FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549

“Mid-Term Evaluation of the Enhancement
of Living Standard Programme in
Uzbekistan (2005-2010)
Letter of Contract N°2009/223549
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
Emilio Valli
September 2010
The European Union’s DCI-Asia Development Programme
The project is implemented by IBF International ConsultingThe project is financed by the European Union

2
“The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the contractor and can in no
way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
At the European Commission, I wish to thank Messrs. Mario Ronconi and Soeren Klem as well as Ms
Assunta Testa for the their support in communicating with national authorities and UNDP, and for their
constructive comments to my deliverables throughout this evaluation.
At IBF, I especially wish to thank Ms Laetitia Lemmens who provided invaluable assistance in quality
control and improvement of the deliverables and in ensuring timely and positive communication with
the European Commission.

4
TABLE OF CONTENT
Acronyms and Abbreviations...........................................................................................................5
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................6
I. Evaluation Objectives.............................................................................................................7
II. Evaluation Background and Methodology ..............................................................................8
III. Activities Performed ...............................................................................................................9
IV. Results.................................................................................................................................10
V. Recommendations ...............................................................................................................11
Annex 1-Inception Report..............................................................................................................13
Annex 2 – Report from the Mission to Uzbekistan .........................................................................13
Annex 3 – Evaluation Report.........................................................................................................13

5
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CA Central Asia
CDP Community Development Plan
DCI Development and Co-operation Instrument
EC European Commission
ELS Enhancement of Living Standards programme
EU European Union
FAFA Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement
IP Indicative Programme
LRRD Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MIRC Mahalla Information and Resource Centre
PCM Project Cycle Management
RDC Rural Development Centre
TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
ToR Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WISP Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper

6
INTRODUCTION
The Enhancement of Living Standards Programme (ELS) in Uzbekistan is a poverty reduction
programme that has been implemented in the three regions of the Fergana Valley-i.e. Namangan,
Andijan and Fergana- since January 2005.
The overall objective of the ELS programme is “to increase the living standards of the vulnerable
populations in Fergana Valley”. Though there is no explicit definition of ‘vulnerable populations’ in
the project documents, the project interventions aim to benefit the households of most economically
underdeveloped rural communities.
The ELS addresses three main issues: 1/ weak capacity of local government in development planning
and delivery of basic social services; 2/ poor access to basic quality services by rural populations and
inadequate capacity of rural communities to support social services delivery; 3/ inequitable access to
rural development services and income generation opportunities by rural communities.
The ELS strategy to address these issues is articulated in three activity components: 1/ capacity
building of regional and district level government institutions in local development planning and
social services delivery; 2/ capacity building of local communities (mahallas) and rehabilitation of
basic social services infrastructure; 3/ promoting equitable access to rural development services and
to opportunities for income generation.
The four ELS projects in Fergana Valley have been implemented through Contribution Agreements
with UNDP within the framework of EC/UN FAFA. The EC grant is 91% of the total amount and the
UNDP contribution equals about 9% of the total programme cost.
The table below provides a list of the four projects.
Table 1 List of ELS projects implemented in Fergana Valley
Contract
year
Contract
nr
Title
Total
Amount
EC
Grant
Regions Nature
Annual
Action
Programme
2004 091-225
Enhancement of Living
Standards in
Namangan Region
1100000 1000000 Namangan
Contribution Agreement
with UNDP
TACIS 2002
2006 116-796
Standards in Fergana
Region
1100000 1000000 Fergana
with UNDP
TACIS 2003
2007 142-128
Standards in Andijan
and Namangan Phase
II
1100000 1000000
Namangan
Andijan
with UNDP
TACIS 2004
2008 163-878
Standards in Fergana
Valley
3850000 3500000
Namangan
Andijan
Fergana
with UNDP
TACIS 2006

7
I. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
This evaluation had two main specific objectives:
• to assess the overall ELS programme and the four individual ELS projects in Fergana
Valley
• to suggest areas for further assistance “under the new poverty reduction/rural
development programme funded by DCI” and actions to consolidate and further develop
the results achieved
Poverty reduction remains a primary objective of the EC Regional Strategy for Assistance to Central
Asia for the budgetary period 2007-2013, which is implemented under the new financial regulation,
the DCI. The DCI is currently the main EC financial instrument to support developing countries and
low middle-income transition countries in their efforts towards achieving the MDG.
The central objective of the DCI is the eradication of poverty in a context of sustainable development
as well as the promotion of democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and the rule
of law. The wide scope of the DCI has prompted the inclusion in the regulation of a “political
content” reflecting the specific situation of Central Asian countries.
The EC Regional Strategy for Assistance to Central Asia recognizes that poverty reduction in the
target regions requires long-term cooperation based on a community-based and demand-driven
approach in line with the EC principle of “Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development” (LRRD) and
the Millennium Development Goals
The first Central Asia (CA) Indicative Programme (IP) under the DCI, the CA IP 2007-2010, identifies
“poverty reduction and increasing living standards” as one of the three areas of co-operation.
Under this area of co-operation, there is a focal sector titled “geographically targeted rural
development schemes, regional and local community development “which corresponds to the
former Tacis “track 3” of the Central Asia programme.
For Uzbekistan, the geographical focus for poverty reduction programmes under the IP 2007-10
continues to be the Fergana Valley. The EC strategic approach is indeed to implement poverty
reduction programmes over time in particular geographical areas perceived as more vulnerable to
destabilizing influences. This is an important element of the EC Regional Strategy for Central Asia
2007-2013, and one in line with the comprehensive approach to conflict prevention called for by the
European Consensus on Development (December 2005).
The overriding objective of this evaluation was to provide lessons learned and recommendations for
a future poverty reduction/rural development programme in Fergana Valley to be funded under the
DCI. There were no attempt in the evaluation report to generalize findings and conclusions beyond
the situational and contextual conditions of the three regions of Fergana Valley in which observations
were made.

8
II. EVALUATION BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
The Mid-Term Evaluation of the ELS Programme in Uzbekistan was carried out by a poverty reduction
expert from IBF International Consulting under letter of contract EuropeAid Nr 2009/223549.
The primary client of the evaluation was EuropeAid D2. The Unit has specific responsibility for the
overall management and supervision of the ELS programme in Uzbekistan as well as for the
identification of future poverty reduction programmes in the country.
In Uzbekistan, the immediate beneficiaries of the evaluation results will be the ELS project teams, the
UNDP Country Office overseeing and contributing to the overall implementation of the programme
in the field, the Ministry of Economy (Project Partner), the Cabinet of Ministers Office, the Regional
Project Co-ordinators and Deputy Regional Governors in the three ELS target regions of Namangan,
Fergana and Andijan in the Fergana Valley, and the district administrations concerned by the ELS
programme.
At grass-roots level, the ELS target communities (mahallas) and populations are expected to benefit
from an improved effectiveness of the programme induced by the activation of the
recommendations.
Compared to the other regions of Uzbekistan, the population density in the three regions of the
Fergana Valley covered by the ELS programme is high and the access to water and land resources is
limited. The potential for social conflict exists. There are differences between regions and within
regions between territories. Typically, living standards are lower in the rural settlements more
remote from the urban centres, which were specifically targeted by the four ELS projects.
Uzbekistan has prepared a Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper (WISP), the equivalent of a Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper. Through the WISP, the Government of Uzbekistan recognizes that poverty
is largely concentrated in the rural areas and outlines the policies to increase economic growth and
social service delivery to the poor.
The evaluation methodology was designed to meet the requirements and expectations of the Terms
of Reference (ToR). The evaluation was carried out based on the five EC Project Cycle Management
criteria. The focus was on relevance, effectiveness and sustainability.
The evaluation criteria including the evaluation sub-questions were detailed in the Evaluation
Framework. The framework defined the performance indicators, sources of information and
methods of information collection. One of the main limitations was the difficult or no access to
statistics.

