inception report on improved water mills (iwm) user survey...

Final Report on Improved Water Mills (IWM) User Survey 2013/14

FINAL REPORT

ON

“IMPROVED WATER MILLS (IWM) USER SURVEY 2013/14”

Submitted to: Submitted by: Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC) Government of Nepal Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment PO Box: 14364, Khumaltar Height Lalitpur, Nepal Phone: +9771-5539390/5536843 Fax: 5539392 Website: www.aepc.gov.np

Sustainable Energy and Technology Management (SETM) Kamaladi, Kathmandu Nepal Phone: +9771-4412078 Email: [email protected] PO Box No: 7039

JULY, 2014


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Rationale of Study ................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Scope of work .......................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER-2 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................... 5 2.1. Study Approach ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2.1. Desk Study ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.2. Survey Design and Implementation ........................................................................... 6

2.2.2.1. Objective and reliability .................................................................................... 6 2.2.2.2. Target Population ............................................................................................. 6 2.2.2.3. Sampling Method ............................................................................................. 6 2.2.2.4. Sample Size ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2.5. Allocation of Sample Size ................................................................................ 7

2.2.3. Survey Locations ..................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4. Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 11

2.2.4.1. Questionnaire preparation .............................................................................. 11 2.2.4.2. Selection and Orientation of Enumerators ..................................................... 11 2.2.4.3. Pre-testing of the Questionnaire .................................................................... 11 2.2.4.4. Field Survey ................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4.5. Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 11 2.2.4.6. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) .................................................. 12

2.2.5. Reporting ................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.5.1. Inception Report ............................................................................................. 12 2.2.5.2. Draft Report .................................................................................................... 12 2.2.5.3. Final Report .................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 3 IWM OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 13 3.1. Operational status ................................................................................................. 13 3.2. Daily operating hours ............................................................................................ 15 3.3. Commodity processing capacity ............................................................................ 15 3.4. Tariffs .................................................................................................................... 16 3.5. Repair and maintenance ....................................................................................... 17

3.5.1. Major problems associated in operation .................................................................. 17 3.5.2. Frequency of repair and maintenance ..................................................................... 17 3.5.3. Service Centers ....................................................................................................... 18

3.5.3.1. Nearest service center ................................................................................... 18 3.5.3.2. Delivering services from SCs ......................................................................... 18


iii

3.5.4. Arrangements for repair and maintenance .............................................................. 19 3.5.5. IWM owners vs. service centers .............................................................................. 19

CHAPTER 4 IWM OWNER AND USER PROFILES.................................................................. 21 4.1. IWM owners’ profile ............................................................................................... 21

4.1.1. Education level ........................................................................................................ 21 4.1.2. Family size ............................................................................................................... 21 4.1.3. Information and decision on IWM ............................................................................ 22 4.1.4. Ownership status of IWM ......................................................................................... 23 4.1.5. Costs incurred during installation ............................................................................. 24 4.1.6. Support for establishment of IWM and end use ....................................................... 24

4.2. IWM users’ profile .................................................................................................. 25 4.2.1. Family size ............................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2. Major occupation ..................................................................................................... 25 4.2.3. Land holding ............................................................................................................ 26 4.2.4. Food sufficiency level............................................................................................... 26 4.2.5. Access to different facilities ...................................................................................... 27 4.2.6. Crop pattern ............................................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 5 IMPACTS OF IWM ................................................................................................ 29 5.1. IWM impacts (owner’s perspective) ...................................................................... 29

5.1.1. Major benefits of IWM .............................................................................................. 29 5.1.2. Increase in profit ...................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3. Beneficiary households ............................................................................................ 29

5.2. IWM impacts (user’s perspective) ......................................................................... 30 5.2.1. Agro-processing before IWM ................................................................................... 30 5.2.2. Drudgery reduction .................................................................................................. 30 5.2.3. Improvements in agro-processing time .................................................................... 30 5.2.4. User satisfaction with technology............................................................................. 31

5.2.4.1. Quality of end product .................................................................................... 31 5.2.4.2. Income generating activity ............................................................................. 32

5.2.5. Number of customers visiting IWM .......................................................................... 32 5.2.6. Time to reach the nearest IWM................................................................................ 33 5.2.7. Utilization of saved time ........................................................................................... 34 5.2.8. Avoidance of diesel mills.......................................................................................... 34 5.2.9. Reduction in time for agro-processing after IWM ..................................................... 35 5.2.10. Agro-processing costs – IWM vs. diesel mills .......................................................... 35 5.2.11. Agro-processing sufficiency ..................................................................................... 35 5.2.12. Promotional role ....................................................................................................... 36 5.2.13. Suggestions for improvement of the overall performance ....................................... 36

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 37 Annex-1: RAND Screenshots ..................................................................................................... 38 Annex-2: Selected IWMs for survey ............................................................................................ 49 Annex-3: Questionnaire for Improved Water Mills (IWM) Users Survey 2012/13 ....................... 53 Annex-4: Orientation and Training Schedule for Field Enumerators (8th -10th May 2014) .......... 63 Annex-5: Photographs ................................................................................................................ 64


iv

List of Tables Table 1: Sample size determination ..................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Proportion of IWMs installed and sample size in different ecological belts ................................... 7 Table 3: Allocation of Samples by stratum ............................................................................................ 7 Table 4: IWM installation by Districts, required sample size and selected PSU ........................................ 8 Table 5: Allocation by Type of IWM ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: Beneficiary Household Selection for the Survey ....................................................................... 9 Table 7: Distribution of IWM by region, numbers ................................................................................. 13 Table 8: Condition of Surveyed Functional IWM .................................................................................. 14 Table 9: Condition of Surveyed Functional IWM by Type ..................................................................... 15 Table 10: Average operational time, hrs/day ....................................................................................... 15 Table 11: Average annual operation days........................................................................................... 15 Table 12: Average quantity of food grain processed per day, kg ........................................................... 16 Table 13: Cost price of food grain processed per unit, NRs/kg .............................................................. 17 Table 14: Table: Major Problems associated with IWM ........................................................................ 17 Table 15: Average number of repair and maintenance in a year ........................................................... 18 Table 16: Average time to reach the nearest service center, minutes .................................................... 18 Table 17: Average time to reach the nearest service center, minutes .................................................... 18 Table 18: Repair and maintenance of surveyed IWM ........................................................................... 19 Table 19: Arrangements made for repair and maintenance .................................................................. 19 Table 20: Information about IWM ....................................................................................................... 22 Table 21: Decision to install IWM ....................................................................................................... 23 Table 22: Ownership status of surveyed IWM ..................................................................................... 23 Table 23: Ownership status of land used for IWM ............................................................................... 24 Table 24: Cost of installation for IWM, NRs ......................................................................................... 24 Table 25: Supports for end-use establishment .................................................................................... 24 Table 26: Types of Supports ............................................................................................................. 25 Table 27: Average family size of IWM users ....................................................................................... 25 Table 28: Land holding status of IWM users, hectares ......................................................................... 26 Table 29: Food Sufficiency Status of IWM Users ................................................................................. 26 Table 30: Community Accessibility to Different Facilities, percentage .................................................... 27 Table 31: Average quantity of food grain produced in a year per household, kg ..................................... 28 Table 32: Major Benefits of IWM ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 33: Number of benefitted households ........................................................................................ 29 Table 34: Time to reach IWM, hour .................................................................................................... 30 Table 35: Agro-processing technologies before IWM ........................................................................... 30 Table 36: Reduction in drudgery after IWM ......................................................................................... 30 Table 37: Users’ Satisfaction about IWM ............................................................................................ 31 Table 38: Quality of End-products ...................................................................................................... 32 Table 39: Reasons supported for IGA, percent ................................................................................... 32 Table 40: Average number of customers visiting IWM daily according to IWM type ................................ 32 Table 41: Average number of customers visiting IWM daily according to region ..................................... 33 Table 42: Frequency of customers visiting IWM monthly ...................................................................... 33 Table 43: Average quantity of grain brought by the users for agro-processing per visit, kg ...................... 33 Table 44: Time to reach IWM, minutes ............................................................................................... 34 Table 45: Utilization of saved time, % ................................................................................................. 34


v

Table 46: Saved time for agro-processing, minutes ............................................................................. 34 Table 47: Other means of agro-processing technologies in the community, percentage .......................... 34 Table 48: IWM helping to replace/avoid diesel based mills ................................................................... 35 Table 49: Number of diesel mill before and after IWM installation ......................................................... 35 Table 50: Unit price of agro-processing from IWM as compared with diesel based mills ......................... 35 Table 51: Sufficiency of existing IWM for agro-processing .................................................................... 36 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Approach Flow ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Locations of Surveyed Districts ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 3: Distribution of IWM by district, numbers ................................................................................ 13 Figure 4: IWM operational status ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Average processing capacity of IWM, kg/hr .......................................................................... 16 Figure 6: IWM owners’ satisfaction with service centers ....................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Education level of IWM owners in percentage ....................................................................... 21 Figure 8: Family size of IWM owners ................................................................................................. 22 Figure 9: Gender distribution of IWM owners, % ................................................................................. 23 Figure 10: Major occupation of IWM users .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Comparison of water mill for grinding 1 kg before and after improvement, mins ...................... 31


vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sustainable Energy Technology and Management (SETM) express our sincere gratitude to Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC) for entrusting us to conduct the Improved Water Mill (IWM) User Survey 2013/14. SETM would also like to express our genuine acknowledgement to Prof. Dr. Govind Raj Pokharel, erst-while Executive Director of AEPC and Mr. Ram Prasad Dhital, Officiating Executive Director of AEPC. Our special thanks and appreciation goes to Mr. Raju Laudari, Programme Manager and Mr. Neelam Sharma Rijal, Programme Officer of Climate and Carbon Sub-Component, AEPC/NRREP for giving their invaluable support and suggestions during whole study period.

This study is an outcome of numerous interactions with large number of professionals and individuals. All the surveyed IWM owners and their valuable users and key informants are highly acknowledged for their sincere responses and feedbacks. Without their valuable support and cooperation, the study could not have come to a logical conclusion.

SETM highly acknowledges and appreciates the untiring efforts of the Team Leader and all members of the study team for their hard work in accomplishing this assignment. Sharada Shrestha Managing Director, Sustainable Energy Technology and Management (SETM) Kamaladi, Kathmandu


vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEPC Alternative Energy Promotion Centre CCU Carbon and Climate Unit CDM Clean Development Mechanism CER Carbon Emission Reduction CRT/N Centre for Rural Technologies ESAP Energy Sector Assistance Programme FGD Focus Group Discussion GOA Ghatta Owners’ Association IWM Improved Water Mill MoSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment NGO Non Governmental Organization NRREP National Rural and Renewable Energy Program NRs Nepalese Rupees PoA Programme of Activities QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control RETs Renewable/Rural Energy Technologies SC Service Center SD Standard Deviation SETM Sustainable Energy and Technology Management SNV Netherlands Development Organization TWM Traditional Water Mill VDC Village Development Committee


S u s t a i n a b l e E n e r g y a n d T e c h n o l o g y M a n a g e m e n t ( S E T M )

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traditional Water Mills (TWM), a low efficient technology, are predominantly used for agro-processing in rural Nepal. Improvement of these TWMs to enhance its performances and reliability has given an appropriate rural option for agro-processing (and electrification, in many instances). This improved technology is commonly known as Improved Water Mills (IWM). The IWM User Survey (2013/14) has been conducted with the objective of making comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the IWM installed under the IWM Programme of Activities (PoA) so far, on functional/operational status, community benefits, etc. This study has assessed the operational and functional status of the installed IWM in the Accessible Hill and High Hill regions of the country in order to prepare the monitoring report for emission reduction calculation and assess the community benefits associated with the installation of IWM. The total population for the survey is 1,902 IWMs installed after 3 April 2012 spread across Nepal (accessible hills and remote hills) in 29 districts under CDM Project Activities (CPA). IWMs installed in the Terai region have been left out as the number is very few. During this period, it is found that 1,460 IWMs have been installed in the Accessible Hills while the remaining 442 IWMs have been installed in Remote Hills of Nepal. For the purpose of sampling, the latest UNFCCC guidelines on sampling (Guidelines for Sampling and Surveys for CDM Project Activities and Programme of Activities Version 02, Annex 5, EB 69) have been used. Sample size has been calculated with the desired 90% significance level. The survey has been conducted in 73 different IWMs from 7 districts divided proportionately among ecological belts and strata as well as type of IWM (long shaft and short shaft). The districts selected for random sampling are Okhaldhunga, Dhading, Gorkha, Surkhet, Achham, Jumla and Darchula. Out of the 73 IWMs surveyed, 56 belonged to Accessible Hills while the remaining 17 belonged to Remote Hills. Further, 67 out of the total IWMs were of short shaft while 6 were long shaft. Similarly, a total of 73 households have been surveyed for the household users’ survey. The users’ survey was initially maintained at 1:1 with the IWM survey. 71 IWMs is found to be operational out of the 73 IWMs surveyed. Two short shafts are non-operational. One short shaft in Darchula district was swept away by the devastating landslide in Mahakali River on 2070/02/30 while the other short shaft in Okhaldhunga district had been totally non-operational since the last seven months due to conflicts on land ownership along the canal section. Hence, all data analysis for this study is conducted on the total operational sample of 71 IWMs. It is observed that the average daily operating duration of long shaft type of IWM is 10.17 hours per day with standard deviation (SD) of 4.92 while that of short shaft type is 10.12 hours with SD of 2.97. The average daily operating hours for all sampled IWMs is also found to be 10.12 hours with SD of 3.13. Similarly, the study reveals that, in an average across the whole surveyed area, a long shaft IWM operates for 268 days in a year while a short shaft operates for 243 days annually. The average agro-processing capacity of the surveyed IWMs varied according to the crop type. The major common crops processed in the surveyed area are maize, wheat and millet. Although the processing capacity varied significantly, the agro-processing capacity of long shaft is notably higher than the short shaft. Tariff for agro-processing is found to be accepted both in terms of cash or kind. It is observed that tariff for agro-processing varied according to crop type and IWM type. It is noticed that the tariff is comparatively cheaper for long shaft irrespective of the crop type. It is observed that the tariff rates for maize and wheat is 30-50% more expensive for short shaft while the difference in case of millet is only around 12%. The end-



