Visit MS-Denmark

MS-Nepal new policy
Preparing for the implementation

Eigil Rasmussen 
Resident Representative, MS Nepal

A stronger poverty focus, a geographically more focused program allowing a better utilisation of resources and a more integrated approach to development are some major results of the policy development process that will affect the way we work in the future. Creating awareness about the content of the new policy is another major challenge for the work in the near future. This is so because all interested parties should know what it is that they have a share in, but even more so as a part of a process aiming at optimising the level of ownership amongst all parties involved. In the near future considerable effort will have to be put into securing that this is going to happen.

Regarding the policy direction the two new crosscutting issues are indicating that major changes are underway. Pluralism and disability have been added to the four that are defined in the overall MSiS strategy. Ensuring that these six issues are given attention beyond lip service is another major challenge to be faced.

With regard to strategy the new policy points out that equal emphasis should be put on capacity building on the one side and advocacy / lobby work on the other provide another challenge. It is obvious that the burden of making reality of this is enormous in a program where most of the current institutional capacity as well as the current program is almost entirely focused on the former.

In the following an attempt will be made to present some of the major challenges lying ahead with respect to implementing the new MS – Nepal policy.

Presentation and internalising MS-Nepal new Policy 

The Policy Paper is the outcome of a long development process providing a solid background for the future work. One of the positive responses often heard from people who have read it is that it has a richness of background information. The information gathering has been the outcome of the long process with a wide range of expertise and has provided a solid background for the priorities that have been made in preparation of the policy paper. 

However, the use of this does not stop there. Although the policy paper may seem difficult to digest there is no doubt that the information and analysis can be very useful as background information for the development of the country program in general as well as for the development of the individual partnerships.

The policy has its qualities as stated above, but it is indeed not reader-friendly. For those involved in the day to day implementation of the program, staff, partners and others interested in the work of MS Nepal a more accessible presentation will have to be produced. What is needed is a simple reader friendly version both in English and Nepali.

Ideally the preparation of this more user-friendly versions should have been done parallel with the development of policy paper. However, this has not happened because keeping track of changes in the many revised drafts has been a major struggle in itself. Hence, it has been deemed unrealistic to develop three different versions alongside each other. 

Given the obvious need for informing about the content of the new policy paper the CO will start developing the mentioned popular versions of the Policy Paper as soon as possible because of the general need for this. The development of this material will also be of importance for the further discussion of how to implement the new strategy.

The Cluster focus and area selection

The new strategy includes redirections in different ways some more visible than others. The following provides an overview of some of the factors that most directly will contribute to changing the way the program looks today.

The one factor that will provide the most visible changes is the stronger focus on poverty. Following lengthy discussions in the Task Force it was decided to use statistics for poverty on district level to identify where to focus the program in the future which will mean that the program is bound to move towards the west as will be discussed in more details below.

MS Nepal has taken some major steps towards developing partnerships as it expected under the overall MSiS strategy. However, the program appears to be fairly scattered when it comes to geographical coverage. The new policy paper calls for a stronger geographical focus of the program to overcome this. 

The stronger geographical focus will allow a better utilisation of resource as well as it will make it possible for the Country Office to provide regular and better services to the area are some of the immediate benefits from this stronger focus. However, the intention of this concentration goes much further. With a better concentration of the program on hand the possibility of a more integrated approach exists and that is exactly what the new policy is aiming at. 

Also in areas where the program has a more intensive coverage, the co-ordination between the different interventions is not necessarily there. In order to make better use of the resources available the policy paper calls for a more integrated approach aiming at knitting the involvement with the different partners together in a pattern that more directly and intensively targets and covers the need of the target group in a particular area. 

A final challenge to the way we work is coming from the fact that the new policy paper points out the district level or lower bodies as the geographical / administrative unit of choice. This focus is to be seen as an alternative to the strategy where MS Nepal has been involved with capacity building on a variety of levels from the national to the smallest unit. With the new policy paper the focus of our capacity building effort will be targeting partners at the district or still lower level.