9
III.ACTIVITIES PERFORMED
Location Activity Month Working days
Home office Collection and review of
documentation
February 2010 4
Belgium (Brussels) Briefing at EuropeAid D/2 February 2010 1
Home office Elaboration of Evaluation
Framework
February 2010 3
Home office Preparation of the Mission
Programme and Itinerary
February 2010 2
Home office Writing the Inception
Report
February 2010 3
Home office Preparation of Interview
Guides and Projects
Evaluation Forms
March 2010 1
Uzbekistan (Tashkent,
Fergana Valley)
-Projects sites visits and
meetings with local
beneficiaries and
stakeholders
-Collection and analysis of
information
March 2010 17
Home office Preparation of Mission
Report
March 2010 1
Home office Preparation of Mission
Report
April 2010 2
Home office Preparation of Draft
Evaluation Report
April 2010 3
Home office Preparation of Draft
Evaluation Report
May 2010 4
Home office Preparation of Annex III
to Mission Report
(Outcomes of meetings)
May 2010 4
Total: 45 working days
Reports written include:
 Inception Report (including an annex with Evaluation Framework)
 Report from the Mission to Uzbekistan (including an annex with outcomes of meetings)
 Evaluation Report Vol I
 Evaluation Report Vol II

10
IV. RESULTS
The evaluation has fulfilled its objectives fully. It has assessed the overall ELS programme and
individual ELS projects in the context of the five PCM criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
impact and sustainability. Moreover, the evaluation assessed the visibility of the ELS programme and
the four ELS individual projects, including their EU visibility.
The evaluation criteria, including the evaluation sub-questions, were detailed in the Evaluation
Framework. The latter was the guide for the evaluation process.
The evaluation process started with the collection and review of documentation, covering country,
EC, other donors and ELS project level documents. The documentary collection and review
continued after the submission of the Inception Report and throughout the implementation period
of the evaluation.
The site visits in Tashkent and Fergana Valley enabled to assess the performance of the projects, to
collect ‘on the ground’ information and to carry out in depth consultation. Two main techniques
were used during the field mission: interviews and focus groups.
The evaluation process led to the development of concrete and practical recommendations at
programme and project levels for further assistance “under the new poverty reduction/rural
development programme funded by DCI” and for short-term consolidation of the results achieved
under the current ELS project.

11
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were formulated at programme level:
Recommendation 1. The wealth of experience and knowledge that have been accumulated through
the implementation of the ELS programme and are institutionalized with UNDP Country Office
together with the presence of UNDP in the Fergana Valley regions provide a platform for
implementing a new poverty reduction programme under the DCI.
Recommendation 2. The new poverty reduction programme under the DCI should continue to
support both basic social services infrastructure development and local economic development
through income generation activities. The geographical coverage of the Fergana Valley should
remain to match the long-term EC strategies commitment to the region. However, new districts and
communities should be targeted to consolidate the results of the ELS programme in the Fergana
Valley as a whole, before exit.
Recommendation 3. The next poverty reduction programme can contribute to the clarification of
standards for social service provision to communities and beyond, not only in the context of public
utilities, but also in health and education. For example, for users of health and education services, it
is sometimes not exactly clear what services are provided free by government, and what not.
Recommendation 4. The new poverty reduction programme should allocate an increased share of
its resources to capacity-building of local government to address the functional gaps in the planning
and implementation of state programmes and the delivery of service provision. Focus should be not
only on training development but also on systems development, such as the monitoring and
evaluation system, already being piloted in Andijan region.
Recommendation 5. The future poverty reduction programme should continue to help regional and
district authorities, not only in developing a core set of indicators to measure the impact of state
programmes on poverty reduction, but also in developing functional activities and systems for
sharing and verifying reliability of data.
Recommendation 6. Until an EC Delegation is open, the public relations specialist of the current ELS
project should be trained in the development and dissemination of communication contents on EU
policies, programmes and strategies for the region.

12
The following recommendations were formulated at project level:
For future projects under the DCI:
Recommendation 1. Under the DCI, duration of capacity-building projects should be extended to at
least 3 years or more.
Recommendation 2. Future poverty reduction projects should be implemented each in one region
only, avoiding covering two regions or more under the same project.
Recommendation 3 Future poverty reduction projects should encourage poor households to engage
in market-oriented production and value-added market chain should be promoted, building on
existing agro-co-operatives established and trained by the ELS projects.
Recommendation 4. In future poverty reduction projects, there should be more income generation
activities that specifically target women and female-led households. One reason for that is that
many adult males are migrants to Kazakhstan and Russia, and the number of female-led households
in rural areas is an important share of all households.
Recommendation 5. Future poverty reduction projects should strengthen the links between
community development activities, especially between Community Development Planning (CDP) and
local economic development as job creation is an increasing core priority of most CDPs.
Recommendation 6. Future projects should support the expansion and further development of
community extension services by facilitating the linkage between the network of community
extension agents and private seed companies, either directly or through the intermediation of the
Rural Development Centres (RDCs), that the ELS programme has started to establish. This would
create a partnership based on mutual interest between communities and private sector extension
services that would provide rural communities with sustainable access to modern farm technologies,
bringing higher income opportunities for poor community households.

13
ANNEX 1-INCEPTION REPORT
1. Evaluation Framework
2. (Indicative) Mission Programme and Itinerary in Uzbekistan
3. Table of Acronyms
ANNEX 2 – REPORT FROM THE MISSION TO UZBEKISTAN
1. List of Persons Met
2. Table of Acronyms
3. Outcomes of meetings
ANNEX 3 – EVALUATION REPORT
1. Volume I
2. Volume II

Mid-Term Evaluation of the ELS, Enhancement of Living Standards Programme in Uzbekistan
“MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE
ENHANCEMENT OF LIVING STANDARD
PROGRAMME IN UZBEKISTAN (2005-2010)
INCEPTION REPORT
Prepared by:
Emilio Valli
February 2010

Mid-Term Evaluation of the ELS, Enhancement of Living Standards Programme in Uzbekistan 2
“The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the contractor and can in no way
be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................4
2 EVALUATION PROFILE .......................................................................................................................6
2.1 Objectives .........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Key audiences .................................................................................................................................7
3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................8
3.1 Evaluation criteria ............................................................................................................................8
3.2 Evaluation Framework .....................................................................................................................8
3.3 Documentary review ........................................................................................................................9
3.4 Project assessment.........................................................................................................................9
3.5 Interviews ........................................................................................................................................10
3.6 Focus groups..................................................................................................................................11
3.7 Analysis of information..................................................................................................................11
3.8 Validation of initial conclusions ...................................................................................................11
4 WORK PLAN .......................................................................................................................................12
4.1 Responsibilities ..............................................................................................................................12
4.2 Time schedule and inputs .............................................................................................................12
4.3 Reporting.........................................................................................................................................13
5 ANNEXES............................................................................................................................................14
ANNEX I - EVALUATION FRAMEWORK..................................................................................................15
ANNEX II – (INDICATIVE) MISSION PROGRAMME AND ITINERARY IN UZBEKISTAN......................19
ANNEX III – TABLE OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................................20

