Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s Community ...€¦ · Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s Community Physical Infrastructure Projects February, 2012 National

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of

NRSP’s Community Physical Infrastructure Projects

February, 2012

National Rural Support ProgrammeIslamabad, Pakistan

funded by PPAF

© Copyright - February 2012

Established in 1991, NRSP is the largest Rural Support Programme in the country in terms of outreach, staff

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s Community Physical Infrastructure Projects funded by PPAF

National Rural Support Programme

Acknowledgement

of these schemes.

that accompanied the survey teams.

schemes.

and applied across similar efforts.

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF | I

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Objectives and Scope of the Study 1

Chapter 2: Drinking Water Supply Schemes (DWSS) 6

Chapter 3: Irrigation 24

Chapter 4: Link Roads 42

Chapter 5: Street Pavement and Drainage (SPD) 54

Chapter 6: Synthesis of the Results 66

Irrigation 80

II | Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF

Annex: Methodology 87

C. Survey Instruments 88

G. Quality Control 92

List of Figures

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF | III

IV | Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF | 1

Introduction

Background

1

reduction.

These CPIs address the basic infrastructure needs of the communities and help improve their

communities to actively participate in the development of their areas. The investment in community

based CPIs increased manifolds during the last decade and most of the funding was provided by

the PPAF. As shown in Table 1, PPAF is the main funding agency for CPIs implemented by NRSP.

communities and help them build village level infrastructure.

Table1: Summary of NRSP-Initiated CPI Schemes

PPAF funded (since 2000)

No. of Initiated Schemes

Objectives and Scope of the Study

1 | RSPN Outreach Issue 11, October to December 2011

2 | Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s CPIs funded by PPAF

The study did address NRSP separately, but measured the immediate impact of CPIs for all RSPs. In line

2. Irrigation

Sampling Methodology

above, the study did not stratify in terms of RSP and hence the NRSP sample used for this study is not

representative.

assessment.


Sampling Size and Distribution

Categories of CPI Schemes

NRSP Population NRSP Survey Sample

# of Projects

Avg.

HHs

Average Scheme Cost

(Rs)

# of Projects

# of HHs

# of Projects

# of HHs

12 120

80 800

80 800

Total 118 1,180

Organisation of the Report

This concentrated on institutional aspects of the implementation and management of

the CPI.

livelihood.


Drinking Water Supply Scheme (DWSS)


Drinking Water Supply Schemes (DWSS)

Technical Assessment

Scheme Types

Table 2: DWS CPI Components

ComponentOverall With Reticulation Without Reticulation

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Pipe 100

Channel 9 2 9.1

1

11 8

Reservoir 10

Stand Post 9


Table 3: DWS CPI Parameters

Parameters N Avg. Std. Deviation

9

11 8.2

The highest value is an outlier and if accounted for the average for the relevant parameter falls

Scheme Cost and Construction

due to schemes being built in various years preceding the survey as noted above. Subject to that

Table 4: Average Cost per DWS CPI (PKR)

All Schemes With Reticulation Without Reticulation

N 21

9.9

10.2 10.1

18


Table 5: Community Contributions to DWS CPIs (PKR)

All Schemes With Reticulation Without Reticulation

N 21

N 22 18

N 10 8 2

N 10

Utilization & Condition

the survey team.


Table 6: Cross-Tabulation of Scheme Utilization and Condition

All SchemesCondition

Good Regular Poor Total

Full 21 8 1

Partial 2 0 0 2

1 0 1 2

None 1 0 0 1

Total 8 2

Table 7: Cross-Tabulation of Scheme Utilization and Condition for Schemes with Reticulation

With ReticulationCondition


Full 1 12

None 1 0 0 1

Total 8 1

Table 8: Cross-Tabulation of Scheme Utilization and Condition for Schemes with Reticulation

Without ReticulationCondition


Full 0 18

Partial 2 0 0 2

1 0 1 2

Total 1 22

Institutional Assessment

number of households currently using the CPI.

NRSP’s Technical Support


others during the planning and construction phases of the CPI, and after its completion. Findings are

support.

Table 9: Visits by SO, Engineer, and Any Other

N Avg.Std.

