Uzbekistan

The Framework Agreement for Decentralized Evaluations and Reviews (FADER) LOT 1 covers different types of appraisals, evaluations and reviews of development cooperation projects and programmes funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA).

The main users of the FADER are the regional departments of the MFA, which have regional and country specific development cooperation programmes/projects in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The following assignments are implemented by Particip GmbH:

• Project appraisal: Strengthening inclusive education system in support of Ethiopia's general education sectoral programme,
• Appraisal of the Local Adaptation to Climate Change- Project in Nepal,
• Project appraisal: Rural Economic Development (RED) Phase I in Ethiopia,
• Appraisal of the “Forestry, Land Use and Value Chains Development in Tanzania” (FORLAND) programme,
• Appraisal of Tax Sector Support to Tanzania (TAXTAN) programme.

The evaluation provided an assessment of the support delivered through Finland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs' (MFA) Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI) in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan), Vietnam, Nepal, and Indonesia. By applying the OECD DAC criteria, the evaluation examined 12 ICI-funded projects, offering insights into both their individual achievements and challenges, as well as insights into the instrument as a whole.

The primary aim of the evaluation was to provide objective and impartial insights that would enhance accountability, promote learning, and support informed decision-making. It specifically focused on assessing the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the projects under the ICI programme.

A key aspect of the evaluation was identifying valuable lessons learned that could guide future cooperation efforts and contribute to a broader evaluation of Finland’s development cooperation instruments. Beyond assessing individual projects, the evaluation also explored the efficiency of MFA Finland and ICI consultant support, examining how effectively these contributions facilitated successful project implementation. Additionally, it assessed the sustainability and long-term impact of capacity-building efforts, while addressing important policy considerations for the Government of Finland.

Key focus areas were:

• Project-Level Evaluation: All 12 projects were assessed using the OECD evaluation criteria. Within the scope of available resources, a select few projects received a more comprehensive review, ensuring representation from each of the key Finnish institutions involved in the projects.
• Programme-Level Evaluation: The evaluation explored the long-term sustainability and impact of capacity-building initiatives and other investments made through the ICI Asia programme.
• Formative Evaluation: The study also assessed how the MFA and ICI consultants could better support the implementation of ICI projects, with a focus on improving operational efficiency.
• Policy and Strategic Consideration: The evaluation addressed several broader policy aspects, such as: i) The effectiveness of the ICI Asia programme in leveraging market access and opportunities for Finnish actors, including the private sector; ii) The potential for Finnish private sector actors to access Public Investment Fund (PIF) resources or other funding sources beyond ICI funding; iii) The role of linkages between ICI projects and other Finnish entities, including universities and civil society organisations (CSOs), and the perceived benefits and challenges of such connections.

The objective of this facility is to improve the overall quality of the NDICI Rapid Response and Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention thematic areas by providing high quality research services.

We will provide the FPI with flexible and ad hoc research services and prepare literature reviews and rapid assistance reports in the thematic areas specified below.

The general objective of this assignment was to provide UNDP, national governments, and other key stakeholders with an independent assessment of the contributions of UNDP’s country programmes in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan toward achieving national development priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The specific objectives of the evaluations

• To provide an assessment, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, of the relevance, implementation conditions, and performance of UNDP country programmes, particularly their efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, impact, and added value, with an emphasis on experiences from the design and execution of programme activities;
• To evaluate UNDP’s cooperation potential with national and international stakeholders and its added value within the broader development ecosystem in Central Asia;
• To identify lessons learned (both positive and negative), best practices, and actionable recommendations, particularly regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes and the factors that facilitated or hindered their contributions to national and regional development objectives.

The results of these evaluations informed the preparation of the next UNDP Country Programme Documents, contributing to enhanced programme design and implementation in the region. They also strengthened accountability to stakeholders and fostered institutional learning within UNDP, while aligning with the broader objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework.

The geographical scope of this evaluation covered Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The thematic scope encompassed UNDP’s interventions across several key ars:

• Governance and institutional reforms, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and digital transformation;
• Inclusive economic development, including private sector engagement, social protection, and green and digital economies;
• Environment and climate resilience, particularly in disaster risk reduction, renewable energy, and sustainable urban development.