11 PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW
A significant majority of the poor population in Uzbekistan lives in rural areas. Therefore poverty for the
purpose of this evaluation is intended as a multi-dimensional issue beyond monetary income deprivation
and lack of economic opportunity, and covers vulnerability and remote access to education and basic
health services, lack of access to clean drinking water and basic utilities (e.g. electricity, gas), scarcity of
power and influence, deprived social status and human dignity.
Poverty reduction and the achievement of the other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are major
policy objectives of the Uzbek government supported by the international donor community, including the
European Commission (EC). In 2007 the government of Uzbekistan has adopted a Welfare Improvement
Strategy Paper (WISP), the equivalent to a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The
implementation of the WISP, prepared with technical assistance from the World Bank (WB), is
supplemented by interventions of the major donors operating in the country which, apart from the EC and
the WB, include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Nations (UN), the Islamic Development
Bank (IDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), as well as several bilateral
aid agencies.
Under the Action Programmes (AP) 2002-06, the total monetary value of the bilateral EC assistance
committed to Uzbekistan has reached 47.750.000 Euro.
These EC funds have been provided in the framework of the TACIS programme.
The TACIS Central Asia programme is structured along three tracks:
1. Regional cooperation component with the objective of promoting good neighbourly relations in the
areas with strategic interest for the EU, such as Justice and Home Affairs, energy and transport
networks, and environment;
2. Regional support programme implemented at national level, to strengthen the links between
assistance and political dialogue in the framework of the PCAs. Special emphasis is made to
trade-related assistance and civil service development;
3. Poverty reduction and increase in living standards implemented in pilot regions, focusing on
poverty alleviation, community and rural development and on the most vulnerable groups.
Over the period under scrutiny, the total EC allocation for the programme in poverty reduction (track 3) for
Uzbekistan has been 7.500.000 Euro (or approximately sixteen percent of the total budget for EC bilateral
co-operation under the AP 2002-06).
In line with the multi-annual Indicative Programme (IP 2002-06), a predominant share of this budget has
financed actions in the geographical area of Ferghana Valley in the south-east of the country. The total
EC allocation to the “Enhancement of Living Standards (ELS) programme in Ferghana Valley” has indeed
been 6.500.000 Euro (eighty seven percent of the total allocation to track 3 in Uzbekistan). Additional
1.000.000 Euro under the AP2002 was allocated for a complementary action in the autonomous region of
Karakalpakstan, in the north-west of the country. All the ELS programme actions have been implemented
by UNDP within the framework of specific Contribution Agreements, involving a co-financement of the
actions by UNDP equivalent to 10% added to the EC contribution.
The Ferghana Valley stretches from the territory of Uzbekistan across the border of Kyrgyzstan, into the
Osh and Batken regions (oblasts), and to a lesser extent into Tajikistan (Sughd oblast).
The Uzbek territory of the Ferghana Valley is the most densely populated, with small enclaves of Uzbek
population extending through the Kyrgyz and Tajik provinces. Small inter-ethnics conflicts have
occasionally spurred in the border areas among different ethnic rural communities, often around scarce
water and land resources. The region is also perceived by the international community and the Central
Asian governments, as prone to the risks of radical Islamic influences. A major popular uprising occurred
in the Uzbek city of Andijan in March 2005.

The Uzbek part of the Ferghana Valley is administratively divided in three regions: Namangan, Ferghana
and Andijan. According to official statistics the poverty rate in the three provinces is in average about four
times higher than in the region of Tashkent, though the northern provinces of Uzbekistan and the
autonomous region of Karakalpakstan have even lower standards of living. Reportedly, within each
province there are significant differences between better off and worse off territories as well as between
urban and rural areas.
The EC has recognized that poverty reduction in these targeted regions requires long-term cooperation
based on a community-based and demand-driven approach in line with the EC principle of “Linking Relief,
Rehabilitation and Development” (LRRD) and the Millennium Development Goals. Moreover, due to the
specific context of the Ferghana Valley, poverty reduction objectives will have to be combined as much
possible with regional cooperation objectives. The ELS programme is not an ordinary poverty reduction
action: it has also wider political and security dimensions that have to be taken into account, as they
emerge, during the field phase of the evaluation.

22 EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN PPRROOFFIILLEE
2.1 Objectives
This evaluation services the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the poverty reduction programme
in Uzbekistan. More specifically, the objectives of the evaluation are to review and assess the overall
Tacis-funded ELS programme and the individual ELS projects in Ferghana Valley and to prepare
recommendations for improving both the effectiveness of the on-going ELS project (see below) and the
design and implementation of future EC programmes in the sphere of poverty reduction, to be funded
under the new Development and Co-operation Instrument (DCI). There will be no attempt in this
evaluation to generalize findings beyond the situational and contextual conditions in which observations
are made. The timeframe under assessment is from 2005 to date.
Poverty reduction continues to stand as one of the priorities of EC assistance to Central Asia, including
Uzbekistan, also within the framework of the new financial instrument DCI. The latter has reconciled and
simplified over 30 legal instruments used in the past (among them Tacis) into a limited number of
thematic and general instruments. DCI will be the EC main vehicle to support developing countries in their
efforts towards achieving the MDGs.
The central objective of the DCI is the eradication of poverty in a context of sustainable development as
well as the promotion of democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The wide scope of the DCI has prompted the inclusion in the regulation of a “political content” reflecting
the specific situation of Central Asian countries.
The programming process under the DCI does not differ significantly from Tacis and the first Central Asia
(CA) Indicative Programme (IP) under the new regulation, the CA IP 2007-2010, identifies “poverty
reduction and increasing living standards” as one of the three main areas of co-operation and the first of
two in terms of relative percentage of budgetary allocation for bilateral programmes. Moreover, under this
main area of co-operation, a focal sector titled “geographically targeted rural development schemes,
regional and local community development “ corresponds to the former Tacis “track 3” of the Central Asia
programme. For Uzbekistan, the geographical focus for poverty reduction interventions will continue to be
the Ferghana Valley.
The evaluation will provide lessons learned and recommendations from the ELS programme in Ferghana
Valley both for improving the effectiveness of the current ELS programme and for supporting the design
and implementation of future poverty reduction programmes in Ferghana Valley under the DCI.

2.2 Key audiences
The primary client of the evaluation report will be EuropeAid D2. The Unit has specific responsibility for
the overall management and supervision of the ELS programme in Uzbekistan as well as for the
identification of future poverty reduction programmes in the country.
In Uzbekistan, the immediate beneficiaries of the evaluation recommendations will be the ELS
Programme Co-ordinator, the Programme Area and Task Managers, the UNDP Country Office Deputy
Resident Representative overseeing the overall implementation of the programme in the field, the Ministry
of Economy (Project Partner), the Cabinet of Ministers Office, and the local authorities (Kokhimiyats) of
the three targeted administrative regions (oblasts) of Namangan, Ferghana and Andijan and of the
districts (rayons) concerned by the programme. At grass-roots level, the community self-governing bodies
(Mahallas) and the final target populations are expected to benefit from an improved effectiveness of the
programme induced by the activation of the recommendations.
During the field phase in Uzbekistan, the evaluator will listen to the views of local and international
stakeholders, including representatives of the government and the international donors, with the
necessary neutrality and independence.