Deviation

SO 9.2

Engineer

12 2

Construction SO

Engineer

12 2.8 2.9

SO

Engineer

CPI Management

to form any committees. Regarding the number of committee members it is important to note that

Table 10: Committee Formation, Membership and Training

Committee Type % FormedAvg. No. of Members

% with Function-

Implementation


dominate the process.

Figure 1: Participation in Committee Formation

Figure 2: CO Members’ Satisfaction with Committee Formation


similarly it suggests the need for NRSP to further encourage CO-member participation.

Contributions to the Scheme Construction

of CO member contributions.

17.1%

68.6%

14.3%11.4%

42.9%37.1%

8.6%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Only CO/VO Leaders All CO Members Mostly NRSP Engineer/SO

Anyone Else

Planning and Design


Table 11: Contributions to Scheme Construction

N Avg.Std.

Deviation

Number of contributing households 21.2

Total cash contributed

Total labor days contributed

9

Number of contributing households

Total cash contributed 9

Total labor days contributed 8

Scheme Maintenance

collected regular charges.

Figure 4: Who pays for Maintenance

65.7%

28.6%

22.9%

37.0%

11.4%

5.6%

28.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

CO Members Non-Members

All Most Some None


N Min. Max. Avg.Std.

Deviation

Total number of targeted households

Number of households using the CPI as a primary source

Number of households using the CPI as a secondary source 1

Household Characteristics

Characteristic N Avg.Std.

Deviation

2.1

2.2

2.2

Female Children 2.1 2


Scheme Participation

the 12 months preceding the survey.

that most CO members participated in planning as compared to about one-half of non-member

Table 14: Participation in Planning of DWS CPIs

All CO Members

Non-Members

80.2 91.8

82.9 98

Only Female 10.9 12.9 2

Table 15: Participation in the Construction of DWS CPIs

All CO Members

Non-Members

N

2,009

N 28

N 8

households participated.


Table 16: Participation in the Maintenance of DWS CPIs

All CO Members

Non-Members

N 80

N 9

1.9

N 1 1

particularly among non-members.

All CO Members

Non-Members

project committees?Good

Poor 11.1

19.2

Good

Poor 2 2 2

Is the CPI functional at present? 100

No

the CPI?88.9

No 11.1

Source


source.

Table 18: Source Before and After NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Source After NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Not CPI

Piped water into

dwelling

Piped water into

yard/plot

Public tap

Protected dug well

Un-protected dug well

Protected spring

Surface water

Other Total

Source Before

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

plot1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

standpipe0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Borehole0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Protected 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 10 0 0 1 1

Protected spring

1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

spring8 0 10 0 0

collection0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 10 2 1 0 0 0 0

Surface 0 9 19 0 10

sources0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 9 10

Fetching


Table 19: Who fetches water – Before and After NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Fetching – After NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Mainly adult

woman

Mainly adult man

Mainly female child <15

Both men and

women equally

Both men and women children equally

All household members

Water into

dwellingOthers Total

Fetching 180 9 0 9 0 12 0

9 9 1 0 1 0 28

0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Both men and 2 0 0 11 0 0 0

Both men and 11 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 21

member0 0 0 0 0 0 11

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Total 18 9 21 2

Time Saving

prior to and after the CPI. The impact on time used, measured in terms of the average of changes in

more of time saving.

Table 20: Change in Time Used (Minutes)

N Avg. (Minutes) Std. Deviation

119

Table 21: Distribution of Change in Time Used – Minutes Saved per Trip

All Schemes Schemes with reticulation Schemes without reticulation

0


All Schemes Schemes with reticulation Schemes without reticulation

Percentiles 20

Figure 5: Major Use of Time Saved

Water Consumption

Table 22: Average Liters/Capita/Day of Water Used

N Avg. Std. Deviation

21.1

119


Table 23: Percentage of Users Consuming Water below Minimum Thresholds

Under 20 Under 30

Table 24: Frequency of Water Availability Before and After NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Frequency of Water Availability before NRSP/ PPAF DWSS

Full time/24 hours

Daily intermittently

Alternate days

Twice a week

Others Total

2

2 0 0

2 0 0 0 8

1 0 0 0 0 1

Total 189 88 2

reticulation18 2 2

2 9 0 0 0 11

1 0 0 0 0 1

Total 18 2 2 119

Schemes

reticulation

22

0 0

2 0 0 8

Total

Disease Incidence

different scheme types.


