assessment of development results: uzbekistan · a nd evir om tf su b lp , undp ef or tsw nby d ic...

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevanceMANAGING FOsustainabilityMANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneAN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWNNATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevanceMANAGING FOsustainabilityMANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneHUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

United Nations Development ProgrammeEvaluation OfficeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USATel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo

Sales #: E.09.III.B.12ISBN: 978-92-1-126245-2

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N UZBEKISTAN

ASSESSMEN

TOF

DEVELOPM

ENTRESU

LTSUZB

EKISTAN

Evaluation Office, May 2009United Nations Development Programme

UZBEKISTANASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N

Copyright © UNDP 2009, all rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations MemberStates. This is an independent publication by UNDP and reflects the views of its authors.

Cover images: {l. to r.) Ifoda Abdurazakova, Fotolia,Umida Axmedova,Manabu ShimoyashiroReport editing and design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com)Production: A.K.Office Supplies (NY)

Team Leader Pekka Alhojärvi

Team Members Ana AndrosikObid Hakimov

EO Task Manager Michael Reynolds

EO Research Assistant Nidhi Sharma

EVALUATION TEAM

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION – UZBEKISTAN

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

AfghanistanArgentinaBangladeshBarbadosBeninBhutanBosnia & HerzegovinaBotswanaBulgariaChinaColombiaRepublic of the CongoEgyptEthiopiaGuatemalaHondurasIndia

JamaicaJordanLao PDRMontenegroMozambiqueNicaraguaNigeriaRwandaSerbiaSudanSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanUkraineUzbekistanTurkeyViet NamYemen

F O R E W O R D i

This is an independent evaluation conductedby the Evaluation Office of the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) in Uzbekistan.This evaluation, titled ‘Assessment ofDevelopment Results: Evaluation of UNDPContribution – Uzbekistan’, assesses the relevanceand strategic positioning of UNDP support andcontribution to Uzbekistan’s development between2000 and mid-2008. It examines UNDPinterventions under the various thematic areas ofthe ongoing and previous country programmes,with the aim of providing forward-lookingrecommendations meant to assist the UNDPcountry office and its partners in the formulationand implementation of the next programme cycle.

The Assessment of Development Results (ADR)notes that UNDP has made an important contri-bution to Uzbekistan’s development during theperiod under review.This contribution took placeduring a time of rapid change, including theimplementation of key reforms, fast economicgrowth and changes in the country’s relationshipwith the international community. Though suchcircumstances have made the engagement morecomplex, they have also offered opportunities forUNDP. UNDP has remained committed tosupporting Uzbekistan and has a sound programme,much appreciated by the partner government.

The ADR concluded that UNDP has beenrelevant to Uzbekistan’s priority developmentneeds, as have been defined by the President andthe Government of Uzbekistan, and to the needsarticulated at the local and regional levels.UNDP responsiveness has led to a wide-rangingprogramme. However, in order to increase theeffectiveness, efficiency and sustainability offuture interventions, it is important for UNDP tofocus on fewer issues (and on those in which ithas comparative strengths), and to take a morecomprehensive and long-term approach.

A number of people contributed to the evalua-tion, and I would like to thank the evaluationteam composed of Pekka Alhojärvi, the evalua-tion team leader, Ana Androsik and ObidHakimov. From the side of the EvaluationOffice, I would like to thank Michael Reynolds,the evaluation task manager, and Kutisha Ebron,Thuy Hang To and Anish Pradhan for theiradministrative support.

The evaluation was also completed thanks to thecollaboration and openness of the staff of theUNDP office in Uzbekistan. I would like togive special thanks to the UNDP ResidentRepresentative ad interim Ercan Murat whosupported the evaluation office and the evalua-tion team during the preparation and mission toUzbekistan, and Anita Nirody, his successor, whoprovided support during the finalization of thereport and the successful stakeholder meeting.Special thanks goes to Kyoko Postill andAntonina Sevastyanova who provided supportthroughout the process and without whosehelp the evaluation may not have taken place.I would also like to thank the UNDP RegionalBureau for Europe and the Commonwealth ofIndependent States, especially Christine Roth,Sanjar Tursaliev and Yulia Oleinik. This reportwas edited by Jeffrey Stern.

This report would not have been possiblewithout the commitment and support ofnumerous partners of UNDP in Uzbekistan.Special thanks goes to the government, civilsociety and community representatives, not onlyin Tashkent but also those whom the evaluationmission visited in the Fergana, Karakalpakstan,Kashkadarya and Namangan provinces. Theteam is also indebted to those representativesfrom national civil society organizations, donorcountries and the United Nations country team,including those from international financialinstitutions, who generously gave their time andfrank views.

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

I hope that the findings and recommendations ofthis report will assist UNDP in responding toUzbekistan’s challenges and provide broaderlessons that may be of relevance to UNDP and itspartners internationally.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Executive Summary vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose and scope 11.2 Methodology of the ADR 11.3 The evaluation process 31.4 Structure of the report 4

2. Subregional development context

2.1 Institutional setting 52.2 Economic development 62.3 Human development and the Millennium Development Goals 82.4 International cooperation 9

3. UN and UNDP in Uzbekistan 13

3.1 The UN in Uzbekistan 133.2 The UNDP programmes 143.3 Financing the programme 153.4 Programme management and implementation 16

4. UNDP contribution to national development results 19

4.1 Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty 194.2 Fostering democratic governance 254.3 Energy and environment for sustainable development 304.4 Responding to HIV/AIDS 35

5. Cross-cutting themes and operational issues 39

5.1 Gender 395.2 Capacity development 415.3 Programme management issues 425.4 UN system and donor coordination 43

6. Conclusions and recommendations 45

6.1 Main conclusions 456.2 Recommendations 47

Annexes

Annex 1. Terms of Reference 49Annex 2. List of individuals consulted 57Annex 3. List of documents reviewed 6

CONTENTS

C O N T E N T Si v

Boxes, figures and tables

Box 2.1 Key characteristics of the Welfare Improvement Strategy 6

Box 2.2 WIS proposals for improving work with international organizations 11

Box 4.1 Valuable assets and advantages of the Center for Economic Research 21

Box 4.2 Electronically submitting tax reports and financial statements 28

Box 4.3 Legislative framework for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Uzbekistan 38

Box 5.1 UNDP success stories: projects aimed at the promotion of the rights ofwomen migrant workers (Phase II) 40

Box 5.2 Three levels of capacity development 41

Figure 1. Total programme expenditures by UNDP corporate goal 15

Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions 2

Table 2. Main economic indicators of Uzbekistan 6

Table 3. Progress towards achievement of the MDGs in Uzbekistan 7

Table 4. Poverty rates by province 8

Table 5. Human development of Uzbekistan 9

Table 6. Total net ODA disbursements as a percent of total 2000–2006 (constant 2006 prices) 10

Table 7. Total net ODA disbursements by year (2000–2006, US$ million, constant 2006 prices) 10

Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (2000–2008) 16

Table 9. Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty: expected results 19

Table 10. Capacity for monitoring and reporting MDG progress 20

Table 11. Fostering democratic governance: expected results 25

Table 12. Energy and environment for sustainable development: expected results 30

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S v

ABD Area Based DevelopmentADB Asian Development BankADR Assessment of Development ResultsBOMCA/CADAP Border Management Programme for Central Asia/Drug Action Programme

in Central AsiaCCA Common Country AssessmentCCI Chamber of Commerce and IndustryCCM Country Coordination MechanismCDM Clean Development MechanismCER Center for Economic ResearchCPD Country Programme DocumentDAC Development Assistance CommitteeELS Enhancement of Living StandardsEO Evaluation OfficeEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGEF Global Environment FacilityHIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndromeIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentICT Information communication technologyICTP Information Communication Technology Policy projectLSS Living Standard StrategyMDG Millennium Development GoalsNSP National Strategic PlanOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentUNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNICEF United Nations Children's FundUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNODC United Nations Office of Drugs and CrimeWHO World Health OrganizationWIS Welfare Improvement Strategy

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

Uzbekistan is a double landlocked, low-incomecountry in Central Asia, rich in copper, gold,oil, natural gas and uranium. The 2008 HumanDevelopment Report characterized the nation as amedium human development country. Since itsindependence in 1991, Uzbekistan has beenimplementing reform policies to move it awayfrom structures inherited from the former SovietUnion. Dismantling the systems, structures andways of thinking accumulated during 70 yearshas been an enormous challenge.

The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) has had a representative office inUzbekistan since 1993, aiming to supportUzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strong,market-based economy and a flourishingdemocracy. This Assessment of DevelopmentResults (ADR) examined UNDP contribution toUzbekistan’s national development results overthe last eight years. The primary reason forselecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was theforthcoming completion of the 2005–2009 UNDPCountry Programme. This presents an opportu-nity to evaluate the achievements and results ofthe past programme cycle, and to feed findingsand conclusions into the process of developingand implementing the new programme.

The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR asdefined by the Terms of Reference are to:

� Provide an independent assessment of theprogress (or lack thereof ) towards the expectedoutcomes envisaged in UNDP programmingdocuments, and where appropriate, highlightmissed opportunities and unexpectedpositive and negative outcomes;

� Provide an analysis of how UNDP haspositioned itself to add value in response tonational needs and changes in the nationaldevelopment context; and

� Present key findings, draw key lessons andprovide a set of clear and forward-lookingoptions for UNDP management to makeadjustments to the current strategy and thenext UNDP Country Programme.

The ADR reviewed UNDP experience inUzbekistan over the 2000–2004 and 2005–2009country programmes. The evaluation undertooka comprehensive review of the programmeportfolio and activities, including UNDPprogrammes funded by both core resources andthird-parties. The evaluation examined both themain UNDP sub-programmes and cross-cuttingareas, with special attention paid to the role ofUNDP in promoting gender mainstreamingand capacity development in the country. Inaddition, the ADR examined the role of UNDPin supporting UN system coordination inUzbekistan. While the ADR is neither an auditnor a review of administrative procedures, itconsiders the impact of operational constraintsaffecting the programme.

The evaluation was carried out by an independentthree-person evaluation team and managed bythe UNDP Evaluation Office in New York.Key data collection methods included deskreviews and in-country interviews with a broadrange of stakeholders.

UNDP IN UZBEKISTAN

Over the past eight years, UNDP has focused itswork within four main themes in line with itsmandate and corporate strategic planning tools.The following represents some of the keyfindings in each of these areas:

� Poverty reduction: At the national level,UNDP provided important support to thedevelopment of the Welfare ImprovementStrategy (2008–2010), as well as related

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

policy support in response to governmentneeds (including the use of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals). At the local level,UNDP has played an important role in directinterventions aimed at improving the livingstandards among vulnerable parts of thepopulation in several regions.

� Democratic governance: UNDP hassupported public administration reformlargely through capacity development andsupporting the effective use of informationand communication technologies (ICT). Ithas also worked directly with the Parliament,providing consultative services and support-ing capacity development and the use ofICT. Support has also been provided topromote human rights and gender equality.

� Energy and the environment: UNDP hasprovided important support to nationalauthorities in policy and strategy develop-ment, especially in relation to the issue of theAral Sea, and has been active in promotingenergy efficiency. It has also supportednational efforts related to combating deserti-fication and land degradation, as well assupporting conservation and the sustainableuse of biodiversity.

� HIV/AIDS: UNDP worked in closepartnership with other members of the UNcountry team and other developmentpartners in order to support the nationalstruggle against HIV/AIDS. Special effortswere made at a regional level and in facilitat-ing the effective national use of resourcesfrom the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS,Tuberculosis and Malaria.

UNDP has also played the lead role in facilitat-ing greater coordination of the UN systemin Uzbekistan.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Overall, UNDP has made an important contri-bution to Uzbekistan’s development during theperiod under review.This contribution tookplace during a time of rapid change, including

the implementation of key reforms, fasteconomic growth and a change in the country’srelationship with the international community.

Though such circumstances have made theengagement more complex, they have alsooffered opportunities for UNDP. UNDP hasremained committed to supporting Uzbekistanand has a sound programme, much appreciatedby the partner government. Measuring UNDPcontribution towards stated programme outcomesis difficult in view of limited available data andchanges in the direction of the programme overtime. Although a comprehensive examination ofthe total portfolio of projects was not conducted,the effectiveness of achieving project results canbe assessed as satisfactory. UNDP interventions tosupport achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) and reducing human poverty madeimportant contributions to the stated outcomes.In support to fostering democratic governance, thecontribution towards the stated goals was morelimited, partly due to a change in the direction ofthis group of activities during the ongoingprogramme; nonetheless, important contributionsto national results were made. In the area of energyand environment for sustainable development,UNDP efforts went beyond its contribution tothe relevant outcome stated in the 2005–2009country programme document.

2. UNDP has been relevant to Uzbekistan’spriority development needs, as these have beendefined by the President and the Government ofUzbekistan, and to the needs articulated at localand regional levels.

UNDP has been working with a partner govern-ment that has a strong willingness to takenational ownership of development processes.Strong responsiveness to, and close cooperationwith, governmental authorities has proven to bean efficient method of jointly developingeffective programmes and projects. This approachhas also guaranteed strong government commit-ment. If commitment and sustainability are to beachieved, it is crucial to undertake a participatoryapproach from the very beginning of the process.This is relevant at all activity levels, from centralgovernment and the Parliament to local projects

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

and other activities. Problems that are identifiedand prioritized by local people and theirgroups—and solved based on joint prepara-tions—have led to sustainable results. Socialinfrastructure projects in the UNDP portfoliothat address water, gas and heating problemsoffer good examples of this type of activity.Where UNDP interventions support local-levelprivate-sector development, care needs to betaken in order to ensure that its efforts supportthe market for credit, not distort it through theprovision of grants.

In some cases, UNDP may have missed opportu-nities for engagement—for example, in areaswhere the comparative UNDP strength ofneutrality and long-term commitment toUzbekistan’s development could have played animportant role. In the case of Uzbekistan’sWelfare Improvement Strategy, UNDP did notcapitalize on some of its expertise (e.g., environ-ment and energy issues) and did not conduct anadequate analysis of implementation risks, theimportance of which was underscored by recentchanges in the global financial climate.

3. UNDP responsiveness has led to a wide-ranging programme. In order to increase theeffectiveness, efficiency and sustainability ofinterventions, it is important for UNDP to focuson fewer issues (and on those in which it hascomparative strengths) and to take a morecomprehensive and long-term approach.

Although UNDP has been responsive to govern-ment needs as these emerged—especially in thearea of providing technical support to policyformulation—in some cases, UNDP has been soresponsive that it lost sight of the need to focuson projects with long-term strategic linkages.UNDP could have been more critical in selectingproposals with strategic development importanceand prioritizing them using development strategies.In UNDP support for democratic governance,important and high-priority projects have beenimplemented in two country programme cycles,but proposals were not conducted strategically. Inother areas, including energy, national prioritieswere unclear and projects were typically scattered,offering limited strategic or policy-level linkages.

At the same time, the approaches, scope andselection of proposals were occasionally heavilyinfluenced by available funding mechanisms andinstruments, and driven by resource mobilizationconcerns. A more strategic response, whereinterventions are anchored to clear nationalpriorities, could be facilitated through betteruse of annual Country Programme ActionPlan reviews.

Follow-up to development projects is increas-ingly needed in order to ensure effectiveness andmaximize UNDP contributions. Consideringdevelopment activities as longer-term processesinstead of projects with strict cycles would beuseful in some cases, particularly in complexprocesses such as legislative development.

The overall UNDP approach of combiningpolicy support in the capital with direct interven-tions at the local level has been balanced,especially in the context of the declining engage-ment of international development partners since2004. The comparative strengths of UNDP lie inits work in rural areas and in its access to centralgovernment.Maintaining the appropriate balancebetween the two, and ensuring strong linkagesbetween lessons learned at the local level andcentral policy making, will remain a majorchallenge in the next programme. The change inthe aid environment—following re-engagementof many international organizations and growinginterest in addressing rural issues—may meanthat UNDP will need to play a more focused andstrategic role at the local level, such as by facili-tating local government aid coordination tocomplement its support to aid coordination atthe central level.

4. UNDP has engaged in some good develop-ment partnerships, and now needs to build onthem,ensuring that it adds value to relationships(e.g., though the promotion of human develop-ment and/or ensuring the involvement of themost vulnerable and marginalized portionsof society).

UNDP strategic partnerships vary betweensectors, projects and government levels. Thestrongest partnerships are with governmentalauthorities that jointly prepare and implement all

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

relevant projects and activities. These partner-ships are based on mutual respect, but require ahigher degree of UNDP accountability andgreater transparency of intervention selection andresource allocation.

UNDP has also established a variety of qualitypartnerships with international developmentpartners. For example, UNDP has managedprojects for The World Bank, such as the Waterand Sanitation project funded by an IBRD loan.UNDP has also worked in partnerships where itsadded value went beyond management: inworking with the European Commission,primarily on ELS projects and the regionalBOMCA/CADAP initiatives, UNDP addedvalue through its expertise in working with localcommunities and drawing on global bestpractices. These experiences have satisfied thepartners, and while cooperation is likely tocontinue, it will be within a very differentenvironment as re-engagement of many suchpartners intensifies.

The UNDP role in such partnerships is likely tochange from overall programme management toimplementation of either select programmeelements or areas where UNDP has a strongpresence. Closer collaboration with donors andinternational financial institutions should focuson incorporating human development approachesand priorities within investment programmes.Such linkages are required, particularly in thefields of environment, energy, water resourcesand agricultural sector development. In suchpartnerships, the role of UNDP would increas-ingly tend towards the inclusion of the mostvulnerable and marginalized stakeholders. At thesame time, the increased involvement of theEuropean Union, its member countries and otherbilateral agencies will mean that they may alsoneed to utilize UNDP experience in their futureinterventions, especially at the local level.

5.While capacity development has been at thecentre of many UNDP interventions, limited usehas been made of the tools and approaches thatUNDP has developed at the corporate level.

Inadequate use of capacity assessments has led toreduced effectiveness and efficiency of interven-

tions, and limited sustainability of results. At thesame time, project design has sometimes led toinefficient approaches to capacity development.For example, instead of UNDP and its partnerstraining all participants, appropriate institutes atlocal, regional and national levels could have beenstrengthened in order to initially focus onproducing local specialists to take oversubsequent capacity development activities.Where UNDP has used this approach inUzbekistan, it has been successful—the approachneeds to be replicated across all activities.

6. There is a need for UNDP to increase itslearning from experience and to facilitategreater opportunities for national learningfrom its interventions.

All UNDP interventions should provide lessonsthat can support not only its own activities, butalso those of its partners. Specifically, greatereffort needs to be made to link lessons learned tonational policy development. Likewise, UNDPneeds to build on its successes in scaling-up, as inthe ELS/ABD interventions, and to ensure an evengreater scope of regional and national replication.

Evaluation and monitoring practices should alsobe strengthened, and a culture of focusing onresults should be established. Learning fromprevious experience will not only improveintervention efficiency, but also improveeffectiveness. In this respect, the internationaldissemination of experiences, lessons learned andbest practices should be strengthened. There arecentral Asian countries that could benefit fromUzbekistan’s experience, while those of others inthe broader region could offer Uzbekistan lessonsin return.With its global network, UNDP is in aposition to facilitate this information exchange.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In agreement with government, focus theprogramme on a smaller number of strategicinterventions where UNDP has clear comparativestrengths, is able to offer a long-term commit-ment and, through relevant partnerships, isable to address the underlying issue in acomprehensive manner.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i

Make efforts to ensure UNDP activities are inline with those set out in its strategic plan and arein areas where it has comparative strengths inUzbekistan, while remaining responsive tonational priorities. Where there is nationaldemand for inter-ventions outside these areas,UNDP should facilitate the development ofpartnerships between national and appropriateinternational organizations with relevantexpertise— for example, through joint program-ming. UNDP should also continue to build on itscomparative strength of neutrality and long-termcommitment to Uzbekistan’s development. As aninitial step, UNDP should work closely with thegovernment to ensure that both comprehensiveenvironmental concerns and risk analysis areadequately integrated into national developmentplanning instruments.

2. Build on existing partnerships with interna-tional development partners, but ensure thatUNDP adds value beyond purely managementarrangements.

Incorporate human development approaches inthe interventions of international partners,building on the UNDP focus and comparativestrengths in promoting human developmentin Uzbekistan, especially at the local level.Implement joint programmes and other formsof collaboration with international partners—particularly with international financial institu-tions—where UNDP can play a role in ensuringthat the most vulnerable and marginalizedgroups benefit from interventions.

3. Build on existing experience and relationshipswith local government and communities.

Use existing UNDP experience, strengths andproximity to local government (in the areaswhere UNDP works) as a base to comprehen-sively strengthen and expand the existingframeworks used to address rural issues.However, in the context of a changing aidenvironment and the re-engagement of manydonors, UNDP should be more strategic in localinterventions and in support of local government.

4. Expand the UNDP role in supporting govern-ment efforts at aid coordination.

As a committed and neutral partner, UNDP is ina good position to support government aidcoordination activities and to ensure moreeffective use of external assistance. UNDP shouldplay the leading role in supporting governmentcoordination of aid at the local level, linking itssupport to better aid coordination in the centre.This includes donor coordination, facilitatingpartnerships and disseminating informationabout donor agencies and funding opportunities.

5. Strengthen UNDP support to capacitydevelopment in Uzbekistan through a morerigorous and systematic application of corporatecapacity development tools and approaches.

Use needs and institutional assessments in allproject preparations while ensuring thatcorporate tools are adapted to the specific contextof Uzbekistan. In order to facilitate greatersustainability of results, anchor UNDP capacitydevelopment interventions in existing institutions.

6. Ensure that mechanisms are in placeto facilitate linkages between all directinterventions and decision makers.

Ensure direct and explicit linkages with decisionmakers in all UNDP interventions. Lessonslearned should feed into policymaking, and,where necessary, mechanisms should be put inplace to facilitate such linkages. Moreover, suchlinkages will facilitate replication of successfulinterventions and scaling up across regions. Atthe same time, it is necessary to strengthenevaluation mechanisms in the country office inorder to facilitate the learning process.

7. Undertake annual Country Programme ActionPlan reviews to increase transparency and tofacilitate greater stakeholder accountability ofUNDP activities in Uzbekistan.