33 EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
3.1 Evaluation criteria
The methodology proposed in this section is designed to meet the requirements and expectations set out
for the evaluation in the Terms of Reference (ToR). The approach is considered to be credible and
appropriate for establishing whether the ELS programme in Ferghana Valley has delivered the intended
benefits to the intended target groups and to capture unintentional positive or negative outcomes from the
implementation of the programme. In essence, the evaluation will ask how, why, for whom, and under
what conditions the programme has worked (or failed to work). These questions are important in
determining the effective implementation and development of the programme.
The evaluation will follow the criteria defined in the Project Cycle Management (PCM) Guidelines of the
EC. In particular, the expert will assess the programme according to the following five evaluation criteria:
• Impact: to the extent possible, an assessment will be made of what has happened in terms of poverty
reduction (improved living standards) as a result of the programme implementation: the intended (or
unintended) effects that can be attributed to the programme in the targeted communities, and when
feasible a comparison with non ELS targeted communities will be made.
• Relevance: an assessment will be made on whether the programme and the individual projects make
sense in the context of their environment: the appropriateness of their objectives vis-à-vis the
problems of the target groups they are supposed to benefit and the physical and policy environment
within which they operate.
• Effectiveness: an assessment will be made of the contribution of the projects results to the
achievement of the programme’s purpose: to what extent the purpose of the programme has (or is
likely to be) been achieved, and an assessment of the quality of the services provided by the projects
• Efficiency: An assessment will be made of the individual projects results compared to the costs
incurred (“value-for-money”). This may require exploring whether alternative approaches to achieving
the same results have been compared by project management, to assess whether the most efficient
process is likely to have been adopted.
• Sustainability: an assessment will be made of the likelihood of benefits produced by the projects to
continue to flow after external funding has ended, with particular reference to local ownership and
institutional capability, appropriate technology, gender and environmental issues.
In addition, the ToR requires the assessment of the ELS programme and individual projects visibility, and
in particular of the visibility of the EU as a donor.
Among the five evaluation criteria, the focus will be on relevance, effectiveness and preliminary
indications of sustainability of results. Efficiency will also be addressed but rather in terms of lessons
learned than a systematic performance audit (in particular project finances will not be systematically
analysed). Impact will be assessed in terms of the range and types of effects (including unintended
outcomes) that the implementation of the programme has had on poverty reduction for the different target
groups in the selected communities and on the wider environment. The main evaluation criteria, including
the evaluation sub-questions, are detailed in the Evaluation Framework.
3.2 Evaluation Framework
The Evaluation Framework systemises the methodology, identifying the issues to be addressed, sub-
questions that provide elaboration; and the performance indicators (variables to be considered), sources
of information and method of information collection for each issue. The evaluation issues and sub-
questions are deemed to reflect what was set out in the Terms of Reference, but have been elaborated
and re-organized. The Terms of Reference and the Evaluation Framework both contain retrospective
issues that address historical performance, as well as forward-looking issues that will be used to inform
future directions. Forward-looking issues do not relate to the achievement of results and, therefore, are
not assigned indicators.

The evaluation framework sets out:
• The evaluation issues (i.e. questions to be answered by the evaluation)
• Sub-questions that elaborate on the evaluation issues
• Performance indicators and/or variables to be considered
• Key sources of information
• Methods for information collection
The table in Annex I provides an outline of the Evaluation Framework. If appropriate, it will be further
detailed during the early stages of the field phase.
3.3 Documentary review
The process of reviewing available country, programme and project level data started on 1 February 2010
and continued after the briefing of the expert in Brussels, on 3 February 2010.
To date, the expert’s focus has been on gaining an understanding of the country context with particular
emphasis on the poverty situation as well as on reviewing the EC strategic documents for the Central
Asia (CA) region.
More specifically, the expert has reviewed the final Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper (WISP) of
Uzbekistan, as well as the EC Strategy for CA 2007-2013, the EC CA Indicative Programme (IP) 2007-
2010, the EC CA IP 2002-2006, the Action Programmes (AP) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and finally the
Development and Co-operation Instrument (DCI) regulation.
At project level, the evaluator is in the process of analyzing the available individual project Contribution
Agreements, administrative reports and monitoring reports (including available background and response
sheets).
The collection and review of documentation will continue after the submission of the Inception Report and
throughout the implementation period.
In order to provide complete answers to the evaluation issues and sub-questions presented in the
Evaluation Framework, collection and review of basic project level documentation should be completed,
including for the Contribution Agreement and monitoring reports referring to the ELS project funded under
the AP 2002, which have not as yet been made available.
In addition, documentation will be collected and reviewed on other donor relevant assistance programmes
in the target areas, on statistics from budget household surveys and other sources, progress reports on
the implementation of the WISP (if available), UNDP internal evaluation report on the ELS programme,
relevant technical reports produced by the projects (e.g. the report on capacity assessment of local
authorities in the target areas produced by the on-going ELS project).
3.4 Project assessment
Available project documentation is reviewed for the 4 ELS projects in Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan
financed from the TACIS 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006 APs and listed in the ToR of the evaluation (Table
1). This overall project portfolio assessment comprises the available project ToR, Project Documents,
Contribution Agreements, Logical Frameworks, monitoring reports, inception, progress and final project
reports and the other project documentation received prior to the submission of this evaluation Inception
Report.
Further documents and project reports may be requested before and during the mission, including
relevant technical reports.
During the mission in Uzbekistan, a series of in-depth interviews will be carried out inter alia, with the
UNDP country office and project offices, the main project partner (Ministry of Economy), other relevant
donors, relevant public institutions and regional and local authorities, mahallas and ultimate beneficiaries
in the project sites. There will also be an opportunity for an in-depth interview with the EC Programme
Manager, whose mission partly overlaps with that of the expert.

In combination with interviews, focus groups will be implemented at the early stage of the mission, one
with the UNDP project management from Tashkent and three with the project offices, with a view to
mapping out the territory and to receiving an early insight of how management approaches, considers
and constructs a subject (e.g. sustainability of results).
To the extent possible, focus group discussions will also be used by the expert at a later stage, towards
the end of the mission, including notably with final beneficiaries and informal control groups to explore
and compare the impacts of the 4 ELS projects and to generate ideas for new indicators to measure
impact.
Moreover, during project site-visits, the expert will make use of observation to assess the performance of
the on-going and completed projects.
Table 1 List of ELS projects to assess
Contract
year
Contract
nr
Title
Total
Amount
EC
Contribution
Regions Nature
Action
Programme
2004 091-225
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Ferghana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000 Namangan
with UNDP
TACIS 2002
NA 116-796
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Ferghana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000 Ferghana
with UNDP
TACIS 2003
2007 142-128
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Ferghana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000
Namangan
Andijan
with UNDP
TACIS 2004
2008 163-878
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Ferghana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
3850000 3500000
Namangan
Andijan
Ferghana
with UNDP
TACIS 2006
3.5 Interviews
Interviews will be conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative information on the overall ELS
programme and on the specific projects as well as on the wider context. The interviews will provide rich
and detailed data that will allow the expert to address the programme’s impact, relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency and sustainability. In addition, the interview sessions will address the sub-questions listed in the
Evaluation Framework.
The process of generating data through the interviews will be both, systematic and flexible. Systematic in
that there will be careful and detailed thought in planning the interviews about the type of data required
and how to generate the information from the interviewee, and about ensuring some consistencies
between interviews in the issues covered. However, the data collection process will also be flexible to
reflect the uniqueness of each individual case and questions will be a combination of wide, open-ended
questions and more probing questions to investigate the topic in depth.
Interview guides will be designed by the expert in anticipation of the field mission to act as ‘aide memoire’
in the field, and help to ensure that there are no gaps in interview coverage. The guides will also be an
important aspect of accountability to the client by providing a public document of an aspect of the
evaluation that is otherwise difficult to describe in reports.

