Resettlement budget analysis: Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal

Upper Trishuli-1's final 2018 resettlement and livelihood plan budgets NPR 177.3 million, equivalent to NPR 1.15 million per identified affected family. This allocation ratio describes programme scale. Estimating compensation received requires linked payment and unique-recipient records. Define the cost scope and recipient population before comparing programmes or assessing delivery.

IFC identifies Upper Trishuli-1 as project 35701, Nepal Water and Energy Development Company, environmental category A. It is the only project with usable cost/count pairs in the 62-project research ledger underpinning this analysis. The findings concern this project; national and category comparisons require a broader matched dataset. IFC project record

The case illustrates how the baseline assessment method connects an affected-person register, socioeconomic research and delivery monitoring. The Nepal survey guide develops national-statistics alignment and household follow-up.

Scope and source editions

The December 2018 Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration Plan identifies 154 project-affected families, including a livelihood cohort of 149. It explains why an ownership record and a household count differ: several families may depend on the same parcel, cadastral records may predate household separation, and residence arrangements changed after the earthquake. An ownership record, family, and resident household therefore need separate identifiers. LALRP, printed p. 11; PDF p. 23

The plan also distinguishes earlier land compensation from additional livelihood and compensation commitments. Retain the edition, period, scope, currency, and status—planned, committed, or paid—with every cost, and reconcile overlapping versions before aggregation. LALRP, printed pp. 92–93; PDF pp. 104–105

Budget reconciliation

The final plan's tentative budget reproduces the following amounts. They are nominal Nepalese rupees for the source period; there is no inflation or currency conversion here.

The 27 detailed budget lines sum to the base budget. Adding the rounded contingency reproduces the disclosed total. The reconciliation verifies planned amounts; expenditure verification requires delivery records. LALRP Table 8.2, printed pp. 153–154; PDF pp. 165–166

Household denominators

Dividing NPR 177,275,856 by 154 gives NPR 1,151,142 per affected family, rounded to the nearest rupee. This is a programme-budget allocation ratio. It includes implementation, collective activities, monitoring, and contingency alongside household benefits.

Using the 149-family livelihood cohort instead gives NPR 1,189,771 per livelihood family. Both ratios use the same programme budget; their difference demonstrates sensitivity to the denominator. Transfers to each cohort require recipient-level payment evidence.

Pending structure compensation alone is NPR 115,000,000. The plan describes loss of primary residential structures affecting 12 families. A valid pending-compensation mean needs the specific outstanding claims and recipients behind that budget; the 12-family count serves a different purpose. LALRP, printed p. 97 and pp. 153–154; PDF p. 109 and pp. 165–166

Allowance periods and units

The budget provides NPR 6,576,000 for 137 standard transition cases: NPR 8,000 per month for six months, or NPR 48,000 per budgeted case. A separate NPR 2,304,000 vulnerable-support line corresponds to 12 cases at the same monthly rate for up to 24 months, or NPR 192,000 per budgeted case.

The vulnerable group comprises individuals or families, so retain the case unit. The entitlement discussion also links support to training duration and additional periods: six months is the budget assumption, rather than a universal entitlement ceiling. These rates describe the historical plan. LALRP Table 7.6, printed pp. 133–135; PDF pp. 145–147, and budget PDF p. 166

Baseline coverage and context

The socioeconomic survey covered 129 of the 154 affected families, approximately 83.8%. The plan records 11 families reported to have moved away, two without an available representative, and 12 not covered while negotiations continued. Classify the resulting 25 missing interviews by their recorded reason and assess selective coverage before estimating population outcomes. LALRP, printed pp. 6–7 and 33; PDF pp. 18–19 and 45

The affected-person register supports identification and case follow-up; the household survey supports estimates within its documented coverage. The sampling discussion and synthetic quantitative lab develop the consequences for weights, uncertainty and attrition.

The 2015 earthquake also changed residence, land availability, and livelihoods. A later baseline may describe conditions already affected by several processes. To assess restoration, document the reference condition, earthquake-related disruption, project-related losses, household splits and moves, and the assistance actually delivered. Interpret expenditure change alongside prices, household composition, access, and a justified comparison design.

Spatial context

The plan reports concerns that replacement land uphill could be less productive than the acquired valley land, alongside earthquake damage and limited available land. Equal area is therefore an incomplete restoration measure. Record productive potential, water, routes, tenure, season, inputs, labor, and feasible alternative livelihoods alongside land area and price. Use these historical reported concerns to define field verification and follow-up measures. LALRP, printed p. 93; PDF p. 105

The spatial baseline workflow links those mechanisms to verified resource-use records and access models. The Nepal district guide and dataset curation discussion supply broader statistical context, with separate units for district aggregates and affected-household observations.

Monitoring and delivery

The later ADB-hosted independent-panel report concerns a May 2024 visit, has an internal September 2024 version date, and carries an April 2026 disclosure cover. Keep all three dates. The visit date identifies the field observations; the cover identifies the disclosure edition. Monitoring report, PDF pp. 1, 3, and 8

Its livelihood section describes allowance delivery and training, with three households not located for allowance distribution. A matched audited expenditure and unique-recipient ledger remains necessary for actual compensation estimates. Its larger employment/contract beneficiary count also requires reconciliation with the 154-family cohort before use as a cost denominator. Monitoring report, printed pp. 38–39; PDF pp. 40–41

Data requirements

A reusable cost dataset needs linked records for source editions, affected families and their changes over time, assets and uses, entitlements, budget lines, commitments, payments, and outcomes. Keep unique-recipient counts distinct from training places and membership records. Reconcile reversals, installments, duplicate cases, and collective payments before calculating totals or distributions.

Use payment and follow-up evidence to assess whether eligible people were reached, assistance arrived when needed, and livelihoods and access were restored. Keep confidential identifiers in controlled records and publish reviewed aggregate findings.

Sources

The source links lead to the IFC project record, the company's disclosed final plan and the ADB-hosted monitoring report. The accompanying research workbook and audit package document the calculations and source reconciliation. Access to these controlled materials is managed separately from the public discussion and aggregate findings.

The archive table provides access to reviewed source editions according to reader permissions. Retain edition dates when comparing an archived copy with a later public document.