Ensure wider participation in annual reviews andgreater participation of relevant governmentbodies in programming processes in order toensure the transparency of decision-making andresource allocation.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

Uzbekistan is a double landlocked, low-income,country in Central Asia, rich in copper, gold, oil,natural gas and uranium. The 2008 HumanDevelopment Report characterized the nation as amedium human development country. Since itsindependence in 1991, Uzbekistan has beenimplementing reform policies to move it awayfrom structures inherited from the former SovietUnion. Dismantling the systems, structures andways of thinking accumulated during 70 yearshas been an enormous challenge.

The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) has had a representative office inUzbekistan since 1993, aiming to supportUzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strong,market-based economy and a flourishingdemocracy. This Assessment of DevelopmentResults (ADR) examined UNDP contribution toUzbekistan’s national development results overthe last eight years. The primary reason forselecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was theforthcoming completion of the 2005–2009UNDP Country Programme. This presents anopportunity to evaluate the achievements andresults of the past programme cycle, and to feedfindings and conclusions into the process ofdeveloping and implementing the new programme.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR asdefined by the Terms of Reference are to:

� Provide an independent assessment of theprogress (or lack thereof ) towards the expectedoutcomes envisaged in UNDP programmingdocuments, and where appropriate, highlightmissed opportunities and unexpectedpositive and negative outcomes;


� Present key findings, draw key lessons andprovide a set of clear and forward-lookingoptions for UNDP management to makeadjustments to the current strategy and thenext UNDP Country Programme.

The ADR reviewed UNDP experience inUzbekistan over the 2000–2004 and 2005–2009country programmes. The evaluation undertooka comprehensive review of the programmeportfolio and activities, including UNDPprogrammes funded by both core resources andthird-parties. The evaluation examined both themain UNDP sub-programmes and cross-cuttingareas, with special attention paid to the role ofUNDP in promoting gender mainstreamingand capacity development in the country. Inaddition, the ADR examined the role of UNDPin supporting UN system coordination inUzbekistan. While the ADR is neither an auditnor a review of administrative procedures, itconsiders the impact of operational constraintsaffecting the programme.

1.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE ADR

The Uzbekistan ADR focuses on outcomes,concentrating on changes in specific develop-ment conditions and on the contributions thatUNDP outputs have made to achieve theseoutcomes. The evaluation identified the mostimportant lessons learned and good practices thathave emerged in relation to the direct achieve-ment of development results and in relation toUNDP strategic positioning in Uzbekistan.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N2

UNDP-supported projects and interventionswere assessed as contributions to developmentresults rather than as separate undertakings.While the ADR examined some of the moststrategic outputs delivered by UNDP Uzbekistan,it is not a comprehensive review of all outputsand does not directly attribute specific develop-ment outcomes to the outputs. Rather, it aimsto establish credible links between what UNDPhas supported in the country and what hassubsequently occurred. This aspect of themethodology is further discussed in the introduc-tion to Chapter 4.

There are two main sources of information forthe ADR. First, a cross-section of stakeholderswere selected for consultation through informalstakeholder mapping. The cross-section includedUNDP country office staff, central and localgovernment officials, project managers, civil society,the private sector, international community and

direct beneficiaries of UNDP interventions.Second, the ADR reviewed documents, including:UNDP corporate and country programmingdocuments; government programmes andreports; country strategies and policy papers ofdonor agencies and international financialinstitutions; and papers by national and interna-tional research institutes and universities. Alldocumentation was made available to the teamthrough a Web site organized and maintained bythe Evaluation Office.

The Uzbekistan ADR is based on qualitativedata collection and analysis of primary sourcematerials, as well as document review ofsecondary sources and quantitative synthesis andanalysis of relevant secondary data (e.g.,budgetary and expenditure patterns, types andrange of partners and projects). It employed avariety of data collection methods, including:

1. TheTerms of Reference included an evaluation criterion related to equity, which was merged into the effectiveness criteria.

Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions1

Effectiveness Did the UNDP programme accomplish its intended objectives and planned results?What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programme?What are the unexpectedresults it yielded? Should it continue in the same direction or should its main tenets bereviewed for the new cycle?

Efficiency How well did UNDP use its resources (human and financial) in achieving its contribu-tion? What could be done to ensure a more efficient use of resources in the specificcountry/subregional context?

Sustainability Is the UNDP contribution sustainable? Are development results achieved through UNDPcontribution sustainable? Are the benefits of UNDP interventions sustained and owned bynational stakeholders after the intervention was completed?

Relevance How relevant are UNDP programmes to the country’s priority needs? Did UNDP applythe right strategy within the specific political, economic and social context of theregion? To what extent are long-term development needs likely to be met acrosspractice areas?

Responsiveness How did UNDP anticipate and respond to significant changes in the national develop-ment context? How did UNDP respond to national long-term development needs? Whatwere the missed opportunities in UNDP programming?

Partnerships How has UNDP leveraged partnerships within the UN system, national civil society andthe private sector?

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

1.3 THE EVALUATION PROCESS

The following steps were used to plan andperform the ADR:

� Team pre-planning meetings were held atUNDP headquarters in New York in June2008 in order to develop the overall strategyfor the ADR, collect and review backgroundmaterials and orient the team;

� A scoping mission to Uzbekistan took placeimmediately after the pre-planning meetings.This involved obtaining an overview of theprogramme, its structure and activities andits main stakeholders in order to assist inplanning for the main mission;

� The main data collection mission took placefrom the end of July to August 2008. At theend of the main mission, the ADR teampresented tentative results in a debriefingmeeting organized by UNDP Uzbekistan;

� A debriefing meeting was held by the TeamLeader in New York in September 2008,followed by a visit to the UNDP RegionalCentre in Bratislava to interview staff;

� The report was reviewed by internal andexternal personnel, including country-levelstakeholders; and

� A workshop was held in April 2009 and finalfindings and results were discussed among abroad range of stakeholders from Tashkentand selected regions.

Given the time constraints of the main mission,no more than two to three days were dedicated toproject site visits per district. The site visits weremeant to gather information in order to comple-ment other sources of information—they shouldnot be regarded as project evaluations. Thefollowing regions were visited:2

� Karakalpakstan;

� Fergana;

� Namangan; and

� Kashkadarya.

� Desk reviews and documentary analysis;

� Semi-structured interviews (primarily withgovernment, donor organizations and theprivate sector);

� Questionnaire-based structured interviewstargeted at UNDP personnel and selectstakeholder groups (primarily donors);

� Group interviews conducted at the locallevel (target groups included farmers andcommunity representatives); and

� Select site visits of regional and local level activi-ties in order to assess implementation issues.

Different sources of information and differentmethods of data collection allowed the evaluationteam to cross-check and complement informa-tion obtained.

The analysis of contribution to developmentresults and strategic positioning draws on a set ofevaluation criteria, each of which relates to anumber of evaluation questions. Data collectionis conducted to provide answers to evaluationquestions, which in turn provide the necessaryelements for the conclusions of the ADR.Table 1 is a compilation of evaluation criteria andquestions applied in each theme and cross-cutting issue of the country programmes.

The evaluation faced a number of limitations: therelatively short period between the scoping andmain missions meant that some data collectionmethods (e.g., comprehensive surveys) could notbe used. In addition, broad consultation wasoften difficult due to the underdeveloped civilsociety in Uzbekistan. However, the ADR teamwas able to access programme, project and relateddocumentation through the country office Website. It also made use of past project evaluationsof key UNDP interventions in Uzbekistan,although no outcome evaluations were availableat the time of the ADR mission.

2. Regions were selected based on levels of poverty, environmental concerns and degree of UNDP engagement.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N4

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report is divided into six chapters. Followingthis introduction, Chapter 2 describes thenational development context, including the roleof development cooperation and the overalldevelopment challenges faced by the country.Chapter 3 describes the UN and UNDP presence

in Uzbekistan. Chapter 4 presents findingsrelated to the UNDP contribution to nationaldevelopment results over the basic componentsof its country programmes. Chapter 5 consistsof findings related to cross-cutting themes.Finally, Chapter 6 sets out conclusions andrecommendations.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T 5

Uzbekistan is a double landlocked country,covering 447,000 square kilometres and sharingborders with five Asian countries: Afghanistan,Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan andTurkmenistan. The landscape of Uzbekistan ismostly flat-to-rolling sandy deserts with arablelands covering only one-tenth of its total area.Close to 5 percent of the country is covered bywater. The main water supply of Uzbekistancomes through two major rivers: the Amu Darya(with headwaters in Afghanistan and Tajikistan)and the Syr Darya (with headwaters in Tajikistanand Kyrgyzstan).The resources of these rivers aredivided among neighbouring countries.

Among Central Asian countries, Uzbekistan’spopulation is the largest—as of 2007, it wasalmost 27 million. About 76 percent of thepopulation is ethnically Uzbek, and the majorityof the population (88 percent) are Muslim(mainly Sunni). Almost 36 percent of thepopulation lives in urban areas, a slight declinefrom 2001. In 2007, almost 60 percent of thepopulation was under 30 years old, and just under40 percent was less than 19 years old. There aresignificant differences between rural and urbanareas—for example, the population of rural areashas a higher percentage of young people.

2.1 INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Uzbekistandeclared the republic independent. Thesubsequent adoption of the Constitution of theRepublic of Uzbekistan on 8 December 1992created the institutional and legislative basis for asovereign Uzbekistan. After 2003,3 the bicameralOliy Majlis4 became the highest legislative body

in the country. It is composed of 220 deputieselected for five-year terms through multi-partyelections in local districts. The Office of thePresident is at the centre of the public adminis-tration and the political system, as the Presidentis both the Head of State and the Chairman ofthe Cabinet of Ministers (the highest executivebody). Under the Cabinet of Ministers arefourteen ministries, nine state committees, sixagencies and other bodies.

Administratively, Uzbekistan consists of theRepublic of Karakalpakstan (an autonomousterritory), twelve regions, 120 cities and 164districts. The Councils of People’s Deputies—local councils—are the representative authoritiesat the city, district and regional levels. At alllevels, local councils are headed by a chairman, orhokim. In addition, city, district and regionalhokims act as the head of the local executivebranch, or hokimiyat. Local government inUzbekistan is supplemented by self-governingcommunity organizations. Citizens over the ageof eighteen exercise their constitutional right toself-governance through citizen assemblies.These assemblies, the highest body ofcommunity self-government, represent theinterests of its inhabitants and make decisions onthe respective territory’s behalf.

Following independence, no overall medium- orlong-term national development planning instru-ments were put in place. A major changeoccurred in 2007, when the Cabinet of Ministersapproved the Welfare Improvement Strategy(WIS) of Uzbekistan as “a medium-term(2008–2010) national development document ofthe Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan

Chapter 2

COUNTRY CONTEXT

3. Law of Republic of Uzbekistan, “On additional amendments to Constitution of Uzbekistan”, 24.04.2003, N470-II.4. Supreme Council.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T6

for determining the main areas and measures foraccelerating economic growth and enhancing theliving standards of the population.”5 The keyfeatures of the strategy are listed in Box 2.1.6

2.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

During the Soviet period, Uzbekistan waspredominantly an agrarian society, with cottonbeing the main agricultural product. After 1991,Uzbekistan started transitioning from a plan-basedeconomy to a market-based system. During thetransition period, priority was given to privatization,

modernization of production processes, industri-alization, development of the private sector andinstitutional development. During the lastdecade, the economic performance of Uzbekistanwas remarkable. From 2000 to 2003, the averagegrowth rate of the gross domestic product (GDP)was 3 to 4 percent. Since 2004, the growth rateswere higher than 7 percent, and in 2007, morethan 9 percent. Given the stability of populationgrowth over this period, GDP per capita alsoincreased significantly. Table 2 illustrates thisrapid growth as well as trends in consumer priceinflation over the period.

Box 2.1 Key characteristics of the Welfare Improvement Strategy

Comprehensive approach to development.Achieving the goals and objectives set forth in theWIS calls fordeveloping and implementing a range of economic policies covering all priority areas of development and allcritical aspects of the reform process.This will increase the effectiveness of the measures the governmentundertakes to foster economic growth and improve the livelihoods of the population.

� Transition from short-term projections to medium-term and long-term strategies. TheWIS sets boththe medium- and long-term priorities for development and the transformation of various aspects of socio-economic and public life through 2015.Thus, the completion of theWIS concludes the first stage of transi-tion from primarily short-term and sectoral approaches to medium- and long-term development strategies.

� Forming the conceptual framework for regional development strategies. TheWIS will not only becomea strategic document for promoting economic growth and improving livelihoods of the population, butalso it will become an aspect of the vision of the country’s development path for the foreseeable future.This lays the foundation for implementing methods and approaches of strategic governance at the regionallevel in close coordination with the national development strategy. Policies and new initiatives reflected intheWIS could be pilot-tested as regional-level experiments prior to clarification and national dissemination.

� Greater opportunities for resource mobilization.Key to the success of national, sectoral and regionaldevelopment projects and programmes is the active involvement of stakeholders, including those fromcivil society, the private sector, international organizations and other development partners.The Strategyitself and the process by which it is designed, implemented and monitored can serve as the basis forexpanding constructive collaboration between the government and all stakeholders.

Source:Government of Uzbekistan,‘Welfare Improvement Strategy’, 2007.

Table 2. Main economic indicators of Uzbekistan

Indicators 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008*

Real GDP growth (annual change, percent) 4.2 7.7 7.0 7.3 9.5 9.0

Consumer price Inflation (year average, percent) 11.6 6.6 10.0 14.2 12.3 11.3

* Projected. Sources: International Monetary Fund,‘Regional Economic Outlook:Middle East and Central Asia’,May 2008.; staff estimates.

5. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Welfare Improvement Strategy’, 2007.6. The development of the WIS and the UNDP role are discussed in Chapter 4.


Table 3. Progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in Uzbekistan

Goals: Targets7 Will the goal/target be met? State of supportive environment

Probably Potentially Unlikely Nodata

Strong Fair Weak butimproving

Weak

LIVING STANDARDS ANDMALNUTRITION: Reducepoverty by half by 2015.

X X

QUALITY EDUCATION:Improve the quality ofprimary and basic secondaryeducation, while maintain-ing universal access.

X X

GENDER EQUALITY:Achieve gender equalityin primary and generalsecondary and vocationaleducation by 2005.

ACHIEVED X

GENDER EQUALITY:Improve gender balance inhigher education by 2015.

X

CHILD MORTALITY: Reduceby two-thirds the under-five mortality rate by 2015.

X X

MATERNAL HEALTH: Reducematernal mortality ratio byone-third by 2015.

X X

HIV/AIDS: Have halted by2015 and begun to reversethe spread of HIV/AIDS.

X X

TUBERCULOSIS andMALARIA: Have halted by2015 and begun to reversethe incidence of tuberculo-sis and malaria.

X X

ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY:Integrate the Principles ofSustainable Developmentinto County Policies andPrograms and Reverse theLoss of EnvironmentalResources by 2015.

X X

ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY:Increase the Percentage ofUrban and Rural Populationwith Access to an ImprovedWater Source andSanitation by 2015.

X X

Source:United Nations Country Team,‘Millennium Development Goal Report 2006’, 2006.

7. The Millennium Development Goals used in Uzbekistan have been adapted from the global goals to suit the specificcontext of Uzbekistan.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T8

During the Soviet period, the agricultural sectormade up more than 40 percent of GDP. Sinceindependence, this percentage has decreased: atthe end of 2007, the agricultural sector made uponly 20 percent of GDP. This decline is in thecontext of Uzbekistan’s continuing significantagricultural reforms, including the importantstep of transferring government farms to theprivate sector. From 2000 to 2006, the percentageof the industrial sector in GDP increased from14.2 percent to 22.1 percent. The majority ofindustrial sector production belongs to largeenterprises. The combination of a growingrural population (almost 64 percent of the total)and a declining agricultural sector has lead to anincrease in inequality between rural and urbanareas, and has created challenges in addressinglow living standards.

2.3 HUMAN DEVELOPMENTAND THE MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT GOALS

According to the 2006 Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDG) report prepared by the UNcountry team in Uzbekistan, progress is beingmade towards all goals with only the HIV/AIDStargets unlikely to be met by 2015. Table 3illustrates the likelihood of achieving targets andthe state of the supportive environment of each.

As the economy gradually revived, the povertyrate fell from 44.5 percent, identified in 1994through a one-time sample survey, to 27.5percent in 2001, according to the findings ofhousehold budget surveys conducted using TheWorld Bank methodology.8 According to the2007 WIS, from 2001 to 2005, the averagepoverty rate in Uzbekistan decreased by 1.7percent,9 while the poverty rate of the urbanpopulation decreased by 4.2 percent.10 Duringthe same period, the rural poverty rate did notundergo significant changes, decreasing just 0.5percent.11 Table 4 indicates the degree of povertyin Uzbekistan by province.

From 2000 to the end of 2005, the lifeexpectancy at birth increased from 70.8 years to71.8 years. Adult literacy rate is above 99 percent.Furthermore, indicators of the human develop-ment index increased from 0.736 to 0.75912 overthe same period and the gender-rated develop-ment index and the women’s empowermentindex of Uzbekistan also increased significantly.The full trends are illustrated in Table 5.

Since 2000, the number of new HIV/AIDS caseshas been increasing. In 2005, there were 2,198newly registered HIV/AIDS cases. In addition,from 1991 to 2002, the number of tuberculosis

8. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Welfare Improvement Strategy’, 2007.9. Decreasing from 27.5 to 25.8 percent.10. Decreasing from 22.5 to 18.3 percent.11. Decreasing from 30.5 to 30 percent.12. UNDP, ‘Human Development Report. Uzbekistan 2007–2008. Education in Uzbekistan: Matching Supply andDemand’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008, Statistical Table 1. Data may differ from that reported in the global UNDP HumanDevelopment Report.

Table 4. Poverty rates by province

Province Poverty rate (percent)

Karakalpakstan, Kashkadarya, Khorezm, Namangan, Sirdarya and Surkhandarya 30–45

Andijon, Bukhara, Fergana, Jizzakh, Novoi, Samarqand 15–30

Tashkent 7



incidents increased from 46,000 to nearly 80,000.However, since 2002, the trend of tuberculosisincidences has started to decline, though itsincidence is increasing in regions with ecologicalproblems (e.g., Karakalpakstan).

Like many ex-Soviet countries, Uzbekistaninherited a terrible environmental legacy andenvironmental issues remain a major concern forsustainable human development in Uzbekistan.The Environmental Profile of Uzbekistan13

presents a comprehensive analysis of the environ-ment and some prospects for future development.The main environmental concerns are:

� Irrational use and pollution of water resources;

� Imperfect waste management practices;

� Air pollution;

� Biodiversity conservation;

� Climate change; and

� Desertification and land degradation.

The report also emphasizes the need to furtherdevelop and improve the environmental indica-

tors database in order to enable more efficientlymonitor and solve these and other challenges.The report also explores energy problems and theincreasing need to supplement and replace non-renewable energy sources with renewable sources,including solar power, wind energy, mini-hydropower plants and biogas.

2.4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International development cooperation startedsoon after independence. Uzbekistan was quickto join international financial institutions: in1992, it became a member of the European Bankfor Reconstruction and Development, theInternational Monetary Fund and The WorldBank,14 and in 1995, Uzbekistan became amember of the Asian Development Bank. TheEuropean Union has also been an importantpartner, and among bilateral donors, the UnitedStates and Japan have been the largest donors.Table 6 illustrates the relative size of aid fromthe major international organizations since2000. According to the data provided by theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), the largest threebilateral donors (the United States, Japan and

13. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Nature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan, ‘Environmental Profile ofUzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators’, 2008.

14. Uzbekistan is a blend country, borrowing from both International Development Association on concessional terms andthe International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on market terms.

Table 5. Human development of Uzbekistan

Indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Life expectancy at birth (in years) 70.8 71.3 71.2 71.6 71.2 71.8

Adult literacy rate (percent of population) 99.17 99.18 99.19 99.20 99.31 99.36

Mean years of schooling 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.7

Human development index 0.736 0.740 0.742 0.748 0.751 0.759

Gender-related development index 0.733 0.736 0.738 0.744 0.746 0.747

Indicator of women's empowerment 0.382 0.378 0.380 0.411 0.440 0.500

Source:UNDP,‘Human Development Report. Uzbekistan 2007–2008. Education in Uzbekistan:Matching Supply and Demand’,UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T1 0

15. Development Aid Coordination Platform of Uzbekistan; see www.devaid.uz/en.

Germany) account for approximately two thirdsof all official development assistance (ODA) overthe period of 2000 to 2006.

As illustrated in Table 7, there was significantfluctuation in ODA flows over the 2000–2006period, specifically in 2005 and 2006 whereODA in Uzbekistan was only 70 percent and 60percent of 2004 levels. Disagreements betweenthe government and some donors partly explainsthe decline in ODA over this period, butin recent times there has been an importantre-engagement of the donor community with

Uzbekistan. The majority of foreign aid has beenfocused on national projects, while approximatelyone third of projects have been focused onspecific regions.15

There is no overall aid coordination mechanismin Uzbekistan, although the WIS is supposed tofacilitate the coordination process and theintegration of donor interventions into nationalpriorities. The WIS itself contains a proposalfor improving cooperation with internationalorganizations providing assistance to Uzbekistan(Box 2.2).

Table 6. Total net ODA disbursements as a percent of total 2000–2006 (constant 2006 prices)

OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Countries 74%

United States 29%

Japan 26%

Germany 10%

Other 9%

Non-DAC Countries 12%

Multilateral 14%

Total 100%

Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee.

Table 7. Total net ODA disbursements by year (2000–2006, US$ million, constant 2006 prices)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

206 193 228 209 244 169 149

Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T 1 1

Box 2.2 WIS proposals for improving work with international organizations

� Expand dialogue with the donor community on project financing issues in the framework of theWIS.Although international financial institutions and development agencies are demonstrating a readiness forcloser coordination of their programs, a more active government role is necessary for achieving strategicagreements with donors and improving the forms of collaboration with development partners. In particular,it is advisable to hold regular meetings (one to two times a year) between the government and interna-tional donors, the private sector, and civil society.