The future MS Map 

The focus on the poorer districts and the call for a general focusing of the program is likely to move the program towards the Western, Midwestern and Far Western regions where poverty is widespread and where the MS Nepal is already present although to varying extents. With the present knowledge the program is expected to move as follows.

The Far Western Development region 
Poverty is widespread in the Far Western development region and although several organisations are starting to pay more attention to this region, there is still a lot of work to be done. Hence it is obvious to develop an MS Cluster in the region.

Currently, MS is only involved in the region to a very limited extent through our partnership with BASE which is operating in the Terai districts. Consequently, the effort of getting established in the region will be considerable. What that means is probably that although, we do strive for working more intensively in a smaller area it is likely that it will take a few years to something that looks integrated in terms of fully developed partnerships and number of DWs posted in the area.

Doti is a mid-hill district and by that it is considered to be the most obvious choice of a focal district for a variety of reasons.

• It is a mid-hill district ranking low on the poverty statistics

• Security-wise it appears to be a good choice easily accessible throughout the year and not known to be hampered by the armed conflict.

• A strong need for strengthening of local NGOs, CBOs, VDCs and DDCs 

• Presence of but not congestion of relevant national and international partners and staff including INGO and relevant Danida projects.

Besides being one of the very poor districts Doti is also surrounded by several other poor districts, which are obvious to include in this Far Western cluster. One district that is obvious to think of in this regard is Kailali but Kanchanpur, Dadelhura, Batadi and Achham are also close by and could be targeted as an integrated part of this Far Western cluster.

Mid - Western Development region

Although our present involvement in Nepalgunj is limited it can be seen as the centre for MS current involvement in the Mid Western development region. Being the centre for transport communication and commerce, it is in one way or the other worth considering as the centre for MS involvement in the region. 

Nepalgunj is situated in Bardia district and although it is not among the poorest half of the districts it makes sense to take a look at it as a possible centre for our involvement in the region for a number of reasons 

• Some of our partnerships are already active in the districts including CWD and BASE. 

• Other partners are interested to develop partnerships in the area including NEWAH.

• Adjacent to Banke are also districts where we are currently involved including Dang, Bardia and Surkhet district. 

• It is geographically well placed as a stepping stone for expansion of the program into the Far -Western regions where poverty is wide spread. 

• Banke / Nepalgunj is next to Dang which is the most obvious choice as a focal district in the Mid-Western region. It is poor, it is considered relatively safe, it is easily accessible and MS already has a presence.

• It is also a possible stepping stone to Jumla, which has been discussed as other possible future district, especially among Development Workers.

• It holds a very good potential to become the centre for our networking effort in the Far- Western and Mid-Western regions.

Given the fact that MS already has a presence in Nepalgunj and that it is obvious that the Midwestern City has a role to play in keeping the future program together it is obvious to continue the work that is already going on in Banke and adjacent districts.

From the information available right now it appears that the most obvious choice right now, is to postpone the decision regarding the selection of a poor focal district in the Mid Western region for some time. 

Western Development Region 

The current involvement in Western Development Region is focused in the Mid-Hills surrounding Pokhara in districts scoring relatively well in the poverty statistic. 

Considerable effort has been put into figuring out how the present program could be gradually moved into neighbouring districts scoring lower on the poverty statistics. Poor districts for instance surround Baglung, which could be obvious for MS to expand from there and make a cluster including Baglung and its surrounding districts. Unfortunately the security situation in these district is so volatile that it has been deemed unwise to go on with that.

Considering both the poverty statistics and the security situation the most obvious choice of a cluster in the Western development region is in the South. Here MS is currently involved in Palpa and Rupandehi, both of which are scoring relatively high on the poverty statistics. However, neighbouring both of them is Kapilbastu, which seems to be an obvious choice for a focal district in the region.

• It is poor.
• It appears to be neglected by GO and NGO development agencies.
• It is found to have some very committed CBOs local NGOs and VDCs who are very eager to develop partnership with MS.
• It is easily accessible and is not known to have any particular security problems.
• MS partners are well established in adjacent districts who hold the potential for development of networks in the area
From the preliminary work it appears obvious to choose Kapilbastu as a focal district in the Terai part of the Western region. 