From previous experience, the expert has learned that note-taking is not sufficient to capture data in
enough depth: the nuances and details which constitute the richness of interview data are lost, and the
effort required in keeping pace with the notes impedes the interview interaction.
For the above reasons, it is suggested that the expert may make use of a tape-recorder. There is a
potential disadvantage that being tape-recorded changes what a participant says, or makes the
interaction more formal and less relaxed. In practice though, the expert has observed in the past that
people appear quickly to get used to the presence of a tape-recorder.
Field notes will be useful to record what is heard or seen outside the main interaction of the interview.
3.6 Focus groups
Focus groups work well in combination with interviews when the subject tackled provides opportunities for
reflective discussion, as for example examining the effects of public services delivery in a community; for
generating solutions to conceptual problems, as for example new indicators to measure impacts; or for
providing information on less-sensitive subjects such as for example mapping the project outputs or
explaining irrigation technologies being applied.
In the context of this evaluation, focus groups working together (e.g. UNDP programme personnel) will be
used to generate data and insights at the initial stage of the field phase in Tashkent. During the visits to
the project sites, focus groups will be used to explore perceived causes or origin of poverty in the
interpretation of the local authorities and communities, identify impacts of the projects, and generate
recommendations on measuring poverty reduction.
Careful consideration will be paid by the expert to the composition of the focus groups. For example, it
may be difficult for individuals working together in an organization to express their views openly in a focus
group setting if more senior members of staff from the organization are also in the group. Similarly, in the
rural communities, it may not be as helpful to discuss subjects in mixed gender groups or mixed age
groups. For these reasons, more than one focus group may be convened to cover an issue.
Practical arrangements are also important: the location and timing of the group’s meeting can make a
significant difference to who is willing to attend and to the extent possible the expert will take steps to
make participation easy for people and to encourage and reassure them to attend.
The role of the expert will also be to facilitate the focus group by helping each group to concentrate and
structure the discussion, ensuring that all issues are covered and by encouraging everyone to participate
in the debate. In order to strike a balance between encouraging attendance and the need for in-depth
exploration of the issues, the size of each focus group will be between 4 and 8 participants.
3.7 Analysis of information
Following the site visits, the expert will synthesise the overall results and develop a set of preliminary
findings structured around the evaluation issues and sub-questions. In particular, the information on the
specific projects will be analysed project by project based on a standard evaluation form designed for the
projects. Project specific findings will be separated from the findings which are relevant for the overall
ELS programme or for designing future actions. A draft synthesis report presenting the general and
project specific findings will be drafted. Finally, preliminary conclusions and recommendations will be
elaborated based on the findings.
3.8 Validation of initial conclusions
After the analysis of information collected in the site visits, the expert will discuss the preliminary
conclusions with the client and other key stakeholders. To ensure that a conclusion or recommendation
is relevant and realistic, it must be discussed with the stakeholders before it is elaborated further and
presented in the Draft Evaluation Report. Such validation is highly beneficial for the quality of the
conclusions and recommendations and the subsequent report writing phase: factual errors can be
avoided and the validation adds credibility and richness to the Draft Evaluation Report.

44 WWOORRKK PPLLAANN
4.1 Responsibilities
The EC Task Manager for the evaluation facilitates data collection, entry visa in Uzbekistan, comments
and approves reports and guides the evaluation. The expert plans and conducts the evaluation, including
logistical arrangements, with the support of IBF Project Manager for international travel arrangements.
The expert is primarily responsible for the timeliness and quality of the deliverables. He is the main
interlocutor of the EC Task Manager during the field mission and keeps IBF Project Manager informed on
any important issues raised. A local interpreter and translator from the Uzbek language will assist the
expert during the field mission.
4.2 Time schedule and inputs
Starting date of the Inception Phase has been 1 February 2010. The indicative planning provided by the
Terms of Reference has been used as a basis for the below more detailed planning of the evaluation. The
table on the next page summarises the revised planning.
Table 2 Revised planning
Indicative Timeframe Task Evaluator
01-02-2010 –
02-02-2010
Collection and analysis
of relevant documentation
2
03-02-2010 Briefing in Brussels 1
04-02-2010 –
05-02-2010
Further collection and analyses
2
08-02-2010 –
10-02-2010
Elaboration of the Evaluation
Framework
3
11-02-2010-
17-02-2010
Writing Inception Report & preparation
of indicative field mission itinerary
5
17-02-2010-
26-02-2010
Comments from EC Task Manager in
Brussels
-
1-03-2010 –
10-03-2010
Further analyses & field mission
preparation
3
12-03-2010-
26-03-2010
Meetings and field visits in Uzbekistan &
analysis of information
15
01-04-2010 –
06-04-2010
Writing the Mission Report
3
07-04-2010 –
19-04-2010
Writing the Draft Mid-Term Evaluation
Report
7
19-04-2010 –
27-04-2010
Comments from EC Task Manager in
Brussels
-
27-04-2010 –
29-04-2010
Writing the Final Mid-Term Evaluation
Report
2
29-04-2010
30-04-2010
Writing the Final Report
2
Total 45
The time schedule has been prepared based on the general assumptions that the expert will be given
complete access to the relevant documentation, that comments on the reports will be provided within the
indicated timeframe and that all stakeholders cooperate with the expert, including availability for
interviews within the given timeframe of the field mission and provision of accurate and up-dated
information upon request. Compared with the indicative planning provided by the Terms of Reference, the
following modifications are deemed necessary:

As indicated by the EC during the briefing of 3 February, the expert will not have to use the remaining
allocation of 5 days for debriefing missions to Brussels. It is therefore proposed to make use of this
saving of 5 days, as follows:
• 3 days for continuation of the data analyses and preparations for the mission during the period from 1
to 10 March as this will be crucial for the success of the mission. In particular:
1. The expert should finalize the collection and continue the analysis of the project related
documentation (Contribution Agreements, ToR, Project Documents, monitoring and other reports,
logical framework matrixes).
2. The expert should prepare interview guides, project evaluation forms and other materials for the
mission. These materials will translate the Evaluation Framework and Indicative Mission
Programme and Itinerary into structured lists of questions to be asked during the interviews.
3. The expert should fix some key meetings in Tashkent in advance of the field mission.
4. The expert should organise local travel to project site visits, accommodation, as well as arrange
interpretation and translation services where needed.
• 2 days for the writing of the Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report between 7 and 19 April as the ToR
indicative allocation of 5 days for the report writing phase is deemed insufficient and the additional
days will benefit the quality of the report.
This revised planning is in line with the total original time allocation of 45 days for the expert. As per the
original planning provided by the ToR, the evaluation will be completed latest four months after the start
date i.e. before 1 June 2010.
4.3 Reporting
The expert will deliver the following reports (all written in English), in the following order:
• This Inception Report, comprising the Methodology and the Evaluation Framework (Annex I), the
revised Work Plan, and the (Indicative) Mission Programme and Itinerary (Annex II).
• The Mission Report, after the mission in Uzbekistan, including a list of meetings and people met,
together with a brief description of the main outcomes of each meeting and for each project.
• The Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report, including a thorough record of evaluation findings, good
practices, conclusions and recommendations, and Annexes, by 19 April 2010
• The Final Mid-Term Evaluation Report incorporating the comments of the EC on the draft Mid-Term
Evaluation Report within 2 days of receiving the comments, latest 29 April 2010
• The Final Report describing how the required tasks were fulfilled, by 30 April 2010.

