Kyrgyzstan

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 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 general objective of this evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the performance of EU support to the Rule of Law (RoL) and Anticorruption in the period 2010-2021 in INTPA partner countries, funded under DCI, EDF, EIDHR, IcSP, CSO and relevant Trust Funds. The evaluation seeks to be a stock-taking and forward-looking exercise but will focus on learning i.e. the identification of key lessons on what has and has not worked and why.

In addition, the specific objectives for this evaluation are:

• To assess the EU support to independent, effective and efficient justice systems, notably a) legislative processes (legality), b) legal certainty and access to justice; and c) equality and accountability before the law, in terms of its impact on good governance (including stability, human rights and democracy, environmental governance and business climate).
• To look at actions aimed at promoting anti-corruption, public accountability and transparency, improving the justice systems and enforcing the principle of separation of powers.
• To pay specific attention to the inclusion of different groups (political, ethnic, religious, etc.), women and youth in decision making at all levels.
• To gather insights on the extent to which the different tools, instruments and modalities used in the EU response have been beneficial in providing effective support to partner countries and the interactions and coherence of those, notably of policy and political dialogue.
• To evaluate the rationale of the EU in these supports to RoL, as well as risk mitigation measures and the impact of policy dialogue, not least on societal and state resilience.
• To produce recommendations for decision-makers in DG INTPA, FPI, DG NEAR, DG ECHO, DG Trade, DG JUST and EEAS on how to improve the EU’s policy strategy and implementation.

The temporal scope of the evaluation is 2010 to 2021, with a particular focus on the previous MMF (2014-2020). The evaluation will focus on the support provided to core state institutions and civil society organisations, specifically: state institutions and oversight bodies, justice institutions, anti-corruption agencies, civil society and human rights institutions.

The purpose if this evaluation was the assessment of both budget support and blending operations of the EU in the Kyrgyz Republic between 2010 and 2019. The EU has implemented ten budget support programmes in the country. All programmes contain, in addition to the funds transferred to the national budget, funds covering the provision of technical assistance for institutional capacity development, support to the elaboration of coherent policies, and/or evaluation, visibility and communication activities. The EU is using blending as financing modality in Kyrgyzstan since 2011. The funds for the EU blending operations in Kyrgyzstan come from the envelope for regional cooperation and are channelled through the Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA). Almost 40% of the total portfolio of funds managed by the EU Delegation to the Kyrgyz Republic is channelled through the blending instrument. Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan is the main beneficiary of the IFCA funds, with 75% of these funds going to this country.

This evaluation entailed two components. First, it provided an assessment of EU budget support in the country applying the 3-Step approach of the OECD-DAC guidelines on the evaluation of budget support. In particular, building on smaller, more specific evaluations and other studies produced in recent years, it assessed to what extent EU budget support contributed to Kyrgyzstan´s achievements in terms of the outcomes and impacts of its education and social protection sectors and of the country’s latest electoral reform policy. The analysis focused on how EU budget support, by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Kyrgyzstan’s policies, strategies, spending actions, administration capacities and PFM system, contributed to sustainable outcomes in the sectors supported and, in turn, to growth and poverty reduction.

Second, the evaluation focused on EU blending operations in Kyrgyzstan’s Energy and Water management sectors. Specifically, the evaluation looked into the overall logic of these operations as a whole and assesses to what extent their design and implementation are suitable to achieve the expected results of this instrument in said sectors.

Report available here: https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-eu-budget-support-and-blending-kyrgyz-republic-2010-2019_en

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

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 objectives of the evaluation were to:

• support the decision-making, both at EU strategic (planning) level, and at the level of the design of the action programmes /interventions;
• feed into the reflection on the revision of future development policies in view of the recent adoption of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda;
• demonstrate whether already on-going/planned IPA (I) II, ENPI/ENI, DCI and EDF action programmes/interventions in the area of social protection have taken on board the latest lessons learnt from the previous programming period;
• provide recommendations on the best way to approach and improve its support to the development of social protection systems, in partner countries both in terms of the use of policy dialogue and financial assistance;
• contribute to the preparation and adjustment of action programmes, namely for IPA II, ENI, DCI and EDF assistance to the extent possible;
• feed in the Mid-term Review of financial instruments;
• feed in Mid-term Reviews of country/region multi-annual indicative programmes.

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

The evaluation focused on EU support (policy dialogue and financial assistance) provided for the development of social protection systems in partner countries, more specifically on the social insurance and social assistance measures to address the following risks and needs: unemployment, parental responsibilities, sickness and healthcare, work accidents/employment injuries disability, loss of a spouse or parent, old age, housing and social exclusion.

The evaluation covered:

• IPA I beneficiary countries;
• ENPI partner countries;
• Countries covered by DCI and EDF.

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 an inventory;
• A Desk Phase, focusing on gathering and analysing existing data and information (through literature/document reviews and interviews/focus groups/surveys);
• A Field Phase, including preparation of field missions, visits to the case study countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia*, Malawi, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine*) and drafting of country reports;
• A Synthesis Phase, producing a final report and dissemination of results to concerned stakeholders.

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