� The improvement of mechanisms (through which the distribution and monitoring of the effective utilizationof external assistance funds provided in the framework of WIS projects are undertaken for particularsectors and regional levels) should become the most important goal of changes to the external assistancecoordination system.

� Strengthen the state bodies responsible for the coordination of external assistance. Such a system hasalready been formed in general. However, it is necessary to build the capacity of the appropriate structuraldivisions of the Cabinet of Ministers; the Ministry of the Economy; the Ministry of Finance; and the Ministryof Foreign Economic Relations, Investments and Trade.


C H A P T E R 3 : U N A N D U N D P I N U Z B E K I S T A N 1 3

Uzbekistan joined the United Nations in March1992, shortly after the disintegration of theSoviet Union. In 1993, a UNDP office wasestablished in Tashkent. This chapter providesand overview of the UN presence in Uzbekistanand of the UNDP programmes for the timeperiod under review by the ADR.

3.1 THE UN IN UZBEKISTAN16

The six resident UN agencies in Uzbekistan arelisted below. In addition, The World Bank is partof the UN family in Uzbekistan and an activemember of the UN Country Team. The UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees wasalso active until 2006, when its Uzbekistan officeclosed. A Joint United Nations Programme onHIV/AIDS country office was established in2005 in order to facilitate and support joint,coherent actions of all partners in the fightagainst HIV/AIDS.The resident UN agencies inUzbekistan are:

1. United Nations Children’s Fund;

2. United Nations Development Programme;

3. United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization;

4. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime;

5. United Nations Population Fund; and

6. World Health Organization.

The UN country team develops its programmeswithin the United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework (UNDAF). The UNResident Coordinator’s Office in Uzbekistan hasthree full-time staff members, funded with

approximately $80,000 of pre-allocated coreresources per year. To support preparation of theUNDAF, Common Country Assessments wereprepared in 2001 and 2003. The first UzbekistanUNDAF (2005–2009) was prepared in closeconsultation with the government, civil societyand the international community. It is guided bynational priorities, the MDGs and internationalconventions to which Uzbekistan is party, andfocuses on strengthening capacity at national andlocal levels. The overall objectives of theUNDAF are to:

1. Develop successful strategies in order to improveliving standards throughout the country;

2. Enhance basic services in the country, specificallywith regard to health and education services;

3. Further harmonize national legislation withrelevant international UN instruments;

4. Build the capacities of, and partnershipsbetween, government and civil society; and

5. Mainstream human rights and gender issues.

There are four joint programmes in Uzbekistan,and UNDP is involved in two of them: supportto the Mahalla gender advisers, with parallelfunding from UNDP, United Nations Children’sFund (UNICEF) and United Nations PopulationFund (UNFPA); and the fight against HIV/AIDS, with UN agencies, The World Bank andnational partners though the Joint UnitedNations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)Programme Acceleration Funds. In addition,UNICEF is undertaking two other jointprogrammes, one related to health (with

16. This sections draws on the draft of Uzbekistan UNDAF Mid-Term Review (United Nations Country Team, 2008).

Chapter 3

UN AND UNDP IN UZBEKISTAN

C H A P T E R 3 : U N A N D U N D P I N U Z B E K I S T A N1 4

UNFPA) and one related to education (with theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization).

The heads of resident UN agencies in Uzbekistanmeet regularly for coordination purposes.17 Inaddition, four UN Thematic Groups have beenestablished to bring together relevant agenciesand other partners. The Thematic Groups are:Education, HIV/AIDS, Health and LivingStandards. Moreover, a UN Inter-AgencyCommunications Task Force was established in2005 to facilitate a unified communicationsplatform for the UN system in Uzbekistan.

Beyond the UN system (including The WorldBank), key strategic partners include the AsianDevelopment Bank and the European Bank forReconstruction and Development. The AsianDevelopment Bank cooperates in the fields ofeducation (the Bank is represented in theUN Thematic Group on Education), health,and support to WIS formulation and implemen-tation. Bilateral partnerships with the UN—including participation in UN ThematicGroup discussions—include those with theEuropean Union Technical Assistance tothe Commonwealth of Independent Statesprogramme, the Japan International CooperationAgency, Project Hope and the United StatesAgency for International Development.

3.2 THE UNDP PROGRAMMES

The first of the two county programmes beingevaluated, the Country Cooperation Framework2000–2004, focused on two broad themes:

� Support to the Reform Process: Policyadvice aimed at supporting the government’scapacities to examine and formulate policyoptions, and institution-building aimed atdeveloping and strengthening the structuresand capacities of government to effectivelymanage the country’s transformation.

� Support to Civil Society and Private SectorDevelopment: Aimed at supporting publicparticipation, jobs and income generation.

In addition, three cross-cutting issues were identi-fied: a rights-based approach; the environment; andinformation and communications technologies.

The 2005–2009 country programme wasestablished within the framework of theUNDAF, and focuses on three sub-programmes:

� Economic Governance and PovertyReduction: which builds on the work of theprevious programme and focuses onproviding policy advice and building nationalcapacities in key reform areas. In addition,the sub-programme supports the building ofsustainable institutions to conceive andimplement employment and povertyreduction initiatives. The key intervention inthis area is through the Area-BasedDevelopment and Enhancement of LivingStandards initiatives.

� Democratic Governance: which providescontinued support to government and civilsociety capacity development; acts as acatalyst through which government and civilsociety work together as partners in develop-ment; builds capacity to integrate interna-tional human rights obligations into thenational legal framework; and promotesaccountability and transparency in govern-ment (e.g., aid coordination, capacitydevelopment, e-governance and publicadministration reform).

� Environmental Governance: which aims tosupport capacity development in the sector(e.g., renewable energy), and to support thegovernment in meeting internationalenvironmental and sustainable developmentcommitments and integrate them intonational development planning.

17. Approximately once every six weeks during the period being examined.


The country office has three units covering eachof these sub-programmes (the work of the Area-Based Development and Enhancement of LivingStandards is managed separately). In addition tothese three broad areas, the Country ProgrammeAction Plan identified four cross-cutting areas:national human resources, sub-regional initia-tives, gender and the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. Chapter 4 provides additional detailsabout the sub-programmes and cross-cuttingareas in the context of examining UNDP contri-bution to national development results.

From 2004 to 2007, most financial resources havebeen spent within the practice areas of AchievingMDGs and Reducing Poverty (33 percent) andEnergy and Environment (38 percent). Figure 1

illustrates this breakdown. Only 11 percent wasused for Democratic Governance, less than forResponding to HIV/AIDS (14 percent).

3.3 FINANCING THE PROGRAMME

Significant annual variations in total expendi-tures characterize the financial aspects of theprogramme, especially with respect to otherresources (see Table 8).19 The allocation ofregular resources increased significantly betweenthe 2000–2004 and the 2005–2009 countryprogrammes.20 As funding from other resourcesdeclined over the life of the 2000–2004programme, the share of regular resourcesincreased from 10 percent of total expenditures in2000 to almost 50 percent in 2004.

18. UNDP, ‘Second Multi-Year Funding Framework, 2004-2007’, 2003.19. ‘Regular resources’ are UNDP resources that are commingled and untied. These include voluntary contributions, contri-butions from other governmental, intergovernmental or non-governmental sources, related interest earnings, and miscel-laneous income. ‘Other resources’ are UNDP resources, other than regular resources, that are received for specific pro-gramme purposes and the provision of management and support services to third parties.

20. From $5.9 to $14.9 million of regular resources, as indicated in the respective country programme documents.

Energy and Environment, 38%

Democratic Governance, 11%

HIV/AIDS, 14%

Not entered, 4%

Achieving MDGs and Reducing Poverty, 33%

Figure 1. Total programme expenditures by UNDP corporate goal18 (2004–2007)

C H A P T E R 3 : U N A N D U N D P I N U Z B E K I S T A N1 6

Major financial partners include the EuropeanUnion (specifically in relation to financing theEnhancement of Living Standards Programme,the Border Management Programme in CentralAsia, and the Central Asia Drug ActionProgramme), the Global Environment Facility,The World Bank (through government cost-sharing in the Water Supply Sanitation andHealth projects), and the Global Fund to fightAids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (where theUNDP role is purely fiduciary management).

3.4 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENTAND IMPLEMENTATION

A Development Services Support Programmewas established to support implementation of the2000–2004 country programme. It aimed todeepen national ownership by replacing theprevalence of individual projects with a morecomprehensive, integrated, country-led programmeapproach, in which projects (components) weredeliberately and consistently linked. It aimed atsharpening the focus of UNDP support, improvingthe efficiency in handling administrative support,and enhancing development effectiveness. Theobjective was to create synergies and strategic

orientation within the programme. Ensuingeconomies of scale were expected to resultnot only in cost savings, but also in greaterprogramme impact. The programme comprisedfour major components:

� Policy and advisory services (with severalsub-components);

� Aid coordination and management;

� Human development; and

� Emergency (drought) preparednessand mitigation.

In addition to these programmes, the UNDPRegional Bureau for Europe and the Common-wealth of Independent States manages subregionalprojects, some of which directly concernUzbekistan. The most prominent has been theEU-funded Border Management Programme forCentral Asia, the objectives of which includeenhancing border security and facilitating legaltrade and transit. The second programme is theEU-funded Central AsianDrug Action Programme,which aims to foster a development-orienteddrug control strategy. The goal of the strategy is

Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (2000–2008)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

US$ thousands

Total expenditure 12,630 14,048 6,930 5,689 5,027 12,452 18,590 15,048 17,030

Regular resourcesexpenditure

1,276 1,203 1,236 1,445 2,454 3,278 3,999 4,116 5,083

Other resourcesexpenditure

11,354 12,844 5,695 4,244 2,573 9,174 14,591 10,932 11,948

Percent of total

Regular resourcesexpenditure

10 9 18 25 49 26 22 27 30

Other resourcesexpenditure

90 91 82 75 51 74 78 73 70

Source: UNDP Uzbekistan.


to ensure a sustained reduction of drug consump-tion and trafficking in line with EuropeanCommunity drug strategies (i.e., taking a publichealth approach to drug demand and aninterdiction-based approach to drug trafficking).

Uzbekistan also participates in the UNDP SilkRoad Regional Programme, aiming to improvephysical trade infrastructure and involve small-and medium-sized entities in trans-bordercooperation and international and subregionaltrade. From the Regional Bureau portfolio,

Uzbekistan has mostly selected projects thatfocus on international legal trade development.The country has not been involved in programmesthat deal with conflict prevention (e.g., in theFerghana valley) or aim at preventing potentialnatural catastrophes (e.g., programmes related tomanaging water resources originating fromneighbouring countries). The largest regionalproject Uzbekistan has taken part in is TheWorldBank-funded Long term Joint Capacity-buildingfor AIDS Control in Central Asia project.

C H A P T E R 4 . U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N T O N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S 1 9

This chapter analyses UNDP contribution toUzbekistan national development. It is dividedinto four sections, representing the key areas ofcountry office engagement. 21 The key areas are:

1. Achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty;

2. Fostering democratic governance;

3. Managing energy and environment forsustainable development; and

4. Responding to HIV/AIDS.

4.1 ACHIEVING THE MDGS ANDREDUCING HUMAN POVERTY

The 2005–2009 Country Programme Document(CPD) set two outcomes for UNDP contributionwithin the area of achieving the MDGs andreducing human poverty (see Table 9). Foroutcome 1, UNDP contribution includedsupporting central policy-making and nationalstrategy development. For outcome 2, UNDPprovided direct support to selected local areas.22

The current country programme uses twomechanisms to facilitate a coordinated,synergistic approach within this interventionarea. At the central level, much of the advocacyand policy support work is channelled throughthe Centre for Economic Research, anUzbekistan think-tank founded jointly byUNDP and the Government of Uzbekistan.At the local level, the Enhancement of LivingStandards (ELS)/Area Based Development(ABD) approach gives UNDP a presence andallows UNDP to engage in a variety of interven-tions through a single mechanism.

4.1.1 STATISTICAL STRENGTHENINGAND MONITORING THE MDGS

Uzbekistan has endorsed the MillenniumDeclaration and is committed to achievingthe MDGs. In 2004, UNDP, together withother national and international partners,provided support to adapting (‘localization’ or‘nationalization’) the global goals and targets toUzbekistan’s specific country context and priorityissues. UNDP supported a team of national

Chapter 4

UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONALDEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Table 9. Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty: expected results

CPD outcome 1 Sustainable human development policies to improve livelihoods and access tosocial services by the poor developed

CPD outcome 2 Poor and vulnerable people’s access to quality community-based social servicesimproved and new sources of income created

21. These key areas correspond to four of the five UNDP corporate goals set out in the UNDP Second Multi-Year FundingFramework 2004–2007.

22. UNDP has also started a new project aimed at supporting persons with disabilities (ACCESS: promoting Accessibility,Civic Consciousness, Employment, and Social Support for people with disabilities). However, it is not included in theanalysis, as the project began after the completion of the main evaluation mission.

C H A P T E R 4 . U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N T O N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U L T S2 0

experts in preparing the first national MDGbaseline study,23 which analysed the developmentcontext for each goal by setting appropriatebaselines and indicators. Although the mainpartner in the localization process was theMinistry of Economy, the adaptation of eachMDG involved a variety of relevant ministries,government institutions and independent experts.These national MDGs were integrated into the2004–2006 Uzbekistan Living Standard Strategy,prepared by government working groups with thetechnical assistance of the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB).The Living Standard Strategy (LSS)document notes that “the MDGs have providedan overall framework and vision for the Strategy,while the formulation of priority policies for povertyreduction has given impetus to the formulation ofUzbekistan’s country-specific MDGs.”24

Based on an assessment and analysis of statisticsin Uzbekistan,25 UNDP initiated the StatisticalCapacity-Building for Millennium DevelopmentGoals Monitoring and Reporting project, whichstarted in 2006. Through the project, UNDPsupported analysis and publications related to theMDGs, including the 2006 MDG Report forUzbekistan, and the Internet-based dissemina-tion of statistical data.26 UNDP also undertookawareness-raising activities and the regionaliza-tion of MDGs. Importantly, UNDP worked withthe government to integrate the MDGs into theWIS (the successor to the LSS).TheWIS clearlystates Uzbekistan’s obligations to achieve theMDGs, and the main objectives of the strategycorrespond to the eight localized MDGs.

23. United Nations Country Team and ADB, ‘MDGs in Uzbekistan’, 2004.24. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Living Standard Strategy’, 2004, page 10.25. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Official Statistics in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality and Access’, Policy Brief #1,Center for Economic Research, 2006.

26. See http://www.statistics.uz/.

Table 10. Capacity for monitoring and reporting MDG progress

Goal (or componentof goal)

Datagathering

Quality ofsurveyinformation

Statisticalanalysis

Statisticsin policy-making

Monitoringandevaluation

Living standards andmalnutrition

Weak Fair Fair Fair Fair

Quality of education Fair Fair Weak Fair Fair

Gender equality Weak Weak Fair Weak Weak

Child mortality Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Maternal health Fair Fair Weak Weak Fair

HIV/AIDS Weak Weak Weak Weak Weak

Malaria Fair Fair Fair Weak Fair

Tuberculosis Fair Fair Fair Weak Fair

Environmentalsustainability

Fair Fair Fair Fair Weak

Source: Government of Uzbekistan and United Nations Country Team,‘Uzbekistan:Millennium Development Goals Report’, 2006, page 65.


UNDP analysis revealed constraints andchallenges to developing an effective system ofstatistics in Uzbekistan. Therefore, UNDPinterventions supported national partners addresspriority statistical areas. The 2006 MDG Reportrevealed that the capacity for monitoring andreportingMDG progress is generally fair—thoughoccasionally weak—across the core assessmentcriteria (see Table 10). This has implications foreffective use of the MDGs, especially for effortsto use them at the regional level.

It should be noted that the MDG Report’stargets and indicators can be considered bindingon policy makers only if these targets and indica-tors have been identified and sanctioned by thegovernment. However, the national MDG reporthas not received official government approval,despite relevant ministries having worked in closecooperation with UNDP during the Report’spreparation.27 Nonetheless, theWIS—a documentapproved by the government—aligns itsobjectives with the nationally determinedMDGs.

4.1.2 PRO-POOR POLICY REFORMS TOACHIEVE MDG TARGETS

UNDP has supported the Government ofUzbekistan’s emphasis on socio-economicdevelopment through:

� Support to national strategy development;

� Policy advice and support to nationalcapacity development in key economicreform areas; and

� Building sustainable institutions to conceiveand implement initiatives on povertyreduction and employment.

The main UNDP partner in these efforts hasbeen the Center for Economic Research (CER).UNDP and the Government of Uzbekistanjointly established CER in 1999 in order to serveas a major economic think tank with the mandateto provide economic analyses, assessments,forecasts and policy advice. The Center has itsroots in an earlier 1994 UNDP programme(implemented at the request of the UzbekistanGovernment) aimed at assisting the country in

27. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Official Statistics in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality and Access’, Policy Brief #1,Center for Economic Research, 2006.

Box 4.1 Valuable assets and advantages of the Center for Economic Research

� Reputation and name recognition in applied policy research

� Trust, credibility and good outreach and communication channels to key stakeholders, including theGovernment of Uzbekistan and international donors and development agencies

� Facilitation of stakeholders’ dialogue; point of contact between policy-makers, international organizationsand the business community

� A solid track record of successfully applied policy reform projects

� Project planning, design and implementation tools

� A strong indigenous team of policy analysts with solid knowledge of Uzbekistan’s socio-economicsituation and development problems

� Good grasp of policy-making process in Uzbekistan, and knowledge of international donors’ projectmanagement and reporting requirements

� Effective dissemination instruments, including the popular Economic Review journal

� Access to modern economic literature and various sources of socio-economic data

Source: Polishchuk 2008.


macroeconomic policy analysis and training.UNDP evaluated the CER project four timesbetween 1999 and 2003.28 All the evaluationswere positive about CER and its performance. In2008, a report drew on previous evaluations andexamined the sustainability of the Center.29

“Nearly ten years since its inception,” the reportconcluded, “CER remains the primary think tankin Uzbekistan.” Beyond its high-quality outputs,CER plays a major role in facilitating dialogue onreform and development among a wide range ofstakeholders in Uzbekistan’s development,including civil society, government, the interna-tional community and the private sector.Moreover, an important part of the CERmandate is to ensure that the public is informedabout policy and development issues. Box 4.1illustrates CER assets and advantages.

Although a number of international and nationalorganizations utilize the services of CER,UNDPand the Government of Uzbekistan are thelargest financial contributors. UNDP hasbeen examining ways to ensure the sustainabilityof the Center, but a recent report commissionedby UNDP notes “CER cannot achieve sustain-ability without committed support from theGovernment of Uzbekistan and internationaldevelopment agencies.”30

Given the Center’s strengths, it was natural thatUNDP used it to support the government designits national development strategies. In 2003,work began on the development of the2004–2006 LSS, largely supported by the AsianDevelopment Bank, but drawing heavily on theCER/UNDP paper ‘Linking MacroeconomicPolicy and Poverty in Uzbekistan’.31 The LSSalso benefited from the Economic Growth andPoverty Reduction conference organized by CERand UNDP. As a follow-up to the LSS, the

government, with the assistance of CER/UNDP,The World Bank and ADB, prepared the 2008-–2010 Welfare Improvement Strategy. As noted,the Government of Uzbekistan adopted theWIS as the main medium-term strategy inUzbekistan, and international developmentagencies are using it as the basis for theirprogrammes and projects in the country. Thepreparation of the WIS is an important step forUzbekistan, and UNDP support represents amajor contribution.

It should be noted, however, that UNDP supportto the development of the WIS should haveincluded the integration of more comprehensiveenvironmental, social and health sector factors,and should have taken into account risks so thatcomplex planning could be carried out on an evenmore solid basis. Other factors include a fullassessment of risks to implementation, as therecent global economic downturn made clear. Thesuccess of development strategies may be enhancedby taking a holistic approach, incorporating issuesthat may impact on the lives of the Uzbekistanpeople. Additionally, given UNDP experiencewith rural development, the WIS should haveemphasized the importance of investments inrural areas to comprehensive development.

In addition to supporting the development ofcomprehensive national development strategies,UNDP has provided support in many key areasof economic governance (e.g., strengtheningthe system of customs administration; publicfinance reform; and foreign trade and invest-ment promotion).

These interventions were designed in response tospecific government requests and fall within theoverall theme of supporting government institu-tional and capacity development. They havemade important contributions in the areas

28. Polishchuk, 2003.29. Polishchuk, 2008. Though the evaluation was released following the completion of the main ADR mission, it was incor-porated into the analysis.

30. Polishchuk, 2008.31. Government of Uzbekistan/Center for Economic Research and UNDP, ‘Linking Macroeconomic Policy to PovertyReduction in Uzbekistan’, Tashkent, 2005.


they address, and the government generallyappreciates them. However, such an approachraises challenges for ensuring projects’ effective-ness, efficiency and sustainability. First, despite aproject’s efficiency and effectiveness, sustainabilitymay be lacking due to insufficient capacitydevelopment. Second, the approach includedmany short-term narrow projects rather thanlong-term broader and more strategicprogrammes. Third, UNDP has comparativestrengths in only a few of the economicgovernance issues addressed. While this may bedue to the nature of Uzbekistan’s relationshipwith the international community in recent years,in future and where possible, UNDP needs todevelop relevant partnerships when interventionsgo beyond its core competencies.

UNDP has also contributed to the policy debatethrough the publication of National HumanDevelopment Reports.Three have been publishedin the period under review, examining key issues forUzbekistan’s development and widely distributedin English, Russian and Uzbek.32

In addition, UNDP has made strong efforts tosystematically increase awareness and advocatethe policy relevance of the Human Developmentparadigm (as well as theMDGs) to undergraduateand postgraduate students, teachers and state officialsof Uzbekistan’s leading academic institutions.This is being achieved through support to researchand the development of pedagogies and curriculumsto teach human development, train lecturers anddevelop in-service training schemes.