55 AANNNNEEXXEESS
Annex I - Evaluation Framework
Annex II – (Indicative) mission programme and itinerary in Uzbekistan
Annex III -Table of acronyms

AANNNNEEXX II -- EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK
e 0.1 Evaluation issues Sub–questions Indicators Sources of information Information collection
Impact (when feasible)
What has been the ELS programme’s
contribution, if any, to poverty
reduction (improved living standards)
of the rural population in the target
areas?
Have the programme/ projects been able
to achieve an impact on the existing
poverty situation? What impacts the
programme has had? Has the programme
produced any unintended impacts (positive
or negative)? Which aspects of the
programme have contributed to them?
Has there been a real impact at the grass
root level? What has been the impact in
terms of specific outcomes for different
groups of people? Have the benefits
concentrated on the most vulnerable
sections of the population (e.g.
unemployed, underemployed, families with
children, female-headed households)?
Has the situation of individuals on the
ground, particularly women, young people
and children, improved? Has there been
the beginning of change for the better?
Has the local economy strengthened? Is
local government more responsive to
community concerns?
How the situation in ELS target
communities compares to the situation in
non ELS communities?
What could be new indicators to measure
impact?
Evidence of:
- increase in income and decrease in
vulnerability of target populations ;
-job creation and decrease in unemployment
in the target areas
-increase in health levels and dietary
consumption in target populations
-strengthened local economies in target
areas
-strengthened local government capacity to
respond to community concerns in target
areas
;
Indicators:
-MDGs assessment reports
-UNICEF multi-indicator cluster
surveys
-Budget households surveys of the
State Statistics Committee (if
presentation of statistics
disaggregated by district)
Other:
project level documents
EC programme manager
Other donors
Government officials
Final beneficiaries
Experts, managers from projects
Mahallas and CSOs
Informal ‘control’ groups
Documentary review focus
group discussions of
projects’ participants
Interviews of key
informants
focus group discussions of
informal ‘control’ groups for
comparison
Field observations

e 0.2 Evaluation issues Sub–questions Indicators Sources of information Information collection
Relevance
Has the ELS programme been
consistent with and supportive of the
policies outlined in the Welfare
Improvement Strategy Paper (WISP) of
the Uzbek government?
How the ELS programme has been
consistent with and supportive of the
EC development and co-operation
policies?
What is the relevance of the ELS
programme in the context of other EC
and other donor interventions in the
target regions?
What is the relevance of the ELS
programme in the context of parallel
poverty reduction interventions of
UNDP?
What has been the individual projects’
relevance in the context of the ELS
programme?
How relevant have been the projects
strategies and objectives to the needs
of the target groups?
How well the programme has addressed
the needs and target groups identified in
the WISP? How consistent are the
programme’s objectives and strategy with
the policy priorities outlined in the WISP?
How well the linkages with the WISP
policies are described and consistency
demonstrated?
How well the programme has responded
to EC policies of promoting gender equality
and sustainable development? How
consistent are the programme objectives
with the objectives of the EC CSP and IP?
What kind of complementarities exist
with other EC and other donor
interventions? How well the planning of
ELS activities is co-ordinated with these
other actions? How to strengthen
complementarities? How to strengthen co-
ordination?
How the ELS programme is co-ordinated
with parallel ABD programmes? How to
strengthen co-ordination?
How do the objectives and strategies of
the individual projects contribute to the
overall objective of the programme?
To what extent the projects take into
account the physical and policy
environment within which they operate?
Who are the projects’ participants? How
they have been identified? How well needs
analysis were implemented? How well
local capacity issues were assessed?
Degree to which the programme’s
objectives and strategy reflect the priorities
of the WISP
Extent to which the ELS project documents
describe linkages and demonstrate
coherence of the actions with the WISP
priorities, target groups and resource
commitments
Extent to which ELS indicators reflect EC
development policy themes and ELS
objectives are coherent with the objectives
of EC CSP and IP
Degree of coherence between the
objectives of the ELS programme and the
objectives of other interventions in the
target regions
Level of operational coordination between
the programme, beneficiary and other
interventions in the target regions
Level of operational co-ordination between
ELS and ABD programmes
Coherence between the general objective
of the programme and the objectives of the
individual projects
Extent to which the individual project
objectives address the identified needs
Adjustments in projects due to changes in
their environment
Functional, social, economic and gender
characteristics of the participants
Share of the projects’ participants from
poorest sections of the populations
Country and project level documents
EC and project level documents
Other donors
Final beneficiaries
Mahallas and CSOs
Other EC, donor projects documents
ABD programme managers
Project level documents
Final beneficiaries
Mahallas and CSOs
Other donors
Documentary review
Key informant interviews
Documentary review
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations
Focus group discussions

Effectiveness
What has been the contribution of the
projects results to the achievement of
the poverty reduction objectives of the
ELS programme?
Have the project results effectively
contributed to the achievement of the
poverty reduction objectives?
Have the projects achieved their
planned results? How the projects
were experienced by the participants?
How well have the project services
being provided?
What lessons can be learned from the
projects in terms of their scope and
results? Have there been any success
stories/failures during the past years?
Under what circumstances the
projects have worked successfully?
Why the projects have worked well for
some groups and not for other?
What is the projects’ contribution to
capacity building within the beneficiary
organisations?
How could the lessons learned help
improve the design of future EC
projects in the region?
What are the recommendations for
future design and implementation of
the poverty reduction/rural
development programme under the
Development and Co-operation
instrument (DCI)?
Evidence of:
- improved access to water, gas
electricity, and to primary health care
clinics for most vulnerable groups in
target areas
-increase in the number of
households with access to clean
drinking water in target communities
-increased target communities
participation in local development
planning,
-relevant training material for trainers
in local development planning
-trainers knowledge used in the
training of local authorities
-appropriate support to local
authorities in the collection and
management of socioeconomic data
-increased availability of micro-credit
to target populations
-new co-operative registered and new
jobs created in target areas
-pilot demonstration plots with
appropriate agricultural technologies
in target areas
-replication of appropriate agricultural
technologies by target populations
-Increase in agricultural produce
output/yields of target populations
-relevant and understandable training
materials developed for facilitators of
the RC in the target areas
- use of acquired financial,
marketing,accounting and business
planning knowledge by facilitators in
the provision of services to client
populations.
Indicators:
MDGs assessment reports t
UNICEF multi-indicator cluster
surveys
Credit union financial statements
Other:
Final beneficiaries
Mahallas and CSOs
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations

Efficiency
How the ELS programme results
compare to its costs (“value-for-
money”)?
At what cost have the project results being
achieved? How well inputs have converted
into activities? Have alternative options for
delivering project services been
systematically appraised by project
management in terms of their ‘cost-
effectiveness’? How well resources are
shared with parallel poverty reduction
programmes of UNDP?
What lessons can be learned from the
projects in terms of their efficiency?
Assessment of:
- resources utilisation and costs
- resources sharing with parallel UNDP
programmes
- UNDP’s systems and control
- project management
- equipment
UNDP personnel
ABD programme managers
Final beneficiaries
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations
Sustainability
What is the likelihood of the benefits
produced by the projects to continue
to flow after the EC funding has
ended?
Has the likelihood been reinforced by
adequately addressing cross-cutting issues,
in particular technology, gender and
environment? Has there been adequate
participation of the beneficiaries in the
projects assessment of the needs?
Are thebeneficiaries willing and capable
to continue the activities without external
technical assistance? Is community
development planning still continuing in
communities that were targeted by
completed projects? Are the public services
improved by the projects intervention in
these communities still being maintained
and supported? Are previous ELS micro-
credit operations being recycled? Are the
farmer co-operatives and demonstration
plots being continued? What is the
likelihood that the RCs created by the on-
going project will be sustained ?
Measures taken to promote gender equality
and environmental sustainability
Measures taken to ensure economic and
financial sustainability, to address socio-
cultural aspects, and to use appropriate
technology
Measures taken to provide policy support
and to strengthen institutional and
management capacity
EC programme manager and other
donors
Final beneficiaries
Mahallas and CSOs
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations
Visibility What kind of visibility the programme and
the individual projects have had in
Uzbekistan? Both the visibility of the
programme/projects and the visibility of the
EU as the donor?
Perceived knowledge of stakeholders and
wider public of the ELS programme/projects
and the EU as the donor
Projects brochures, leaflets, web-site
EC and other donors
Final beneficiaries
Documentary review
Project interviews
Field observations