Table 25: Disease Incidence

Diarrhea Gastric Disease Typhoid

9.9

9.2

Perceived Impact

Table 26: Scheme Impacts

Large Some Negative impact

Don’t Know

reticulation29

reticulation0.8

reticulation

reticulation29 0.9 0.9

Time10.8

reticulation20.1

reticulation

Time

reticulation21 18.8

reticulation


Irrigation


Irrigation


Scheme Types

each type of irrigation scheme.

Figure 6: Irrigation Scheme Types

Table 27: Irrigation Scheme Details

Scheme TypePipe

Length (m)

Channel Length

(m)

Dug Well Depth (m)

Tube Well Depth (m)

Pump Horse Power

Karez Rehab Length (m)

Karez

Length (m)

N 18 21 2 2

10.1


Scheme TypePipe

Length (m)

Channel Length

(m)

Dug Well Depth (m)

Tube Well Depth (m)

Pump Horse Power

Karez Rehab Length (m)

Karez

Length (m)

Pipe N 8

N 2 11

N 2 1

N 2

188

N 1 18

N 2 1 2 1 2

119 10.1


Table 28: Year of Scheme Construction

Year of Construction Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage

2000 1 2.2 2.2

2001

2002 8

2

8

10

10

100

Total 100


Table 29: Average Cost per Irrigation CPI (PKR)

All Schemes

Pipe Tube WellKarez Rehab

Karez Channel Lining

Misc.

N 8 12 2 2 18

82.8

21

19 10 90 11.9

12 19 9.2

Table 30: Community Contributions to Irrigation CPIs (PKR)

All Schemes

Pipe Tube WellKarez Rehab


Misc.

N 8 12 2 2 18

N 10 2 1

121,192

N 2 1 1

N 2 2 1 2

N 12 1 2


Scheme Maintenance and Functionality

Functionality

Maintenance

rehabilitation and channel lining scheme each. Not maintained and limited maintenance schemes are

Table 31: Scheme Functionality and Maintenance

Scheme Functionality

Fully Functional Limited Functioning

0

0

1 0 1

1 1 2

Total 1





other staff during the planning and construction phases of the CPI, and after its completion. Findings

indicate the high level of support NRSP provides to COs implementing CPIs. It suggests that a CO might



SO 8.2

Engineer

9 1.9

Construction SO

Engineer 18.9

SO 19.2

Engineer 9.9 10.1

CPI Management



Committee Type% Formed

Avg. No. of Members Training

Implementation

89


Figure 7: Participation in Committee Formation

Figure 8: CO Members’ Satisfaction with Committee Formation









Total labor days contributed 29

Other Number of contributing households 22



Scheme Maintenance

money for maintenance.


60.5%

26.3%

23.7%

26.3%

13.2%

5.3%

2.6%

42.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


All Most Some None


channel lining and miscellaneous schemes.

N Min. Max. Avg. Std. Deviation

Total number of targeted households


Number of households using the CPI as a secondary source 9 19


Characteristic N Avg. Std. Deviation

Female Children 1.8



limited to the 12 months preceding the survey.

schemes.

Table 37: Participation in Planning of Irrigation CPIs


Only Female 2.9 2.8

2 1.8

Table 38: Participation in the Construction of Irrigation CPIs


88.9

N 229

N

N


Table 39: Participation in the Maintenance of Irrigation CPIs


N 98

N

N 1

2

project committees and NRSP support.


the project committees?Good

Poor

2.1 2.8

Good

12.2

Poor 0.9

1

Is the CPI functional at present?

No

0.9

performance of the CPI?98.2 99

No 1.8 1

Farmed Area


Table 41: Land Farmed Before and After CPI – Kanals per HHD


2

109

1

28

Table 42: Land Farmed Before and After CPI per Scheme Type – Kanals per HHD

Pipe Tube Well Karez Rehab Channel Lining Misc.

N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg.

101 18 8.9 19 110

101 20 9 20 19 112

CPI as a Primary Source

101 20 9 19 100

by CPI as a Secondary Source

1 2

Field by Field Analysis


Table 43: Field Characteristics

All Schemes

PipeTube Well

Karez Rehab


Misc.