4.1.3 LOCAL EMPLOYMENT PROMOTIONAND POVERTY-REDUCTION INITIATIVES

UNDP local poverty interventions focus on therural poor and provide services including micro-

finance, business advice services and communitydevelopment. The first measure of UNDPinvolvement in this area is micro-financing,which started at the end of 1990s in ruralUzbekistan. Micro-financing projects weregradually integrated into a more comprehensiveapproach, jointly developed with the EuropeanUnion. Since 2007, UNDP has applied adevelopment strategy to strengthen regional andlocal governance through two main projects:

� Enhancement of Living Standards (ELS),implemented in theKarakalpakstan,Namanganand Fergana regions; and

� The 2008–2010 Area Based Development(ABD) project, implemented in theKarakalpakstan and Kashkadarya regions.

The experiences gained through the ELS andABD projects are unique in the Uzbekistan context.The projects’ approaches included: fomentingregional and local development strategies usingimproved data collection methods and techniquesfor mapping living standards; introducing civilsociety and self-help schemes to communities;generating and diversifying income through ruraland urban micro-credits; and strengthening farmersand other types of rural enterprises.Three projectevaluations have been undertaken. The first two,covering ELS interventions in Karakalpakstan33

and Namangan,34 were completed in 2006. Thethird, covering Ferghana, was undertaken thefollowing year35 and shows that even if poverty isincreasingly concentrated in rural areas, it canbe addressed primarily through strengtheninglocal governance.

In ELS, UNDP involvement can be divided intothe following activities: increasing capacity for

32. UNDP, Uzbekistan National Human Development Reports, ‘Education in Uzbekistan: Matching Supply and Demand’(2007–2008), ‘Health for All: A Key Goal for Uzbekistan in the New Millennium’ (2006) and ‘Decentralization andHuman Development’ (2005).

33. Harfs, J., ‘An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP Project “Enhancement of Living Standards in Karakalpakstan”’, EuropeanUnion, June–July 2006.

34. Harfs, J., ‘An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP Project “Enhancement of Living Standards in Namangan”’, European Union,June–July 2006.

35. Tessier, 2007.


policy planning at the regional and local levels;reinforcing the development capacity of localgovernance; and creating and strengtheningpilot income-generation schemes. These actionshave resulted in: strengthening women’s rolesin governance and businesses; creating socialinvestment projects, with emphasis on water,electricity and heating systems at medicalcentres, schools and private houses; and strength-ening micro-enterprises. In terms of investmentprojects for social infrastructure and micro-enterprises, ELS has achieved good results—many of which can be transferred to otherregions and districts. However, the ELS evalua-tions cited above pointed out that at the policylevel, the projects’ development impacts have notbeen as strong (though work undertaken throughthe ELS, such as poverty mapping and support topoverty assessments, has contributed to thedevelopment of the WIS).

Significant achievements have been made inrural village social infrastructural projects: water,gas and power lines have been constructedapplying principles of participatory planning,co-funding and local joint construction efforts.In addition to concrete achievements (e.g.,construction projects), the activities unifiedcommunities, and local stakeholders have beenextremely satisfied with joint achievements. Theefficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of suchprojects have been satisfactory. In most cases, thesocial infrastructure investments have concernedlocal schools, medical centres and all or mosthouseholds in the community.These investmentshave been prioritized by the communities andthen agreed to by UNDP, after which jointpreparatory phases followed. In all project sitesvisited, local communities are planning to continuewith a similar approach but with new andadditional development and investment objectives.This ADR and the evaluation conducted in theFerghana region came to comparable conclusionsregarding similar project activities.

The contribution of these interventions goesbeyond those financed by the projects. Theinstitutions established under these interventions

have been successful in facilitating the replicationof the approaches in neighbouring communities.Moreover,UNDP has facilitated additional resourcemobilization to fund additional interventions.

UNDP has also contributed actively in theseregions by launching a micro-financing projectfor the local poor and by providing financing andsupport to local small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) and agricultural organiza-tions. The repayment of micro-credits has variedfrom 95 to 100 percent in different communities.Unfortunately, in recent years the micro-financing assets have reached their limits in allregions, despite the continued demand for loans.Hence, it would be advisable to prioritizebetween two concepts: group-financing withgroup-responsibility for the loan, or individualcrediting with individual collateral. The former isused mostly by the poorest and most vulnerablegroups, and is therefore preferable when assetsare close to the limit. In addition, capitalizing ongroup experience tends to minimize risk.However, the concept requires more input andmanagerial capacity than the latter. Individualcrediting is typically used by those who, due totheir individual collateral ability, are close toqualifying for commercial loans.

It is important for UNDP to increase partnershipswithin its private sector development activities.The most suitable partner with full coverage atthe country level is the Chamber of Commerceand Industry (CCI). CCI maintains both regionaloffices and district-level information andresources centres. Although UNDP and the CCIalready work together, increasing collaborationduring planning and implementation will improvethe quality of projects and other activities, andwill avoid overlap between the two organizations.UNDP would be able to concentrate on focusedadvice and consultancy, and on technical andsocial questions; CCI would foster improvedconditions for entrepreneurship and businessdevelopment, concentrating on economic issuesin joint problem-areas. Both organizations havesimultaneously carried out similar and partiallyoverlapping activities.


Similarly, UNDP has not taken advantage of pre-existing expertise in districts that have local orregional educational institutes. For example,though UNDP took responsibility for thecomprehensive and continuous training ofselected target groups, local partnerships wouldhave increased efficiency, effectiveness andquality. In addition, focusing on preparing groupsof trainers is a more efficient approach thanindividually training all participants.Exacerbating these issues, UNDP informationcentres often lacked appropriate trainingmaterials written in Uzbek. ELS and ABDprojects were weak or lacking in strengtheningdistrict and local level institutional capacities oreducational structures (see Section 5.2). Thiselement was given scant attention in the 2007ELS evaluation. Either the projects themselvesor intensified partnerships could have improvedthis situation.

UNDP—particularly through ELS and ABDprojects—supported local SMEs improve theirproduction technologies, demonstrate newmodes of production and add value to productswithin local poverty initiatives. From a develop-ment point of view, the main objectives were todemonstrate and encourage local entrepreneur-ship and SMEs in rural businesses. It isimportant, however, that UNDP improveconditions for business development rather thandirectly supporting production investments orcompetition distortion.36 Support to local SMEscould be further improved through the introduc-tion of lessons learned and best practices fromother regions and districts.

Regional and local authorities in Uzbekistancould benefit from a comparative analysis of howefforts used by the ABD concept to strengthenlocal governance compare to alternatives UNDPpromotes in different countries (e.g., directcommunity support, local government supportand decentralized sector approaches). Theseapproaches may vary in different regions inUzbekistan due to different ethnographic andhistoric reasons, as well as to the composition ofnatural resources and risks. This analysis wouldstrengthen the base of UNDP involvement at theregional and local levels.

4.2 FOSTERING DEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE

The 2004–2009 country programme documentidentified two outcomes related to fosteringdemocratic governance for UNDP contribution(see Table 11). UNDP contribution to the firstnational goal is also examined in section 4.3on environment. UNDP interventions in thisarea have evolved beyond these two areas toinclude public administration reform, informa-tion and communications technologies, andsupport to parliament.

4.2.1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONAND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Since 2000, public administration and civilservice reform are among the key developmentareas and outcomes of UNDP contribution. Theactivities began with the development ofinformation networks and improvements toadministrative procedures with information and

36. In field visits, the ADR team noted some cases where UNDP-provided grants distorted the market for credit and impactedcompetition (e.g., in the bio-pest control and pasta-making projects).

Table 11. Fostering democratic governance: expected results

CPD outcome 1 Enhanced legal framework,monitoring and support mechanisms are in place forthe implementation of the United Nations human rights instruments

CPD outcome 2 Enabling environment for civil society to participate actively in development processes


communication technologies (see section 4.2.2).Some of the major issues tackled include humanresources management, human development,MDGs, diplomatic and consular services, localgovernance, business administration, publicadministration and the mainstreaming of thecross-cutting issues of gender and human rights.The key recipients have included the Ministryfor Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, theUniversity of World Economy and Diplomacy,the State Academy for State and PublicConstruction and the Higher School of Business.

In recent years, the emphasis in public adminis-tration and civil service reform has been ontraining public sector management issues anddisciplines through master classes, workshopsand study tours. These efforts continuouslyengaged UN, regional and international expertsfor training and encouraging government andcivil society partnerships. Though UNDP actedresponsively to government’s proposals, someprojects lacked basic analyses and studies thatclarify problem areas, and included directtraining rather than more sustainable capacitydevelopment activities.

The European Union Border ManagementProgramme for Central Asia/Drug ActionProgramme in Central Asia (BOMCA/CADAP), the main regional programme UNDPhas been involved in, is the most systematicdevelopment process identified by the ADRteam in the area of public administration reform.It is crucial to enhancing border security andfacilitating legal trade and transit. The pressureon these issues will increase strongly in thefuture, as will the development process. In thisrespect, the role of UNDP has and will be vital,and should remain among the most prioritizedareas of UNDP involvement. A key challenge,however, will be to ensure adequate linkagesbetween this programme and UNDP support forcustoms legislation development.

Stakeholders, particularly at ministries, have beensatisfied with training courses and events andconsider UNDP work efficient and effective.Nevertheless, prior to undertaking a develop-ment intervention there has been a lack ofinstitutional assessments, systematic training andother needs assessments. Without these assess-ments and gap analyses, little of the training willhave long-lasting or sustainable results andimpacts (see section 5.2). Moreover, though itwas seldom the case, it would have been logical toinclude both policy- and strategy-level reformsand practical human resources developmentmeasures into most development processes.

4.2.2 INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATIONSTECHNOLOGIES/E-GOVERNANCE

UNDP contributed to more effective use ofinformation and communications technologies(ICT) across government, parliament andthe private sector. In 2000, UNDP startedUzSciNet,37 an initiative to promote Internetuse in Uzbekistan. The initiative had thefollowing goals:

� Provide free access to the Internet for theAcademy of Sciences in Tashkent and twopilot provinces (core target group), as well asfor students and non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs) using an enhanced Internetbackbone and data transport system;

� Provide training in the use of informationtechnology;

� Promote a better awareness of Uzbekistan, itsresearch and development potential, and itscultural values to the worldwide Internetcommunity; and

� Create a semi-commercial Internet ServiceProvider, which would operate self-sustainably.

From 2000 to 2004, the UzSciNet project wasalso supported by the Open Society Institute.Although the UNDP project was closed in 2008,

37. Formally known as “Capacity-building for Internet Technologies Development and Promotion in Uzbekistan”.


UzSciNet continues to operate. Currently,UzSciNet connects 283 local area networks in84 schools, 62 universities, 29 research institu-tions, 2 NGOs, 12 medical institutions, 8 culturalorganizations, 38 international organizations(including various UNDP projects), 13 govern-mental and 35 organizations of other types.Approximately 50 percent of the connectedorganizations are outside Tashkent, in 14 provin-cial towns, where UzSciNet has its Points ofPresence. The project also provided technicalsupport, ICT training and interventions in thefields of telemedicine and distance education.

Since 2005, UNDP has been closely workingwith the ICT Council of the Cabinet ofMinisters (the highest body in Uzbekistan’s ICTfield) through its ICT Policy (ICTP) project.The purpose of the project is to assist theGovernment of Uzbekistan formulate andimplement ICT for development policy. Inthe pursuit of its goals, ICTP is engaged ina number of activities, grouped into severalbroad directions:

� Building its strategic consultations on studiesand research covering areas such as ICTdevelopment in Uzbekistan, copyright ininformation technology and analysis ofUzbekistan’s progress in implementing thedecisions of the World Summits on theInformation Society;

� Helping government agencies, academicinstitutions, local communities and thepublic explore the potential of ICTs toachieve development goals through pilotinitiatives—including the E-governmentpilot project, the .uz Domain Zone project,the establishment of electronic digitalsignature registration centres, the enhance-ment of the governmental portal,38 theintroduction of a UzCDL computer literacycertification system, and support to the e-Governance Competency Center examina-tion of government information systems;

� Developing capacities through informationtechnology training, seminars and roundtables, and developing educational andpromotional materials. Recent examples ofactivities in this area include a seminar andthe handbook Intellectual Property Rights forSoftware in Uzbekistan, a number of regionaltrainings for government officials on e-governance, and the Information Technologiestextbook for university students;

� Raising awareness of the advantages of ICTsamong the general population through thedevelopment and provision of: access tonational Internet-based resources on topicsincluding cultural, economic, and socialissues; and encouraging engagement in ICTissues through a quiz conducted onTaraqqiyot Sari,39 a televised educationalprogramme dedicated to ICT;

� Encouraging and creating a platform forclose partnerships and open dialogue onICT-related issues among governmentdecision makers, the private sector, theinternational community and civil society.This is achieved through annual nationalICT summits, regular meetings, seminars,and conferences; and

� Enhancing public and private partnerships inthe framework of the IT Association ofUzbekistan, an initiative advanced by ICTPand supported by the government. Theframework currently brings together approx-imately 50 company-members representingthe education, hardware and software, andtelecommunication sectors.

In addition to these activities, UNDP has workedto integrate ICT into other projects whereappropriate. For example, an e-docflow systemhas been introduced to the Ministry of Economy.As a result, during 2007, the Ministry was able tostreamline the work of key departments andaccelerate correspondence processing. At the

38. See www.gov.uz.39. Towards the Development.


Higher School of Business for public sectormanagers studying and working in the region,UNDP piloted a project on the use of ICT formedical diagnosis of poor people in remote areasand developed an online legislation database. Inaddition, UNDP has been supporting theParliament’s ICT development and providedtechnologies to government academies. See Box 4.2for an example of the successful use of ICT.

While UNDP ICT projects and activities haveaddressed important problem areas and havecontributed positively to living standards in thecountry, more attention should be paid to furtherstrategic prioritization of future activities, andthis prioritization should be based on clearselection criteria. Although UNDP responded tothe changing context in revising its ICTP projectin early 2008, it is important to continue tomonitor changes in the national ICT strategy.Such monitoring is necessary to meet nationalneeds and to continue strategic discussionsbetween the government and the UN system toformulate the UNDP role.

4.2.3 STRENGTHENING THE WORKOF THE PARLIAMENT

In recent years, UNDP has been closely collabo-rating with the Parliament. The main areas ofUNDP contribution include gender, ICT, and

legislation drafting (providing consultativesupport on draft laws and oversight activities ofparliament committees).

The Parliament recognizes challenges to thesustainability of UNDP interventions. Forexample, in the area of legislation drafting—andspecifically in the case of tax reform—there hasbeen a lack of support after the project cycle.Thisis typically due to legislative reform processeslasting longer than was anticipated during theplanning phase of the project, resulting in theproject cycle ending before the legislative reformis accomplished. Though the outcomes ofUNDP-provided ICT support have proved to beefficient and effective, parliament was critical ofthe lack of management support. Despite UNDPinterventions’ lack of an adequate exist strategy,the government will continue to finance ITsupport for the Parliament.

UNDP recognizes that parliament could improvethe efficiency and effectiveness of some of thetraining events it conducts. Additionally, partnersneed to address projects’ length and division ofresponsibilities. There is the need to more clearlylink activities to parliamentary policy- andstrategy-level processes, and to strengthen andimprove the cooperation and performance ofcontinuous and daily operations. So far, gap

Box 4.2 Electronically submitting tax reports and financial statements

UNDP implemented the Improving Tax Administration in Uzbekistan project, which focused on furthering theintroduction of up-to-date information technologies into tax departments’ activities.This lead to considerableincreases in the effectiveness and output of information collection and processing.

The Science Information Centre for New Technologies (under the State Tax Committee of the Republic ofUzbekistan) developed a software package to electronically receive taxpayer reporting and financialstatements. Its launch was initiated in the second quarter of 2006.

The main advantages of submitting reports and statements in electronic format include reducing the timerequired to prepare and submit statements; enhancing the efficiency of updating forms;minimizing errorsduring statement preparation; and decreasing statement receipt labour requirements.

A gradual launch of the software package to electronically receive taxpayers’ reporting and financialstatements has expanded to the Tashkent and Andijan provinces, and to the city of Tashkent. By the end of2007, 7,538 entrepreneurial entities had their electronic digital signature in the capital, and more than 20,641tax calculations were submitted via the Internet. Expanding information technology in taxation administrationwill decrease businesses’ and the public’s expenses and increase the transparency of the taxation process.


analyses and assessments of development needsand targets have not been used in these projectsand activities.

4.2.4 HUMAN RIGHTS

UNDP human rights interventions have focusedon: awareness-raising and developing a strongerunderstanding of national legislation andinternational human rights standards; andstrengthening the quality of available legalservices (especially to the most vulnerablegroups) through the development of legal profes-sionals’ capacities. UNDP efforts to promotehuman rights have also addressed genderconcerns (see Section 5.1).

In partnership with other organizations, UNDPhad made important contributions to awareness-raising of human rights issues. Rather thanhaving a specific human rights project, a humanrights component was included in theDevelopment Services Support Programme latein 2002 in order to mainstream human rightsinto all programme components.40 In line withthe UNDP democratic governance focus, it wasconsidered appropriate (in light of the2005–2009 Programme Framework) to continueworking towards strengthening national capacitiesin three major areas:

1. Integrating international human rightsobligations into the national legal framework;

2. Raising awareness of international humanrights principles; and

3. Enhancing the population’s access to justice.

UNDP had been particularly successful instrengthening the capacity of the Legal Clinic ofthe University of the World Economy andDiplomacy—140 people with limited access tolegal aid received pro bono legal services in theclinic. In Tashkent, seven training programmes

provided the opportunity for more than 90 localcommunities’ activists to increase their awarenessof legal issues. However, there is a potential toimprove on-site trainings and projects focused onstrengthening the media. In addition, theplanning of study tours could more effectivelyintroduce foreign best practices to a largernumber of Legal Clinic’s students and staff.

In general, UNDP activities aimed at strengthen-ing the Legal Clinic had successfully facilitatedthe poor and vulnerable’s access to justice byenabling national partners to provide high-quality professional legal consultancy services oncivil law. However, this assistance was mainlyprovided by one legal clinic, which was limited inits activities by the Civil and Economic Law anddid not address criminal cases—those mostfrequently connected with human rightsviolations. Despite this shortcoming, more than500 representatives of law-enforcement, civilsociety institutions and political parties weretrained in human rights issues. Quarterly humanrights meetings for lawyers have turned into aforum where they can openly discuss concernsand exchange opinions.

Building on the success of this project, UNDPplans to develop the capacities of existing andnewly established legal clinics through trainingstudent lawyers to provide legal services; increas-ing the quality of student lawyers’ representationservices; modifying training manuals andpublications in order to improve the clinic’scurriculum; and introducing the clinic’seducational materials to legal schools and thelegal departments of national universities.41

UNDP Uzbekistan considers it important to payattention to the support of the courts, law-enforcement and lawyers in general in order toimprove their knowledge and skills of habeascorpus procedures (especially their knowledge ofinternational standards).42

40. Interviews with the Good Governance Unit, ADR team, summer 2008.41. UNDP, ‘Good Governance Unit Strategic Note’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2007.42. Ibid.


By publishing international human rights instru-ments, UNDP successfully raises nationalpartners’ and the general public’s awareness of thedocuments. However, this assistance sometimeslacks momentum. For example, the NationalHuman Rights Centre requested UNDPassistance in human rights education campaigndedicated to the 60th anniversary of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, butUNDP was slow to support these efforts.

UNDP has also successfully implemented activi-ties aimed at women migrant workers’ capacity-building in the fields of human and migrantworkers’ rights.43 These activities received increasedattention by governmental and non-governmentalorganizations. UNDP has built on previousaccomplishments by extending these activities toinclude migrant workers’ families in four regions ofUzbekistan (Tashkent, Jizzak, Ferghana, and in theRepublic of Karakalpakstan).44

4.3 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT FORSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In the 2000s, UNDP has been actively involvedin the area of environment and energy inUzbekistan. Typical UNDP involvement hasbeen in direct response to government requests.The Global Environment Facility (GEF) hasbeen the most important international partner infunding these activities. Lessons learned fromprevious interventions in the environment andenergy fields (as described in the 1999 environ-ment cluster evaluation) formed the basis forUNDP involvement since the year 2000.45

The 2004–2009 country programme set only oneenvironmental outcome for UNDP contribution(see Table 12). The outcome as stated in theCPD—fulfilment of obligations under inter-national environmental conventions andagreements—also included measures for itsachievement: improving the effectiveness ofenvironmental management and developingclean energy resources.

4.3.1 FRAMEWORKS AND STRATEGIESFOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

UNDP identified the desiccation of the Aral Seaas one of the major man-made ecologicaldisasters of the 20th century. However, it notedthat while priority attention needs to be given toproblems surrounding the Aral Sea disaster,Uzbekistan faces other critical environmentalproblems related to water quality and quantity,agricultural land use, desertification, industrialand municipal pollution and loss of biodiversity.The first UNDP country programme(1997–1999) recognized these as the mainenvironmental problem areas in Uzbekistan.Thisled to large and comprehensive policy andstrategy work, and integrated Uzbekistan intointernational environmental processes throughthe ratification of various international conven-tions and agreements.

UNDP involvement in the environment fieldhas, in principle, followed these strategic andpolicy-level actions. This has led UNDP tosupport the creation of the Environmental Atlas

Table 12. Energy and environment for sustainable development: expected results

CPD outcome Obligations under international environmental conventions and agreements are fulfilledthrough improved effectiveness of environment management and development of cleanenergy sources

Source: Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,‘Country Programme Action Plan 2005–2009’, Uzbekistan.

43. See Section 5.1, UNDP Success Stories: Project aimed at the promotion of the rights of women migrant workers, part II.44. Ibid.45. Tortell, Garratt and Khomenko, 1999.


of Uzbekistan.46 It describes and illustrates thestate of the environment, though there are fewstatistics regarding environmental trends andtendencies. This Atlas could create a basis for theNational Environment Action Plan.47 TheAction Plan could then be used as a basis forfostering investments into the cluster, as recentJoint Environmental Programmes I and II of theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment, the European Union with TheWorld Bank, and the Nordic EnvironmentFinance Corporation in Central Asia havesuccessfully proved.