AANNNNEEXX IIII –– ((IINNDDIICCAATTIIVVEE)) MMIISSSSIIOONN PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE AANNDD IITTIINNEERRAARRYY IINN UUZZBBEEKKIISSTTAANN
Date Activity Location
12-03-2010 –
13-03-2010
Meetings with NC Office,
Ministry of Economy, UNDP
Country Office, EH
Tashkent
14-03-2010 Travel by air /road to Namangan,
meetings with UNDP project
office
Namangan
15-03-2010 –
17-03-2010
Meetings with local authorities ,
project sites visits, meetings with
local communities
Namangan
18-03-2010 –
21-03-2010
Travel by road to Ferghana,
office, local authorities, project
site visits, meetings with local
communities
Ferghana
22-03-2010
23-03-2010
Travel by road to Andijan,
office, local authorities, project
site visits, meeting with local
communities
Andijan
24-03-2010 –
26-03-2010
Travel by road to Tashkent
meetings with other donors
(including WB, UNICEF,JICA),
Statistics Committee, EC PM,
analysis of information and
initial validation of conclusions
with Project Steering Committee
Tashkent

AANNNNEEXX IIIIII –– TTAABBLLEE OOFF AACCRROONNYYMMSS
ABD Area Based Development
ADB Asian Development Bank
AP Action Programme
CA Central Asia
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
CSP Central Asia Strategy Paper
DCI Development and Co-operation Instrument
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC European Commission
EH Europa House
ELS Enhancement of Living Standards programme
EU European Union
IDB Islamic Development Bank
IP Indicative Programme
LRRD Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NC National Co-ordinator
PCA Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
PM Programme Manager
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RC Resource Centres
TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent
States
ToR Terms of Reference
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WB World Bank
WISP Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper

Mid-Term Evaluation of the ELS, Enhancement of Living Standards Programme in Uzbekistan
“Mid-Term Evaluation of the Enhancement
of Living Standard Programme in
Uzbekistan (2005-2010)
REPORT FROM THE MISSION TO
UZBEKISTAN
Prepared by:
Emilio Valli
12 March-29 March 2010

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................4
2 MISSION OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................5
3 ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................6
4 MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................8
5 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS .......................................................................................11
6 MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................12
7 ANNEXES..........................................................................................................................................13
ANNEX I – LIST OF PERSONS MET ..................................................................................................14
ANNEX II – TABLE OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................18
ANNEX III - OUTCOMES OF MEETINGS..........................................................................................19

11 BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
The Enhancement of Living Standards Programme in Uzbekistan is a poverty reduction programme that
has been implemented in the three regions of the Fergana Valley-i.e. Namangan, Andijan and Fergana-
since January 2005.
The ELS addresses three main issues: 1/ weak capacity of local government for development planning; 2/
poor access to basic public services by rural populations and inadequate capacity of rural communities to
support services delivery; 3/ poor access to rural development services and income generation
opportunities in rural communities.
The ELS strategy to address these issues is articulated in three mutually supportive activity components:
1/ to strengthen the capacity of regional and district government institutions to plan poverty reduction
interventions; 2/ to improve access to and quality of basic public services for rural communities and
strengthen community based groups; 3/ to increase access to rural development services and
opportunities for income generation.
The four ELS projects in Fergana Valley have been implemented through Contribution Agreements with
UNDP. In line with the EC/ UN FAFA, UNDP has added 10% to the EC TACIS financial contributions.
The table below provides a list of the four projects.
Table 1 List of ELS projects implemented in Fergana Valley
Contract
year
Contract
nr
Title
Total
Amount
EC
Contribution
Regions Nature
Annual
Action
Programme
2004 091-225
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Fergana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000 Namangan
with UNDP
TACIS 2002
NA 116-796
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Fergana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000 Fergana
with UNDP
TACIS 2003
2007 142-128
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Fergana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
1100000 1000000
Namangan
Andijan
with UNDP
TACIS 2004
2008 163-878
Enhancement of
Living Standards in
Fergana Valley,
Uzbekistan (ELS)
3850000 3500000
Namangan
Andijan
Fergana
with UNDP
TACIS 2006
The Mid-Term Evaluation aims to assess the overall ELS programme and individual ELS projects in terms
of the five EC PCM Guidelines criteria plus visibility and to make recommendations for future actions in
the sphere of poverty reduction in Fergana Valley.
The evaluation assignment started on 1 February 2010. A one-day brief of the Expert by the EC Task
Manager in Brussels on 3 February 2010, was followed by the further collection and analysis of country
strategies, notably the WISP, EC strategies and project level documentation. The Inception Report was
submitted on 17 February 2010. A detailed programme for the evaluation field mission in Uzbekistan was
formulated, agreed with UNDP Country Office in Tashkent and submitted for GoU approval by 25
February 2010. GoU officially approved the programme by 16 March 2010, with in general a few marginal
modifications. The significant change in the GoU approved programme was, however, that the Expert did
not receive the authorisation to visit non-ELS communities. These visits were requested to strengthen the
assessment process of the impacts which can be attributed to the ELS interventions.

22 MMIISSSSIIOONN OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS
In line with the ToR of the evaluation assignment and the additional guidance received from the EC Task
Manager, the specific objectives of this evaluation mission were:
• To assess the appropriateness of the ELS programme approach for achieving its objectives;
• To assess the present status of implementation of the ELS programme;
• To assess the ELS programme organisation and management in terms of its efficiency,
effectiveness and sustainability;
• To evaluate the continued relevance of the ELS project objectives, with respect to the ELS
programme objectives, taking into account the specific policy environment;
• To review the efficiency and preliminary indications of effectiveness, impact and sustainability of
the supported actions;
• To assess the local ownership of the ELS projects;
• To assess the visibility of projects and of EU contribution;
• To debrief the EC Task Manager and other main stakeholders and to present the Evaluation main
findings to the ELS Project Steering Committee Meeting on 26/03/2010.
The evaluation mission was linked to a coming visit by the EC Programme Manager Mr. Soeren Klem
who participated in the ELS Project Steering Committee meeting and met with the main project partner,
the Ministry of Economy, represented by the Deputy Minister and National Coordinator, Mr. Rustam
Shoabdurakhmanov.

33 AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS
The Expert arrived in Tashkent late evening on 11 March 2010. Meetings with the NCU and EH were held
the following day and on 13 March 2010 the Expert carried out two focus group discussions: the first with
the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, the ELS Project Coordinator and the ELS Technical Advisor;
the second was enlarged to the ELS National Experts and to the ELS Public Relations Officer.
The mission to the regions started on 14 March 2010 in Namangan where focus group discussions were
held with the members of the ELS team there, on 14 and 15 March 2010. Final approval by the CoM of
the site visits programme was received one day later than anticipated, on the morning of 16 March 2010.
The Expert made independent arrangements for transport and interpretation during the visit to the
regions.
Situation
The interest of the project partners in the evaluation process and particularly in its findings and
conclusions was quite pronounced. As a consequence, the mission took place in a very supportive and
constructive environment. The level of co-operation and openness in sharing information and views by all
ELS project partners was quite high throughout the duration of the mission.
The only negative points were a denial of the request to visit non-ELS communities and a one day delay
in the official approval of the programme by the CoM, which in turn led to a reshuffling of the schedule of
meetings with officials in the three regions, and with other donors, as well as to a schedule of visits to the
project sites curtailed by half a day in comparison to the original programme.
In general, the Expert was able to meet with grass-root levels on the final receiving end of the ELS project
interventions as well as with high level decision-makers and medium level cadres in the regional and
district levels of government in the three target regions of Namangan, Andijan and Fergana. Each
meeting with government officials lasted in average one hour, a sufficient duration for in-depth
interviewing by the Expert.
Debriefs were held in Tashkent for the NCU, MoE and UNDP. The EC Programme Manager (Mr Klem)
participated in the debrief sessions to the Deputy Minister of Economy (Mr Shoabdurakhmanov) and to
the UNDP Resident and Deputy Resident Representatives (Ms Nirody and Ms Postill). There was
genuine interest in the concrete findings and conclusions of the evaluation mission and a positive
feedback was received on the findings.
The ELS PSC meeting held in Tashkent on 26 March 2010 validated the main findings, conclusions and
recommendations made in the Power Point presentation by the Expert.
Of particular interest and technical relevance, during the mission, was the interview with Mr Robert
Davey, TL of the WB project ‘Drainage, Irrigation and Wetlands Improvement’ which confirmed the
relevance and significance of the ELS programme results to the forthcoming FWRMP intervention of US$
81,85 Million in three districts of FV (Oltyarik, Rishtan and Bagdad). FWRMP is scheduled to start
implementation in April 2010.
A meeting with the Centre of Economic Research (CER) established under the Adviser of the President,
informed the Expert that the second poverty reduction strategy paper (WISP II) is currently under
preparation with TA funding from ADB. This confirms the continuous policy support from GoU to an
integrated and multi-dimensional approach to poverty eradication and is indicative of a continuous
resource commitment to the implementation of poverty reduction programmes.

