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 Alhojrvi

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 Uzbekistans 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 Uzbekistans 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 countrys 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 Uzbekistans 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 Alhojrvi, 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 toUzbekistans 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 20002006 (constant 2006 prices) 10

Table 7. Total net ODA disbursements by year (20002006, US$ million, constant 2006 prices) 10

Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (20002008) 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 toUzbekistans national development results overthe last eight years. The primary reason forselecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was theforthcoming completion of the 20052009 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 20002004 and 20052009country 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 (20082010), 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 Uzbekistans 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 countrysrelationship 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 20052009country programme document.

2. UNDP has been relevant to Uzbekistanspriority 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 theirgroupsand solved based on joint prepara-tionshave 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 engagementfor example, in areaswhere the comparative UNDP strength ofneutrality and long-term commitment toUzbekistans development could have played animportant role. In the case of UzbekistansWelfare 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 emergedespecially in thearea of providing technical support to policyformulationin 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 environmentfollowing re-engagementof many international organizations and growinginterest in addressing rural issuesmay 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 successfulthe 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 fromUzbekistans 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 Uzbekistans 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 partnersparticularly with international financial institu-tionswhere 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 toUzbekistans national development results overthe last eight years. The primary reason forselecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was theforthcoming completion of the 20052009UNDP 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;

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 20002004 and 20052009country 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 countrys 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 informationthey 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, Uzbekistanspopulation is the largestas 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 urbanareasfor 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 Peoples Deputieslocal councilsare 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 territorys 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(20082010) 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 countrys 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.

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T 7

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 Uzbekistans 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 womens 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 20072008. 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 3045

Andijon, Bukhara, Fergana, Jizzakh, Novoi, Samarqand 1530

Tashkent 7

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

C H A P T E R 2 : C O U N T R Y C O N T E X T 9

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 20072008. 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 20002006period, 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 20002006 (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 (20002006, 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.

Source:Government of Uzbekistan,Welfare Improvement Strategy, 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 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 Childrens 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 Coordinators 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 (20052009) 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 ChildrensFund (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 UNincluding participation in UN ThematicGroup discussionsinclude 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 Framework20002004, focused on two broad themes:

Support to the Reform Process: Policyadvice aimed at supporting the governmentscapacities to examine and formulate policyoptions, and institution-building aimed atdeveloping and strengthening the structuresand capacities of government to effectivelymanage the countrys 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 20052009 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.

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 5

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 20002004 and the 20052009 countryprogrammes.20 As funding from other resourcesdeclined over the life of the 20002004programme, 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 (20042007)

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 the20002004 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 (20002008)

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.

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 7

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 20052009 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 ornationalization) the global goals and targets toUzbekistans 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 peoples 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 20042007.

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 the20042006 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 ofUzbekistans 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 Uzbekistans 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.

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 2 1

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 fairthoughoccasionally weakacross 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 Reportstargets 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 Reportspreparation.27 Nonetheless, theWISa documentapproved by the governmentaligns itsobjectives with the nationally determinedMDGs.

4.1.2 PRO-POOR POLICY REFORMS TOACHIEVE MDG TARGETS

UNDP has supported the Government ofUzbekistans 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 Uzbekistans 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.

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 2

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 Uzbekistans 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 Centers strengths, it was natural thatUNDP used it to support the government designits national development strategies. In 2003,work began on the development of the20042006 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.

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 2 3

they address, and the government generallyappreciates them. However, such an approachraises challenges for ensuring projects effective-ness, efficiency and sustainability. First, despite aprojects 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 Uzbekistans 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 forUzbekistans 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 Uzbekistans 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 20082010 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(20072008), 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, JuneJuly 2006.

34. Harfs, J., An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP Project Enhancement of Living Standards in Namangan, European Union,JuneJuly 2006.

35. Tessier, 2007.

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 4

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 womens 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 resultsmany 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 pri