No. of Fields

10.8

100

100 100

Kharif 92.9 100 100 98.1

Rabi 90.9 81.1 88.9 100

Table 44: Cropping Patterns by Scheme Type

All Schemes

PipeTube Well

Karez Rehab


Misc.

No. of Fields

21 2.9

Cotton 29.2

Rice

Fodder

Fruits 0.9

1.2

9.1 9.8 0.2

Sugarcane 11

Trees

Others

Other Grains 9.8 12.8

1.9

Gram

Fodder 20 19

Fruits 1.9 1.2 11.1 22.9

Sugarcane

Trees 0.9

0.8

Others

Other Grains


Table 45: Change in Irrigation Status and Incremental Area

Scheme Type % Fields Not Irrigated before CPI % Incremental Area

Pipe

18.9

28 12

Table 46: Percentage Change in Land Farmed (Kanals) in terms of Crops – Kharif Season

All Schemes Pipe Tube Well Karez Rehab Channel Lining Misc

-11

Cotton 0.9 0

Fodder

Fruits -0.8 0 0

0.2

Rice 2 0.9 10.9

Sugarcane 1

Grains 0 2 0

Others 0.1


Table 47: Percentage Change in Land Farmed (Kanals) in terms of Crops – Rabi Season

All Schemes

PipeTube Well

Karez Rehab


Misc

1

Gram -1.9 0

Fodder 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0

Fruits 0 0 0 0 0

1.8

Sugarcane

0

Trees 0

Grains 0.8 -0.8 0

Others -0.1 0 0

Table 48: Comparison of Yields Pre and Post CPI – Kharif

CropsN Production (Maunds per acre)

ChangePre-CPI Post CPI Pre-CPI Post-CPI

Cotton 112

Rice

Fodder 192

Fruits

18 29.2 12

Sugarcane 19 1,100

Other Grains 20

Table 49: Comparison of Yields Pre and Post CPI – Rabi

CropsN Production (Maunds per acre)

ChangePre-CPI Post CPI Pre-CPI Post-CPI

Gram 9

Fodder 180

20 88.8

9


Perceived Impact

and food availability as opposed to the others.

Figure 11: Scheme Impacts


Link Roads


Link Roads


Table 50: Details of Link Roads

Length (m)

Height (ft)

Width (ft)

Top Width (ft)

Bottom Width (ft)

Thickness (ft)

Culvert

Table 51: Details of Materials Used (%) for Link Roads

Brick Paving

Stone Soling/ Stone

PCC Shingle RCC Box RCC Pipe Others

Culvert 20

100



is present due to schemes being built in various years preceding the survey as noted above. It is

Table 52: Average Total Cost per Link Road (PKR)

12

9.8

Table 53: Community Contributions to Link Road Schemes (PKR)

N Avg. Contribution Std. Deviation

12

Utilization and Condition


2

rehabilitation

Table 54: Utilization and Condition of NRSP/ PPAF Link Road Schemes

Condition

Good RegularTotal

(Paved Roads) Paved Unpaved

Full 11

Partial 1 0 0 1

Total 12







SO 12

Engineer 11 2.9

2

2 | http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRM/Resources/031208rd_tr_coremeasures.xls



Construction SO 12 11.2

Engineer 10 21.1

1 .

SO 11 10.2 8.1

Engineer 11

CPI Management



Committee Type % Formed Avg. No. of Members% with Function-

Implementation 100

100 2.8

Table 57: Participation in Committee Formation

Committee Type All CO Members Any Other

Implementation

90 10


Table 58: CO Members’ Satisfaction with Committee Formation

Committee Type All Most

Implementation

100







12 19.8 9


Total labor days contributed 10 191




Scheme Maintenance

collected regular charges.



source of communication.


Total number of targeted households 12 210

Number of households using the CPI as a primary source 12 22 190

Number of households using the CPI as a secondary source 22 118

completed.


respondents are CO members.


112

Female Children 110


months preceding the survey.


that most CO members participated in planning as compared to about one-half of non-member

of the latter being participating.

Table 62: Participation in Planning of Link Road Schemes

All CO Members

Non-Members

Only Female

2.1

Table 63: Participation in the Construction of Link Road Schemes

All CO Members

Non-Members

90.1

N

N 11

28.9

N 1

98

200

200

those that did participate typically made larger contributions.