The Environmental Atlas originated from theEnhancement of Environmental IndicatorsDatabase project, which used a geographicinformation system application to monitor thestate of environment. UNDP was one of themain contributors to a recent publication basedon these indicators: ‘Environmental Profile ofUzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators’.48

According to it, national environmental expertsconsider the following prioritized list to be themost pressing ecological problems in Uzbekistan:

1. Irrational use and pollution of water resources;

2. Imperfect waste management practices;

3. Air pollution;

4. Biodiversity conservation;

5. Climate change; and

6. Desertification and land degradation.

These challenges should guide and direct notonly future project activities, but also environ-mental investments.

A third recently implemented project, CapacityBuilding for the Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM), included elements on: capacity-buildingof the designated national authority; legalizationof carbon transactions in the domestic context; anassessment of the CDM potential in key sectors;building capacities for legal and economicappraisal of CDM projects; and technicalassistance for CDM pipeline development. Atpresent, one project is already pipelined to beincluded into the UNDP MDG Carbon Facility.

These activities are excellent examples of projectsand activities that started or originated from apolicy- and strategy-level approach, and thenmoved through planning and implementationphases to concrete investments. The mostcommon bottleneck in approaching energy andenvironmental problems is the lack of concreteinvestments and securing appropriate funding.The most sustainable course for solvingUzbekistan’s accelerating environmental problemsis to follow a logical path that moves frompolicy-level analysis to a full project cycle forsolving the problem, which in turn leads toconcrete investment.

Unfortunately, less promising examples also exist.The cluster evaluation in 1999 concluded thatUNDP involvement in the Aral Sea was verylimited and unsustainable. The latest UNDPinvolvement is similarly problematic. The issuehas had very limited inputs: the main input wasto assess the effectiveness of national andinternational efforts focused on improving theecological and socio-economic situation in theAral Sea region. The desertification of the regionhas remained the largest single natural catastrophein Central Asia, and donor efforts—includingthose of UNDP—have remained too limited.Though involvement may have been satisfactoryfrom efficiency and effectiveness perspectives,from a results and impacts perspective, efforts arefar from sustainable.

46. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Land Resources, Geodesy, Cartography and State Cadastre and UNDP,‘Environmental Atlas of Uzbekistan’, Tashkent, 2008.

47. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘National Environment Action Plan’, 1996.48. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Nature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan, ‘Environmental Profile ofUzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators’, 2008.


4.3.2 EFFECTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE

UNDP has had a long-lasting involvement in thewater supply, sanitation and health project instrengthening and management of the projectimplementation unit of the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).This large, IBRD-loan funded project has beenimplemented through governmental costsharing. The UNDP role has been remarkableand leading, particularly after 2005 when IBRDwithdrew its physical presence from Uzbekistan.According to stakeholders interviewed in Julyand August 2008, the project can be consideredefficient, effective and sustainable, as without thisproject the rural population’s drinking waterresources would have shrunk dramatically.

UNDP is playing a key role in supporting thegovernment prepare a national integrated waterresources management and water efficiency planfor Uzbekistan. This plan comprises strategicelements, an action plan on developing efficientwater resources management, and guidance forsolving related problems. The next steps are tostrengthen the human and technical capacitiesof relevant regional and domestic partnerships,and to support integration of water issues intothe relevant policy frameworks. Stakeholdersconsider this project to have been successfuland satisfactory.

According to stakeholders’ interviews conductedbetween July and August 2008, the mostprobable environmental crises will occur withinwater resources and management and irrigationissues. UNDP could take a leading role indeveloping preventive measures—both forpotential crises and for the conflicts that willresult from these crises.

Nevertheless, previous lessons learned and the2005 Regional Human Development Reportsuggest that these issues should also be addressedin subregional and international contexts. This is

also stressed in the 2008 Environmental Profileof Uzbekistan.49 It is critically important tobroaden the approach and integrate it withneighbouring countries as soon as possible. Thiscould serve as a foundation for creating earlywarning systems and other relevant monitoringsystems, in addition to in-country concreteinvestment plans and programmes aimed atsolving water, irrigation and energy relatedproblems. UNDP efforts in other regions andsubregions could be also used. For example, UNDP,the United Nations Environment Programmeand the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe approach to environmentand security in the Caucasus—transforming risksinto cooperation50—could provide ideas fordeveloping early warning and other monitoringsystems in the subregion and in Uzbekistan.

4.3.3 ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLEENERGY SERVICES

To a large extent, energy-related projects andactivities differ from environment projects.Uzbekistan is very rich in energy resources,particularly coal, hydropower, oil, natural gas anduranium.These energy sources have been managedby state-owned companies, without the partici-pation of donor agencies. However, Uzbekistanhas great potentiality for renewable energysources, such as solar and biomass.

As Uzbekistan is relatively energy rich, the issueof energy efficiency has gained only limitedattention in recent decades. In the early 2000s,UNDP became involved in preparing an energyefficiency strategy for the country. Since then,energy projects have had a demonstrationcharacter, introducing new concepts of energyefficiency and renewable energy solutions toUzbekistan. These demonstration projects haverecently included somewhat loose linkages tostrategic, policy or legislative frameworks.Typically, they are responsive and aimed atsustainably solving problems through the

49. Ibid.50. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations Environment Programme and UNDP,‘Environment and security. Transforming Risks into Cooperation. The Case of the Southern Caucasus’.


demonstration of new innovations or applica-tions of modern technologies. The two mostrecent UNDP projects are a biogas plant,demonstrating the conversion into energy ofbiogas from animal waste and sludge in aTashkent farm, and the improvement of ruralhealth clinics’ energy efficiency.

However, the biogas project cannot be consideredsuccessful, as it lacks an economic basis forexistence and sustainable performance. It assists avery limited number of rural people and lacksmarkets for organic waste disposal. Evenunsubsidized market pricing for biogas wouldnot make the pilot economically competitive.Thus, the effectiveness and sustainability of thepilot are low. These problems do not result fromweak planning of the project, but are reflective ofrenewable energy projects’ Uzbekistan context.

As of the time of the ADR, no institutional orlegislative reforms supporting renewable energyresources or use have commenced. The energysector is still dominated by two state-ownedcompanies (Uzbekenergo and Uzbekneftegaz),and there is a lack of market mechanismsregarding tariffs or energy-use measurement.A 2007 UNDP Policy Brief51 describes thestructures and needs for comprehensive reform.However, recent UNDP project activities havenot utilized the conclusions of the Policy Brief inproject planning or implementation.

Energy efficiency demonstration projects in ruralhealth clinics and medical centres have gainedstrong support from various stakeholders, andwould operate sustainably if combined withcomprehensive approaches for developing andimproving clinics’ working conditions and facilities.Unfortunately, these approaches are eithermissing or lagging behind the energy efficiencycomponent. Partial solutions or improvementsseldom lead to success or long-term sustainability.This also emphasizes the need to develop multi-sector based approaches, as though energy

efficiency solutions are important, they are rarelythe exclusive solution to problems.

The 2007 Policy Brief on energy topics indicatesthe challenges and increasing needs ofUzbekistan to continue its development work inenergy efficiency and renewable energy sources.The Brief highlights the choices for requiredeconomic and institutional reforms. An increasingnumber of donor agencies will be interested inworking in these fields, including internationaland private sector financial institutions andbanks. As UNDP has a very good reputation andpresence in many rural districts, there will beexcellent chances for partnerships with increasingnumbers of donors.

UNDP should consider its comparative strengthsin the energy sector development process andchoose between demonstrating new technologiesand concepts; placing emphasis on comprehen-sive approaches (e.g., combining social andmedical needs at the local level); or concentratingits efforts on strengthening economic andinstitutional reforms in the energy sector bylinking them to general tax reform (includingtariffs development).

The MDG Carbon Facility has just commencedits availability in Uzbekistan as an option todevelop energy-related projects within theframework the Kyoto Protocol. The Facility alsoprovides options for international funding withinthe energy sector. It is too early to assess theFacility, as only one pilot project has been testedso far. However, the concept follows lessonslearned from other countries and may eventuallyprovide opportunities for participating enterprisesand UNDP. In Uzbekistan, the Facility worksclosely with the Ministry of Economy, theDesignated National Authority for CDM inUzbekistan. Effective use of the Facility willrequire reforms in the economic and institutionalaspects of the energy sector.

51. UNDP, ‘Options for Continuing Energy Reforms in Uzbekistan’, Policy Brief, 2007.


4.3.4 SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENTTO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION ANDLAND DEGRADATION

UNDP has been conducting long-term, highlyspecialized activities aimed at achievingecosystem stability on degraded land, particularlyin the Karakalpakstan and Kuzylkum provinces.The objective of these activities has been to testcommunity-driven rehabilitation of the degradeddesert and semi-desert lands, in order todetermine if it is more cost-effective than thecurrent state-managed regime. The UNDPapproach has been to increasingly involve thelocal population in protection activities byproviding economic incentives for income-generation from trees and other vegetation. GEFis the main international partner in this process.

MDG 7 (ensure environmental sustainability),and its sub-goal (achieve a significant reductionin the rate of loss of the proportion of land areacovered by forest), suggest a strong imperative forthis type of project. However, as the last nation-wide inventory of forests stems from 1986, there isurgent need to undertake a nationwide inventoryand assessment of forests, trees and land.

The 1999 evaluation of the UNDP environmentaland energy portfolio revealed that UNDP hadgiven very little attention or funding to the landdegradation and desertification issue.52 Thistendency has continued, though the problemshave accelerated. UNDP must decide whether tocarry out activities with a specialized focus oncommunity-level protection or increase itspresence and develop its involvement or towithdraw from it. The Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), thespecialized UN agency in this area, is activelyincreasing its involvement in Uzbekistan andcould bring its global expertise to this field. FAOwould most likely need the expertise of UNDP indeveloping the appropriate working approach

and its assistance in creating an appropriatefunding base.

FAO could also be an important partner, helpingto successfully finish UNDP involvement in the2007 livestock project implemented in theTashkent region. As UNDP does not have acomparative strength in these fields or theappropriate expertise to support these processesin the long term, it is implementing the project inpartnership with the Center for InternationalCooperation53 under the Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Israel, which is providing extensiveexpertise and training opportunities within theproject framework. The project includes a veteri-nary station development component, for whichFAO and the EU could provide appropriateexpertise regarding sustainable results anddevelopment process impacts. The problemsaddressed in the UNDP project are important—and even necessary—to enable the implementationof Uzbekistan’s plans to broaden its range ofproduction and exports of agricultural products.

4.3.5 CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLEUSE OF BIODIVERSITY

In this field, UNDP has closely followed thefindings and recommendations of the 1999evaluation of the UNDP environment andenergy portfolio. All activities have a clear andconcise linkage to the biodiversity strategy andpolicy development of Uzbekistan, the protectionnetwork has been gradually increased accordingto plans, and progress has been made at fulfillingrelevant international conventions and agreements.Since most of the protected areas in Uzbekistanwere established in the 1970s and 1980s, UNDPhas recently focused on updating the needs forbiodiversity protection.54

UNDP has been a principal supporter in the areaof conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,mainly in close cooperation with GEF. Stakeholders

52. In section 3.3, the report notes that “efforts to control the process of desertification have been puny and in the rush tofind solutions, cause and effect were not always properly matched.”

53. MASHAV.54. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Nature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan, ‘Environmental Profile ofUzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators’, 2008.


interviewed gave very strong support to cooperationbetween UNDP and GEF, and recent final andmid-term evaluations of the projects havereflected satisfactory or highly satisfactory resultsfor implemented projects.55

Since 2000, UNDP has concentrated biodiversityconservation efforts on two projects andprocesses, namely to the establishment of theNuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere reserve and onthe conservation of the Tugai-forest inKarakalpakstan. These are the only new majorconservation areas established since theindependence of Uzbekistan.

The future of the Biosphere reserves andprotected areas is dependent on how well themanagement and funding of these areas can beorganized, and on the successful development oflinkages to nature-based and ecological tourism.The initial establishment has been successful, andthe measures taken have been effective andrelevant. However, in the short term the reservesshould be changed from a supply-orientation to acontrolled market-orientation, which requires aclear and concise development approach. Thiswill be among the main challenges to theprojects’ survival after the project-cycle, as the2007 Terminal Evaluation report of the UNDP-GEF project “Establishment of Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve Project as a Modelfor Biodiversity Conservation in Uzbekistan”presents. These issues mainly concern thesustainability of the projects, and can be mostappropriately assessed in the long term.

In stakeholder discussions, the only criticalcomments regarding biodiversity projects andactivities concerned the lack of participatoryapproaches in projects’ preparatory phases.Despite a concentration of expertise in therelevant scientific and other professional organi-zations in Uzbekistan, this expertise is notsufficiently used in project preparations. Thisrelates to biodiversity projects, land degradation

and sand stabilization activities. Nevertheless, themain concern is the weak capacity to monitor thestate of the environment: there are neithersufficient technical nor human capacities in thesefields. This worry is shared not only by allrelevant organizations in the environment field,but also by most stakeholders interviewed. Themajority of stakeholders claimed that the highestprofile crises that will influence the future ofUzbekistan—even in the mid-term—will beenvironmental in nature.

Uzbekistan needs more environmental projects,and emphasis should be placed on acceleratinginvestments in monitoring capacities, strength-ening the national and local institutes’ capacity tomonitor problems, and involving local populationsin problem solving. This requires closer involve-ment with international financial institutions andthe EU, and adding value to existing UNDP andGEF environmental development projects.UNDP has a clear coordinating role and positionin this process.

4.4 RESPONDING TO HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS has been among the core themesduring the last two UNDP country programmes.Most of the activities and interventions havebeen funded from the Global Fund to fightAIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund).In this section, the UNDP contribution isanalysed in this section in a chronological order:HIV/AIDS prevention as a component of the2000–2004 Development Services SupportProgramme, and further assistance as acomponent of the 2005–2009 programmecycle (through the support of projects funded bythe Global Fund and the Long Term JointCapacity-building for AIDS control in CentralAsia project).

In January 2002, the Promotion of an EffectiveResponse to HIV/AIDS/STI and Drug Abuseproject came under the responsibility of the

55. Bellamy 2007; Edwards 2008.


HIV/AIDS component of the DevelopmentServices Support Programme. The project wasfinanced on a cost-sharing basis by the membersof the UN Theme Group on HIV/AIDS.UNAIDS provided assistance in the form ofProgramme Acceleration Funds. The Ministry ofHealth was the executing agency, and theUzbekistan Republican Aids Centre was theimplementing agency.

On the national level, the multisectoral responseto HIV/AIDS was the development of theNational Strategic Plan (NSP), developed by theInter-ministerial Working Group on StrategicPlanning. Progress towards its development andformulation was to be measured by severalintermediate and final outputs. Outputs wereachieved, although with delay.56 The existinglegislation was reviewed, and proposals foramendments related to approaches towardsvulnerable groups were included in the NSP. InJuly 2002, a draft of the Country CoordinationMechanism (CCM) was developed and submittedto the government and approved in May of 2003.As a result of component activities, the CCMand the Regional Coordination Councils onHIV/AIDS Prevention were established.

Since the main focus of UNDP actions to fightHIV/AIDS were policies that change behaviour,the project57 aimed at increasing the generalpopulation’s awareness by advocating the princi-ples of AIDS prevention. Progress was measuredby the following outputs:

� Workshops for Mahalla leaders;

� Training of specialists on media and publicinformation campaigning;

� Design, production and distribution ofinformation, education and communicationmaterials;

� Introduction of HIV/AIDS issues intoschool curricula; and

� Involvement of NGOs.

The output performance of UNDP wasevaluated as very high.58 However, the impact onstrengthening the multilateral response andcollaborative activities was delayed by about oneyear due to late government approval of the NSPand CCM. The extent to which componentoutputs (NSP, CCM) attained the objectives(strengthening multisectoral response toHIV/AIDS) was limited, which had repercus-sions on subsequent component activities andoutputs (i.e., sectoral plans). However,component initiatives aimed at intensifyingHIV/AIDS prevention activities and increasingpublic awareness were effective.

The benefits received by target beneficiaries hada wider, although limited, overall effect on largernumbers of people. The project started togenerate positive results in regard to raisingpublic awareness. Government officials andsociety began to accept and understand the mainprinciples and ideas of HIV/AIDS prevention,whereas at project inception the prevailingopinion was that because the country had lowrates of HIV/AIDS transmission, preventivemeasures against HIV/AIDS were not a priorityissue. UNDP also contributed to strengtheningUN system cooperation through the activitiesof the HIV/AIDSThematic Group.With regardto raising public awareness, close cooperationamong the component and its national partnersenhanced the technical capacities of: allparticipating parties with government structuresrelated to the development and implementationof the NSP and sectoral programmes; theUzbekistan Republican AIDS Centre and otherregional AIDS Centres; and NGOs andcommunity-based organizations.

56. UNDP, ‘Ex Post Evaluation of UNDP Development Support Services Programme’, February, 2005.57. In January 2002, the previous UNDP project Promotion of an Effective Response to HIV/AIDS/STI and Drug Abusecame under the responsibility of the HIV/AIDS component of the Development Services Support Programme.

58. UNDP, ‘Ex Post Evaluation of UNDP Development Support Services Programme’, February, 2005.


The activities carried out by UNDP can beconsidered relevant, effective, sustainable andresponsive to the needs of the government andpopulation. However, the weaknesses can befound in the lack of multisectoral approaches orcomprehensive strategy development—requiredif sustainable impacts are to be achieved. Withrespect to partnerships, UNDP played aconstructive, though only supportive, role inthese activities.

4.4.1 FACILITATING THE NATIONALSTRUGGLE AGAINST THE HIV/AIDSEPIDEMIC: 2005 TO 2009

The UNDP role and activities with regards tohelping the Government of Uzbekistan combatthe HIV/AIDS epidemic are currently in accordwith the 2007 Welfare Improvement Strategy ofUzbekistan.59 In partnership with UNAIDS andother UN agencies,60 UNDP support to nationalefforts to prevent the spread of the HIV/AIDSepidemic continues to contribute toMDG6.UNDPsupport is facilitated through the implementationof projects funded by Global Fund, and the LongTerm Joint Capacity-building for AIDS Controlin Central Asia programme.

The 2006–2010 Long term Joint Capacity-Building for AIDS Control in Central Asia seeksto increase national capacity in Kazakhstan, theKyrgyz republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan forproject management and implementation, withinthe specific area of HIV/AIDS control. Theseproject activities are implemented mainly throughthe provision of capacity-building and fiduciaryservices. UNDP Uzbekistan is a designatedinternational organization in Uzbekistan, representsthis project at the country level, and supports theMinistry of Health structures and a NationalCoordinator. The specific areas to which UNDPprovides capacity-building and support services are:

� Fiduciary management;

� Contracts administration;

� Grants administration and monitoringsupport; and

� Procurement support.

The 2006 UNDP National HumanDevelopment Report, prepared in close consulta-tion with other UN agencies, provides a detailedanalysis of national strategies and internationalassistance relating to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.In Karakalpakstan, UNDP assistance had beenprovided to local authorities in preparationof a regional tuberculosis project, which hadresulted in the preparation of a joint projectbetween United Nations Volunteers and UNDP,with technical advice from the World HealthOrganization (WHO).

Since 2005, UNDP has acted in a key and corerole within HIV/AIDS prevention in Uzbekistan.However, it is too early to determine the sustain-ability of these activities, as there are weaknessesin the national approach due to the lack ofcomprehensive and multisector assessments ofthe problem area. This restricts and diminishesthe results and impacts of the activities. However,the effectiveness and relevance of the activities canbe considered to be satisfactory, and partnershipswith other donors have improved in recent years.The tuberculosis project has brought about newpartnerships, such as with the United NationsVolunteers, and this linkage may create solidplatforms for broadening future UNDP activities.

4.4.2 COLLABORATION WITH OTHERINTERNATIONAL AGENCIES INCONNECTION TO COMBATINGTHE HIV/AIDS EPIDEMIC

The UNTheme Group on HIV/AIDS had beenoperational since 1996, and aims to strengthenpartnerships between the government, UNagencies, bilateral donors and civil society. It hasbeen actively supporting the Government of

59. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Welfare Improvement Strategy’, 2007.60. UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC and WHO.


Uzbekistan prepare for the current NationalStrategy on HIV/AIDS. The UN Theme Groupon HIV/AIDS has been chaired on rotationalbasis by The World Bank, UNFPA, UNICEF,the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime(UNODC), and WHO. The UN ResidentCoordinator is in charge of the current manage-ment structure for UN support to the nationalHIV/AIDS response.

The 2007 UN Country Team Retreat wasdevoted to HIV/AIDS. In 2008, UNAIDSfacilitated a retreat for the Joint UN ThemeGroup on HIV/AIDS, where UN agenciesagreed on the major priorities for UN supportand outlined benchmarks for the development ofan effective Joint UN Programme of Support onHIV/AIDS in Uzbekistan.

According to interviews conducted by the ADRteam, the main challenges to this problem areaare: the lack of coordination on behalf of theResident Coordinator; lack of regular meetingsby the members of the Theme Group; lack offollow up on decisions by members of the ThemeGroup; and international agencies’ preference toact acting separately based on their mandate,which leads to duplications of effort. Theseproblems influence the effectiveness, relevance,replicability and sustainability of the activities.In addressing these challenges, only a compre-hensive, thematic evaluation can determinespecific challenges, after which problem solvingcan be planned. An Assessment of DevelopmentResults is not the most appropriate tool to assesssuch a complex problem area, yet it increasespartial understanding of the problems andchallenges from the UNDP perspective.

Box 4.3 Legislative framework for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Uzbekistan

In August 1999, the Government of Uzbekistan adopted laws regarding the prevention of HIV/AIDS.The lawsregulate HIV/AIDS testing procedures, the safety and anonymity of medical examinations, social assistance toHIV-positive people and AIDS patients, and ensures their right to humane treatment, free health care andsocial security.61 In addition, termination of an employment contract or denial of recruitment or admission toeducational institutions based on HIV/AIDS status is prohibited.

The Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan had adopted the first strategy for combating thespread of HIV/AIDS in 2003 (the strategy of 2003–2006). Beginning in 2003, the Commission on EmergencyEpidemiological Situations started operating in Uzbekistan.This inter-ministerial group, consisting of govern-ment ministries and agencies, was created in order to coordinate the system of prevention and combatingthe HIV/AIDS epidemic.The second strategy for combating the spread of the epidemic, based on the country-level changes concerning HIV/AIDS, was adopted by the Government of Uzbekistan and covers the years2007–2011.This programme, building on the results accomplished since 2003, aims at incorporating theprinciples of UNAIDS that focus on the development of a tripartite structure; promote a single coordinationmechanism and a unified system of monitoring and evaluation; and address governmental and non-governmental structures, the private sector, and international organizations.62

In 2005, the Ministry of Health approved preventive measures developed in accordance with public healthnorms.They include voluntary,mandatory and compulsory HIV testing of patients.63

61. UNDP, ‘Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis’, 2006.62. Government of Uzbekistan, ‘National Strategy for Combating HIV/AIDS in the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2007-2011’, 2006.63. UNDP, ‘Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis’, 2006.

C H A P T E R 5 . C R O S S - C U T T I N G T H E M E S A N D O P E R A T I O N A L I S S U E S 3 9

This chapter examines the key areas that cutacross the programming themes identified in theprevious chapter. Gender equality issues areincluded, as the Uzbekistan country office hasmade efforts to mainstream this issue in all itswork. In addition, the Terms of Reference statethat special attention should be paid to capacity-building, as this is central to UNDP.This chapterwill also include a discussion of select operationalissues that affect the UNDP contribution tonational development results, as well as theUNDP role in facilitating more effective UNsystem coordination.

5.1 GENDER

UNDP gender interventions take the form ofsupporting projects specifically focused onwomen’s empowerment and mainstreaminggender into other UNDP projects. Directwomen’s empowerment projects includeimplementation support to the Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of Discriminationagainst Women and promotion of womenmigrant workers’ rights (see Box 5.1).64 The goodgovernance unit is responsible for both women’sempowerment and gender mainstreaminginterventions. In addition, both the UNDP-supported MDG Report and the NationalHuman Development Report utilize gender-disaggregated data, and typically have sub-chapters on gender issues and equal access ofwomen and men.65

UNDP Uzbekistan follows the practice ofincluding gender issues into project activities.The following projects serve as good examples:

� In the field of information and communica-tion technologies, a special focus on ruralyoung women was made and the sub-activity,TechAge Girls, was created to promote thisgroup’s ICT skills and access to technologies;

� The Enhancing Living Standards interven-tions, with their community mini-projects,ensure that women are not only included inbeneficiary groups, but are also empoweredas decision makers when choosing where toinvest money; and

� Educational projects have incorporatedgender training into the curricula of theAcademy of State Social Construction andthe University of World Economy andDiplomacy legal clinic.

UNDP Uzbekistan staff has made good use ofICT to mainstream gender. The country officecreated an intranet section on gender main-streaming (including Internet links, tools, keymainstreamed formats and documents, andresearch data), and the country office intranetblog includes a discussion of gender issues. Thefollowing examples are of initiatives aimed atgender mainstreaming at the national andregional levels:

� Gender mainstreaming sessions for theAcademy of State and Social Constructionfor civil servants;

Chapter 5

CROSS-CUTTING THEMESAND OPERATIONAL ISSUES

64. The Legislative and Institutional Capacity Development for Women’s Empowerment in Uzbekistan project and thePromotion of Women Migrant Workers Rights project.

65. UNDP, ‘Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Progress Report on Implementationof GAP 2007’, UNDP Uzbekistan.

C H A P T E R 5 . C R O S S - C U T T I N G T H E M E S A N D O P E R A T I O N A L I S S U E S4 0

� Gender mainstreaming training for localauthorities in the Ferghana Valley, within theUNDP Uzbekistan Enhancement of LivingStandards project; and

� Training of trainers at theWomen’sCommittee’scentral and regional branches.

The Extended Gender Theme Group includesthe ADB, the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe, UNAIDS, UNDP,UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC, the UN ResidentCoordinator, WHO, and The World Bank.In 2005–2006, the activity of the Theme Groupslowed down. Some joint activities were carriedout, including the 2006–2007 UN JointProgramme on Promoting MDGs in LocalCommunities. In 2008, UNDP initiatedadditional Gender Theme Group activities,the scope of which includes:

� Exchanging information on gender (e.g.,activities, best practices, current news, lessonslearned and pipelines);

� Facilitating joint activity, project/programmeformulation, planning and implementation;

� Promoting coordination among nationalentities, the donor community and theUN system;

� Providing support to the UN system tomobilize resources;

� Promoting effective partnerships amongbilateral donors, the donor community,multilateral organizations, NGOs, theprivate sector and the UN system;

� Advising and assisting the reinforcement ofthe UN system’s lead and catalyst role;

� Networking and advocating UN issueswith academia, government, media andNGOs; and

� Advising and organizing outreach events andactivities to increase donor, government andpublic awareness of UN system activities.

Gender-disaggregated data is mainly producedby the Uzbekistan State Committee as part ofannual MDG reports and regular NationalHuman Development Reports. However, there islittle sharing of this gender data among UNagencies, with the exception of the ADB gender

Box 5.1 UNDP success stories: projects aimed at the promotion of the rights of womenmigrant workers (Phase II)

The main objectives of this project are to improve human rights protection for women migrant workers and toincrease the quality of services they and victims of human trafficking receive from relevant government bodiesand NGOs.These objectives will be achieved through support to the involved actors (vulnerable women andtheir families) in order to improve women’s legal status, target the issues of employment and povertyreduction, and contribute to the broader issue of protecting migrant workers’ rights.The main strategicoutcomes of the project will be in line with theWIS migration-related targets, such as “substantial wideningof legal and socially protected labour migration”and “improvement of the registration and statistics of theemployed population, including the informal labour market and labour migration.”

Informal migration from rural areas to large cities, particularly in Tashkent, is evident as the growing ruralpopulation tries to compensate for limited non-agricultural employment opportunities by seeking temporaryand informal employment in cities. Government bodies—such as the Ministry of Labour and Social Protectionand local departments—and theWomen’s Committee of Uzbekistan, the national organ for the advancementof women and promotion of women’s rights, have tried to initiate new employment programmes in ruralareas, to develop small- and medium-sized businesses and to stimulate local community leaders to preventillegal migration.

Together with UNDP, a number of international agencies (e.g., the International Labour Organization, theInternational Organization for Migration, UNFPA and UNODC) have launched several initiatives to raiseawareness of and combat human trafficking. As a result of these interventions, the Law of the Republic ofUzbekistan on Countering Human Trafficking was passed in April, 2008.


assessment.66 Gender analysis is used only in specificwomen’s- and health-related projects, such as theADBandTheWorldBank small grants programme,WHO projects and certain UN agency genderprojects, mainly those of UNICEF and UNFPA.

UNDP support to the implementation of theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women provides aconcrete example of a UN system project thatincludes a gender analysis of legislation. Beyonda specific focus on MDG 3—Promote genderequality and empower women—UNDP has beensuccessful in encouraging the use of gender-disaggregated statistics in national reporting onall MDGs. UNDP has also supported thepreparation of the 2005 Statistical Bulletin,‘Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts andFigures 2000–2004’.67

5.2 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

At the corporate level, UNDP promotes variouscapacity development strategies, tools and

approaches, such as capacity assessments68

covering three levels of capacity development(see Box 5.2). These are made available anddiscussed through UNDP-supported capacitydevelopment networks, professional programmes,libraries, project databases and other relevanttools. However, UNDP Uzbekistan projectdocuments seldom demonstrate how thesestrategies and tools are applied to programmes orproject designs in practice.

Since 2000, there has not been a systematicapproach to needs assessment during theplanning phase of UNDP projects. The need fortraining and learning was highlighted mainly byprofessional workshops or participatory planningprocesses, where governmental or local stakeholdersraised such needs. Systematic needs analysisforms the basis for project design and, at the sametime, formalizes the objectives of educational andtraining activities. While a less systematicapproachmay lead to satisfactory immediate resultsin human-resource development and learning, andmay even prove to be efficient and effective, such

Box 5.2 Three levels of capacity development

1. The enabling environment is the term used to describe the broader system within which individuals andorganizations function and which either facilitates or hampers their existence and development.This levelof capacity is not easy to visualize, but it is extremely important to the understanding of capacity issues.Capacities at the level of the enabling environment include policies, legislation, power relations and socialnorms, all of which govern the mandates, priorities,modes of operation and civic engagement acrossdifferent parts of society.They determine the ‘rules of the game’ for interaction between and amongorganizations.

2. The organizational level of capacity comprises the internal policies, procedures and frameworks thatallow an organization to operate and deliver on its mandate, and that enable individual capacities towork together and achieve goals. If these exist, are well-resourced and well-aligned, the capability of anorganization to perform will be greater than that of the sum of its parts.

3. The individual level of capacity refers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in a person.Each person is endowed with a mix of capacities that allows him or her to perform,whether at home, atwork or in society at large. Some of these are acquired through formal training and education, othersthrough learning by doing and experience.

66. ADB 2005.67. Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP, ‘Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts and Figures 2000–2004’,Statistical Bulletin, Tashkent, 2005.

68. See www.capacity.undp.org.


results are rarely sustainable if they do not alsostrengthen local or regional structures.

The UNDP ‘Practice Note for Capacities forIntegrated Local Development’69 dividesapproaches to local development into fourcategories: direct community support, localgovernment support, area-based developmentand decentralized sector approaches. Thecommon feature of the four is the objectiveof strengthening local governments, planningand decision-making mechanisms, and localinstitutions during the decentralization process.This can take place in different ways, but alwaysusing needs assessments of institutional andeducational structures and human resources.The ADR team did not find any documentsdiscussing the foundation for the selection ofarea-based development as the main approach tosupporting the decentralization process inUzbekistan. This deficiency also influencesdeeper comparative analysis of developmentapproaches and concepts, which would beuseful, for example, when further refining theselected approach.

In addition, capacity development among region-ally active institutions has been limited. ELS andABD projects, for instance, always includedinstitutional development aspects, but theytypically created their own institutional structures,such as Information Resource Centres. It is notclear whether these Centres will continue to existafter the end of the project, even if those createdunder the first ELS project continue to existthree years after it closed. In contrast, there aremany active institutions—including educationaland those managed by the regional chamber ofcommerce—that could be developed further byadding services to their ongoing activities.

Sectoral and line ministries are usually satisfiedwith the quality of projects’ educationalcomponents and training received from UNDP.However, ministries’ training needs often

gravitate towards supplementary topics, andofficials typically request additional training andlearning support, often after the project cycle.

A more sustainable project concept is for UNDPto use a training-system approach, where futuretrainers, who will assist in the following phases ofthe process, are identified and included amongthe first group of trainees. Typically, the idealcandidates for future trainers are either teachersfrom line ministry institutions or ministry andcentral administration civil servants that havealso received pedagogic training. In private-sector development projects, trainers can beselected among participating professionals. Thistraining approach reduces the need for UNDPinvolvement in training events and efficientlyand effectively strengthens local capacities.

However, this has not been the case for UNDPprojects in Uzbekistan. Thus, UNDP will haveto remain responsive to important and under-standable requests for support from ministriesand the central administration after project cyclesend. This issue will become an increasing burdenfor UNDP if the approach is not strategicallyaltered to selectively strengthen existinginstitutional structures. This adjustment shouldbe based on a thorough assessment of existingneeds and resources. Discussions with the staff ofthe UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre revealedthat this problem has been very commonthroughout the region.

5.3 PROGRAMMEMANAGEMENT ISSUES

Representatives of some ministries, such as theMinistry of Finance of Uzbekistan and theParliament, expressed the opinion that mostjudicial, legislative and regulatory frameworkdevelopment initiatives should be viewed asprocesses rather than projects, and that UNDPsupport should be provided during the entireperiod of their development. For example, tax

69. UNDP, ‘Practice Note for Capacities for Integrated Local Development’, 2007.


reform took over two years longer than expected,and the complex customs reform process iscurrently facing the same setback. The follow-upreport to the National Waste ManagementStrategy project70 noted that the delays inadopting the main outputs of the project (anational Strategy for Waste Management and a5-year Plan of Action) were the result of dueprocess being applied and “it would seem that thetime-frame allowed by the project for this activitywas too short and unrealistic.”

Uzbekistan remains in the beginning stages ofmany new processes (e.g., the country’s entryinto global markets and WTO). Many ofthese processes are complex, and internationalexperience suggests that they will last muchlonger than expected. As such, it would bebeneficial to take this orientation towards along-term process into account during projectplanning. This would mean changes in theproject cycle, as well as in augmenting reserves tofacilitate and backstop the development processes.

Separately, personnel changes in UNDPUzbekistan have resulted in limited institutionalmemory. Furthermore, there has been very littleinternal transfer of project experiences fromsenior to new staff members. Only one projectmanager has worked with UNDP projects fromthe beginning of 2000, and only three other staffmembers have been engaged since the secondcountry programme (2000–2004). There is also aclear need to deepen collaboration betweencountry office units.

In addition, no country programme evaluationshad been conducted between the last twoprogramming periods. Outcome evaluations hadalso been omitted, although they had been part ofthe country office evaluation plan. The numberof historic documents available to the ADR teamwas very limited, and interviews revealed thatUNDP staff rarely utilized such documents.

5.4 UN SYSTEM AND DONORCOORDINATION

The recent UNDAF mid-term evaluationexamined several issues related to UN systemcoordination, primarily focusing on the constraintsrelated to the design and effectiveness ofUNDAF programmes.However, the key practicallimitations concerned the limited use of internalagency programming and ensuring the sustain-ability of UN system programmes and projects.The lack of capacity-building elements wereidentified as the main bottlenecks. These issuesare similarly evident in UNDP-led activities, asaddressed in preceding sections.

The preparation phase is crucial to the practicalcoordination of programmes and projects. Thisissue was also raised by international financialinstitutions that would like to increase coopera-tion with the UN system. While a system-wideapproach is occasionally recognized in codes ofconduct, theoretical papers and evaluations,actual UN-system project documents seldomcontain such an approach. Typically, eachUN organization carries out programme andproject planning in isolation. Although projectdocuments are technically well prepared forgovernmental clients, and UNDP receives verysatisfactory results and feedback, the inclusion ofvarious stakeholders into the planning processappears surprisingly lacking. Discussions tend totake place too late in the project cycle. Whilesuch collaboration is informative, it rarely resultsfrom or leads to concrete joint planning.

Coordination among UN system organizations ismost successful at the local level. For example, inKarakalpakstan, assistance is being provided tolocal authorities in donor coordination and inpreparing a regional tuberculosis project, whichhas turned into the UN Joint Project betweenUNDP and the United Nations Volunteers.Technical advice is provided by WHO, andpotential partnerships are also planned withUNICEF and UNFPA. In 2007, UNICEF and

70. Tortell, 2006. See http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf.


UNDP merged efforts to support the empower-ment of local communities participating in ELSproject activities. This allowed UNICEF toexpand its geographic coverage and the ELSproject to benefit from UNICEF expertise.UNICEF and UNDP also coordinated inintegrating ICT into secondary schools. Anotherexample is TheWorld Bank and ELS collaborationin relation to supplying energy to rural healthclinics as described in section 4.3.3. Nevertheless,improvements in donor coordination remainneeded, as highlighted in the case of HIV/AIDSinterventions. Coordination in this area receivedthe most criticism, though this criticism addressednot only UN-system performance, but also thatof the entire international donor community.

As noted in Chapter 2, there are no formalgovernment aid coordination mechanisms inplace, even if some are envisaged within theWIS.UNDP is in a good position to help the govern-

ment implement such mechanisms and to ensuremore effective use of external assistance. Inaddition, local governments would benefit ifUNDP were to increase its coordinating rolewith other donor agencies at local and regionallevels.This concerns not only project-level activi-ties, but also the broader coordination ofdifferent donor agencies and their roles,activities, projects, instruments and availableinformation. The future role and position ofUNDP in Uzbekistan largely depends on howwell the agency can perform in a local andregional coordination role, as donor agencies thatbecome active in Uzbekistan lack localknowledge and experience. UNDP has a verygood reputation among stakeholders and donoragencies: it is recognized for its transparency aswell as for its active and efficient dissemination ofinformation and results. In the future, thisapproach should be increasingly utilized at thelocal and regional levels.

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 4 5

This chapter uses the findings and assessmentsdiscussed in the preceding sections to introduceconclusions made by the ADR team, and closeswith a set of recommendations.

6.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS

1. Overall, UNDP has made an important contri-bution to Uzbekistan’s development during theperiod under review.This contribution tookplace during a time of rapid change, includingthe implementation of key reforms, fasteconomic growth and a change in the country’srelationship with the international community.

Though such circumstances have made theengagement more complex, they have alsooffered opportunities for UNDP. UNDP hasremained committed to supporting Uzbekistanand has a sound programme, much appreciatedby the partner government. Measuring UNDPcontribution towards stated programme outcomesis difficult in view of limited available data andchanges in the direction of the programme overtime. Although a comprehensive examination ofthe total portfolio of projects was not conducted,the effectiveness of achieving project results canbe assessed as satisfactory. UNDP interventionsto support achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty made important contributions tothe stated outcomes. In support to fosteringdemocratic governance, the contribution towardsthe stated goals was more limited, partly due to achange in the direction of this group of activitiesduring the ongoing programme; nonetheless,important contributions to national results weremade. In the area of energy and environmentfor sustainable development, UNDP effortswent beyond its contribution to the relevantoutcome stated in the 2005–2009 countryprogramme document.

2. UNDP has been relevant to Uzbekistan’spriority development needs, as these have beendefined by the President and the Government ofUzbekistan, and to the needs articulated at localand regional levels.

UNDP has been working with a partner govern-ment that has a strong willingness to takenational ownership of development processes.Strong responsiveness to, and close cooperationwith, governmental authorities has proven to bean efficient method of jointly developingeffective programmes and projects. Thisapproach has also guaranteed strong governmentcommitment. If commitment and sustainabilityare to be achieved, it is crucial to undertake aparticipatory approach from the very beginningof the process. This is relevant at all activitylevels, from central government and theParliament to local projects and other activities.Problems that are identified and prioritized bylocal people and their groups—and solved basedon joint preparations—have led to sustainableresults. Social infrastructure projects in theUNDP portfolio that address water, gas andheating problems offer good examples of thistype of activity. Where UNDP interventionssupport local-level private-sector development,care needs to be taken in order to ensure that itsefforts support the market for credit, not distortit through the provision of grants.

In some cases, UNDP may have missed opportu-nities for engagement—for example, in areaswhere the comparative UNDP strength ofneutrality and long-term commitment toUzbekistan’s development could have played animportant role. In the case of Uzbekistan’sWelfare Improvement Strategy, UNDP did notcapitalize on some of its expertise (e.g., environ-ment and energy issues) and did not conduct anadequate analysis of implementation risks, the

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S4 6

importance of which was underscored by recentchanges in the global financial climate.

3. UNDP responsiveness has led to a wide-ranging programme. In order to increase theeffectiveness, efficiency and sustainability ofinterventions, it is important for UNDP to focuson fewer issues (and on those in which it hascomparative strengths) and to take a morecomprehensive and long-term approach.

Although UNDP has been responsive to govern-ment needs as these emerged—especially in thearea of providing technical support to policyformulation—in some cases, UNDP has been soresponsive that it lost sight of the need to focuson projects with long-term strategic linkages.UNDP could have been more critical in selectingproposals with strategic development importanceand prioritizing them using development strategies.In UNDP support for democratic governance,important and high-priority projects have beenimplemented in two country programme cycles,but proposals were not conducted strategically. Inother areas, including energy, national prioritieswere unclear and projects were typically scattered,offering limited strategic or policy-level linkages.At the same time, the approaches, scope andselection of proposals were occasionally heavilyinfluenced by available funding mechanisms andinstruments, and driven by resource mobilizationconcerns. A more strategic response, whereinterventions are anchored to clear nationalpriorities, could be facilitated through better use ofannual Country Programme Action Plan reviews.

Follow-up to development projects is increas-ingly needed in order to ensure effectiveness andmaximize UNDP contributions. Consideringdevelopment activities as longer-term processesinstead of projects with strict cycles would beuseful in some cases, particularly in complexprocesses such as legislative development.

The overall UNDP approach of combiningpolicy support in the capital with direct interven-tions at the local level has been balanced,especially in the context of the declining engage-ment of international development partners since2004. The comparative strengths of UNDP lie in

its work in rural areas and in its access to centralgovernment. Maintaining the appropriatebalance between the two, and ensuring stronglinkages between lessons learned at the local leveland central policy making, will remain a majorchallenge in the next programme. The change inthe aid environment—following re-engagementof many international organizations and growinginterest in addressing rural issues—may meanthat UNDP will need to play a more focused andstrategic role at the local level, such as by facili-tating local government aid coordination tocomplement its support to aid coordination atthe central level.

4.UNDP has engaged in some good developmentpartnerships, and now needs to build on them,ensuring that it adds value to relationships (e.g.,though the promotion of human developmentand/or ensuring the involvement of the mostvulnerable and marginalized portions of society).

UNDP strategic partnerships vary betweensectors, projects and government levels. Thestrongest partnerships are with governmentalauthorities that jointly prepare and implement allrelevant projects and activities. These partner-ships are based on mutual respect, but require ahigher degree of UNDP accountability andgreater transparency of intervention selection andresource allocation.

UNDP has also established a variety of qualitypartnerships with international developmentpartners. For example, UNDP has managedprojects for The World Bank, such as the Waterand Sanitation project funded by an IBRD loan.UNDP has also worked in partnerships where itsadded value went beyond management: inworking with the European Commission,primarily on ELS projects and the regionalBOMCA/CADAP initiatives, UNDP addedvalue through its expertise in working with localcommunities and drawing on global bestpractices. These experiences have satisfied thepartners, and while cooperation is likely tocontinue, it will be within a very differentenvironment as re-engagement of many suchpartners intensifies.

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 4 7

The UNDP role in such partnerships is likely tochange from overall programme management toimplementation of either select programmeelements or areas where UNDP has a strongpresence. Closer collaboration with donors andinternational financial institutions should focuson incorporating human development approachesand priorities within investment programmes.Such linkages are required, particularly in thefields of environment, energy, water resourcesand agricultural sector development. In suchpartnerships, the role of UNDP would increas-ingly tend towards the inclusion of the mostvulnerable and marginalized stakeholders. At thesame time, the increased involvement of theEuropean Union, its member countries and otherbilateral agencies will mean that they may alsoneed to utilize UNDP experience in their futureinterventions, especially at the local level.