Page 2

users normally pay about NRs. 1.5 per kg for agro-processing through long shaft IWMs in the surveyed areas. Repair and maintenance is an on-going process in IWM. Some major problems seen with IWM like those associated with canal, bearings and madani are common to all irrespective on the type of IWM. However, problems with nozzles are found to be very severe in long shaft IWM and not so prominent in case of short shaft. The satisfaction level of IWM owners on the service delivery of service centers (SCs) is observed to be not so positive. The survey reveals that, although 50% of the owners are satisfied with the SCs, another 39% are dissatisfied. The degree of dissatisfaction is significantly higher in Surkhet and Jumla districts. The relatively high number of dissatisfaction is due to the lack of after-sales-service by the service centers. The impacts of IWM have been studied both from the owners’ and users’ prospective. At an average, an IWM has been benefitting 66 households in the Accessible Hills while 87 households are benefitting from IWM in the Remote Hills. The major benefits associated with IWM, in the owners’ perspective, are faster agro-processing and savings in time as well as increase in income. However, there have been some doubts on whether IWM technology provides better quality of products. Before the use of IWM, traditional water mills were predominantly used for agro-processing with few users also utilizing home based agro-processing and diesel mills. 95% of the users feel that there is reduction in drudgery after the installation of IWM. All users perceive that there has been significant saving in agro-processing time by the use of IWM. Generally, it is seen that the agro-processing time has been reduced by half after improvement of water mills. The users seem to be more than satisfied with the technology with only 1.4% unsatisfied. The users perceive that IWM technology has brought about positive changes in their income generating activities mainly due to availability of spare time due to faster processing time through IWM as well as, presumably, cheaper processing costs associated with the technology. It is observed that adults (both male and female) are saving at an average around 24 minutes for agro-processing while children save around 9 minutes with the use of IWM. Utilizing the saved time due to faster agro-processing is also a critical aspect of the technology. It is seen that most users utilize the saved time for agriculture and household chores with few also using it for incoming generating activities. Since children are also involved in agro-processing activities, more time is devoted by children for studies as a result of reduced agro-processing time. With the benefits that users have been enjoying with IWM, almost 95% of the users feel that IWM has helped in avoiding diesel mills for agro-processing. There are some issues that need addressing in order to improve the overall dissemination and performance of IWM technology in Nepal. One area to focus is on developing technical capacity at the local level including increasing technical and financial support for repair & maintenance and quality improvement as well as income generating activities. Another key concern is on service center monitoring. The owners as well as users feel the need to increase the frequency of SC visits to the IWM sites for monitoring and technical capacity enhancement to improve promotion and quality of this technology.



Page 3

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background

Nepalese society is primarily agrarian. Hydropower is widely available in this mountainous terrain, and water-powered mills are commonly used in rural areas for agro-processing. Agro-processing is one of the important activities for rural communities in Nepal. In rural areas of Nepal, majority of population have been using traditional mills with low efficiency for agro-processing. Traditional mills are made from local materials; so naturally, each to some extent is unique. In Nepal, rural communities depend, to a large extent, on these traditional mills for their daily life. It is estimated that about 25,000 to 30,000 traditional water mills are in operation in various parts of the country (Source: http://www.crtnepal.org). Improvement of the existing traditional water mills is one of the most efficient and reliable options for rural/remote areas of Nepal to improve quality of rural livelihood. In this regard, these water mills are commonly called appropriate technology with its improved performances and reliability.

Improved Water Mills (IWM) are appropriate and reliable rural technology; it has been used in rural areas for the agro-processing. Traditional water mill (TWM) has low processing capacity and delayed time as compared with improved water mill. IWM has become more popular because of its higher processing capacity and better quality product for agro-processing. The technology has also helped to bring positive changes in the socio-economic conditions of the owner’s family and their customers of surrounding areas.

Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC) is a national executing agency of renewable energy programme and projects in Nepal under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. With the mandate of policy and plan formulation, technology innovation, resource mobilization and coordination and quality assurance, the mission of AEPC is to make renewable energy a mainstream resource through increased access thereby, contributing for the improved living conditions of people in Nepal.

In July 2010, a Carbon and Climate Unit (CCU) was established in AEPC with responsibility to carry out the activities related to climate change and to tap carbon trade opportunities while promoting Renewable Energy Technologies (RETs) in Nepal. From July 16, 2012 AEPC is executing a five years National Rural and Renewable Energy Programme (NRREP) which has a single programme modality. The CCU is also an integral unit of AEPC/NRREP.

Improved Water Mill (IWM) Programme, initiated since 2003, was executed by Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) and implemented by CRT/N. Netherland Development Organization Nepal (SNV/N) provided financial support for the programme from 2003 till 2010 and since January 2011, Energy Sector Assistance Programme (ESAP) was providing the financial support. Now, the dissemination of IWM is being done by NRREP. In recognition of the high impact potential (both energy access and social benefit) for the poor, rural and remote population in Nepal, IWM features as a priority technology in the Government of Nepal’s policies, plans and programmes. As of July 2012, total achievement of programme has reached to 7,525 IWMs which includes 6,594 short shaft IWMs and 933 long shaft IWMs (including 23 IWM electrification projects). During the fiscal year 2012/13, a total of 966 IWMs (896 short-shafts and 70 long-shafts) were installed. Installation of IWMs essentially prevents the intrusion of diesel mills for the agro processing. Avoidance of the diesel mills due to installation of new IWM or improvement of existing TWM can be accredited for linked reduction in the diesel consumption and hence the green house gas emission. Such projects are possible to bring in the financial benefits through CDM. Apart from the environmental stand point, IWMs offer assorted benefits to the users related with the reduction in drudgery for milling, time saving for milling purpose, income generation etc.

AEPC, at present, is in the procedure of registering Programme of Activities (PoA) CDM for IWM and PoA CDM for IWM. Proposed PoA IWM aims to cumulate the CERs generated by implementing ICS in the Terai and High Hills

http://www.crtnepal.org/



Page 4

regions of the country while proposed PoA IWM aims to cumulate the CERs generated by implementing IWM in the potential regions of the country.

Monitoring of the systems bundled for a CDM project is a fundamental part of the CDM project cycle. As the validations of these two programs are in final stage, it is even more important to have monitoring so that the monitoring survey will form the basis for preparation of monitoring reports required to cumulate the CERs.

1.2. Objectives The objective of the assignment is to assess the monitoring parameters specified in the PDD and PoA DD required for the preparation of the monitoring reports and to assess the delivery of the community benefits as envisaged in the project/program formulation. More specifically the following objectives need to be addressed by the study.

Monitoring objectives related to CDM:

• Assessment of percentage of IWM disseminated that is operational • Assessment of daily operating hours of IWM • Assessment of annual operational days of IWM

Monitoring objectives related to the owner/user benefits

• Assessment of socio-economic characteristics of IWM users and owners • Operation and maintenance of IWM • Assessment of time saving (grinding, milling and other end use time before and after) and utilization of

saved time • Assessment of reduction in drudgery of women and children for agro-processing • Assessment of employment creation and/or the business/end-use diversification • Assessment of types and quantity of agro products processed by IWM • Assessment of overall beneficiary satisfaction with the product and process

1.3. Rationale of Study The rationale behind conducting this study is to assess the operational and functional status of the installed IWM in the Hill and High Hill regions of the country in order to prepare the monitoring report for emission reduction calculation and assess the community benefits associated with the installation of IWM.

1.4. Scope of work The scope of work included the following:

• Review relevant documents, program, policies, etc. on IWM as well as current trends of the technology • Finalize methodology, questionnaires and details of the study and discuss with relevant AEPC staff • Prepare Inception Report incorporating all suggestions from AEPC • Conduct orientation program to familiarize the enumerators with the IWM Users’ Survey 2013/14 • Carry out the field data collection as per the calculated samples • Tabulate and analyze data from the survey • Produce draft report and present at stakeholders’ workshop • Prepare final report after incorporating inputs from the workshop



Page 5

CHAPTER-2 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2.1. Study Approach

The study approach has been prepared based on four main components: planning (mobilization), field work, analysis and reporting. The approach has been thoroughly presented in the following figure.

Figure 1: Study Approach Flow

Negotiation / Contract Agreement

Data Collection & Analysis Methodologies

Households Demographic

Socio-economic Gender & Age Segregated

Household Activities Motivation factor

Time saving and IGA O & M Skills

Preparation of

• Selection of Sample Methodology Questionnaires

• Checklists

Simple Random sampling All geographical regions to be balanced in Hill and Remote

Hill (Proportionately)

Preparation, Selection and orientation Training to Enumerators Pre testing of questionnaires

Inception report submission and incorporation of comments of AEPC

Field Survey Quantitative and qualitative data collection

Interviews (IWM Owners and Household) Socio-economic characteristics

Users’ perspectives (Women, children) Daily operating hours, satisfaction with products and process, time saving, repair and maintenance works

Overall performance

Qualitative Key informant Interviews, Institutional visits,

Focused group discussion, Case Studies Field observation

Field data compilation, Entry and Process

Data Analysis and Interpretation Draft Report Preparation and Submission

FINAL REPORTS, Incorporation of comments & suggestions, recommendations

Sampling

Planning

Field Work

Reporting

Stakeholder Consultation



Page 6

2.2. Methodology The following methodologies were applied during various stages of the study.

2.2.1. Desk Study Desk study and interaction sessions were carried out to get valuable information related to IWM technologies, technology options and benefits. The best technological options were analyzed and efforts of the different organization for the dissemination of IWM were also studied. The relevant stakeholders as Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC), CRT/Nepal, and others were consulted on the project, its implementation issues and other specific issues like after-sales services, repair and maintenance, factors affecting the satisfaction of the users, etc. that was helpful in detail planning of this particular study including the preparation of both owner and user survey questionnaires.

2.2.2. Survey Design and Implementation The sample has been taken from the IWM disseminated under AEPC which is being developed as a Programme of Activities (PoA). The survey was conducted with the objective to assess the operational status of IWM, daily operating hours, community benefits and their impacts with a desired 90/10 confidence level. SETM prepared a detailed randomly selected, statistically representative, list of IWMs from the IWM disseminated after 3 April 2012. In course of sample selection, special care has been taken to:

• Include different types of IWM proportionately • Maintain geographical and development region balance

2.2.2.1. Objective and reliability The survey was implemented with the objective to assess the operational status of IWM and daily operation hours of IWM with a desired 90/10 confidence/precision.

2.2.2.2. Target Population The target population for the survey was 1,902 IWM owners spread across Nepal (Accessible Hill and Remote Hill) in 30 districts under the CPA.

2.2.2.3. Sampling Method The required sample size that represents the population of IWM under PoA is calculated first. Then the sample size is allocated to Hill and High Hill on a proportionate basis looking at the distribution of the total IWM in these two regions. Furthermore, the sample size in each region is allocated to different sizes/types of IWM on proportionate basis. The final sample size determined for the survey purpose is allocated to each type and each particular region on a proportionate basis according to the distribution of total population.

For this survey purpose, initially the database of total population under PoA along with their (CPA) regions and types is collected from AEPC. As mentioned above method; simple random sampling is applied for the selection of samples after determining the required sample size.

2.2.2.4. Sample Size For the sampling purpose, the latest UNFCCC guidelines on sampling (Guidelines for Sampling and Surveys for CDM Project Activities and Programme of Activities Version 02, Annex 5, EB 69) was used and provisions were



Page 7

made to consider at-least 10% extra samples. The table below shows the details regarding all IWM installation in Accessible and Remote Hill. Improved water mills installed in Terai have been left out since they are few in numbers.