The Central Development region 

What makes Central Development Region different from the rest of them is that this is where Kathmandu is situated and hence MS will continue to be present in the region although with a different set-up than in the other regions. 

At one stage it has been considered to look into some of the districts adjacent to Kathmandu Valley as part of a future cluster in the region. However the conclusion reached at this stage of time is that the resources available for developing of clusters should be focused on the areas in Western regions mentioned above. 

However, with regard to making a reality of the new Policy, involvement in Kathmandu will play a major role in connection with Advocacy and Networking. This will of course take its departure from the CO but there is also a lot of potential in developing alliances with national and international networks.

The Eastern Development region

The Eastern Development region is relatively prosperous and like most of the districts that MS is currently engaged in it belongs to the upper 50 percent as far as poverty is concerned.

Due to the scores on the poverty statistics and with a view to getting a better geographical consistency of the program, MS will phase out its present involvement in the region. This will of course mean some major changes for the partners in the region. However, for most of them there are possibilities for future co-operation as can bee seen below.

The Future of some present partnerships 

What will it mean to the individual partners when MS adopts its new strategy is one of the questions that has had a lot of attention during the Policy Development process. The likely change in geographical presence and concentration mentioned above does at a more general level provide relatively firm clues on what is going to happen. However, the partnerships are different and so are the possibilities of extending them under the framework that the new policy will provide. Some partnerships will be affected more than others. The following is an attempt to take a look at those most directly affected.

BPEP

The original arrangement made with the BPEP was basically an arrangement where MS was recruiting a number of Development Workers who were seconded to work with the BPEP project under supervision of Danida’s project advisers. What was characteristic for this arrangement was that no particular arrangement was made to develop partnership agreements along the line of the overall MSiS strategy. 

Recently initiative has been taken to make this involvement in compliance with MSiS by developing Early partnership with the District Education Office (DEO) in the district where DW has been posted directly at the DEO.
A major outcome of this exercise has been to develop a framework for our co-operation with Ministry of Education similar to what we are doing with other partners. From the very beginning of this exercise it has been clear that these partnership agreements were not likely to be extended in the districts. However, this has to be seen as a first step towards developing a model for our co-operation with the Ministry. This model is now to be developed further in other district where MS and the BPEP / Ministry of Education (MOE) have common interest. 

Taking its departure in what has already been said about MS future geographical presence BPEP / MOE have expressed interest in discussing the possibility for the development of partnerships in Doti, Dadelhura, and Kanchanpur in the Far West. This cluster of special education partnership may later on be extended to include Kailali as well. In addition to this BPEP/MOE has shown interest in a partnership in Kapilbastu within special education.

These ideas are very preliminary but do indicate that there is a potential for further development of partnership between MS and the DEO along the line of what has been developed where we are currently involved. 
For the time being the co-operation with MOE – DEOs are primarily focusing on special education and to a lesser extent on maintenance. However, if partnership is developed in a positive way there is no particular reason why such co-operation should be limited to these elements. They should rather be need-based, as they are for other partners. This said it is important to state that it is unlikely that the number of DWs working with DEOs will increase. The number that has so far been posted with DEOs is very high and should probably be decreased slightly to ensure that we have the best possible balance between the different types of postings / partnerships.

NEWAH

The partnership with NEWAH is geographically focused in Pokhara and as such it is outside the area where MS will be working in the future. However, NEWAH is one of our partners who is engaged in different parts of the country and as for MOE and BPEP the possibility exists for continuing the partnership in the areas towards west that we are moving towards. 

NEWAH has a regional office in Nepalgunj and is involved in a number of districts in the area of the Far and Midwest where an extension of the partnership is possible. In a recent meeting where the possibility for future posting was discussed NEWAH expressed interest in having the two development workers already proposed in Nepalgunj and in the Far West, work will be done in the near future to develop this idea further. The likely outcome of this is a Partnership with NEWAH covering MS cluster districts in both Far and Mid-West.