Table 64: Participation in the Maintenance of Link Road Schemes


12.2

N 10 9 1

92.9 90.1 98

N 29

N 2 2

100

282.8 282.8

member and non-member households.

All CO Members

Non-Members


22.9 20.9

Poor 2

Good

22.1

Poor 2.1 2.2 2

2

Is the CPI functional at present? 98.9 98

No 1.1 2

the CPI? No

Mode of Travel

survey.


vehicular travel, particularly in the form of public transport and motorcycle use. The change is more

Table 66: Percentage Change in Mode of Travel after the Link Road

DestinationNot

ApplicableOn Foot

OnlyBicycle Public

TransportMotorcycle Four Wheel

DriveRickshaw

Source Before

Change 2.9 0

General Store 10 2.9

Before 2.9

Change 0 -2.2 0 0

Public Transport

2.1 12.1

Before

Change

School2.1 2.9 2.9

Before 90 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.9

Change 2.9 0 2.2 0

School2.1 0 2.1

Before 2.9 2.1

Change 0 -8.8 2.1 -0.8 0

Nearest Clinic 2.1 2.9

Before

Change 0

Tehsil 0 22.9 2.1

Before 22.1

Change 0.8

Time Saved

Table 67: Changes in Travel Times

Destination N Avg. (Minutes) Std. Deviation

21.9 21.2

General Store 28

29


Destination N Avg. (Minutes) Std. Deviation

20

121 21

Nearest Clinic

Perceived Impact



Street Pavement and Drainage (SPD)




Table 68: Details of SPD Schemes

NAvg. Length

(ft)Avg. Width

(ft)Avg. Thickness

(inch)

Soling 11.9

Foundations 22 2,282

1.8


Table 69: Average Total Cost per SPD (PKR)


Community members made contributions to all schemes. In addition to this, it is important to note

Table 70: Community Contributions to SPD Schemes (PKR)

NAverage

ContributionStandard Deviation

11

11

the approved costs.

Utilization and Condition






support.


N Avg.Std.

Deviation

SO

Engineer

Construction SO

Engineer 21.2

10

SO 18.1

Engineer

1.2

CPI Management




Committee Type % FormedAvg. No. of Members

% with Function-

Implementation 100

Table 73: Participation in Committee Formation

Committee TypeAll CO

MembersMost CO Members

Any Other

Implementation

81.8

Table 74: CO Members’ Satisfaction with Committee Formation

Committee Type All Most Some

Implementation

9.1

suggests the need for NRSP to further encourage CO-member participation.



form an important category of CO member contributions.



Number of contributing households 11.8


Total labor days contributed 19 288

Number of contributing households 19




Scheme Maintenance

COs collected regular charges.

Figure 16: Who pays for maintenance



Total number of targeted households 281


Number of households using the CPI as a secondary source

8 12 1,000 190



229 2.2

2.2

Female Children 2.1 1.2


consistent for all scheme types.

Table 78: Participation in Planning of SPD Schemes


Only Female


Table 79: Participation in the Construction of SPD Schemes


N 90 29

N

10

9.9

N 19 18

for by CO members. CO members also made larger cash and labor contributions than non-members.

Table 80: Participation in the Maintenance of SPD Schemes

All CO Members

Non-Members

8.2 11.1

N 11

100

8 20

N 2

2

0 2.1

N 19 12

199



the project committees?Good

11.1

Poor 0.9

8.1

Good

Poor 0.8

0.8

Is the CPI functional at present? 98.1 99.2

No 1.9 0.8

of the CPI? No

Disposal of Waste Water and Waste Material

Table 82: Disposal of Water from Dishwashing Before and After the CPI

What happens to water from dishwashing after CPI?

Pipe to drain Throw in drain Throw in street Others Total

CPI?

Pipe to drain 11 0 0 0 11

0 0 19

0

Others 0 11

Total 11

Table 83: Disposal of Water from Laundry Before and After the CPI

What happens to water from laundry after CPI?

Pipe to drain Throw in drain Throw in street Others Total

before CPI?