Table 1: Sample size determination Population size (After 10th May 2011) 1,902 Assumed proportion (Assuming that 50% of installed IWM are still operational) 0.5001 Level of acceptable error (10%) 0.1 Level of Significance (90%) 0.9 Required sample 67

Source: AEPC Database 2014

Assuming 50% of the installed IWMs are still operational, 10% level of acceptable error and 90% level of significance, the total required sample size was calculated to be 67.

2.2.2.5. Allocation of Sample Size a. Allocation to Accessible Hill and Remote Hill

Table 2 shows the allocation of the samples according to the ecological belts namely Accessible Hill and Remote Hill. There were 1460 IWMs installed in accessible Hills representing 77 percent of the total installed while 442 were installed in Remote Hills representing 23 percent of the total installations. The samples will be drawn proportionately from these two ecological belts. While doing so 51 samples will be taken from Accessible Hill and 16 from Remote Hill.

Table 2: Proportion of IWMs installed and sample size in different ecological belts Ecological Zones Total IWM Installed Percentage of IWM Sample Size Accessible Hill 1,460 77 51 Remote Hill 442 23 16 Total 1,902 100 67

Source: AEPC Database 2014

b. Allocation to Different Strata The samples drawn by ecological belts were disaggregated by stratum, which is defined as IWM installations in each development region for each ecological belt. Table 3 shows the representation of samples in different strata. While doing so, proportionate representation in each stratum was ensured. For example, Central Accessible Hill had the highest percentage of IWM installations (29 percent), so highest numbers of 20 samples were taken from this stratum. For proper representation of each stratum, at least 5 samples were taken from each stratum. Therefore, the number of samples from Western Accessible Hill and Eastern Accessible Hill were increased to 5. Due to the wide-spread destructive natural calamities that affected most parts of Far-Western Remote Hills in the last year, one additional sample was selected in the Remote Hills.

Table 3: Allocation of Samples by stratum Strata Percentage of

IWM Number of Samples

Additional Samples

Final Sample Size

Eastern Remote Hill 0 0 0 0 Central Remote Hill 0 0 0 0

1It is assumed that only 50% percent of the installed IWM are currently functioning.



Page 8

Western Remote Hill 0 0 0 0 Mid Western Remote Hill 11 8 0 8 Far Western Remote Hill 12 8 1 8 Sub-total 23 16 1 17 Eastern Accessible Hill 6 4 1 5 Central Accessible Hill 29 20 0 20 Western Accessible Hill 2 1 4 5 Mid Western Accessible Hill 22 14 0 14 Far Western Accessible Hill 18 12 0 12 Sub-total 77 51 5 56 Total 100 67 5 73

c. PSU Selection To determine PSU in each stratum, firstly each district was identified as eligible PSU. In order to increase the efficiency, only the districts having installed IWMs equal to or beyond the sample size required for the stratum were eligible. For example, the required sample size for the Central Accessible Hill was 20, hence Ramechhap was left out which had less IWMs (11) installed than the required sample size.

In the next step, a random number was generated in MS Excel by using the “randbetween” function; and, districts in each stratum were selected as sample PSUs. Screen shots of the number generated by “randbetween” function are given in Annex-1 in this report.

Table 4 gives the detail of the selected PSUs and the required sample size in each PSU.

Table 4: IWM installation by Districts, required sample size and selected PSU Region/District Installed IWM Required Sample Size Selected PSU Eastern Accessible Hill 120 5

Okhaldhunga Okhaldhunga 112 Udayapur 8 Central Accessible Hill 555 20

Dhading

Dhading 47

Dolakha 66 Kavrepalanchowk 29 Makawanpur 46 Nuwakot 114 Ramechhap 11 Rasuwa 70 Sindhuli 97 Sindhupalchowk 75

Western Accessible Hill 34 5 Gorkha Gorkha 34 Midwestern Accessible Hill 409 14

Surkhet

Dailekh 139

Pyuthan 4 Rolpa 46 Rukum 49 Salyan 83 Surkhet 88



Page 9

Far western Accessible Hill 342 12

Achham Achham 54

Baitadi 126 Dadeldhura 48 Doti 114

Midwestern Remote Hill 222 8

Jumla Dolpa 19

Jajarkot 79 Jumla 55 Kalikot 69

Far western Remote Hill 220 9

Darchula Bajhang 104 Darchula 92

Bajura 24 Total 1902 73

d. IWM Selection

To determine the sample IWMs, a random sampling method was used. Firstly, the sampling PSU was determined and then a random number was generated. By sorting random number from lowest to highest, the required samples were listed in each stratum. Both type of IWM (short shaft and long shaft) were selected proportionately. “Rand ()” function in MS Excel was used to allocate the random number. Details of all selected households and the screen shots are provided in the Annex-2.

Table 5: Allocation by Type of IWM Type No. of installation Proportion Sample

Long Shaft (LS) 147 8 6 Short Shaft (SS) 1,755 92 67

e. Household Selection

A total of 72 beneficiaries were selected for users’ satisfaction survey maintaining 1:1 ratio of sampled IWM to households. The nearest household of IWM site was selected as sampled beneficiary household.

Table 6: Beneficiary Household Selection for the Survey S.N. Regions Sample

District Sampled IWM

Number Number of

households to be surveyed

1 Eastern Accessible Hill Okhaldhunga 5 5 2 Central Accessible Hill Dhading 20 20 3 Western Accessible Hill Gorkha 5 5 4 Mid Western Accessible Hill Surkhet 14 14 5 Far Western Accessible Hill Achham 12 12 6 Mid Western Remote Hill Jumla 8 8 7 Far Western Remote Hill Darchula 9 9

Total 73 73



Page 10

2.2.3. Survey Locations Out of the total 1,902 IWMs installed in 30 districts of the total 75 districts of Nepal, 7 districts were surveyed in accordance with the sampling frame designed for the survey. The sample districts are dispersed in the Remote Hill and Accessible Hill regions of Nepal. The sampled survey districts are presented in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Locations of Surveyed Districts



Page 11

2.2.4. Data Collection Data collection process entailed the activities like selection and orientation of the enumerators, pre-testing of questionnaires and field work. Subsequent to these, the data gathered from the field was analyzed. The following section offers information on the various stages of data collection and analysis.

2.2.4.1. Questionnaire preparation Based on the study objectives, the questionnaire/checklist was prepared. It mainly focused on the monitoring parameters required for the preparation of the Monitoring Report and Emission Reduction calculation for the purpose of CDM. In addition to that, the factors in direct relation to IWM users and operator benefits were of prime concern.

2.2.4.2. Selection and Orientation of Enumerators Field enumerators were selected for the survey purpose assessing them on the basis of their qualifications and experiences in similar kinds of studies in the past. Three days’ orientation program was conducted in Kathmandu to familiarize the enumerators with the questionnaires, survey methods and procedures. A detailed orientation programme regarding the mobilization of survey team for field studies was prepared and has been attached in Annex-3 of this report.

2.2.4.3. Pre-testing of the Questionnaire The prepared questionnaires were pre-tested for complete understanding of the survey questionnaires and identifying foreseeable problems that may occur during field visit. A field visit to IWM site at Mangaltar VDC of Kavrepalanchowk district was carried out for pre-testing purpose. Based on the feedbacks from the pre-testing and incorporating suggestions received from AEPC, a final version of questionnaire was prepared for the field survey. The questionnaire administered for field survey is attached in Annex-4.

2.2.4.4. Field Survey Following the acceptance of the survey questionnaires by AEPC, an extensive field visit was organized in the sample IWM sites. Any discrepancies noted during the survey were reviewed at the end of the day to avoid inclusion of erroneous information while compiling the data. Key informant interview also was taken with knowledgeable persons including local politicians, teachers, social workers and village elites. Interaction with intermediaries, partner organizations and related agencies such as local NGOs promoting IWMs, Service Centre and GOA were also held to familiarize with activities undertaken and supported by those agencies. It helped to gather data on:

• Technical specifications of installed IWMs • Users’ perception • Trends and future prospects

Focus group discussion was conducted as per requirement of the study. The participants for FGD were IWM users/owners, technicians and concerned stakeholders.

2.2.4.5. Data Analysis After completion of field survey, the collected information and data was recorded systematically in a database. The data obtained from the field work was also reviewed to avoid problems of duplications and ambiguities. All the quantitative data collected from the field was encoded in SPSS and then analyzed.



Page 12

Statistical Analysis Surveyed data were grouped into different categories by types (long shaft and short shaft) and geographical terrain (Accessible Hill and Remote Hill). Appropriate statistical analysis was carried out to observe the results with arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD) separately for each category wherever appropriate. Subsequent chapters present the findings from the statistical analysis.

2.2.4.6. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Efforts were made to ensure quality of the data collected from the field. QA/QC measures were adopted to attain the desired 90% confidence level for the parameters under consideration. Similarly, a thorough check of the questionnaires filled up by the enumerators was done during data analysis and any discrepancies was sorted out and corrected immediately.

2.2.5. Reporting Progress reporting was done at different stages of the study.

2.2.5.1. Inception Report Before proceeding to the fieldwork, the study team submitted an Inception Report containing sample selection, site allocation, and tentative format of ToC of the draft report. The field enumerators for the survey were also fixed and detail work plan/timeline was prepared.

2.2.5.2. Draft Report Based on all data obtained during the fieldwork and study, a Draft Report along with all of the findings was prepared and submitted to AEPC within the given time schedule. The draft report was shared among relevant stakeholders at the central level through a stakeholders’ consultative meeting organized in Kathmandu. The draft report was presented at the meeting and detailed discussions were held on each outputs of the study. The comments/feedback were received from the relevant stakeholder and, with the incorporation of those comments/feedbacks, the report has been finalized.

2.2.5.3. Final Report Bases on the feedbacks received from AEPC and the stakeholders’ consultation, the final report is prepared in a adhering to strict quality standards. As per the discussion held during the consultation, few additional information has been collected and incorporated in the final report while improving the consistency.



Page 13

CHAPTER 3 IWM OPERATIONS 3.1. Operational status

As discussed in the previous chapter, the survey was conducted on 73 different IWMs in 7 districts of Nepal based, proportionately, on geographic region and IWM type. Out of the total IWMs surveyed, 56 belonged to accessible hill region while the remaining 17 were sampled from the remote hills. The sample included a total of 67 short shaft and 6 long shaft type IWMs. 50 out of the 66 short shaft IWMs surveyed were identified in five accessible hills of Nepal namely Okhaldhunga, Dhading, Gorkha, Surkhet and Achham while the remaining 17 short shaft IWMs were from the remote hilly districts of Jumla and Darchula. All 6 long shaft IWMs belonged to the accessible hills with 3 in Dhading and one each in Okhaldhunga, Gorkha and Surkhet. Figure 3 and Table 7 below show the detail distribution of the sample IWMs for the study.

Figure 3: Distribution of IWM by district, numbers

Source: Field Survey, SETM 2013/14

Table 7: Distribution of IWM by region, numbers Region Short Shaft Long Shaft Total Accessible hills 50 6 56 Remote hills 17 0 17 Total 67 6 73

Source: Field Survey, SETM 2013/14 Out of the 73 IWMs visited, 71 IWMs (97.2%) are found to be in operation while the remaining two IWMs, both short shafts, were found to be non-operational due to various reasons.

The short shaft belonging to Mr. Bhoja Raj Bhatta, IWM-0404, of Ward No. 9 of Dhap VDC in Darchula district was swept away by heavy landslide in Mahakali River on 2070/02/30.



Page 14

Similarly, short shaft installed and operated by Mr. Khilanath Dhamal, IWM-1089, of Ward No. 6 of Botini VDC in Okhaldhunga district has been totally non-operational since the last seven months due to conflict on land (canal section). Since, the IWM is not functioning for almost a year, it has been considered as non-operational. However, the IWM owner reiterated his desire to re-start the operation of the mill after resolving the disputes in the future.

Figure 4: IWM operational status

Source: Field Survey, SETM 2013/14 It is revealed that that around 22% of the IWM owners considered their IWMs to be in excellent operational conditions while almost two-thirds of the owners felt it was in good conditions. The remaining 11% of the IWM owners were satisfied with IWM operations. Majority of IWMs in accessible hills and remote hills are expressed to be in good operating conditions.

Table 8: Condition of Surveyed Functional IWM

Conditions Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percent

Excellent 12 21.8 4 25.0 16 22.5 Good 35 63.6 12 75.0 47 66.2 Satisfactory 8 14.6 0 0 8 11.3 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


Similarly, the owners of the long shaft IWMs seemed to be more satisfied with the technology. As evident from Table 9 below, two-thirds of the long shaft owners considered their IWMs to be in excellent condition while the remaining two owners felt the technology to be functioning in good condition. In contrast, two-thirds of the short shaft owners perceived the IWM to be in good condition while the remaining one-third almost equally split between excellent condition and only satisfactory condition.



Page 15

Table 9: Condition of Surveyed Functional IWM by Type

Condition Long Shaft Short Shaft Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Excellent 4 66.7 12 18.5 16 22.5 Good 2 33.3 44 67.7 46 64.8 Satisfactory 0 0 9 13.8 9 12.7 Total 6 100 65 100 71 100


3.2. Daily operating hours It is observed that the average daily operating duration of both long shaft and short shaft type of IWMs is 10 hours per day with SD of 4.92 and 2.97 respectively. The average daily operating hours for all the sampled IWMs is found to be 10.12 hours with a standard deviation of 3.13.

