be achieved when the humanitarian assistance and development communities work in tandem in a post-conflict recovery context.
The report offers the following recommendations
displacement that affected nearly all of Nepal’s 75 administrative districts. This report examines projects and economic programmes targeting the displaced and returning populations and offers policy recommendations in programme design and implementation.
Some highlighted projects in this report include:
Assisting former child soldiers: Many of these programmes have an assistance package that allows the children, generally youths aged between 13 to 20, to make choices about their future. The assistance can be used either for school-related costs (books, supplies, uniforms) or for an income generation activity.
Off-season vegetable production: This is a lucrative livelihood activity as there is a market for the products and families can also supplement their diets through the harvests. Off-season production generally requires irrigation and in a lot of cases low-cost, appropriate technology is being utilised. Initial investment input is reportedly $50-$100 per targeted family, while income earned per household is approximately $250 per year—generally a doubling of household income.
Distilling herbs and medicinal plants: Forest-users groups collect herbs and medicinal plants and the NGOs, with the support of the government, provide inputs for building small distillation units to extract the vital oils and provide training, technical support and assistance with marketing. These development projects have reportedly increased the incomes of more than 100,000 poor households (over 600,000 people) by more than 50 percent since 2003.
The report also highlights missed opportunities that often characterise current humanitarian livelihood responses such as not preparing refugees to work in camp or out-of camp markets and not teaching them skills vital for third-country resettlement. Additionally, it notes the benefits that can be achieved when the humanitarian assistance and development communities work in tandem in a post-conflict recovery context.
The report offers the following recommendations
- humanitarian assistance agencies and longer-term development organisations need to coordinate and link their programmes
- market assessments and value chain development must be part of all livelihood programme design
- livelihood interventions must assess household economies and the economic contributions of all family members, including youth
- more work must be done on monitoring and evaluating livelihood projects to assess real, long-term impact
- refugees should be prepared for employment inside the camps, outside the camps and in third countries where they are being resettled
- donor funding cycles should be extended.