Pipe to drain 9 0 1 0 10

0 0

0

Others 11 0 12 28

Total 109 12


Table 84: Disposal of Water from Roof Before and After the CPI

What happens to water from roof after CPI?

To drain Into street Others Total

before CPI?

To drain 10 2 0 12

Into street 0 201

Others 12 1 18

Total

to cesspits.

Table 85: Rubbish Disposal Before and After the CPI

What does the household do with rubbish after the CPI?

CollectedThrow in

streetTake to dump

Others Total

rubbish before the CPI?

Collected 0 2 0

0 0

0 0 0

Others 0 0 1

Total 18

Table 86: Who cleans the drains

Who cleans the drains after the CPI?

Nonehousehold

Project committee

Not applicable

Others Total

cleaned the drains before the CPI?

household0 2 0 0 0 2

Project committee

0 0 0 2 0 2

Not applicable 200 2

Others 0 1 0 0 1 2

Total 2


Table 87: Disposal of Waste from WCs before and after the CPI

What happens to waste from WCs after CPI?

Cesspit Others Total

Cesspit 101 2

Others 0

Total 101 108

Perceived Impact

respondent.



Synthesis of the Results


Synthesis of the Results

surveyed.


report on its condition and use.

Drinking Water Supply Schemes (DWSS)

Table 88: DWS CPI Components

ComponentOverall With Reticulation Without Reticulation

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Pipe 100

Channel 9 2 9.1

1

11 8

Reservoir 10

Stand Post 9


Table 89: DWS CPI Parameters

Parameters N Avg.Avg. Without

Outliers

9

11

Irrigation


Table 90: Irrigation Scheme Details

Scheme TypePipe

Length (m)

ChannelLength

(m)

Dug WellDepth (m)

Tube Well Depth (m)

PumpHorsePower

Karez Rehab

Length (m)

Karez

Length (m)

N 18 21 2 2

10.1

PipeN 8

N 2 11

N 2 1

N 2

188

Channel N 1 18

N 2 1 2 1 2

119 10.1

Table 91: Average Total Cost by Irrigation Scheme Type


N 8 12 2 2 18



attributable to any particular scheme type.

Link Roads

Table 92: Details of Link Roads

Length (m) Height (ft) Width (ft) Top Width (ft)Bottom

Width (ft)Thickness

(ft)

Culvert



Table 93: Details of SPD Schemes

N Avg. Length (ft) Avg. Width (ft) Avg. Thickness (inch)

Soling 11.9

Foundations 22 2,282

1.8


members. This concentrated on institutional aspects of CPI implementation and management. The

sections in this synthesis.


others during the planning and construction phases of the CPI, and after its completion. The SOs and


CPI Management

form any committees. Regarding the number of committee members it is important to note that all

survey.

Participation

it suggests the need for NRSP to further encourage CO-member participation.


the fund.

DWSS Irrigation Link Roads SPD

N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg.

Total number of targeted households 12


12

Number of households using the CPI as a secondary source

9 19 8 190

CPI and the effect it had on their lives and livelihoods.

Participation in the CPI


Household Satisfaction

DWSS IrrigationLink

RoadsSPD


22.9

Poor

Good

22.1

Poor 2 2.1

1

Is the CPI functional at present?

No

the CPI?98.2

No 1.8


Impact of DWSS

Table 96: Percentage of Users Consuming Water below Minimum Thresholds

Under 20 Under 30


The Impact of Irrigation CPIs

area and irrigated in both Kharif and Rabi seasons.

Table 97: Land Farmed Before and After CPI per Scheme Type – Kanals per HHD


N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg. N Avg.

before CPI101 18 8.9 19 110

CPI101 20 9 20 19 112


Table 98: Change in Irrigation Status and Incremental Area

Scheme Type% Fields Not Irrigated

before CPI% Incremental Area

% Change in Fallow Land

Kharif Rabi

Pipe

18.9

-22.2

1

28 12 0

Table 99: Change in Average Yield Post-CPI

CropsChange in Avg. Yield

Kharif Rabi

Cotton

Gram

Fodder

Fruits

12

Rice

Sugarcane

9

others.

Impact of Link Roads


savings.