Table 10: Average operational time, hrs/day Type Mean S.D.

Long Shaft 10.17 4.92 Short Shaft 10.12 2.97 Total 10.12 3.13


The study reveals that, in an average across the whole surveyed area, a long shaft IWM operates for 268 days in a year with standard deviation of 40.21 while a short shaft operates for 243 days annually with standard deviations of 27.66. Under the same geographic region too, the comparisons show similar differences in annual operation days as evident from Table 11 below. The short shaft IWMs installed in the accessible hills operates 244 days annually while similar IWMs installed in the remote hills operates for.5 fewer days annually.

Table 11: Average annual operation days Type Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Long Shaft 268.33 40.21 0 0 268.33 40.21 Short Shaft 244.35 31.54 239.31 7.78 243.11 27.66 Total 246.96 33.03 239.31 7.78 245.24 29.41


3.3. Commodity processing capacity Figure 5 depicts the average processing capacity of IWM per hour. The figure compares the average processing capacity of three major crops including maize, millet and wheat while rice hulling is performed in long shaft IWMs only. It is evident that the processing capacity of long shaft type of IWM is greater than that of short shaft type for every grain. The long shaft processes 30-35% more maize and millet per hour as compared to short shaft while it is seen that the figure is 66% more in case of wheat.



Page 16

Figure 5: Average processing capacity of IWM, kg/hr


The Table 12 below presents the average quantity of grain processed in IWM per day expressed in kg. The table shows that the quantity processed per day in long shaft is comparatively more than in the short shaft type IWMs. The long shaft processed 332.5 kg of food grain in a day with standard deviation of 138.27 while only 250 kg of grain is processed in short shaft daily with standard deviation of 93.36.

Table 12: Average quantity of food grain processed per day, kg Type Mean S.D.

Long Shaft 332.50 138.27 Short Shaft 249.45 93.36 Total 256.78 99.63


3.4. Tariffs The survey reveals that the unit price of agro-processing of major grains. There are practices in the target area wherein the tariffs are collected both in cash and in kind. For the IWMs where payment in kind is offered as a processing price, the value of kind is converted into the monetary terms by multiplying with unit market price2 of that food grain. The unit price of agro-processing of food grain is comparatively higher in case of short shaft type IWMs. The unit price of maize 50% more expensive in short shaft than long shaft while wheat processing tariff rates are 35% higher. However, the tariff rates for millet does not vary much (only 12%) as evident from Table 13.

2 Unit market price of crops: Maize = NRs. 21/kg; Wheat = NRs. 24/kg; Millet = NRs. 20/kg



Page 17

Table 13: Cost price of food grain processed per unit, NRs/kg

Unit Agro Processing Price Long Shaft Short Shaft Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Maize 1.41 0.1 2.08 1.11 Wheat 1.65 0.17 2.25 0.68 Millet 1.7 0.24 1.92 0.66 Rice Hauling 1.27 0.29 0 0


3.5. Repair and maintenance

3.5.1. Major problems associated in operation The field level study of 71 IWMs from accessible hills and remote hills of Nepal revealed that the IWMs installed have been having problems with every component of the technology including its individual parts and loss of output. In the case of short shaft, problems in canal and bearings are evident in more than fifty percent of the samples. Other major problems are seen in mani/madani, takkar, nozzle and loss of flour. On the other hand, every long shaft IWM has had problems with bearings. Similarly, problems with nozzle is also very common in the sampled long shaft IWMs with two-thirds reporting problems in nozzle. Half of all long shaft IWMs surveyed informed about problems in takkar, canal, loss of flour and mani/madani. In summary, it is seen that problems associated with bearings, canal and mani/madani has been mostly widely encountered in surveyed IWMs.

Table 14: Table: Major Problems associated with IWM Problems Short Shaft Long Shaft Total

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Takkar or Chakati 23 35.4 3 50.0 26 36.7 Canal 34 52.3 3 50.0 37 52.1 Nozzle 15 23.1 4 66.7 19 26.8 Stone Dressing 28 43.1 5 83.3 33 46.5 Loss of Flour 12 18.5 3 50.0 15 21.1 Mani/Madani 28 43.1 3 50.0 31 43.7 Bearing 40 61.5 6 100.0 46 64.8


3.5.2. Frequency of repair and maintenance 91% of all short shaft type IWMs and 100% of long shaft type IWMs have required repair and maintenance since their installation. Out of the 71 IWMs visited for the survey, 92% have had some sort of repair and maintenance works conducted after installation.

The average number of repair and maintenance per year varied according to the type of IWMs. In general, the number of repair and maintenance in short shaft was comparatively less than that in long shaft. The long shaft required around 20 repair and maintenance annually while the figure decreased to 11 in case of short shaft.

Stone dressing is a normal continuous procedure in IWM operation. It is also noticed that, at an average, 19 stone dressings were required per year for long shaft IWMs whereas the average stone dressing per year for short shaft increased to 21.



Page 18

Table 15: Average number of repair and maintenance in a year

Average Number Long Shaft Short Shaft Total Number/year S.D. Number/year S.D. Number/year S.D.

Repair and maintenance per year 19.60 2.97 10.85 7.58 11.52 7.68 Stone dressing per year 19.17 8.54 20.75 8.94 20.61 8.86


3.5.3. Service Centers

3.5.3.1. Nearest service center The average time required to reach the nearest service center from existing IWMs varies according to districts, as given in Table 16. The average time required to reach the nearest service center from the surveyed IWMs in seven districts takes between 2 to 8 hours. The maximum time required to reach the nearest service center from surveyed IWMs in Okhaldhunga district is 8 hours. The nearest service center was observed in Darchula district which is still more than 2 hours away. In general, the survey has revealed that it would take almost 5 hours in average to reach the nearest service center.

Table 16: Average time to reach the nearest service center, minutes Districts Time to service centre Okhaldhunga 483 Dhading 240 Gorkha 268 Surkhet 316 Jumla 235 Achham 406 Darchula 130 Overall 299


On the other hand, the average time required to reach the nearest service center is observed to be relatively more in case of accessible hills. Although the average time taken is almost 6 hours in accessible hills, it only takes 40 mins to reach the nearest service center from one of the sampled IWM. The farthest distance from the service center in accessible is a good 15 hours away. Such large disparity is not observed in case of remote hills where the service centers are reachable within 1.5 hours to 7 hours.

Table 17: Average time to reach the nearest service center, minutes

Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Time to service center 352 40 900 183 90 420 299 40 900


3.5.3.2. Delivering services from SCs The study revealed that different service centers have visited only 22% of the surveyed IWMs after installation of the technology. Out of this, 17% of the IWMs belonged to the accessible hills and 43% to the remote hills. Similarly, as shown in Table 18 below personnel from the service centers managed to visit on 20% of short shaft and 33% of long shaft IWMs surveyed after installation. It is also observed that the frequency of SC personnel varied between one and three irrespective of IWM type with an average of two visits per visited IWM. This is quite a low number in relation to the establishment and mandate of the different service center fanned out across the country. In addition, trainings for repair and maintenance have not been delivered to IWM owners with only 5% of the short shaft owners fortunate to have



Page 19

received the required trainings for repair and maintenance. Similarly, data based on geographic region reveals such trainings have been provided to 4% of the owners in accessible hills and 7% from remote hills. The study has highlighted the need to strengthen the capacity of both IWM owners and service center for providing lasting and efficient energy services to the beneficiaries of IWM technology.

Table 18: Repair and maintenance of surveyed IWM Short Shaft Long Shaft Total

Visit of SC Personnel after Installation 20 33 21 Received Training for Repair and Maintenance 5 0 4


3.5.4. Arrangements for repair and maintenance There are various arrangements made for repair and maintenance of IWM whenever the need arises. It is seen that a large majority of all repair and maintenance works are carried out by the owner himself/herself. In case some major repair and maintenance work is needed, local technicians are also hired. Trainings, in some cases, and learning-by-doing, in majority of cases, are the basis of such repair works being carried out by the owner. Considering that visit of SC personnel is not so frequent in most IWMs and lack of trainings for repair and maintenance along with the actual repair and maintenance done by the owner, the sustainability and efficiency of the technology could pose a serious consequences on productivity and satisfaction among the owners as well as the beneficiaries of the technology.

Table 19: Arrangements made for repair and maintenance

Arrangements Long Shaft Short Shaft Total

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Self 3 50.0 53 81.5 56 78.9 Local Technician 3 50.0 12 18.5 15 21.1 Total 6 100 65 100 71 100


3.5.5. IWM owners vs. service centers On the satisfaction level of IWM owners with the service delivery of the service centers, it has been observed that 50% of the owners in the seven surveyed districts are satisfied with the services provided. Similarly, only 7% owners are individually ‘very satisfied’ and another 13% are ‘moderately satisfied’ with the service centers. Likewise, the remaining 39% are not satisfied with the service centers. The relatively high number of dissatisfaction could be attributed to the perceived lack of after sales services by the service centers. Figure 6 below shows the owners’ satisfaction with service centers according to the individual surveyed districts.

The level of satisfaction with the service centers is pretty good in most districts. The percentage of highly satisfied owners of Gorkha district is comparatively very distinct and high (80%). On the other hand, the percentage of unsatisfied owners is very stark in Surkhet and Jumla districts where more than 70% of owners are unsatisfied with the service centers.



Page 20

Figure 6: IWM owners’ satisfaction with service centers




Page 21

CHAPTER 4 IWM OWNER AND USER PROFILES 4.1. IWM owners’ profile

4.1.1. Education level The field study conducted on 71 IWM owners reveals that more than a third of the total IWM owners in the surveyed districts are illiterates while another 20% are only literates. This shows more than fifty percent of the IWM owners lack formal education in the surveyed areas. The survey shows that only 8.5% of total owners have education higher than School Leaving Certificate (SLC). Figure 7 below depicts the education level of IWM owners in individual surveyed districts. All five owners participating in this study from Gorkha have been found to be illiterates while the figure in Dhading is also more than 50%. Relatively, the IWM owners from the remote hilly districts of Achham and Darchula are found to have better educational status than other surveyed districts.

Figure 7: Education level of IWM owners in percentage


4.1.2. Family size The average family size of the IWM owners in the surveyed districts was found to be seven. The number of family members in the IWM owned households in accessible hills ranged from 3 to a maximum of 20 while the range in case of remote hills was observed to be 4 to 13, as evident from Figure 8. The average family size in accessible hills was obtained to be little higher as compared to remote hills and total survey average.



Page 22

Figure 8: Family size of IWM owners


4.1.3. Information and decision on IWM Based on the survey, it was revealed that all but one of the IWM owners got information about the technology verbally from other local people and relatives. Only one owner in accessible hills got information on the technology from the local service center. The survey has revealed that other sources of information on the technology have not been used in the surveyed households which could be attributed to lack of outreach of the institutions involved in disseminating required information of IWM.

Table 20: Information about IWM

Source of information Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Local Service Center 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 Local people/relatives 54 98.2 16 100 70 98.6 CRT/Nepal 0 0 0 0 0 0 AEPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newspaper/TV/Radio 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


Distinct differences have been observed on the decision to install IWM between the accessible hills and remote hills. All the surveyed IWMs in the remote hills have been installed with the decision of the male head of the household. On the other hand, one-fifth of the surveyed IWMs in accessible hills have been installed through the decision of the female head of the household. Around 6% of the owners give credit for the installation to his/her progeny and other persons (relatives and neighbours).



Page 23

Table 21: Decision to install IWM

Responsible person deciding on IWM installation Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

The head of household male member 33 60.0 16 100 49 69.0 The head of household female member 19 34.6 0 0 19 26.8 Son/daughter 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 Others 2 3.6 0 0 2 2.8 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100 Source: Field Survey, SETM 2013/14

4.1.4. Ownership status of IWM Among the 71 IWMs investigated during the survey, it was observed that 53 (75%) improved mills were privately owned by individual entrepreneurs while 7 (10%) were community owned while the remaining 15% were owned in partnership. This shows that IWM is more or less a small private enterprise at the village level.

Table 22: Ownership status of surveyed IWM

Ownership Status of surveyed IWM Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Private/Individual 43 78.1 10 62.5 53 74.6 Community 4 7.3 3 18.75 7 9.9 Partnership 8 14.6 3 18.75 11 15.5 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


Around 87% of the private/individual IWM owners surveyed are males while the remaining 13% are female. The gender distribution in ownership is seen similar in accessible hills and remote hills.

Figure 9: Gender distribution of IWM owners, %




Page 24

The survey reveals that around 90% of the land used for IWM installation is privately owned by the owners while another 10% of IWM was installed in public land. The survey findings from geographic segregation of IWMs are also pretty similar to the overall picture as depicted by Table 23.