5.While capacity development has been at thecentre of many UNDP interventions, limited usehas been made of the tools and approaches thatUNDP has developed at the corporate level.

Inadequate use of capacity assessments has led toreduced effectiveness and efficiency of interven-tions, and limited sustainability of results. At thesame time, project design has sometimes led toinefficient approaches to capacity development.For example, instead of UNDP and its partnerstraining all participants, appropriate institutesat local, regional and national levels couldhave been strengthened in order to initially focuson producing local specialists to take oversubsequent capacity development activities.Where UNDP has used this approach inUzbekistan, it has been successful—the approachneeds to be replicated across all activities.

6. There is a need for UNDP to increase itslearning from experience and to facilitategreater opportunities for national learningfrom its interventions.

All UNDP interventions should provide lessonsthat can support not only its own activities, butalso those of its partners. Specifically, greater

effort needs to be made to link lessons learned tonational policy development. Likewise, UNDPneeds to build on its successes in scaling-up, as inthe ELS/ABD interventions, and to ensure an evengreater scope of regional and national replication.

Evaluation and monitoring practices should alsobe strengthened, and a culture of focusing onresults should be established. Learning fromprevious experience will not only improveintervention efficiency, but also improveeffectiveness. In this respect, the internationaldissemination of experiences, lessons learned andbest practices should be strengthened. There areCentral Asian countries that could benefit fromUzbekistan’s experience, while those of others inthe broader region could offer Uzbekistan lessonsin return.With its global network, UNDP is in aposition to facilitate this information exchange.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In agreement with government, focus theprogramme on a smaller number of strategicinterventions where UNDP has clear comparativestrengths, is able to offer a long-term commit-ment and, through relevant partnerships, isable to address the underlying issue in acomprehensive manner.

Make efforts to ensure UNDP activities are inline with those set out in its strategic plan and arein areas where it has comparative strengths inUzbekistan, while remaining responsive tonational priorities. Where there is nationaldemand for inter-ventions outside these areas,UNDP should facilitate the development ofpartnerships between national and appropriateinternational organizations with relevantexpertise—for example, through joint program-ming. Interventions should continue to build onthe UNDP comparative strength of neutralityand long-term commitment to Uzbekistan’sdevelopment. As an initial step, UNDP shouldwork closely with the government to ensure thatboth comprehensive environmental concerns andrisk analysis are adequately integrated intonational development planning instruments.

C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S4 8

2. Build on existing partnerships withinternational development partners, butensure that UNDP adds value beyond purelymanagement arrangements.

Incorporate human development approaches inthe interventions of international partners,building on the UNDP focus and comparativestrengths in promoting human developmentin Uzbekistan, especially at the local level.Implement joint programmes and other forms ofcollaboration with international partners—particularly with international financial institu-tions—where UNDP can play a role in ensuringthat the most vulnerable and marginalizedgroups benefit from interventions.

3. Build on existing experience and relationshipswith local government and communities.

Use existing UNDP experience, strengths andproximity to local government (in the areas whereUNDP works) as a base to comprehensivelystrengthen and expand the existing frameworksused to address rural issues. However, in thecontext of a changing aid environment and there-engagement of many donors, UNDP shouldbe more strategic in local interventions and insupport of local government.

4. Expand the UNDP role in supportinggovernment efforts at aid coordination.

As a committed and neutral partner, UNDP is ina good position to support government aidcoordination activities and to ensure moreeffective use of external assistance. UNDP shouldplay the leading role in supporting governmentcoordination of aid at the local level, linking itssupport to better aid coordination in the centre.

This includes donor coordination, facilitatingpartnerships and disseminating information aboutdonor agencies and funding opportunities.

5. Strengthen UNDP support to capacitydevelopment in Uzbekistan through a morerigorous and systematic application of corporatecapacity development tools and approaches.

Use needs and institutional assessments in allproject preparations while ensuring thatcorporate tools are adapted to the specific contextof Uzbekistan. In order to facilitate greatersustainability of results, anchor UNDP capacitydevelopment interventions in existing institutions.

6. Ensure that mechanisms are in place tofacilitate linkages between all direct inter-ventions and decision makers.

Ensure direct and explicit linkages with decisionmakers in all UNDP interventions. Lessonslearned should feed into policymaking, and,where necessary, mechanisms should be put inplace to facilitate such linkages. Moreover, suchlinkages will facilitate replication of successfulinterventions and scaling up across regions. Atthe same time, it is necessary to strengthenevaluation mechanisms in the country office inorder to facilitate the learning process.

7. Undertake annual Country Programme ActionPlan reviews to increase transparency and tofacilitate greater stakeholder accountability ofUNDP activities in Uzbekistan.

Ensure wider participation in annual reviews andgreater participation of relevant governmentbodies in programming processes in order toensure the transparency of decision-making andresource allocation.

A N N E X I . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 4 9

INTRODUCTION

The Evaluation Office (EO) of the UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP)conducts country evaluations, referred to asAssessments of Development Results (ADRs), tocapture and demonstrate evaluative evidence ofUNDP contributions to development results atthe country level. ADRs are carried out withinthe provisions of the UNDP Evaluation Policy.1

The overall goals of an ADR are to:

� Provide substantive support to theAdministrator’s accountability function inreporting to the Executive Board;

� Support greater UNDP accountability tonational stakeholders and partners in theprogramme country;

� Serve as a means of quality assurance forUNDP interventions at the country level;and

� Contribute to learning at corporate, regionaland country levels.

In particular, the EO plans to conduct an ADRin Uzbekistan during 2008. The ADR willcontribute to a new country programme, whichwill be prepared by the concerned CountryOffice and national stakeholders.

BACKGROUND

Uzbekistan is a double-landlocked, low-incomecountry in Central Asia, rich in gold, copper,natural gas, oil and uranium. During the Sovietperiod, Uzbekistan was developed as a centre forcotton production, and agriculture is still the

dominant sector of the economy: in 2005, thesector accounted for 30 percent of employment.The country has a young and rapidly growingpopulation, and thus faces the challenge to createjobs—especially in rural areas, where two thirdsof Uzbekistan’s population live.

Since becoming independent in 1991,Uzbekistan has been implementing reformpolicies to move away from the inheritedstructures of the former Soviet Union.Dismantling the systems, structures andmentality accumulated during 70 years has beenan enormous challenge.

UNDP has had a representative office inUzbekistan since 1993, aiming to supportUzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strongmarket-based economy and a flourishingdemocracy. The primary reason for selectingUzbekistan for an ADR was the forthcomingcompletion of the 2005–2009 CountryProgramme, which presents an opportunity toevaluate the achievements and results of the pastprogramme cycle, and to feed findings andconclusions into the process of developing andimplementing the new programme.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPEAND METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR include:

� Provide an independent assessment of theprogress (or lack thereof ) towards theexpected outcomes envisaged in UNDPprogramming documents, and whereappropriate, highlight unexpected positive ornegative outcomes and missed opportunities;

Annex I

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. See http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf.

A N N E X I . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E5 0


� Present key findings, draw key lessons, andprovide a set of clear and forward-lookingoptions for UNDP management to makeadjustments to the current strategy and thenext Country Programme.

The ADR will review UNDP experience inUzbekistan and its contribution to addressingsocial, economic and political challenges. Theevaluation will cover the 2000–2004 and2005–2009 country programmes. Although it islikely that greater emphasis will be placed onmore recent interventions (due to betteravailability of data), efforts should be made toexamine the development and implementation ofUNDP programmes since the start of the period.The identification of existing evaluative evidenceand potential constraints (e.g., lack of records orinstitutional memory) will occur during theinitial Scoping Mission (see Section 4 for moredetails on the process).

The overall methodology will be consistent withthe EO ADR Guidelines of January 2007. Theevaluation will undertake a comprehensive reviewof the UNDP programme portfolio and activi-ties, specifically examining the UNDP contribu-tion to national development results across thecountry. Factors assessed will include key results,specifically outcomes (anticipated and unantici-pated, positive and negative, intentional andunintentional), and UNDP assistance funded byboth core and non-core resources.

The evaluation has two main components: theanalysis of development outcomes and a reviewof UNDP strategic positioning.

DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

The assessment of development outcomes willentail a comprehensive review of the UNDPportfolios of the previous and ongoingprogramme cycles. This includes an assessmentof development results achieved and UNDPcontribution in terms of key interventions;progress in achieving outcomes for the ongoingcountry programme; factors influencing results(e.g., UNDP positioning and capacity, partner-ships, and policy support); UNDP achievements,progress and contribution in practice areas (bothin policy and advocacy); and analysing the cross-cutting linkages and their relationship to theMillennium Development Goals and the UnitedNations Development Assistance Framework.The analysis of development results will identifychallenges and strategies for future interventions.

In addition to using available information, theevaluation will document and analyse achieve-ments in view of intended outcomes, as well asthe linkages between activities, outputs andoutcomes. The evaluation will qualify the UNDPcontribution to outcomes with a reasonabledegree of plausibility.

There is a core set of evaluative criteria related tothe design, management and implementation ofUNDP interventions in the country. Corecriteria include:

� Effectiveness: Did the UNDP programmeaccomplish its intended objectives andplanned results? What are the strengths andweaknesses of the programme? What are theunexpected results it yielded? Should theprogramme continue in the same direction,or should its main tenets be reviewed for thenew cycle?

Second Country Cooperation Framework 2000–2004 UNDP Country Programme 2005–2009

� Support to the reform process

� Support to civil society and private sector development

� Economic governance and poverty reduction

� Democratic governance

� Environmental governance


� Efficiency: How well did UNDP use itshuman and financial resources in achievingits contribution? What could be done toensure a more efficient use of resources in thespecific country and subregional context?

� Sustainability: Is the UNDP contributionsustainable? Are the development resultsachieved through such contribution sustain-able? Are the benefits of UNDP interventionssustained and owned by national stakeholdersafter the intervention is completed?

Special efforts will be made to examine theUNDP contribution to capacity development,knowledge management and gender equality.

STRATEGIC POSITIONING

The evaluation will assess the strategic position-ing of UNDP from both its own perspective andthe development priorities in the country. Thiswill entail: i) a systematic analysis of the UNDPplace and niche within the development andpolicy space in Uzbekistan; ii) the strategies usedby UNDP Uzbekistan to strengthen the UNDPposition in the development space and create aposition for the organization in its core practiceareas; iii) an assessment, from the perspective ofthe development results for the country, of thepolicy support and advocacy initiatives of theUNDP programme vis-à-vis other stakeholders.

In addition, the evaluation will analyse a core set ofcriteria related to the strategic positioning of UNDP:

� Relevance of UNDP programmes: Howrelevant are UNDP programmes to thepriority needs of the country? Did UNDPapply the right strategy within the specificpolitical, economic and social context of theregion? To what extent are long-termdevelopment needs likely to be met acrossthe practice areas? What are the critical gapsin UNDP programming?

� Responsiveness:How did UNDP anticipateand respond to significant changes in thenational development context? How didUNDP respond to long-term nationaldevelopment needs? What were the missedopportunities in UNDP programming?

� Equity: Did UNDP programmes andinterventions lead to reduced vulnerabilitiesin the country? Did UNDP interventions inany way influence existing inequities (e.g.,exclusion) in the society? Was selection ofgeographical areas of intervention guided byneed?

� Partnerships: How has UNDP leveragedpartnerships within the UN system andnational civil society and the private sector?

The evaluation will also consider the influence ofadministrative constraints affecting theprogramme, and specifically the UNDP contri-bution, including issues related to the relevanceand effectiveness of the monitoring and evalua-tion system. If such considerations emerge asimportant during the initial analysis, they will beincluded in the scope of the evaluation. Withinthe context of partnerships with the UN systemand overall UN coordination, the evaluation willalso highlight the issue of joint programming.

EVALUATION METHODSAND APPROACHES

DATA COLLECTION

The evaluation will use a multiple methodapproach that could include desk reviews,workshops, group and individual interviews (atboth headquarter and the Country Office),project and field visits, and surveys. Theappropriate set of methods will depend on localcontext: the precise mix will be determinedduring the Scoping Mission and detailed in anInception Report.2

2. The Scoping Mission and Inception Report are described in Section 5 on the evaluation process.


VALIDATION

The Evaluation Team will use a variety ofmethods, including triangulation, to ensure thatthe data is valid. Specific validation methods willbe detailed in the Inception Report.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

The evaluation will use a strong participatoryapproach that involves a broad range ofstakeholders. Stakeholders will be identifiedamong government ministries and agencies, civilsociety organizations, private sector representa-tives, UN agencies, multilateral organizations,bilateral donors, and beneficiaries. To facilitatethis approach, all ADRs include a process ofstakeholder mapping that includes both directUNDP partners and the stakeholders who do nothave direct involvement with with UNDP.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The process will also follow the ADRGuidelines,according to which the process can be divided inthree phases, each including several steps.

PHASE 1: PREPARATION

� Desk review is initially carried out by theEO (identification, collection and mappingof relevant documentation and other data)and continued by the Evaluation Team. Thisprocess will include review of generaldevelopment-related documentation specificto country and a comprehensive overview ofthe UNDP programme over the periodunder evaluation.

� Stakeholdermapping identifies stakeholdersrelevant to an evaluation. Identifiedstakeholders will include state and civilsociety actors that go beyond direct UNDPpartners. The mapping exercise will alsoindicate the relationships among differentsets of stakeholders.

� Inceptionmeetingswill include headquarters-based interviews and discussions in with theEO (regarding process and methodology),the Regional Bureau for Europe and the

Commonwealth of Independent States(context and county programme) and otherrelevant bureaux including Bureau forDevelopment Policy and the United NationsDevelopment Group Office.

� Scoping mission – A mission to Uzbekistanin order to:

� Identify and collect further documentation;

� Validate the mapping of the countryprogrammes;

� Get key stakeholder perspectives on keyissues that should be examined;

� Address logistical issues related to themain mission, including timing;

� Identify the appropriate set of data collec-tion and analysis methods;

� Address management issues related to therest of the evaluation process, includingdivision of labour among the teammembers; and

� Ensure the country office staff andkey stakeholders understand the ADRobjectives, methodology and process.

The Task Manager will accompany the TeamLeader on the mission.

� Inception Report: The development of ashort Inception Report, including: the finalevaluation design and plan; background to theevaluation; key evaluation questions; detailedmethodology; information sources and instru-ments and plan for data collection; design fordata analysis; and format for reporting.

PHASE 2: CONDUCTING ADR ANDDRAFTING EVALUATION REPORT

� Main ADR mission: A mission of two(possibly three) weeks will be conducted bythe independent Evaluation Team andwill focus on data collection and validation.An important part of this process will bean Entry Workshop where the ADRobjectives, methods and process will be


explained to stakeholders. The team will visitsignificant project/field sites as identified inthe scoping mission.

� Analysis and reporting: the informationcollected will be analysed in the draft ADRreport by the Evaluation Team within threeweeks after the departure of the team fromthe country.

� Review:The draft will be subject to

(a) factual corrections and views on interpreta-tion by key clients (including the UNDPcountry office, the Regional Bureau forEurope and the Commonwealth ofIndependent States, and government),

(b) a technical review by the EO, and

(c) a review by external experts. The EO willprepare an audit trail to show how thesecomments were taken in to account. TheTeam Leader, in close cooperation withthe EO Task Manager, shall finalize theADR report based on these final reviews.

� Stakeholder meeting: A meeting with thekey national stakeholders will be organizedto present the results of the evaluation andexamine ways forward in Uzbekistan. Themain purposes of the meeting will be tofacilitate greater buy-in by nationalstakeholders in taking the lessons andrecommendations from the report forwardand to strengthen the national ownership ofdevelopment process and the necessaryaccountability of UNDP interventions at thecountry level. It may be necessary for theEvaluation Team to incorporate significantcomments into the final Evaluation Report.

PHASE 3: FOLLOW-UP

� Management response:TheUNDPAssociateAdministrator will request relevant units (inthe case of an ADR, usually the relevantcountry office and Regional Bureau) tojointly prepare a management response to the

ADR. As a unit exercising oversight, theRegional Bureau will be responsible formonitoring and overseeing the implementa-tion of follow-up actions in the EvaluationResource Centre.

� Communication: the ADR report and briefwill be widely distributed in both hard andelectronic versions.The Evaluation Report willbe made available to the UNDP ExecutiveBoard by the time of approving a new CountryProgramme Document. It will be widelydistributed in Uzbekistan and at UNDPheadquarters. Copies will be sent to evaluationoutfits of other international organizations, aswell as to evaluation societies and researchinstitutions in the region. Furthermore, theevaluation report and the managementresponse will be published on the UNDPWeb site3 and made available to the public.Its availability will be announced on UNDPand external networks.

The tentative time-frame and responsibilities forthe evaluation process are detailed in the table onthe following page.

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

UNDP EO

The UNDP EO Task Manager will manage theevaluation and ensure coordination and liaisonwith the Regional Bureau for Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States, otherconcerned units at headquarters level, and theUzbekistan country office management. The EOwill also contract a Research Assistant to facili-tate the initial desk review and a ProgrammeAssistant to support logistical and administrativematters. The EO will meet all costs directlyrelated to the conduct of the ADR. These willinclude costs related to participation of the TeamLeader, international and national consultants, aswell as the preliminary research and the issuanceof the final ADR report. EO will also cover thecosts of any stakeholder workshops conducted aspart of the evaluation.

3. www.undp.org/eo/


THE EVALUATION TEAM

The team will be constituted of three members:

� Consultant Team Leader: with overallresponsibility for providing guidance andleadership, and in coordinating the draft andFinal Report;

� Consultant Team Specialist: who willprovide the expertise in the core subject areasof the evaluation and be responsible fordrafting key parts of the report; and

� NationalConsultant: who will undertake datacollection and analyses at the country-level, aswell as support the work of the missions.

The Team Leader must have a demonstratedcapacity in the evaluation of complex programmesin the field, strategic thinking and policy advice.All team members should have in-depthknowledge of development issues in Uzbekistanand/or Central Asia.

The Evaluation Team will be supported by aResearch Assistant based in the EvaluationOffice in New York. The Task Manager of theEvaluation Office will support the team indesigning the evaluation, will participate inthe scoping mission and will provide ongoingfeedback for quality assurance during thepreparation of the Inception and Final Report.Depending on the need, the EO Task Managermay participate to the main mission too.

The evaluation team will orient its work byUnited Nations Evaluation Group norms andstandards for evaluation, and will adhere to theethical Code of Conduct.4

THE UZBEKISTAN COUNTRY OFFICE

The country office will take a lead role inorganizing dialogue and stakeholder meetings onthe findings and recommendations, support theevaluation team in liaison with the key partners,and make available to the team all necessary

4. The UN Evaluation Group Guidelines (UNEG) “Norms for Evaluation in the UN System” and “Standards forEvaluation in the UN System” (April 2005).

Activity Estimated date

Collection and mapping of documentation by the Research Assistant May-June

Desk Review by the Evaluation Team June

Evaluation Team meeting at UNDP New York June 11–13

Scoping Mission to Barbados and OECS June 16–20

Inception Report and Full ADR Terms of Reference July 4

The following are tentative and will be firmed during the scoping mission in consultation with the countryoffice and government:

Main ADR mission to Uzbekistan July 14–25

Submission of First Draft Report August 15

Comments from EO and Advisory Panel August 22

Submission of Second Draft Report August 29

Factual corrections from country office, regional bureau and government September 12

Issuance of Final Report September 19

Stakeholder workshop November


information regarding UNDP activities in thecountry. The office will also be requested toprovide additional logistical support to theEvaluation Team as required. The country officewill contribute support in kind (e.g., officespace), while the EO will cover local transporta-tion costs.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The expected outputs from the EvaluationTeam are:

� An Inception Report (maximum 20 pages);

� A comprehensive final report on theUzbekistan Assessment of DevelopmentResults (maximum 50 pages plus annexes);

� A two-page evaluation brief; and

� A presentation for the StakeholderWorkshop.

The final report of the ADR to be produced by theEvaluation Team will follow the following format:

� Chapter 1: Introduction;

� Chapter 2: Country Context;

� Chapter 3:TheUNandUNDP in theCountry;

� Chapter 4: UNDP Contribution to NationalDevelopment Results;

� Chapter 5: Strategic Positioning of theUNDP Country Programme; and

� Chapter 6: Conclusions, Lessons andRecommendations.

Detailed outlines for the Inception Report, mainADR report and evaluation brief will be providedto the evaluation team by the Task Manager.

