1. 23 April2013

2.  Background of DPMAS  Why DPMAS ?  Components of DPMAS and Its Guidelines and indicators  Institutional Mechanism  Issues  Way forward

4.  MDG, SAARC Devt. goal  The Three Year Interim Plan (2007/8 – 2009/10), Current Plan which followed the 10 th Plan highlighted the importance of MfDR for achieving development results.  Decentralization being significant strategy in TYIP/TYP further stress the importance of data collection and dissemination at the district level for evidence based planning, good governance and equitable development.

5.  Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (PMAS) and DPMAS in particular are core elements of MfDR in Nepal requiring additional support for their meaningful operationalization.  Draft guidelines and software were ready in 2005 but was not fully tested and operational.  UNICEF supported to pilot DPMAS in Dang and Jumla in 2008. Experience from piloting exercise contributed to development of national implementation guidelines and software by NPC in 2010.

6.  Compliment central level (PMAS) and Project Performance Information System (PPIS) - monitoring Periodic Plan, poverty reduction strategy and MDGs, SAARC Development Goals (SDGs) & Results-based M&E strategy.  To monitor inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes and impacts of poverty reduction and development projects at the district level.  LSGA 1999 requires the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and District Periodic Plans (DPPs). DIDCs exist for this purpose and should be strengthened with a system.  LGCDP supports DPMAS to obtain poverty data with disaggregation level.

7.  DPMAS builds upon existing systems to improve horizontal and vertical linkages for information flows, and promote use of data at all levels  Consolidates data and information received from already established sectoral monitoring systems like EMIS, HMIS, line agencies, NGOs  Stores it in a systematic manner; disaggregated by age, sex and ethnicity  Data and indicators will be available at theDDC/ VDC level.  Analyze and disseminate to support decentralized planning and monitoring system  Make the data and information easily accessible both at VDC, district and central level.  Highly recognized in current TYP (2067/68-2069/70) as one of the key monitoring and evaluation system

8.  1) Implementation monitoring (Updated every four months)  2) Outcome and impact monitoring (Updated Annually and Five years)

9.  Health (13 Impact level and 12 implementation level )  Water and Sanitation (6 and 9)  Primary Education (11 and 8)  Agriculture, livestock, forestry, tourism and finance (11 and 18)  Capacity building/empowerment of targeted groups (15 and 4)  Rural Infrastructure (6 and 16)  Local Development (11)

11. Datasets submitted districts AchhamRukum Taplejung BajuraKalikot Jhapa BajhangJajarkotDolakha DadeldhuraKaskiRasuwa ChitwanKavreMyagdi KapilvastuUdaypur Pyuthan SaptariNawalparasiBanke TanahuDotiKailali DarchulaSunsari

12. Issues Getting information segregated by social groups (caste and ethnicity) by VDCs is hardly possible in the existing sectoral MIS system. District line offices found unaware of their roles & responsibilities on DPMAS implementation & sectoral support. Lack of harmonization between DPMAS and Sectoral MIS indicators District offices unable to report according to DPMAS format (VDC as well as by social groups). DPMAS needs to demonstrate that it can support planning, review and monitoring as envisioned in results-based M&E guideline. Only 84 impact indicators are covered in DPMAS and strengthening the system would be more important than further expansion of indicators.

13. Way forward Existing sectoral MIS systems need to be harmonized with DPMAS information system (segregated by VDC, social groups- caste and ethnicity) Line Ministries need to provide clear instructions to its district offices Line Ministries could use DPMAS/CFLG information formats in their reporting system Operational definition of Indicators (DPMAS/CFLG) as a part of M&E framework need to be developed for uniformity and consistency of the information. There are Indicators in surveys regularly covered by periodic surveys and some could be included in surveys. Remaining quantifiable CFLG Indicators should be reviewed for incorporation in DPMAS in consultation with line ministries after DPMAS is well established. NPC/MLD should consider mobilizing more NDVSs in districts with human resources constraints.