Table 23: Ownership status of land used for IWM Ownership Status of land Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Private 48 87.3 15 93.8 63 88.7 Rented 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public 6 10.9 1 6.2 7 9.9 Others 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


4.1.5. Costs incurred during installation The cost of installation as per the information collected from IWM owners show that the owners spend in an average of NRs. 49,139 per short shaft installation out of which around 85% was self investment, 5% subsidy and 10% loans. The standard deviation for these figures is rather high which indicates non-uniformity of costing responses. The average cost of installation of long shaft IWM at NRs. 160,000 is comparatively very high. The survey shows that none of the long shaft owners have mobilized the government subsidy for installation of long shaft technology.

Likewise, the cost of installation in the accessible hills and remote hills are very comparable around NRs. 58,000 as is the average, both according to IWM types and regions. The average values and standard deviations of the cost breakdown are presented in Table 24 below.

Table 24: Cost of installation for IWM, NRs

Source Long Shaft Short Shaft Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Self 103,333 75,741 42,085 21,746 47,027 37,071 48,063 18,852 47,261 33,712 Subsidy 0 0 2,292 4,866 12,600 894 12,286 756 12,417 793 Loan 56,667 75,873 4,762 13,691 49,042 53,409 20,333 4,509 43,300 48,842 Others 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . Total 160,000 143,631 49,139 26,264 58,873 62,580 57,250 14,821 58,507 55,396


4.1.6. Support for establishment of IWM and end use Almost two-third (63.4%) of the IWM owners self supported for end use establishment with this trend very similar both in the accessible hills and remote hills. About one-fifth of all installations were assisted by the installer companies for the establishment of end-use technologies with this trend more applicable in case of accessible hills of Nepal. It is also seen that the Ghatta Owners’ Association (GOA) has also supported some IWM owners for the installation of the technology and end-uses.

Table 25: Supports for end-use establishment

Supports for establishments Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Self 35 63.6 10 62.5 45 63.4 Installer Company 13 23.6 2 12.5 15 21.1 GoA 3 5.5 3 18.7 6 8.5



Page 25

Others 4 7.3 1 6.3 5 7.0 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


The type of support, for the purpose of this study, has been analyzed for IWM owners who were provided external support during the installation only; however, the percentage of such owners is calculated based on the whole sample of the geographic region for analytical clarity of results. The information received from the owners regarding the types of external support obtained show that quarter of the support was technical and financial in nature while others included institutional and other supports. Although similar trends are observed in the accessible hills and remote hills, the financial support in case of accessible hills and institutional support in case of remote hills is starkly different.

Table 26: Types of Supports

Supports type Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Technical 11 20.0 5 31.3 16 22.5 Financial 15 27.3 1 6.3 16 22.5 Institutional 1 1.8 8 50.0 9 12.7 Others 8 14.6 1 6.3 9 12.7


4.2. IWM users’ profile Households for the IWM user survey were selected to know the socio-economic changes brought by the installation of the IWM at household level. A total of 71 households were selected proportionately among the beneficiary household of IWM in different regions at one-to-one basis.

4.2.1. Family size As is the average family size of the IWM owners (7), the mean family size of the IWM users in the surveyed areas was also found to be 7. Similarly, the family size varied from minimum of 2 persons to maximum of 19 persons in the accessible hill districts while the range varied from 4 to 15 persons in a family in the districts surveyed in remote hills.

Table 27: Average family size of IWM users

Number of IWM users (daily) Accessible Hills Remote Hills Total Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max

Adult Male 3 1 7 3 1 6 3 1 7 Adult Female 3 1 8 3 1 6 3 1 8 Female Children<6 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 Male Children<6 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 Total 7 2 19 7 4 15 7 2 19


4.2.2. Major occupation The figure below shows the major occupation of IWM users according to the field data obtained. Not surprisingly, the major occupation of IWM users is agriculture with over 90% of the all users relying on agriculture as is the overall situation of Nepal. A further 4% of users are involved in government services. Only one user (1%) is involved in business.



Page 26

Figure 10: Major occupation of IWM users


4.2.3. Land holding The average land holding among the IWM users of the studied area is 0.66 hectares3 (13 ropanis). The average land holding both in accessible hills the remote hills was found to be similar. However, average arable land holding is 0.56 hectares in the accessible hills while it is little less, 0.51 hectares, in the remote hills.

Table 28: Land holding status of IWM users, hectares Land Holding Status in Average Accessible Hill Remote Hill

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Arable Land 0.56 0.41 0.51 0.36 Total Land 0.66 1.07 0.66 0.51


4.2.4. Food sufficiency level Table 29 shows to what extent the food produced by a household can support the whole family. More than 60% of all surveyed households produce their own food which is sufficient for the family for up to six months while another quarter have food sufficiency for the whole year. There are 10% household, who will produce enough food for only three months in a year. This shows the food sufficiency level of the surveyed areas is not quite poor and households need to spend extra resources for feeding the family members.

Table 29: Food Sufficiency Status of IWM Users

Food Sufficiency Status Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Up to 3 months 5 9.1 2 12.5 7 9.9 3 to 6 months 32 58.2 12 75.0 44 61.9 6 to 12 months 17 30.9 2 12.5 19 26.8 Surplus 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 No response 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


3 1 hectare=19.66 ropanis



Page 27

4.2.5. Access to different facilities The following Table 30 illustrates the percentage of respondents having access to facilities within their own community. Conforming to the Nepalese context, almost all users of IWM had access to primary education and basic health care in their own communities irrespective of their location. Likewise, more than fifty percent of the users have access to lower secondary school, secondary school, provisional store and unpaved roads in their vicinities. Similarly, more than two-thirds among total users surveyed in accessible hills and remote hills have access to secondary school, post office and grocery store. However, less than fifty percent of all users have access to pharmacy, market, post office and financial institutions. The survey revealed that very few users have access to NGOs, agriculture extension services or colleges for higher education.

However, there are distinct differences in access to facilities in accessible hills and remote hills. The users in accessible hills of Nepal have more access to grocery stores, banks, financial institutions, NGOs and unpaved roads compared to remote hills which show more accessibility to modern facilities due to their proximity to comparatively developed areas of Nepal with expanding road network. On the other hand, users of the surveyed in remote hills have wider access to facilities like hospitals, lower secondary schools, market, milk booth, bus station and paved roads, etc. which are normally available in or near headquarters and area centers within the district. This shows that the users identified are within the vicinity of the area centers.

Table 30: Community Accessibility to Different Facilities, percentage Access to Facilities Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Hospital 4.9 87.5 18.4 Health Center 100.0 90.0 98.0 Pharmacy 42.5 66.7 46.9 Primary School 95.0 100.0 96.0 Lower Secondary School 50.0 88.9 57.1 Secondary School 75.0 66.7 73.5 College/ University Campus 15.0 22.2 16.3 Post Office 47.5 55.6 49.0 Milk Booth 10.0 50.0 18.0 Provision/ Grocery Shop 65.0 44.4 61.2 Market 30.0 87.5 39.6 Bus Station 12.5 87.5 25.0 Bank 10.0 0.0 8.3 NGO 17.5 0.0 14.6 Agriculture Extension Office 10.0 12.5 10.4 Paved Road 7.5 87.5 20.8 Unpaved Road 77.5 50.0 72.9 Financial Institutions 39.5 12.5 34.8


4.2.6. Crop pattern On analyzing field data regarding the average quantity of food grain produced in a year per household within the surveyed area, it is found that maize and millet are the major crops produced in the area with average production per year in excess of 500 kg. Likewise, food crops such as rice and wheat are also seen as significant crop produced yearly while barley and mustard are also grown. Comparing the cropping produce of accessible hills and remote hills, it is observed that rice, wheat and maize production in both areas is pretty much comparable while the average millet



Page 28

production is almost double in accessible hills. On the contrary, mustard and barley production is only seen in the accessible hills.

Table 31: Average quantity of food grain produced in a year per household, kg

Types of crop grown

Accessible Hill Remote hill Total Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max

Rice 369 213 36 960 495 168 240 900 402 207 36 960 Wheat 364 442 68 2,720 367 160 136 544 364 401 68 2720 Maize 623 830 21 4,200 760 350 350 1400 651 753 21 4200 Millet 608 1,053 38 4,480 378 48 320 416 586 1002 38 4480 Barley 111 89 22.2 222 0 0 0 0 111 89 22 222 Mustard 18 3 15 21 0 0 0 0 18 3 15 21




Page 29

CHAPTER 5 IMPACTS OF IWM 5.1. IWM impacts (owner’s perspective)

5.1.1. Major benefits of IWM The IWM owners’ of accessible hills and remote hills all believe that there is saving in time with the use of IWM compared to earlier practices. Similarly, almost 95% feel that the processing is faster with this technology. Likewise, three out of four owners attributes IWM to have increased their income. However, it is also noticed that only about half the owners feel that IWM provides better quality of products. The trends are observed to be similar in both geographical regions. Only 25% owners from the remote hills consider quality products as a benefit of IWM technology.

Table 32: Major Benefits of IWM

Benefits Accessible Hills Remote Hills Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Save in time 55 100 16 100 71 100 Increase in income 41 74.6 11 68.8 52 73.2 Fast processing 55 100 12 75.0 67 94.3 Quality Products 29 52.7 4 25.0 33 46.5


5.1.2. Increase in profit Although one-fourth of the IWM owners doubt that IWM technology increases income, there is 100% uniformity that the owners get more profit from the IWM. Since increase in income is not always the case with IWM, the increased profit shows that incurred expenses with IWM for operation and maintenance is comparatively less to the traditional water mills.

5.1.3. Beneficiary households The total number of households benefitted from IWM in the studied area varied according to geographic regions. The average number of households benefitted by IWM in accessible hills is 66 with minimum and maximum number of beneficiaries ranging from 20 to 200 households. On the other hand, the mean number of households catered by an IWM in remote hill was found to be 87 with the minimum and maximum beneficiaries varying from 35 to 330. The comparatively higher number of average households benefitted from the IWM surveyed in the remote hills was probably fewer number of IWMs installed and comparatively denser settlements; thus having to cater a larger catchment area.

Table 33: Number of benefitted households


Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Number of households 66 20 200 87 35 330 71 20 330


Similarly, according to the information provided by the IWM owners on distances covered by their customers to reach IWM for service, the average time taken to reach IWM site was found to be 96 minutes in case of accessible hills and 84 minutes in case of remote hills. The variation in maximum time required ranged vastly in case of remote hills with some users requiring 5 hours to be served by IWM in accessible hills and 3 hours in remote hills as is evident from the table below.



Page 30

Table 34: Time to reach IWM, hour

Accessible Hill Remote Hill

Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Time to reach IWM (in hours) 1.6 1.0 5.0 1.4 1.0 3.0


5.2. IWM impacts (user’s perspective)

5.2.1. Agro-processing before IWM Before the installation of IWM, the agro-processing technologies used in the area were either home based traditional agro-processing or traditional water mills or diesel mills as revealed by the survey. It is found that a little less than half the total households in the accessible hills used traditional water mills while around 25% of the households used home based agro-processing technologies and another same number used diesel mill for their agro-processing. Similarly, in the remote hills, almost 90% of the households used traditional water mills and the rest utilized home-based agro processing. Since, transporting diesel into remote hills is both difficult and expensive, no instances of diesel mill being used previously have been found in the remote hills.

Overall, around a little more than 50% of the households used traditional water mills, 24% home-based technologies and another 18% diesel mills in the surveyed area for agro-processing before the installation of IWM.

Table 35: Agro-processing technologies before IWM

Technologies used before IWM Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Home based agro processing 15 27.3 2 12.5 17 23.9 Traditional Water Mill 24 43.7 14 87.5 38 53.6 Diesel Mill 13 23.6 0 0 13 18.3 Others 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 No response 2 3.6 0 0 2 2.8 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.2. Drudgery reduction Regarding the reduction in drudgery after IWM installation, the survey shows 95% of the users believe that there is actual reduction in drudgery after installation of IWM while only 1 user in accessible hills disagree that there is reduction in drudgery while there was no response from the other two.

Table 36: Reduction in drudgery after IWM Drudgery reduction after IWM Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Yes 52 94.6 15 93.8 67 94.4 No 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 No response 2 3.6 1 6.2 3 4.2 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.3. Improvements in agro-processing time Figure 11 below shows the comparative performance of water mill before and after improvement in terms of time taken per unit kilogram agro-processing of three major crops. It is seen that, at an average, the processing time have been reduced by almost half after the improvement of water mills. Consequently, the processing time in long shaft is slightly



Page 31

better than in short shafts. However, the processing time for wheat and millet does not show significant differences in short shaft and long shaft IWMs.

Figure 11: Comparison of water mill for grinding 1 kg before and after improvement, mins


5.2.4. User satisfaction with technology The responses received from the user satisfaction survey show that more than five out of ten users are satisfied with IWM. Similarly, almost 47% are highly satisfied with services from IWM. Only one person in accessible hills seems to be unsatisfied by IWM. The users from remote hills seem to be more satisfied with the technology than that of accessible hills.