The main objectives of this evaluation are to provide the relevant services of the European Union, the interested stakeholders with:

• An overall independent assessment of the performance of selected CT-P/CVE measures funded by FPI.2 during the years 2017-2022, paying particular attention to its different levels of results measured against its expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results
• As a particular approach to regional actions, a specific case study shall be carried out to assess the regional framework for support to CT-P/CVE measures in the Asian context, managed by the Regional Team in Bangkok. It is expected that the present evaluation assesses the relevance, added value and success of developing a model for CT and P/CVE actions, respectively, which have been replicated in different countries/contexts in Asia/Pacific (in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives for CT; and in Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka and Maldives for P/CVE). If deemed relevant, links can also be made to regional approaches in other RTs;
• Key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations in order to improve current and future interventions.

In particular, this evaluation will serve the contracting authority and other interested services to better understand the performance of the Intervention, its enabling factors and those hampering a proper delivery of results to inform the planning and implementation of current and future support to tackle CTP/CVE.

The main use of the results of the evaluation is expected to be

• To draw general lessons that can be used for the future approach to interventions in the sector
• To draw specific lessons that can be replicated in other similar interventions
• To draw specific lessons from the regional approaches, in particular the one applied by the Regional Team in Bangkok in terms of stocktaking, dynamics and replicability.

The main users of this evaluation will be the contracting authority, FPI.2, including its Regional Teams in Bangkok, Nairobi, Dakar, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (managed from Brussels). The Regional Team in Brasilia is less involved since they currently do not manage any CT-P/CVE projects.

The specific objectives were:

1. To raise awareness of EU's policies, principles and values in Uzbekistan, notably in relation to the protection of the environment and climate action in the Aral Sea basin.

This was expected to be done through the organisation of a study visit to the Aral Sea region in order to:

i) disseminate information about the work being done by the Government and MPHSTF in the Aral Sea region;

ii) demonstrate a successful case that proves it possible to achieve significant and long-lasting results with limited funds;

iii) pave the way for future green investments and support to the region.

2. Provide assistance to the government of Uzbekistan in its efforts to mitigate negative effects of the Aral Sea disaster to the environment and population of Karakalpakstan.

3. Contribute to improvement of the ecosystem and sustainable life in the saline lands of the dried bottom of the Aral Sea by planting of 27 000 trees that are resistant to the climatic conditions of the region, such as ash, elm, catalpa, willow, saxaul, kandym, and others.

This action contributed to the effective implementation of international human rights instruments, principles and standards, primarily by means of exchange of best practices with partner countries.

The project was conceived to serve and preserve EU values and interests by means of complementary actions. It promoted policy cooperation with partner countries of strategic interest to the EU as well as enhanced the EU's visibility and coherence. This was done through the development of an analysis of the human rights situation in 13 countries, the organisation of seminars/roundtables and outreach activities. This ensured increased human rights awareness and access to human rights knowledge.

The Specific objectives were:

• 1)
  To ensure appropriate follow-up to political and human rights dialogues with partner countries. This includes, inter alia, facilitating south-south cooperation and exchange of ideas, knowledge and expertise on commonly identified human rights issues; providing technical assistance including in the form of trainings and roundtable discussions with governments in partner countries in order to strengthen their human rights expertise; facilitating interaction among representatives from the private sector and government representatives in partner countries to ensure compliance with the internationally recognised human rights framework; and facilitating regular interaction between partner countries with a view to building and reinforcing regional alliances which may contribute to serving EU interests in multilateral fora;
• 2)
  To contribute to bringing together experts from the EU and partner countries such as academics, private sector and government representatives in order to equip the EU to remain innovative and tackle emerging subjects of EU interest as a vehicle of cooperation with partner countries such as artificial intelligence, academic freedom, right to water and sanitation, economic social and cultural rights;
• 3)
  To support and enhance the monitoring of Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) GSP+/ Everything but Arms (EBA) beneficiaries' commitments under the seven GSP core human rights conventions.