A N N E X I I . L I S T O F I N D I V I D U A L S C O N S U L T E D 5 7

GOVERNMENT OF UZBEKISTAN

Mr. Karamadin Abdijaliev, Deputy Chairman,Council of Ministers of Republic ofKarakalpakstan

Ms. Farida Akbarova, Deputy Prime Minister,Chair of Central Committee, Women’sCommittee of Uzbekistan

Mr. Boriy Alikhanov, Head, State Committeefor Nature Protection

Ms. R Alishaeva, Specialist, State Tax Committee

Mr. Victor Chub, Minister, General Director,Center of Hydrometeorological Service ofUzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)

Mr. Bakhrom Ergashev, Deputy Mayor,Nishan District

Mr. Karomiddin Gadoev, Head of Division,Department for United Nations andInternational Organizations, Ministry ofForeign Affairs

Mr. Luqmon Gaffarov, Mayor, Kitab District

Mr. Muratbay Ganiev, First Deputy Head,Main Forestry Department, Ministry ofAgriculture and Water Resources

Mr. Adhamjon Hankeldiev, Mayor, BagdadDistrict

Mr. Sobir Jabborov, Deputy of Legal-Courtcommittee, Parliament of Uzbekistan

Mr. Bakhtiyor Kadyrov, First Deputy of GeneralDirector, Center of HydrometeorologicalService of Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)

Mr. Hojamurat Kaipnazarov, Head, Chamber ofCommerce and Industry Department inKarakalpakstan

Ms. Rano Kalandarova, Deputy Chairperson,Women’s Committee Branch inKarakalpakstan

Mr. Aripbai Karataev, Deputy Chairman ofthe Nature Protection Committee,Karakalpakstan

Ms. Inobat Karimova, Deputy Mayor onWomen’s issues, Women’s Committeeof Kashkadarya

Mr. Mukhtor Khaitmurodov, Deputy Mayor,Kashkadarya Region

Mr. Asadjon Khodjaev, Deputy of GeneralDirector, Communication and InformationAgency of Uzbekistan

Mr. R. Koraboev, Chairman, Farmers’Association of Namangan District

Mr. Melis Kosnazarov, Deputy Head, Chamberof Commerce and Industry Department inKarakalpakstan

Ms. Mubarek Matniyazova, Head, Informationand Analytical Department, Council ofMinisters of Karakalpakstan

Mr. Mukhammad Mondjazib, Department ofCooperation with Eurasian EconomicCommunity and International FinancialInstitutes, Ministry of Economy

Mr. Gaibulla Murzambetov, Deputy Mayor,Kegeily District of Karakalpakstan

Mr. R. Mustofoqulov, Specialist, StateTax Committee

Mr. Sergey Myagkov, Deputy Director,Center of Hydrometeorological Serviceof Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)

Ms. Malika Nazarova, Chief, InternationalDepartment, Center ofHydrometeorological Service of Uzbekistan(UZHYDROMET)

Ms. Tatyana Ososkova, Chief, EnvironmentalPollution Monitoring Service, Center ofHydrometeorological Service of Uzbekistan(UZHYDROMET)

Mr. A. Otahudjaev, Head, Namangan DistrictBranch, Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Ms. Galina Saidova, Deputy Minster,Ministry of Economy

Mr. Sharapat Shamanbetov, Jurist of theMayor’s Office, Kegeily Districtof Karakalpakstan

Annex II

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

A N N E X I I . L I S T O F I N D I V I D U A L S C O N S U L T E D5 8

Dr. Alisher Shaykhov, Chairman, Ambassador,Chamber of Commerce and Trade

Mr. Shukrat Shukurov, Deputy Mayor,Namangan District, and Regional ELSProject Coordinator

UZBEKISTAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Ms. Natalya Abdullaeva, Director, IstikhfoliAvlod (NGO)

Ms. Malika Abdullakhodjaeva, MD,Chairperson, Institute of Pathology Institute

Ms. Gulzor Ablamova, Consultant on Women’sissues, Navbahor Community

Mr. Nuridin Aiytov, Chairperson, KarakalpakBranch, Makhalla Fund

Mr. Azat Allayarov, Executive Director,Tadbirkor Invest (microcredit organization),Karakalpakstan

Mr. Ruslan Dauletnazarov, Leading Specialist,Karakalpak Branch, Makhalla Fund

Ms. Nazira Elibaeva, Executive Director,Karakalpakstan Branch, BusinessWomen Association

Ms. Halima, Head, Rural Medical Center,Fergana District

Mr. Fulle Hans-Jurgen, InternationalConsultant, Karakalpakstan Branch,Farmers’ Association

Mr. Kobiljon Hasanov, Chairman, MakhallaFund of Fergana District

Mr. Fatkhulla Irgashev, Deputy Rector,Academy of Social Construction under thePresident of Uzbekistan

Mr. Ismoil Isatullaev, Head, Navbahor Community

Mr. Murod Ismailov, Head, InternationalRelations Office, University of WorldEconomy and Diplomacy

Ms. Gulnara Japakova, Director,Karakalpakstan Branch, UzbekAssociation of Reproductive Health

Mr. Khamidulla Karamatov, Rector, Universityof World Economy and Diplomacy

Ms. Maksuda Karimova and other members,Tinchlik Community

Ms. Arukhan Kelimbetova, DeputyChairperson, Makhalla Fund, Republicof Karakalpakstan

Mr. Sobir Khamroev, Representative ofKhujailmkoni Village, Community Headsof Kitab District

Mr. Ziyadulla Khudoyqulov, Guard,Navbahor Community

Mr. Toshhon Khurramov, Imam ofKhujailmkoni Village, CommunityHeads of Kitab District

Mr. Adil Koilibaev, Director, and staff,Darwazakum Biological Pest ControlLaboratory

Mr. Sagdulla Lutpullaev, Vice President,Director General, PHYSICS-SUNAcademy of Science

Mr. Mansor Maksudov, Head, InformationResource Centre of Bagdad District

Ms. Altin Mukhanbetova, Client, MicrofinanceOrganization of Business WomenAssociation in Kegeily District

Ms. Karimova Nadira, Director, InternationalOrganization for Migration

Mr. Nasriddin Qalandarov, Head, SevazVillage Community, Community Headsof Kitab District

Mr. Nurilla Qosimov, Head, Sharq Uzumzorlari(agricultural cooperative)

Mr. Khamroqul Rakhimov, Consultant,Navbahor Community

Mr. Akmal Kh. Saidov, Director, NationalHuman Rights Centre

Ms. Sapargul Seilkhanova, Client, MicrofinanceOrganization of Business WomenAssociation in Kegeily District

UNDP UZBEKISTAN

Mr. Evgeniy Abdullaev, Program Legal Specialist

Ms. Rano Baykhanova, RenewableEnergy Specialist

Ms. Shirin Dosumova, Programme Officer,Economic Governance Unit

Mr. Ulugbek Islamov, Irrigation and Landdegradation specialist

Mr. Farkhod Maksudov, Environment Specialist

Mr. Ercan Murat, Resident Representative a.i.

Ms. Kyoko Postill, Deputy ResidentRepresentative

A N N E X I I . L I S T O F I N D I V I D U A L S C O N S U L T E D 5 9

Ms. Komila Rakhimova, Gender Specialist

Ms. Antonina Sevastyanova, ProgrammeCoordination Specialist

Ms. Aziza Umarova, Programme Officer,Good Governance Unit

Ms. Saida Yusupova, Temporary ProgrammeAssistant

UNDP PROJECT STAFF

Ms. Malika Abdulkhodjaeva, Project Specialist,Telemedicine

Mr. Zohid Asrarov, Project Specialist,Improving Public Sector ManagementSkills Through Building Training andResearch Capacity of the Higher Schoolof Business

Ms. Irina Bekmiorzaeva, Project Specialist,Ecosystem Stability

Mr. Izatulla Boltaev, Project Manager,Promotion of the Rights of WomenMigrant Workers

Ms. Elena Danilova, Human DevelopmentCoordinator

Mr. Ravshan Dostkoraev, Task Manager

Mr. Bakhodir Ganiev, Project Manager,Support to Investment Process for National Development

Mr. Kamal Hamidov, Local Specialist on Aid,Karakalpakistan

Ms. Shakhnoza Ikramova, Project Manager,Telemedicine

Mr. Ulugebek Ishankhodjaev, Project Manager,University of World Economyand Diplomacy

Ms. Liliya Javyalova, Project Specialist,Capacity-Building for CDM in Uzbekistan

Mr. Sanat Juraev, Facilitator, MicrofinanceComponent, Kashkadarya

Ms. Barchinoy Khalbekova, ProjectCoordinator, Capacity-Building ofBusiness Education in Access to Justice

Mr. Abdurazak Khujabekov, ProjectCoordinator, Livestock Development

Mr. Dosbergen Musaev, Project Manager,Improving Public Sector ManagementSkills Through Building Training andResearch Capacity of the Higher Schoolof Business

Mr. Vadim Navodni, Project Manager,Development of Internet Technology Potential

Mr. Ravshan Nazarkulov, Project Manager,Parliament Project

Mr. Latif Norov, Project Manager, Improvingthe Systems of Customs Administration inthe Republic of Uzbekistan

Mr. Jakhongir Norqobilov, Project Coordinator,ABD Kashkadarya

Mr. Narzullo Oblamurodov, Project Manager,Business Forum of Uzbekistan

Mr. Bakhadur Poluaniyazov, Project Manager,Karakalpakistan

Ms. Muattara Rakhimova, Project Manager,Academy of State and Social Constructionof the President

Mr. Aziz Rassulov, Project Manager,Livestock Development

Ms. Laura Rio, Programme Coordinator,Enhanced Living Standards

Mr. Sandjar Saidkhodjaev, ProjectManager, Information CommunicationTechnology Policy

Mr. Sakhib Saifnazarov, Project Manager,Ministry of Economy Project

Mr. Fayzulla Salokhidinov, National Consultant,Enhancing the Capacity of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs to Better Respond to theEmerging Issues of the New Millennium

Mr. Bakhodir Sharipov, Project Specialist,Support to External Economic Policy

Mr. Yaminov Shukhrat, Project Specialist,Enhancement of National Legal Databasefor Reform Process of Uzbekistan

Ms. Dildora Tadjibaeva, Project Manager,Public Finance Reform

Ms. Shakhnoza Ubaydullaeva, TrainingSpecialist, Legal Aid and Legal Literacyfor Better Access to Justice

Mr. Kahramon Usmanov, Project Specialist,

Mr. Oybek Yahshiev, Admin/Finance Assistant,ABD Kashkadarya

A N N E X I I . L I S T O F I N D I V I D U A L S C O N S U L T E D6 0

UNDP BRATISLAVA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Hachemi Bahloul, Local DevelopmentSpecialist, Democratic Governance

Mr. Jacek Cukrowski, MDG Advisor, PovertyReduction Practice

Ms. Adriana Dinu, Regional Team Leader,Environment and Regional TechnicalAdvisor for Biodiversity

Ms. Dafina Gercheva, CapacityDevelopment Advisor

Mr. Andrey Ivanov, Human DevelopmentAdvisor, Economic Governance

Ms. Anna Kaplina, Programme Associate,Energy and Environment

Mr. Vladimir Mikhalev, Policy Advisor,Poverty Reduction

Ms. Marina Olshanskaya, Regional TechnicalSpecialist for Climate Change

Mr. Rustam Pulatov, Policy Analyst, HumanRights and Justice Policy Support andProgramme Development

Ms. Agi Veres, Deputy Chief, Policy Supportand Programme Development Unit

Mr. Rastislav Vrbensky, Senior Programmeand Policy Advisor

UNDP HEADQUARTERS

Mr. Sanjar Tursaliev, Programme Specialist,Central Asia Cluster, Regional Bureau forEurope and the CIS

Ms. Yulia Oleinik, Programme Associate,Central Asia Cluster, Regional Bureau forEurope and the CIS

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIALINSTITUTIONS

Mr. Loup Brefort, Country Manager,The World Bank

Ms. Galina Kostina, Economist, InternationalMonetary Fund Office, Tashkent

Mr. Fernand Pillonel, Head of Resident Office,European Bank of Reconstruction andDevelopment

Mr. Hong Wei, Country Director,Asian Development Bank

INTERNATIONAL DONORORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Pierre-Paul Antheunissens, Coordinator,Europa House

Mr. James Bonner, Country Representative,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment

Mr. Ildar Fayzullin, Project Officer,Organization for Security and Cooperationin Europe

Ms. Lola Maksudova, Project Officer,Organization for Security and Cooperationin Europe

Ms. Caroline Milow, Senior Project Officer,Organization for Security and Cooperationin Europe

Mr. Takasaka Muneo, Deputy Head, JapanInternational Cooperation Agency

Mr. Nodir Narkabulov, Program officer, JapanInternational Cooperation Agency

UN AGENCIES IN UZBEKISTAN

Mr. Fuad Aliev, Assistant Representative, UNFPA

Mr. James Callahan, Regional Representativefor Central Asia, UNODC

Mr. Said Inogomov, Project Specialist, FAO

Mr. Aziz Khudoberdiev, Programme Officer,UNAIDS

Mr. Khaled Philby, Representative, UNFPA

Mr.Mahbood Shareef, Representative, UNICEF

Mr. Andro Shilakadze, Deputy Representative,UNICEF

Mr. Michel Tailhades, Representative, WHO

OTHER

Dr. Philip Tortell, Consultant, EnvironmentalManagement Limited, Wellington,New Zealand

A N N E X I I I . L I S T O F D O C U M E N T S R E V I E W E D 6 1

Asian Development Bank, ‘ADB CountryStrategy and Program. Uzbekistan 2006–2010’.

Asian Development Bank, ‘ADB CountryGender Assessment: Uzbekistan’, 2005.

Ballard-Tremeer, G., Opportunities for BiomassEnergy Programmes – Experiences &Lessons Learned by UNDP in Europe& the CIS’, Final Report, Ecoharmony,London, 2007. See www.ecoharmony.com.

Bellamy, J. and N. Marmazinskaya, ‘TerminalEvaluation Report of the UNDP-GEFProject “Establishment of Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve Project as aModel for Biodiversity Conservation inUzbekistan”’, UNDP, 2007.

Center of Hydrometeorological Service ofUzbekistan (UZHYDROMET), briefinformation note about UZNYDROMET,Tashkent, 2006. See www.meteo.uz.

Edwards, P., and E. Bykova, ‘Final Report ofthe Mid-Term Evaluation Mission on“Conservation of Tugai Forest andStrengthening Protected Area System inthe Amy Darya Delta of Karakalpakstan”’,UNDP, 2008.

European Union/EuropeAid and UNDP,‘Enhancement of Living Standards inKarakalpakstan, Namangan and FerganaRegions’, 2007.

European Union/EuropeAid and UNDP,‘Enhancement of Living Standards inFergana Region’, 2007.

European Union/EuropeAid and UNDP,‘Enhancement of Living Standards inNamangan Region’, 2006.

Government of Finland, ‘Guidelines forProgramme Design, Monitoring andEvaluation’, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,Helsinki, 2000.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Annual Review’, StateStatistics Committee of Uzbekistan, 2008.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Welfare ImprovementStrategy’, 2007. See www.wis.uz.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘National Strategyfor Combating HIV/AIDS in the Republicof Uzbekistan, 2007-2011’, 2006.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Official Statisticsin Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Qualityand Access’, Policy Brief #1, Center forEconomic Research, 2006.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Initial NationalCommunication of the Republic ofUzbekistan under the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange. Phase 2. Capacity-building toAddress Climate Change RelatedProblems’, Tashkent, 2001.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘Living StandardStrategy’, 2004.

Government of Uzbekistan, ‘NationalEnvironment Action Plan’, 1996.

Government of Uzbekistan and United NationsCountry Team, ‘Uzbekistan: MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report’, 2006.

Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,‘National Integrated Water ResourcesManagement and Water Efficiency Plan forUzbekistan’, project document, 2007.

Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,‘Country Programme Action Plan2005–2009’, Uzbekistan.

Government of Uzbekistan/Center forEconomic Research and UNDP, ‘HumanDevelopment Report. Uzbekistan – 2005.Decentralization and HumanDevelopment’, 2005.

Government of Uzbekistan/Center forEconomic Research and UNDP, ‘LinkingMacroeconomic Policy to PovertyReduction in Uzbekistan’, Tashkent, 2005.

Government of Uzbekistan/State Committeefor Land Resources, Geodesy, Cartographyand State Cadastre and UNDP,‘Environmental Atlas of Uzbekistan’,Tashkent, 2008.

Annex III

LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

A N N E X I I I . L I S T O F D O C U M E N T S R E V I E W E D6 2

Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee forNature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan,‘Environmental Profile of Uzbekistan 2008Based on Indicators’, 2008.

Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP,‘Primary and Secondary Education inUzbekistan’, Statistics Series No. 5, 2007.

Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP,‘Healthcare in Uzbekistan: Facts andFigures’, Statistical Bulletin, StatisticsSeries No 4.

Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP,‘Environmental Situation and Utilization ofNatural Resources in Uzbekistan: Facts andFigures 2000–2004’, Statistical Bulletin,Statistics Series No 3, Tashkent, 2006.See www.statistics.uz.

Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP,‘Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts andFigures 2000–2004’, Statistical Bulletin,Tashkent, 2005. See www.statistics.uz.

Harfs, J., ‘An Evaluation of the EU/UNDPProject “Enhancement of Living Standardsin Karakalpakstan”’, European Union,June–July 2006.

Harfs, J., ‘An Evaluation of the EU/UNDPProject “Enhancement of Living Standardsin Namangan”’, European Union,June–July 2006.

International Monetary Fund, ‘RegionalEconomic Outlook: Middle East andCentral Asia’, May 2008.

International Monetary Fund, ‘RegionalEconomic Outlook: Middle East andCentral Asia’, October 2007.

Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope, ‘Best-Practice Guide for a PositiveBusiness and Investment Climate’, 2006.

Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope, the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme and UNDP, ‘Environment andsecurity.Transforming Risks into Cooperation.The Case of the Southern Caucasus’.

Péteri, G. (ed.), ‘Mastering Decentralization andPublic Administration reforms in Centraland Eastern Europe’, Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative, OpenSociety Institute, 2002.

Polishchuk L., ‘Support to Reform Process inUzbekistan: Recommendations TowardsSustainable Development of the Center forEconomic Research’, UNDP,Uzbekistan, 2008.

Polishchuk, L., ‘Project Evaluation Report onCenter for Economic and Social StudiesUZB/97/008’, UNDP, Uzbekistan, 2003.

Schlamadinger, B., V. Blujdea, V. and S.Settelmyer, ‘LULUCF Strategy for UNDPin Eastern Europe and CIS’, reportprepared for UNDP Bratislava RegionalCentre, TerraCarbonic, 2008.

Tessier, P., ‘Project Evaluation Report on“Enhancement of Living Standards inFergana Region (ELS-Fergana)”’, EuropeanUnion, 2007.

Tortell, P., ‘Uzbekistan National WasteManagement Strategy project, 6-monthFollow-Up Report’, Government ofUzbekistan/State Committee for NatureProtection, UNDP Uzbekistan and NewZealand Asia Development AssistanceFacility, November 2006.

Tortell P., K. Garratt and S. Khomenko,‘Cluster Evaluation of the EnvironmentalProgramme of UNDP Uzbekistan andNeeds Assessment’, Mission Report,Project Document UZB/99/009, UNDP,Tashkent, 1999.

UNDP, ‘Capacity Development: EmpoweringPeople and Institutions. Annual Report2008’, 2008.

UNDP, ‘Good Governance Unit StrategicNote’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.

UNDP, ‘Human Development Report.Uzbekistan 2007–2008. Education inUzbekistan: Matching Supply andDemand’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.

UNDP, ‘Assessment of Development Results:Evaluation of UNDP Contribution –Bhutan’, Evaluation Office, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Assessment of Development Results:Evaluation of UNDP’s Contribution –Laos’, Evaluation Office, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Evaluation of UNDP Contribution toSouth-South Cooperation’, EvaluationOffice, 2007.


A N N E X I I I . L I S T O F D O C U M E N T S R E V I E W E D 6 3

UNDP, ‘Options for Continuing EnergyReforms in Uzbekistan’, Policy Brief, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Partners Survey. Uzbekistan byOrganization Type 2007’.

UNDP, ‘Practice Note for Capacities forIntegrated Local Development’, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Project Proposal Development Manual.UNDP Interim Strategy for Enhancementof Living Standards in KarakalpakstanProject’, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Regional Bureau for Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent StatesProgress Report on Implementation ofGAP 2007’, UNDP Uzbekistan.

UNDP, ‘System of Indicators for Monitoringand Evaluation of MDGs Achievement inUzbekistan’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2007.

UNDP, ‘Administrative Reform andDecentralization in the Republic ofUzbekistan: Building of Institutional andFinancial Capacities of the Local Self-Government Authorities’, analyticalreport, 2006.


UNDP, ‘Human Development Report 2006.Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and theGlobal Water Crisis’, 2006.

UNDP,‘HumanDevelopmentReport.Uzbekistan –2006’, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2006.

UNDP, ‘Millennium Development Goals Report,Uzbekistan 2006’.

UNDP, ‘National Millennium DevelopmentGoals: A Framework for Action’, Europeand the CIS Regional MDG Report, 2006.

UNDP, ‘Uzbekistan National HumanDevelopment Report. Health for All:A Key Goal for Uzbekistan in the NewMillennium’, 2006.

UNDP, ‘Bringing Down Barriers: RegionalCooperation for Human Development andHuman Security’, Central Asia HumanDevelopment Report, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Ex Post Evaluation of UNDPDevelopment Support Services Programme’,February, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Regional Project Document andRegional Program Action Plan for2006–2010’, Regional Bureau for Europeand the CIS, Bratislava Regional Centre,Bratislava, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Uzbekistan National HumanDevelopment Report. Decentralization andHuman Development’, 2005.

UNDP, ‘Second Multi-Year Funding Framework,2004-2007’, 2003.

United Nations Country Team, ‘UNDAF Mid-Term Review’, draft report, Uzbekistan, 2008.

United Nations Country Team, ‘United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework, Mid-Term Review’, revised draft, May 2008.

United Nations Country Team, ‘MillenniumDevelopment Goal Report 2006’, 2006.

United Nations Country Team and ADB,‘MDGs in Uzbekistan’, 2004.

United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment, ‘World Investment Report2007. Transnational Corporations,Extractive Industries and Development’,New York and Geneva, 2007.

United Nations Evaluation Group, ‘Norms forEvaluation in the UN System’, April 2005.

United Nations Evaluation Group, ‘Standardsfor Evaluation in the UN System’,April 2005.

United Nations, ‘United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework, 2005–2009’,Tashkent, 2004.

United Nations, ‘Common CountryAssessment’, Uzbekistan, 2003.

United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment and Government ofUzbekistan/ Center for Economic Research,‘Economic Review of Uzbekistan’, 2008.

The World Bank, ‘Country Assistance Strategyfor Uzbekistan’, 2008.

The World Bank, ‘Uzbekistan 2005 Survey’,Investment Climate Surveys, DraftCountry Profile.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevanceMANAGING FOsustainabilityMANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneAN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWNNATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINATefficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sustNATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevanceMANAGING FOsustainabilityMANAGING FOR RESULTS responsiveneHUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

United Nations Development ProgrammeEvaluation OfficeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USATel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo

Sales #: E.09.III.B.12ISBN: 978-92-1-126245-2

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTSE V A L U A T I O N O F U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N UZBEKISTAN

ASSESSMEN

TOF

DEVELOPM

ENTRESU

LTSUZB

EKISTAN

assessment of development results: uzbekistan · a nd evir om tf su b lp , undp ef or tsw nby d ic...

Documents