Table 37: Users’ Satisfaction about IWM

Users Satisfaction about IWM Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Highly Satisfied 24 43.6 9 56.2 33 46.5 Satisfied 30 54.6 7 43.8 37 52.1 Unsatisfied 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 1.4 Very unsatisfied 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.4.1. Quality of end product The perception of IWM users on the quality of end-products show that almost 50% of the total users feel that the end-products is good through IWM while additional about 42% perceive it to be excellent. The remaining 6% consider the end-products to be satisfactory.



Page 32

Table 38: Quality of End-products

Quality of end-products Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Excellent 23 41.8 7 43.75 30 42.3 Good 28 50.9 7 43.75 35 49.3 Satisfactory 4 7.3 0 0.0 4 5.6 Poor 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 2 12.5 2 2.8 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.4.2. Income generating activity The survey reveals that 100% of IWM users, irrespective of geographic regions, perceive that IWM has helped in their income generating activities. There are various reasons that have supported income generating activities through the use of IWM technology. It is seen that the major factor that has strengthened the use of IWM is saving in time for agro-processing with each user conforming to this reason. Additionally, around two-thirds of the users also pointed out low processing cost as one of the major reasons that supported the income generating activities of IWM. Other reasons include availability of local resources and also capacity development and awareness activities conducted at the local level.

Table 39: Reasons supported for IGA, percent Reasons supported for income generating activities Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Adequate resources 27.3 6.3 22.5 Saving of time 94.5 100.0 95.8 Livelihood promotion training 3.6 6.3 4.2 Low processing cost 70.9 68.8 70.4 Others 10.9 0.0 8.5


5.2.5. Number of customers visiting IWM Normally an average of 9 people visit a short shaft IWM daily while 11 customers visit a long shaft IWM for agro-processing in a day in the surveyed IWMs. A minimum 4 people visit a short shaft IWM while the customers may reach as high as 25 during peak days. On the other hand, the customers range from 8 to 14 everyday in long shaft IWM. The composition of visitors coming to the IWM does not show any significant distinction. The adult females are most frequent followed closely by adult males while boys and girls below the age of 16 are also regular customers of IWM agro-processing.

Table 40: Average number of customers visiting IWM daily according to IWM type

Number of IWM users (daily) Short Shaft Long Shaft Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum

Adult Male 3 1 10 5 3 8 Adult Female 5 1 13 6 3 10 Female Children<16 2 1 3 2 1 2 Male Children<16 1 1 3 1 1 2 Total 9 4 15 11 8 14




Page 33

Similarly, the table below of the number of visitors according to the geographic region shows that average number of visitors in the sampled IWM is 9 which are pretty much the same in both accessible hills and remote hills. However, the maximum number of visitors in the accessible hills has been found to go up to 25 in a day.

Table 41: Average number of customers visiting IWM daily according to region

Accessible Hills Remote Hills Total

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Number of IWM users (daily) 9 3 25 8 4 11 9 3 25


On the other hand, at the user household level, it is observed that adult females visit IWMs most often followed by adult males of household. Such a trend is seen both in accessible hills and remote hills. The children are also seen to visit few times a month in the case of accessible hills. However, such a pattern is not seen at the surveyed households in the remote hills. The detail of the monthly frequency of visits per month is provided in Table 42 below.

Table 42: Frequency of customers visiting IWM monthly

Number of IWM users (monthly) Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Adult Male 8.3 9.4 3.1 1.9 7.3 8.7 Adult Female 9.1 6.9 4.8 2.5 8.1 6.4 Female Children<16 3.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.7 Male Children<16 3.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.8


On analyzing the responses from the users, it is observed that the household male users of the technology, in an average, carry 26-27 kg of grains to the mill for agro-processing per visit. The adult females also manage to carry similar amount to the mill per visit in the remote hills while the figure is little less at 21 kg in the accessible hills. On the other hand, the male and female children carry about 11 kg every visit irrespective of the geographic region.

Table 43: Average quantity of grain brought by the users for agro-processing per visit, kg

Average quantity by the users per visit (kg) Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Adult Male 26.1 10.8 27.3 9.3 26.4 10.2 Adult Female 21.3 8.4 26.4 3.6 22.5 7.8 Female Children<16 10.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 10.8 5.4 Male Children<16 10.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 10.8 5.4


5.2.6. Time to reach the nearest IWM Based on the user survey in the surveyed area, it takes an average of 38 minutes to reach the nearest IWM for users in accessible hills with the minimum and maximum time duration varying anywhere from 2 minutes to 4 hours. Similarly, the average time required to reach the nearest IWM is little bit lesser at 20 minutes in case of surveyed areas in the remote hills of Nepal. The users have to travel distances ranging from 5 minutes to 60 minutes to visit IWM sites. These figures combine to give an average time of 34 minutes for each user to reach IWM site in the total surveyed area. As the user survey is conducted very close to the installed IWM on a one to one ratio, the average time to reach the IWM has been comparatively less in some cases.



Page 34

Table 44: Time to reach IWM, minutes

Distance (time) Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max 38 2 240 20 5 60 34 2 240


5.2.7. Utilization of saved time The time saved as a result of faster agro-processing is being utilized by the beneficiaries in different ways. The responses received from the survey suggest that majority are devoting more time to agricultural works and household activities to spend saved time effectively. There are few families that are involved in income generating activities. In average, almost one-fifth of the respondents are spending time studying with the saved time. Agriculture seems to be the most preferred option to spend the saved time effectively of both geographic regions, as shown in Table 45.

Table 45: Utilization of saved time, % Utilization of time Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Agricultural works 40.9 56.0 43.4 Household activities 33.1 36.0 33.6 Income generating activities 4.0 0.0 3.3 Study 18.1 8.0 16.4 Doing nothing 3.9 0.0 2.6 Total 100 100 99.3


Regarding the beneficiaries of saved time for agro-processing, it is not surprising that adult male and female were found to be saving significant amount of time in both accessible hills and remote hills. The data analysis shows that adult male, in average, save couple of minutes more than adult females. The time saved by male/female child is comparatively less (only 40%) than that of time saved by adults.

Table 46: Saved time for agro-processing, minutes Saved Time in Minutes Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Adult female 23.4 13.3 25.9 11.7 24.0 12.9 Adult male 22.8 22.2 30.6 5.0 24.1 20.4 Children female 8.9 2.7 0 0 8.9 2.7 Children male 9.3 3.2 0 0 9.3 3.2


5.2.8. Avoidance of diesel mills Table 47 below depicts the other options available to the users for agro-processing. There is presence of diesel mill in both regions in the vicinity of installed IWMs. However, electric mill is not yet installed in the remote hill due to lack of power required. Traditional water mills are very common as alternative means of agro-processing in the IWM area.

Table 47: Other means of agro-processing technologies in the community, percentage Other means of agro-processing Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Diesel Mill 33 30 33 Electric Mill 11 0 9 Traditional Water Mill 27 50 31 Others 29 20 27 Total 100 100 100




Page 35

The survey shows that almost 95% of the IWM users feel that IWM has helped avoiding installation of diesel based mills in their vicinity. The respondents have cited more than satisfactory performance of IWM as one of the main reasons for assisting in replacing/avoiding diesel mills.

Table 48: IWM helping to replace/avoid diesel based mills Accessible Hills (%) Remote Hills (%) Total

IWM helping to replace/avoid diesel based mills 96.6 87.5 94.6 Source: Field Survey, SETM 2013/14

There have not been any major changes in the number of diesel mills that have been displaced in the community after the installation of IWM. The average number of diesel mills in the vicinity of the IWM is still one. However, there has been an instance where two mills have been closed down due to lack of business for diesel mills which could be attributed, to a fair degree, to installation of IWM.

Table 49: Number of diesel mill before and after IWM installation


Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Before IWM 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 After IWM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


5.2.9. Reduction in time for agro-processing after IWM All user respondents remarked that there has been significant reduction in time consumption for agro-processing after the installation of IWM. This coincides with the version of IWM owners who also confessed to reduction in time for agro-processing.

5.2.10. Agro-processing costs – IWM vs. diesel mills While comparing the price of agro-processing from IWM in relation to that with diesel mills, almost 44% of the respondents believe the unit price is cheaper in IWM while the remaining 56% is either not sure about the price differences or do not want to respond mostly as the respondents are unaware of the price of agro-processing by diesel mills. None of the respondents feel that diesel mills are comparatively cheaper option as compared to IWMs.

Table 50: Unit price of agro-processing from IWM as compared with diesel based mills Unit price compared

with diesel based mills Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent High 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Same 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Cheaper 25 45.5 6 37.5 31 43.7 I don’t know 16 29.1 6 37.5 22 31.0 No response 14 25.4 4 25.0 18 25.3 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.11. Agro-processing sufficiency Looking at the crop production in the vicinity and the current workload of the existing IWM, just over 85% users believe that the existing IWMs are sufficient for agro-processing needs of the community. The data shows that users do not feel the necessity of more IWMs in remote hills while, in accessible hills, although 81% feel the existing IWMs are sufficient there are 18% who still are doubtful and can’t say for sure.



Page 36

Table 51: Sufficiency of existing IWM for agro-processing

Sufficiency of existing IWM for agro-processing Accessible Hill Remote Hill Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Yes 45 81.8 16 100.0 61 85.9 No response 10 18.2 0 0.0 10 14.1 Total 55 100 16 100 71 100


5.2.12. Promotional role On the query regarding encouraging others to the use of improve water mills in the vicinity, 100% owners responded positively and are willing to encourage others for improvement of traditional water mills. Similarly, 98.6% of current IWM users have encouraged others to use IWM for agro-processing due to various benefits primarily in saving of time and low processing costs.

5.2.13. Suggestions for improvement of the overall performance The satisfaction survey consisted of a question on suggestions for improvement. The owner and the users of this technology had numerous suggestions to improvement the overall performance of IWM. The most common suggestions are given below.

a) Technically, maintaining the canal is a big challenge for local entrepreneurs primarily due to landslides, leakages and sedimentation in the source. Hence, the users have requested for additional support to built stable canal using cement, PVC pipe, etc.

b) Loss of flour is another major problem. Users have requested to address this problem by providing net facility or other modifications.

c) Service center monitoring could play a very key role in improvement of this technology but the frequency of such visits are not enough. Users have demanded more visits of SC personnel/technicians to the IWM sites.

d) Training is essential for both minor repair and maintenance and income generating activities. In case of Long Shaft users, training focused on end use activities are highly requested.

e) The soft loan/financial support are required to IWM entrepreneurs as per their need which helps strengthen the capacity of IWM users at the local level.

f) Regular technical support, monitoring and other additional supports are highly requested.



Page 37

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

Since Nepal has a lot of traditional water mills, there is always a potential for improving it. IWM could be a good alternative for rural communities of Accessible Hills and Remote Hills for agro-processing and other purposes as well.

The study has been based on inputs from the owners of the technology as well as the users. So representing both these most important stakeholders into the study has given an added dimension to the study. The operational status of the surveyed IWMs show that the technology is still very relevant and beneficial to the fulfill needs of the local rural community for agro-processing of major grains produced in the villages. The benefits, including faster and better agro-processing, have widely been documented and publicized in Nepal and this study has strengthened it with facts and figures from the sampled areas. The community seems to be satisfied with the technology being promoted in rural Nepal utilizing the vastly available water resources. Having said that, there are various areas that need immediate future attention to maintain and improve the performance of the technology and satisfaction level of the users. Improvements in delivery of monitoring and after sales service form a critical part of the success of the technology. In addition, strengthening capacity of both the owners and the users in technical and financial aspect would play an important role in the successful future implementation of the technology in rural Nepal.

This study will be an able guide to prepare monitoring reports to assess the monitoring parameters as specified in the PDD and PoA DD. This study has provided important insights on the monitoring parameters related to CDM as well as monitoring parameter related to the owner/user benefits.



Page 38

Annex-1: RAND Screenshots For the selection of the PSU, “randbetween” function was used. In order to maintain their proportionate representation for each region, weights were computed. The selected PSU districts are given in screenshot below:



Page 39

Sample selection from each PSU Sampling procedure was such that it always maintained better representativeness of the target population. In this sampling, IWM type namely long shaft and short shaft type were also considered for each region on the basis of their installation number. For illustration, it is observed that Eastern Accessible Hills has 1 long shaft and 4 short shafts included in sample. Similarly, Central Accessible Hills has 3 long shafts and 17 short shafts; Western Accessible Hills has 1 long shaft and 4 short shafts; Mid-western Accessible Hills has 1 long shaft and 13 short shafts; Far-western Accessible Hills has only 12 short shafts; Far-Western Remote Hills and Mid-western Remote Hills, each has 8 short shafts. Here, simple random sampling technique was used to select long shaft and short shaft separately from each selected district of the region. The selected owners with the IWM type are presented in the snap shotscreen with randomization results, which were left sorted for region.