NBS 

NBS is likely to be phased out when the present partnership agreement comes to an end towards the end of the year 2000. However, the possibility exists to continue co-operation on networking with MS and MS Partners involved with women development / income generation. 
Less obvious but still to be considered is the possibility of continuing the co-operation focusing on developing a partnership in NBS Western regional office which is in Rupandehi. That option will allow a co-operation with NBS in an area that is part of the future cluster in the Western development region. However, it is still to be determined if such a partnership is appropriate. 

KYC

KYC is the other partner, which will be affected by MS ending its direct involvement in Eastern Development Region. However, the partnership is already on this path in the sense that the present Development Worker has moved to the KYC office in Kathmandu, where he will be continuing his involvement in organisational development. 
For the partnership this will mean a stronger focus on networking and advocacy for the Limbu minority. From the preliminary discussion it is very likely that the partnership will be even more focused along this line and become a key partner for MS when we get a stronger profile on minorities as part of our increased engagement in pluralism.

VTCD

The involvement in the two Community Development Centres will come to an end at the end of Year 2000. MS has no plan of continuing involving itself in similar arrangements in other areas. But to the extent that CTEVT is establishing itself in any of the clusters where MS is expanding its involvement, discussion of a partnership of a less ambitious nature is of course a possibility.

Development of specific Policies and Plans of Action 

The Policy Working groups 

When the new Policy paper is approved at all levels it is up to the Country Office to secure the implementation of it. In the first place this will mean development of more specific policies and plans of action for the different key elements in the new strategy paper. 

In order to ensure the best possible participation of the parties concerned and also to secure that the expertise available in the widest possible sense is utilised the idea is to form Policy Working groups who will be given a mandate to advice the CO on a specific policy issue. 

The groups should include development of proposals for policies and Plans of Actions and could also play an active role in implementation, monitoring and evaluating of specific policies.
A Program Officer should chair each of the groups in order to ensure close contact with the CO. It should be composed of Partner representatives and DWs engaged in the particular policy area. For obvious reasons the Program Officer chairing a working group should be identical to the PO having the given area as focal point.

In order to make the working groups operational it would probably be a good idea if the number of group members is limited to a maximum of five. From the experiences gained with the present working groups getting a group of this size together may cause considerable problems. Alternatives to this would be to establish groups where all members are from the same geographical area or to develop a set-up in which most of the work can be done by the use of E-mail and phone.
In connection with the development of the policy paper and otherwise a need for working groups has emerged

• Human Resource Development 
• Environment
• Information and Advocacy
• Gender 
• Disability 
• Pluralism
• Monitoring and Evaluation 

It is obvious that other groups could be considered but from the point of view of the CO and from discussions made with a variety of people this is to be the point of departure. 

Regarding the working groups some of them have already been started more or less along the line of what is mentioned above. Others have background in groups that have been formed in connection with the Policy Development process or otherwise. The following provides a brief update of the status of the group’s work or what would be their point of departure. 

The Human Resource Development group

The group was established following an initiative from the DWs requesting skills training. Initially the groups focus was on a few such training. But gradually as the idea of forming Policy Working Groups was emerged the mandate has been developed to look into ongoing expansion and revision of the DW in-country course ICOC. 

The group has so far focused mainly on issues related to training of Development Workers. Only to a limited extent has it taken up the challenge of looking into Partners need of HRD. The intention is indeed to cover both and to become the advisory body to the newly established Human Resource Development Unit. No action plan has so far been developed. 

Environment

The Environment working group was established and has been working more or less along the lines stated above. The program officer who is also the focal point for Environment chairs it. It includes both DWs who have been appointed and DWs showing interest. The main task has been to draft an Environmental Policy / Plan of Action. 

The Policy / POA has been presented to the PAB and based on the comments received here the working group is now finalising it to be submitted to the CO for final approval and implementation. 

The experiences from this new approach is very positive and there is all reason to believe that the group can play a major role in connection with implementation, monitoring and further refinement of the MS Nepal Policy paper.