Internal studies analysing Human Rights situation in the following countries

• Armenia
• Bangladesh
• Bolivia
• Cabo Verde
• Cambodia
• Kyrgyztan
• Mongolia
• Myanmar
• Pakistan
• Philippines
• Sri Lanka
• Tajikistan
• Uzbekistan

The overall purpose of the evaluation was to inform the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Finland (MFA) on the achievements of its development policy and cooperation in the region over the past decade, and to support the MFA in deciding how to best achieve its policy objectives and to enhance its management of the programme in the region at strategic level. Main sectors of cooperation in the region are i) Government and Civil Society, ii) Energy, iii) Education and iv) Environment Protection. The evaluation was mostly forward-looking but also included summative analysis to respond to the evaluation questions.

Objectives: The objectives of the evaluation were to produce evidence and present well justified conclusions on the following:

1. To assess the impact(s), if any, of Finland’s development cooperation carried out in the region by the Department for Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia;

2. To assess the scope of the impact(s) and their relative significance to development in the area;

3. To assess the levels of sustainability of the achieved results and impact;

4. To assess the results achieved by, and management of, the current country strategies;

5. To analyse the reasons explaining success and/or failure in performance and in reaching a lasting impact, including the operational context, human aspects and resources; and

6. To provide recommendations that serve the Ministry in developing its strategic planning, management and response in the region as well as drawing the broader lessons on how to increase impact and sustainability, in advancement of Finland’s development policy objectives.

Final report available here: https://um.fi/development-cooperation-evaluation-reports-comprehensive-evaluations/-/asset_publisher/nBPgGHSLrA13/content/evaluointiraportti-suomen-kehitysyhteisty%25C3%25B6-it%25C3%25A4-euroopassa-ja-keski-aasiassa/384998

Objective:

Implementation of a comprehensive set of actions to enhance the visibility of the European Union and its contribution to development cooperation in Uzbekistan.

More specifically, this contract contributed to gradual establishment of improved EU visbility and communication on EU assistance and cooperation with Uzbekistan guided by agreed overall messages.

The contract was understood as a complement to the communication efforts of each specific EU-funded project and added value to these efforts by highlighting the scale and impact of EU development assistance as a whole and thus increased visibility of EU.

The objective of the study was to provide the EU with a review of the gender situation in Central Asia and in each of the 5 countries of the region (i.e. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan) as well as specific recommendations.

The review provided an understanding whether gender inequalities persist both formally and informally in each country of Central Asia, i.e. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and in the Central Asia region considered as a whole.

The study focused equally on causes of gender inequalities and discrimination, how it intersects with other inequalities, how it impacts on human rights enjoyment and/or benefits produced by and access to development efforts as well as an understanding of partner governments' commitment and capacity to work on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment (GEWE) issues.

Finally, it provided specific recommendations on issues to be addressed to improve gender situation and discrimination in each of these sectors through EU assistance through the Development and Cooperation Instrument at regional and bilateral levels focussing for the latter on the focal sectors of EU intervention in each country.

The Evaluation of the European Union’s co-operation with Central Asia (2007-2014) evaluated the design and the implementation of policies, strategies and sector programmes of the EU’s past and current development cooperation support to Central Asia.

The main objectives of the evaluation were:

• to provide the relevant external co-operation services of the European Union and the wider public with an overall independent assessment of the European Union’s past and current co-operation;
• to identify key lessons and to produce recommendations to improve current and inform future choices on co-operation strategy and delivery.

The evaluation used the five standard OECD/DAC evaluation criteria, namely relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. In addition the evaluation also looks at the EU added value and the 3Cs.

The evaluation was conducted in four phases:

• an Inception Phase, focusing on the design and the methodology of the evaluation including the reconstruction of the intervention logic and the compilation of a comprehensive inventory incl. monetary flow of all relevant activities between 2007 and 2014;
• a Desk phase, focusing on gathering and analysing existing data and information (through literature/document reviews and interviews/focus groups/surveys) and the delivery of a Desk report;
• a Field phase, including preparation of field missions, visits to the study countries and drafting of country notes;
• a Synthesis phase, producing a final report and dissemination of results to concerned stakeholders.

The evaluation included an in depth analysis of the contribution of EU support to development outcomes in the following sectors:

• Environment (focus on water management and climate change)
• Private sector development
• Education (higher education and vocational training)
• Border management, customs, fight against organised crime, and the rule of law

The report is available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-eu-regional-level-support-central-asia-2007-2014_en