Page 40

1. Eastern Accessible Hill Okhaldhunga – Short Shaft

Okhaldhunga – Long Shaft



Page 41

2. Central Accessible Hill Dhading – Short Shaft

Dhading – Long Shaft



Page 42

3. Western Accessible Hill Gorkha – Short Shaft



Page 43

Gorkha – Long Shaft



Page 44

4. Mid Western Accessible Hill Surkhet – Short Shaft



Page 45

Surkhet – Long Shaft



Page 46

5. Far western Accessible Hill Achham – Short Shaft



Page 47

6. Mid Western Remote Hill Jumla – Short Shaft



Page 48

7. Far Western Remote Hill Darchula – Short Shaft



Page 49

Annex-2: Selected IWMs for survey 1. List of Selected IWMs in Eastern Accessible Hills (Okhaldhunga)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 74 IWM-1717 Tenji Sherpa Entrepreneur 9 Surkebhuspali Rawadolu (Bhusinga) Okhaldhunga 02/12/2013 Short Shaft 37 IWM-1095 Sarkini Sherpa Entrepreneur 6 Puddha Khichandeshwori Okhaldhunga 06/17/2012 Short Shaft 50 IWM-0940 Pasang Nuri Sherpa Entrepreneur 9 Chharmading Patale Okhaldhunga 06/25/2012 Short Shaft 65 IWM-1089 Khilanath Dhamal Entrepreneur 6 Dhamla Tole Botini Okhaldhunga 08/08/2012 Short Shaft 1 IWM-0917 Bet Bahadur Bhujel Entrepreneur 6 Dhunge Rawadolu (Bhusinga) Okhaldhunga 06/23/2012 Long Shaft

2. List of Selected IWMs in Central Accessible Hills (Dhading)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 20 IWM-1269 Ram Bahadur Tamang Entrepreneur 4 Sellae Katunje Dhading 05/12/2012 Short Shaft 18 IWM-0671 Lekh Bahadur Bhandari Entrepreneur 9 Ratmate Gumdi Dhading 05/02/2012 Short Shaft 27 IWM-1272 Ram Bahadur Tamang Entrepreneur 5 Cheeta Kiranchwok Dhading 08/12/2012 Short Shaft 37 IWM-0252 Jamunawati Tamangni Entrepreneur 3 Brichet Darkha Dhading 21/09/2011 Short Shaft 16 IWM-0153 Aaiti Tamang Entrepreneur 5 Katraung Lapa Dhading 04/03/2012 Short Shaft 9 IWM-0155 Pradip Adikhari Entrepreneur 7 Kaichali Mapark Dhading 11/03/2011 Short Shaft

21 IWM-0667 Bhete Lama Tamang Entrepreneur 9 Lincho Tipling Dhading 05/30/2012 Short Shaft 12 IWM-0668 Jomsai Ghale Entrepreneur 5 Ulung Tipling Dhading 02/06/2012 Short Shaft 39 IWM-0256 Resham Kumar Lama Entrepreneur 7 Chimbang Mahadevsthan Dhading 24/06/2011 Short Shaft 25 IWM-1276 Tek Bahadur Thing Entrepreneur 3 Panditkharka Mahadevsthan Dhading 07/10/2012 Short Shaft 32 IWM-1899 Tirtha Bahadur Dawadi Entrepreneur 4 Bhorle Sunaulabazar Dhading 03/13/2013 Short Shaft 30 IWM-1897 Man Bahadur Tamang Entrepreneur 6 Hatauldanda Mahadevsthan Dhading 03/04/2013 Short Shaft 28 IWM-1273 Kanchha Tamang Entrepreneur 3 Kokhim Jhalarng Dhading 08/22/2012 Short Shaft 10 IWM-0156 Bikash Tamang Entrepreneur 1 Kapoorgaung Lapa Dhading 11/14/2011 Short Shaft 14 IWM-0159 Kalayan Tamang Entrepreneur 1 Dhap Khari Dhading 02/11/2012 Short Shaft 29 IWM-0257 Harka Bahadur Gurung Entrepreneur 9 Kauera Semjong Dhading 11/01/2012 Short Shaft 26 IWM-1270 Raj Kumar Chapang Entrepreneur 9 Bumrang Dhusa Dhading 08/04/2012 Short Shaft 6 IWM-0148 Sing Bahadur Tamang Entrepreneur 2 Thulo Gaung Lapa Dhading 08/05/2011 Long Shaft

45 IWM-0259 Baburam Tamang Entrepreneur 8 Baluwadada Pida Dhading 08/05/2011 Long Shaft 35 IWM-1275 Che Ghale Entrepreneur 9 Lingcho Tipling Dhading 11/28/2012 Long Shaft



Page 50

3. List of Selected IWMs in Western Accessible Hills (Gorkha)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 24 IWM-1406 Ratna Bahadur Karki Entrepreneur 2 Manbugaun Manbu Gorkha 11/07/2012 Short Shaft 33 IWM-1904 Suku Bahadur Gurung Entrepreneur 5 Machhakhola Gumda Gorkha 05/11/2013 Short Shaft 4 IWM-0459 Bhim Bahadur ghale Entrepreneur 3 Manbu gaun Manbu Gorkha 05/14/2012 Short Shaft

14 IWM-1408 Sunita Bhandari Entrepreneur 7 Pakhuray Aru Arwang Gorkha 07/03/2012 Short Shaft 1 IWM-1414 Rabin Bhujel Entrepreneur 7 Dandagaun Aruchanaute Gorkha 10/10/2012 Long Shaft

4. List of Selected IWMs in Mid Western Accessible Hills (Surkhet)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 21 IWM-0140 Bhakta Bahadur Budhathoki Entrepreneur 5 Dhulichaur Kunathari Surkhet Short Shaft 38 IWM-0303 Karna Bahadur Birkatta Magar Entrepreneur 9 Lamidanda Satakhani Surkhet Short Shaft 64 IWM-1184 Chhavilal Khadka Entrepreneur 9 Bharjuni Pampha Surkhet Short Shaft 33 IWM-0300 Madan Kumar Malla Entrepreneur 7 Pude Pampha Surkhet Short Shaft 7 IWM-0125 Chakra Bahadur Tarami Entrepreneur 4 Sotkhola Kunathari Surkhet Short Shaft

49 IWM-0513 Grime Mahatara Entrepreneur 9 Aulajhyam Aagrigaun Surkhet Short Shaft 10 IWM-0127 Nare Khatri Entrepreneur 3 Lamidanda Dharapani Surkhet Short Shaft 58 IWM-1193 Surath Bahadur Rana Entrepreneur 5 Garpan Garpan Surkhet Short Shaft 20 IWM-0139 Kamal Bahadur Singh Entrepreneur 7 Kalapani Babiyachaur Surkhet Short Shaft 8 IWM-0126 Gangisara Lamichhane Entrepreneur 4 Sundwari Kunathari Surkhet Short Shaft

43 IWM-0506 Dhirendra Rana Chhetri Entrepreneur 4 Kaulsin Aawalching Surkhet Short Shaft 45 IWM-0508 Bal Bahadur Rokaya Entrepreneur 1 Chepang Kunathari Surkhet Short Shaft 75 IWM-1185 Lok Bahadur Gharti Entrepreneur 9 Tule Matela Surkhet Short Shaft 60 IWM-1191 Ganga Ram B.C. Entrepreneur 9 Bhudebhabar Bijora Surkhet 11/08/2012 Long Shaft



Page 51

5. List of Selected IWMs in Far Western Accessible Hills (Achham)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 14 IWM-0676 Ranvir Bista Entrepreneur 8 Nare Batulasain Achham 04/21/2012 Short Shaft 32 IWM-0440 Ram Bahadur Saud Entrepreneur 3 Okhadi rukh Kuskot Achham 06/02/2012 Short Shaft 49 IWM-1439 Dhan Bahadur Bohora Entrepreneur 1 Bhirkha Devisthan Achham 10/27/2012 Short Shaft 22 IWM-0431 Maya Ram Upadhyaye Entrepreneur 8 Naukhambha Toshi Achham 05/09/2012 Short Shaft 47 IWM-1455 Jawal Singh Budha Entrepreneur 3 Naghgaun Raniban Achham 10/12/2012 Short Shaft 23 IWM-0432 Uttam Bahadur Shah Entrepreneur 4 Nawaathana Nabthana Achham 05/11/2012 Short Shaft 48 IWM-1445 Game Kami Entrepreneur 3 Bahu ghau Kalika Achham 10/26/2012 Short Shaft 17 IWM-0680 Bajir Kami Entrepreneur 1 Dalit tole Batulasain Achham 04/30/2012 Short Shaft 35 IWM-1444 Deepak Bahadur Rawal Entrepreneur 2 Dhami ghau Oligaun Achham 09/17/2012 Short Shaft 12 IWM-0674 Jawal Singh Bista Entrepreneur 8 Shalsate Batulasain Achham 04/16/2012 Short Shaft 28 IWM-0437 Manoj Kumar Saud Entrepreneur 8 Rapha Kuskot Achham 05/21/2012 Short Shaft 20 IWM-0681 Dharma Singh Bohora Entrepreneur 7 Chau gaun Ramaroshan Achham 05/03/2012 Short Shaft

6. List of Selected IWMs in Mid Western Remote Hills (Jumla)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 13 IWM-1778 Datta Bahadur Rokaya Entrepreneur 5 Digra Dhap Jumla 04/15/2012 Short Shaft 27 IWM-0881 Dal Bahadur Budthapa Entrepreneur 9 Urthu Chandnath Jumla 12/05/2012 Short Shaft 18 IWM-1762 Nava Raj Neupane Entrepreneur 8 Dunshera Tatopani Jumla 09/14/2012 Short Shaft 22 IWM-1761 Prithvi Bahadur Adhikari Entrepreneur 8 Thamiwada Gajyangkot Jumla 11/17/2012 Short Shaft 38 IWM-0862 Chauekali Sunar Entrepreneur 5 Umkhola Talium Jumla 17/03/2012 Short Shaft 15 IWM-0882 Kalimane Sharki Entrepreneur 6 Khallabada Gajyangkot Jumla 07/06/2012 Short Shaft 49 IWM-0873 Yeman Kami Entrepreneur 7 Hiyakhola Lamra Jumla 26/03/2012 Short Shaft 12 IWM-0854 Amber Bahadur Budha Entrepreneur 7 Bata Patmara Jumla 03/03/2012 Short Shaft



Page 52

7. List of Selected IWMs in Far Western Remote Hills (Darchula)

SN ID Name of IWM Owner Ownership Type Ward No Village VDC District Completion Date IWM Type 13 IWM-0417 Birman Singh Dhami Entrepreneur 9 Sunni Malikarjun Darchula 04/18/2012 Short Shaft 38 IWM-0532 Dilip Singh Dhami Entrepreneur 1 Basedi Malikarjun Darchula 06/08/2012 Short Shaft 90 IWM-1646 Manohar Singh Dhami Entrepreneur 8 Bhaisikharka Bhagawati Darchula 02/26/2013 Short Shaft 5 IWM-0404 Bhoj Raj Bhatta Entrepreneur 6 Pote bagar Dhap Darchula 04/14/2012 Short Shaft 70 IWM-1284 Ashok Nath Entrepreneur 6 Teligaun Ritthachaupata Darchula 11/21/2012 Short Shaft 20 IWM-0410 Jasmati Devi Mahar Entrepreneur 9 Kapadaapani Khalanga Darchula 04/24/2012 Short Shaft 6 IWM-0405 Shankar Singh Dhami Entrepreneur 1 Basedi Malikarjun Darchula 04/14/2012 Short Shaft 49 IWM-1146 Naine Kami Entrepreneur 2 Tatapani Gokuleshwor Darchula 09/17/2012 Short Shaft



Page 53

Annex-3: Questionnaire for Improved Water Mills (IWM) Users Survey 2012/13 A. Questionnaire for Improved Water Mills (IWM) Owners

IDENTIFICATION AND ELIGIBILITY: NAME AND CODE OF DISTRICT________________________________________________

___

NAME AND CODE OF VDC____________________________________________________

___

WARD NUMBER………………………………………………………………………............................................

___

Introduction

Name of the respondent _____________________________________________

Age _______

Male 1 Female 2

Name of the IWM owner ____________________________________________

Age _______

Male 1 Female 2

IWM ID NUMBER……………………………………………………....................…………..…

___ ___

Date of interview in AD (DD/MM/YY) ___ ___/___ ___/ ___ ___ ___ ___

How long have you been using IWM? (Verify with users’ booklet) ……………………..months

---- ---- Interviewed by:

Contact Telephone Number: Record the type of IWM (Confirm from Users Manual)

Long Shaft…………………… 1 Short Shaft…………………… 2

Installation Date (DD/MM/YY) ___ ___/___ ___/ ___ ___ ___ ___

IWM Booklet Number ……………………………………………………………………..

Is the IWM in operation? Yes 1 No 2

If yes move to section 1 (General Information)

What is the operational status of IWM?

Excellent 1 Good 2 Satisfactory 3 Abandoned 4

If abandoned then the survey will not be perfomed.

If the IWM is not in operation, what is the reason for it?

Technical Problem 1 Water is not sufficient 2 Other reasons (specify) 3

If there is technical problem, what technical problem are you facing?

Have you requested support from the service provider to solve the problem

Yes 1 No 2



Page 54

encountered?