Table 100: Impact on Mode of Travel and Travel Time

Destination

% Change in Mode of Travel Change in Time Used

Not Applicable

On Foot Only

Public Transport

Motor-cycle

Four Wheel Drive

Rickshaw N Avg. (Minutes)

Source2.9 0 21.9

General Store 0 0 0

Public Transport

School0 2.2 0 20

School0 -8.8 -0.8 0 121 21

Nearest Clinic 0

Tehsil 0.8

Impact of SPD



Drinking Water Supply

DWSS 1 DWSS 2

1

9 2

200 200

100

Notes:

3 | Source: Pakistan’s Wage Structure, Dr Mohamed Irfan, December 2008, PIDE, Islamabad


Irrigation

household at the four different classes of irrigation scheme. For each crop the incremental area comes

partly from the increase in the total farm area, and partly from a reduction in the proportion of land

principal Kharif and Rabi crops. Increased production must be accompanied by increased costs, such

4 | S. Ahmed & R.P. Martini, May 2000 – Agricultural Policy Analysis in Pakistan, Centre for Management and Economic Research, LUMS (Appendix D)


Table 102: Estimated Impact on Household Production of Changes in Cropped Areas

Kharif Crop Parameter Pipe Tube Well Karez Channel Lining

Cotton Kanal 1 0.1

180

Fodder Kanal -0.2

Fruits Kanal -0.02

-12.8

Kanal

Rice Kanal 0.1 0.2

20.9

Grains Kanal -0.8

-1.8 -2

Rabi Crop Pipe

Gram Kanal -0.9

Fodder Kanal 0.2 0.2

28.1

Kanal -0.1 -0.1

Kanal -2 0.2

122

Sugarcane Kanal 0.1

29.8

Grains Kanal 0.1

0.9 0.1 0.1 1

121

-218


Table 103: Estimated Impact on Household Production of Changes in Yields

Pipe Tube Well Karez Channel Lining

Cotton

Fodder 80

Fruits

Rice

Sugarcane

Other Grains

Sub-Total 981.1

80

Fodder

Sub-Total

Total

Pipe Tube Well Karez Channel Lining

Cost Per CPI - PKR

-218

Total

101898

2

11 12

IRR

9 8


Link Roads

Table 105: Estimated Average Household Time Saved from a Link Road

DestinationAvg. Minutes

Saved per DayAdult Hours

SavedChild Hours

Saved

21.9 1,200

General Store

Bus Stop

20

21

20

10

Total

results.

proportion of the time savings reported are the result of a shift to motor transport. This is

Before CPI After CPI

Trips 10

100 80

800


Avg. Cost of Link Roads

Parameter

12.8 12.8

Total

Net Total

Street Pavement and Drainage

reductions in petty crime such as vandalism and littering.

108,099

11.1


This is substantially more than the length recorded in the survey.


Annex: Methodology

A. Impact Assessment Approach

plausible due to high time and cost implications.

programmes.

typical household from a CPI subtype and then multiplying it by the average number of households

B. Assessment Indicators

The study assesses the design, condition and functionality of the selected schemes against the


Indicators Data Source

1.

2. -

Closest alternative sources, households, important places

Community Participation

Operation and maintaining activities

CO records, CO leader

Photographs Functionality

Quality

-

Quantity of use

Quality

Impacts

Education

8.

C. Survey Instruments


poverty status though poverty scorecard.

collected from an adult female member of the selected households.

enumeration.

D. Sampling methodology


Stage 1: Selection of Major CPI Categories

Stage 2: Selection of CPI Sub-Types

of the country.

Stage 3: Selection of Sample CPIs and Households

selected the projects to be enumerated.


Step 1:

Step 2:

Table 107: Sampling Size and distribution

Categories of CPI SchemesPopulation Sample

# of ProjectsAverage # of Households

Average Scheme Cost (Rs)

# of Projects# of

Households

-age

Total


survey.

trained on a same location to ensure uniformity upon various technical terms and to reduce variation

from the collected data.

security and tabulation of data sets.

2009.

further data analysis.

G. Quality Control


present during the training session to ensure better understanding of the data collection instruments

The consulting team deputy manager visited 10 percent of the total locations randomly. The deputy

generated.

Documents

Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s Community ...€¦ · Immediate Impact Assessment Survey of NRSP’s Community Physical Infrastructure Projects February, 2012 National