DFID’s peace and security programme in Nepal

Nepal’s decade-long civil war ended in 2006. This review assesses five DFID peace and security projects costing £53 million, intended to support Nepal’s transition to peace.

Score: Green/Amber
  1. Status: Completed
  2. Published: 21 February 2013
  3. Type: Other
  4. Subject: Country focus, Peace, security and justice
  5. Assessment: Green/Amber
  6. Location: Nepal
  7. Lead commissioner: Diana Good

Read the inception report

Read the terms of reference

Our approach

While we recognise that the Department for International Development’s (DFID) other programmes on health, wealth-building, education and gender-based violence are intended to tackle the drivers of conflict as well, this review focussed on specific peace and security projects within DFID Nepal’s governance and security pillar. It follows up on and was informed by the International Development Select Committee 2010 report on DFID Nepal’s programme, which recommended that DFID ‘needs to approach [the security and justice sector] with the same degree of urgency as ensuring people’s demands for health and education are met’.

All reviewed projects had been active or approved for some time, allowing us to assess their impact and their management. To do this, we carried out a background literature review, received briefings from DFID Nepal staff and conducted field visits to nine districts (in east and west Terai).

We placed DFID’s intended beneficiaries at the centre of this review, meeting over 200 of them. These included village mediators in DFID-funded projects; women’s groups; police officers; communities served by rebuilt police stations; and Maoist former child combatants inside and outside cantonments (barracks). We also interviewed donors, national, provincial and district officials, members of the judiciary, civil society representatives, the media and project delivery partners.

Review questions

  1. Objectives: What is the programme trying to achieve?
  2. Delivery: Is the delivery chain managed so as to be fit for purpose?
  3. Impact: What is the impact on intended beneficiaries?
  4. Learning: What works and what needs improvement?


Review publication

Published 21 February 2013

Government response

Published 28 February 2013

ICAI follow-up

Published 12 June 2014