If you have requested support to solve the technical problem in your IWM, by when do you think your IWM will be back in operation?

…………………….(days)

If you have not requested technical support to solve problem in your IWM, do you intend to seek such support?

Yes 1 No 2

If “no” for question above, why don’t you intend to ask for such support?

I shall fix the problem by myself 1 I shall ask someone else to fix this problem 2 I don’t intend to operate the IWM again 3

End of survey, move to next IWM

If water is not sufficient, since how long have you not operated your IWM due to insufficiency in water?

………………………….(days)

Do you face the problem of insufficient water every year?

Yes 1 No 2

If you face the problem of insufficient water every year, how many days in a year do you have to halt the operation of your IWM?

……………………….. (days in a year)

1. General Information

S.N. Question Coding Categories 1.1 What is the ownership status of the IWM

installed? Private/Individual 1 Community 2 Partnership 3 Cooperative 4 Others 5

Please mention the name of partner, if ownership is in partnership?

1.2 Name of installer company/service provider ………………………………………………………

1.4 Cropping pattern in your location

SN Season Major Crops Grown 1 Summer 2 Winter 3 Rainy

1.5 IWM operation details

SN 1. On an average how many hours a day do you

operate your IWM? …………..Hrs 2. On an average how many days a year do you

operate your IWM? ……………Days 3. On an average, what is the quantity of grains

that you process in a day? ………………….Kg 4. What is the grain processing capacity of your

IWM? (Please note SN 4-6 is applicable only SN Grain Type Processing Capacity (Kg/hr) 1 Maize



Page 55

for long shaft IWMs) 2 Millet 3 Wheat 4 Rice Hulling 5 Rice Beating 6 Oil expelling

5. What tariff do you collect for processing the grains? (Please fill the tariff rate as appropriate in “in cash” or “in kind” column and note SN 4-6 is applicable only for long shaft IWMs.)

SN Grain Type In Cash In Kind 1 Maize 2 Millet 3 Wheat 4 Rice Hulling 5 Rice Beating 6 Oil expelling

6. Please mention the information of other end uses (Applicable only for Long Shaft IWM) SN Service Qty Processed

(unit/month) Tariff

(Rs./Unit) 1 Saw Milling 2 Lokta Beating 3 Electricity 4 Others

1.6 Daily operation schedule (During the field visit)

Daily Shift Morning Shift (6-10 am)

Day Shift (10-2 pm) Evening Shift (2 pm to onwards)

Operation hours 1.7 Comparative performance of water mill before (traditional) and after (improvement)

Crops Comparison Average time for grinding 1 Pathi (In minutes)

Remarks

Maize Before Improvement After Improvement

Wheat Before Improvement After Improvement

Millet Before Improvement After Improvement

Rice Before Improvement After Improvement

Others Before Improvement After Improvement

2. Repair and Maintenance Services

2.1 What are the major associated problems in IWM? Please select the appropriate (Multiple Choice)

Takkar and Chakati 1 Canal 2 Nozzle 3 Stone Cutting 4 Loss of flour 5 Mani/Madani 6 Bearing 7 Others 8



Page 56

2.2 Have you done repair and maintenance of the IWM after installation?

Yes 1 No 2

2.3 Please mention the number of repair and maintenance per annum __ ___

2.4 How is the frequency (number) of stone cutting made in a year? ____ _____ _____

2.5 Are you satisfied with after sales services from service centers?

Highly Satisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Moderately Satisfied 3 Not satisfied 4

2.6 How far the service center is located from your IWM location? Time in minutes ( _ _ _ )

2.7 What arrangements are made for the repair and maintenance?

On demand from the same company

1

Self 2 From other company 3 Local Technician 4 Others 5

2.8 Do SC personnel visit at your IWM site after installation? Yes 1

No 2

If yes, how many times after installation? Number of time ( _ _ )

2.9 Have you received any kind of training for repair and maintenance?

Yes 1 No 2

3. Socio-economic Characteristics of IWM Owners

3.1 What is your education level?

Illiterate 1 Literate only 2 Primary Level (1-5) 3 Lower Secondary Level (6-8) 4 Secondary Level (9-10) 5 Higher Secondary Level (11-12) 6 Above Higher Secondary Level (12>) 7

3.2 How many people are there in your family?

__ __

3.3 What is your average monthly income? NRs. ………………………………

3.4 What is the ownership status of land used for IWM?

Private 1 Rented 2 Public 3 Others 4

3.5 How did you come to know about improved water mills (IWM) program?

Local Service Center 1 Local people/Relatives 2 CRT/Nepal 3 AEPC 4 Newspaper/TV/Radio 5 Others (Specify) 6

3.6 How many other IWM are there in your VDC? Short Shaft Long Shaft



Page 57

3.7 Who took the decision to install IWM in your family?

The head of household male member

1

The head of household female member

2

Your son/daughter 3 Others 4

3.8 Cost details for IWM installation

Source Amount NRs Self Government Subsidy Loan Others (specify) Total

3.9 Who have supported for the establishment of end-uses?

Self 1 Installer Company 2 GoA 3 Others 4

3.10 Which type of support was provided? Technical 1 Financial 2 Institutional 3 Others 4

3.11 Whether profit has increased or decreased after the improvement?

Increased 1 Decreased 2 Same as before 3

If decreased, what are the reasons?

3.12 How many households have been benefited from your IWM? _____ (Total Households Numbers)

3.13 Please indicate what is the caste composition of the households that visit your IWM?

S.N. Caste Number of HHs

1 2 3 4 5

3.14 How much time taken by the farthest users to come in your IWM? ----------------Hour

3.15 How many costumers visit IWM daily? __________ (Number of People)

3.16 How is the general trends of daily visit in your IWM?

Categories Number Adult Male Adult Female Female Children <16 Male Children < 16

3.17 Do you encourage to others for the improvements?

Yes 1 No 2

3.18 Have you recruited any other person at your IWM as a worker or any other family member have been assisting you on regular basis after you improved your mill?

Yes 1 No 2



Page 58

If there is recruited any other person then mention the salary per month _________________________

3.19 What are the major benefits after improvement

Save in time 1 Increase in income 2 Fast processing 3 Quality Products 4 Others 5

3.20

If any suggestion



Page 59

Questionnaire for IWM Users (Household Level) 1. General Information

NAME AND CODE OF DISTRICT________________________________________________

___

NAME AND CODE OF VDC____________________________________________________

___

WARD NUMBER………………………………………………………………………............................................

___

Introduction

Name of the respondent _____________________________________________

Age______

Male 1 Female 2

Name of the IWM owner ____________________________________________

Age______

Male 1 Female 2

Date of interview in AD (DD/MM/YY) ___ ___/___ ___/ ___ ___ ___ ___

Interviewed by:

Contact Telephone Number:

2. Household Characteristics

2.1 What is your main occupation?

Agriculture 1 Business 2 Labor Works 3 Govt Service 4 Private 5 Secretariat/Professional 6 Others 7

2.2 How many people are there in your family?

Total Male Female Male Children <6 Female Children<6

2.3 How is the education level do you and family have completed?

Education Level Male Numbers Female Numbers

Not attending school Illiterate (0) Literate only Primary Level (1-5) Lower Secondary Level (6-8) Secondary Level (9-10) Higher Secondary Level(11-12) Above Higher Secondary Level (12>)

2.4 Could you provide the average annual income and expenses of your

Average Annual Income (a) (NRs………………………..) Average Annual Expenses (b) (NRs ……………………….) Annual saving or loss (a-b) (NRs……………………….)



Page 60

household?

2.5 Land Holdings Arable land (Ropani) Total Land Area (Ropani)

2.6 How is the food sufficiency status in your household?

Up to 3 months 1 3 to 6 months 2 6 to 12 months 3 Surplus 4

3. Community Access to Different Facilities

S.N. Facilities Available or Not

Available within the community (Yes=1, No

=2)

If not , then distance from the Community to the Center (Km)

1. Hospital 2. Health Center 3. Pharmacy 4. Primary School 5. High School 6. Secondary School 7. College/ University Campus 8. Post Office 9. Milk Booth 10. Provision/ Grocery Shop 11. Market 12. Bus Station 13. Bank 14. NGO 15. Agriculture Extension Office 16. Paved Road 17. Unpaved Road 18. Financial Institutions

4. Agro-processing Activity

4.1 What are the types of crops grown? S.N. Types of Crops Average production quantity/year

(Pathi) Remarks

1 Rice 2 Wheat 3 Maize 4 Millet 5 Barley 6 Mustard 7 Others



Page 61

4.2 Before the IWM was installed in your locality, where did you mostly go for agro-processing?

Home based agro processing 1 Traditional Water Mill 2 Diesel Mill 3

4.3 Have you felt any reduction in drudgery after you started using IWM?

Yes 1 No 2

4.4 If yes for above question, what do you think indicate reduction in drudgery?

1. 2. 3. 4.

4.5 What are the other means of agro processing in the community?

Diesel Mills 1 Electric Mills 2 TWM 3 Others 4

4.6 Is IWM helpful to replace/avoid diesel based generators/mills?

Yes 1 No 2

4.7 How many diesel mills do you have in your village before and after installation of IWM?

Before IWM ( ) After IWM ( )

4.8 Which type of IWM do you have mostly used?

Short Shaft 1 Long Shaft 2

4.9 Is the existing IWM sufficient for performing agro processing of the community?

Yes 1 No 2

4.10 How much time is required to reach the IWM? ____________ (Time in minutes)

4.11 Who mostly visits the IWM for agro-processing?

Persons Frequency per month Average Quantity (pathi per visit)

Adult female Adult male Children female Children male

4.12

Is time required for the agro-processing is reduced after improvement of water mill?

Yes 1 No 2

If yes how much time is saved per visit?

(Time in minutes)

Adult Female

Adult Male

Children female

Children Male

4.13 How the saved time used by the family members? Please ranked in numbers (1-7)

Activities Adult Female

Adult Male

Children female

Children Male

Agricultural works Household activities Income Generating activities

Social Work



Page 62

Study Doing nothing Others

4.14 How is the unit price of agro-processing from IWM as compared with diesel based mills?

High 1 Same 2 Cheaper 3 I don’t know 4

See 4.5 if there is diesel mills

4.15 How is the quality of end-products from IWM?

Excellent 1 Good 2 Satisfactory 3 Poor 4

4.16 How is the performance of end use application? (Only for Long Shaft)

Excellent 1 Good 2 Satisfactory 3 Poor 4

5. Users’ perception

5.1 Is IWM helping for Income Generation Activities?

Yes 1 No 2

if yes what are the reasons?

Adequate Resources 1 Saving of time 2 Livelihood promotion training 3 Low processing cost 4 Others 5

5.2 Users’ Satisfaction about IWM Highly Satisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Unsatisfied 3 Very Unsatisfied 4

5.3 If not satisfied, what are the reasons?

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.4

Do you encourage to other people for IWM agro-processing?

Yes 1 No 2

If no, what are the reasons? 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.5 Do you have any suggestions to improve the overall performance of IWM?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Name of the Supervisor: _______________________ Date of Approval: __________________________



Page 63

Annex-4: Orientation and Training Schedule for Field Enumerators (8th -10th May 2014)

Activities Key responsibility Time DAY I Introduction session Introduction among the surveyors and trainers Introduction, objective and purpose of IWM Users Survey Enumerators experience in field survey

BRP/MM/BKN 10.00-11.30

General Information Status of IWM in Nepal IWM Technology Scope and its types (Short shaft & Long Shaft) Policy, Subsidies and Uses

MM/SS 11.30- 12.30

Tea Break 12.30-13.15 Introduction to CDM, IWM CDM project, key monitoring parameters for CDM. (Short presentation in CDM approach) NRREP/AEPC 13.15-14.15

Short presentation on past experience, scope of the study, essential data or information, problems etc NRREP/AEPC 14.15-15.00

Detailed presentation on questionnaires Team 15.00-16.00 Orientation of pre-testing of questionnaire BKN 16.00- 16.15 DAY II Field Visit (Practical Exercise ) for the pre-survey (10 households) Team 10.00-16.00 DAY III Recap of the previous day Team 10.00-12.00 Separation of Clusters (Site allocation to field Enumerators) Short presentation regarding the field visits on particular sites, data collection techniques/tools, data entry and coding

RMS/BKN 12.00-13.00

Tea Break 13.00-13.30 Final discussion on problems and solutions on trip SS/RMS/BKN 13.30-14.30 Summarization of orientation (Whole training) BRP/SS/RMS/BKN/AEPC 14.30-16.00 Team:

BRP – Bharat Raj Poudel (Team Leader) MM – Muhan Maskey SS – Sharada Shrestha RMS – Rajendra Man Shrestha BKN – Bibek Kanta Neupane AEPC representative



Page 64

Annex-5: Photographs

Photo 1: Short Shaft IWM of Bishnu Datta Bista of Darchula District

Photo 2: A women user and an owner (Mr. Ram Bahadur Saud) in IWM for grinding process

inception report on improved water mills (iwm) user survey...

Documents