Information and Advocacy

The country program makes some giant steps towards strengthening MS Nepal’s involvement in information, social mobilisation and advocacy and the CO has taken up that challenge by Information and Advocacy unit. 

One major initiative the unit has taken is to develop a plan of action, which has already been agreed upon and taken into action. Some of the outcome of this has probably already been noticed by most. Newsletters, Home page and many other initiatives are the immediate outcome of this.

Unlike the Environment POA the POA for I&A is not the product of a working group. Although the unit has been able to produce an excellent POA on its own it is believed that forming such a group can enrich the further development of this. 

Gender 

The need for a working group on Gender is obvious given its importance in MS general strategy. The CO requesting a DW to look into how to get going has initiated some preliminary work. Unfortunately it has not been possible to follow – up on this work, basically due to staff change in the Program Officers group at the CO. However, with the staff situation reverting to normal initiatives is to be taken along that line in the near future.

Disability 

MS Nepal is the MSiS program who makes the strongest commitment toward meeting the needs of disabled by including disability as a cross cutting issue in its new policy paper.
Making reality of that will be very challenging given the fact that it comes additional to the series of older and well-established issues like gender and environment. Hence, there is a strong need to get a working group established and to get the Policy Working Group established to take up this challenge.

In connection with the policy process some interesting groundwork has been done. This work will be presented in the first coming PAB meeting together with a draft POA. It is believed that a working group will be established in the meeting and that the group will be given the mandate to develop a Disability Policy / POA. Hopefully this will be submitted to the CO very soon for final approval and implementation. As for the Environmental Working Group, it is believed that the disability group can play a major role in the future work in this respect.

Pluralism

Pluralism - that is Human Rights and works for Minorities expressed the Nepali way. As for disability the competition with older issues is likely to be considerable. Nevertheless is this something that will be given the highest priority by forming a policy-working group. 

So far the work done has been scattered, and MS Nepal’s profile in this respect is difficult to see. However, lots of work is in fact going on with the partners and in connection with many of the activities that the CO is involved in. The starting point of developing a profile in this regard is very much to be done seeing these things in a different perspective. 
The development of a Policy / POA is likely to be a difficult but interesting task where the working group will be able to draw on partners engaged in minority work.

The status of MS Nepal policy development process

The policy development process has been going on for more than a year and is now coming to an end as it is believed that MS Board will give the final approval of it in its meeting December 1st. 

The process was initiated more than a year ago by formation of a Special Task Force who was given the responsibility of guiding the policy development process. This was done through a series of meeting and by asking for specialist input when required. 

The Annual Meeting in February, became an important part of the policy development process. Here the overall framework for the new policy paper was presented and the Task Force received important feedback based on which the more specific objectives was developed.

The Task Force completed a first draft of the paper, which was presented to the PAB in June. In the meeting there was a general acceptance of the content of the policy paper. However, the Task was asked to prepare a new draft of the paper strengthening the links between the objectives and activities level and to propose a plan of action for the implementation of the policy paper. 

The revised draft was presented to the PAB in July and was send to Copenhagen for final approval by the MS Board. The comments received so far have been positive and it is likely that the content of the new policy paper is not going to undergo any major changes. However, the board has the final decision on this. We will have to wait for that, before we start to refer to the draft policy as The Policy Paper. 

Although we do not have the final approval of the document, work has already started to prepare for the implementation of the policy paper. This is possible by keeping in mind that we do not move beyond our present mandate and do not take decisions that can not be adjusted following what may be decided by the board. The challenge is to be able to move forward with the implementation of the new policy paper as soon as we get a go from the MS Board. 

The considerations made above are attempts to highlight some of the main features and issues that are bound to be on the agenda for the time to come. To some extent this includes decisions that have already been taken but mostly attempts made to interpret the new policy paper in terms of pointing out some of the major consequences it will have on the country program implementation. Last but not least it is still very much open for discussion how to go ahead with the implementation of the policy.

Back to Contents