Methods and techniques used
As anticipated in the evaluation methodology section of the IR, two main techniques were used during
this field mission: interviews and focus groups. The main evaluation criteria, including the evaluation sub-
questions, are detailed in the Evaluation Framework (see Annex I of the IR). Moreover, during project
site-visits, the Expert made use of observation to assess the performance of the on-going and completed
projects.
Interviews were conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative information on the overall ELS
programme and on the individual projects as well as on the wider context. The interviews provided rich
and detailed data that allowed the Expert to address the programme’s impact, relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency and sustainability. In addition, the interview sessions addressed the sub-questions listed in the
Evaluation Framework
The process of generating data through the interviews was both, systematic and flexible. Systematic in
that there was careful and detailed thought in planning the interviews about the type of data required and
how to generate the information from the interviewee, and about ensuring some consistencies between
interviews in the issues covered. However, the data collection process was also flexible to reflect the
uniqueness of each individual case and questions were a combination of wide, open-ended questions
and more probing questions to investigate the topic in depth.
Interview and focus group guides were designed by the Expert in anticipation of the field mission to act as
‘aide memoire’ in the field, and helped ensuring that there were no gaps in coverage.
Focus groups worked well in combination with interviews when the subject tackled provided opportunities
for reflective discussion, as for example examining the effects of public services delivery in a community;
for generating solutions to conceptual problems, as for example new indicators to measure impacts; or for
providing information on less-sensitive subjects such as for example mapping the project outputs or
explaining irrigation technologies being applied.
Focus groups working together (i.e. ELS project teams) were used to generate data and insights at the
initial stage of the field phase in Tashkent and in Namangan, Fergana and Andijan project offices. During
the visits to the project sites, focus groups were used to explore perceived causes or origin of poverty in
the interpretation of the local authorities and communities, identify impacts of the projects, and generate
recommendations on measuring poverty reduction.
Field notes were useful to record what was heard or seen outside the main interaction of the interview or
focus group.
Following the project site visits in the regions, the Expert started to synthesise the overall results and to
develop a set of preliminary findings structured around the evaluation issues and sub-questions.
Preliminary conclusions and recommendations were elaborated based on the findings; presented to the
PSC meeting in Tashkent on 26 March 2010, and validated by the participants.
A complete list of the persons met during the evaluation mission is in Annex I.

44 MMAAIINN FFIINNDDIINNGGSS AANNDD CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS
Appropriateness of the ELS approach and continued relevance of its objectives
• ELS objectives, approach and target groups are coherent with the WISP, country programmes for
rural development, EC CSP/IP and international development strategies-i.e. MDG
• ELS project M&E indicators reflect EC policy themes and ELS project documents demonstrate
coherence of actions with govt rural development priorities, target groups and resources
allocation
• Focus of ELS is on poorest communities but within communities an inclusive approach is
implemented
• Holistic approach matched well with the needs: “soft” and “hard” components needed.
• Complementarity and coordination with other projects significant, particularly with WB health II
programme and forthcoming WB Fergana Water Resource Management Programme (FWRMP).
Present status of implementation of the ELS programme
• ELS AAP 2006 has to date only delivered 30% of the project budget due to a slow start. However
activities are pacing up.
• A joint ELS/ABD capacity assessment of regional and district governments departments
delivering social and utility services to communities in the 5 target regions (3 ELS, 2 ABD) was
undertaken during January-February 2010. UNICEF also participated.
• Based on the capacity needs identified 5 training modules (M&E, ICT, Strategic Planning,
Budget Management and Energy Saving) of the duration of 10 days developed by the ASSC
were adapted
• 15 trainers (5 per region) for the sustainable delivery of the training modules are in the process of
being selected by the ASSC according to merit criteria, including pedagogical skills and
experience. They will subsequently be trained in the delivery of the modules to local
governments.
• In Andijan region, a pilot monitoring and evaluation system of MDGs and govt programmes is
being developed by ELS in partnership with regional government and UNDP MDG Statistics
project that includes the setting up of a computerised database with relevant indicators.
• Agricultural Extension Agents have been selected from community households, trained and some
already equipped with low-cost and environmental sustainable technologies for demonstration
plots. In particular, demonstration plots with greenhouse vegetable production have been
prioritised by the communities and established in the Namangan and Fergana regions and their
technologies are being replicated. Poultry and bee farming plots are in the process of being
established and are currently completing the procurement stage.
• 201 communities have been selected for rehabilitation projects that will benefit a significant share
of the 317,000 target population. The selection process was finalized in all target districts
between December 2009 and February 2010. Rehabilitation projects completed in approximately
50% of communities. Still under implementation in over half the communities.
Effectiveness of the ELS programme
• Effectiveness enhanced by working through community based groups, CDP planning process
and synergies between project interventions and with other donors
• Drinking water systems particularly successful: targets reached or exceeded.
• Community rehabilitation projects (e.g. CVPs and kindergartens) have improved access to health
and education services by remote communities
• Transfer of knowledge in low-cost, energy saving farming technologies to pilot community
households has increased the potential for replication of cost-effective technologies
• Micro-credit schemes important but not combined effectively with other activities
• Co-operatives above expectations: effectively increased opportunities of members to generate
additional income

Sustainability of the ELS programme results
• Strong sense of ownership by beneficiaries developed through the application of participatory,
relevant and verifiable selection processes of communities in partnership with both district
governments and communities
• Ownership enhanced by the mainstreaming of participatory local planning processes for
community projects (CDP process) centred on community initiative groups and supported by
MICs
• The building blocks approach to capacity building of district and regional governments in
strategic management including a monitoring and evaluation framework promises to further
enhance the sustainability of programme results
• Personnel and running costs of already established and functioning MICs are partially being
financed by the Mahalla Fund and partially by fees from administrative support services to local
population. Low income clients are exempts from fees.
• 2 co-operatives visited (macaroni/flour and machinery) have expanded business opportunities
and number of employees
• Low-cost, high yield and environmental sustainable fruit and vegetable production technologies
introduced by the programme are being replicated in communities (e.g. greenhouses, pruning)
• Women’s participation high particularly in micro-credit schemes
• Rehabilitated services generally functioning and maintained either through community charges
(drinking water) or district funding and delivery supported by community initiative groups
Impact of the ELS programme
• District authorities more responsive to the needs of communities through support of and
participation in the CDP process and increased capacity to target resources allocation to priority
community needs through district annual investment plans
• Indicators are systematically used: evidence of improvement also found through focus groups
and observation - to be attributed mainly to the ELS combined interventions. Effects strengthened
by the co-ordinated interventions of govt and other donor programmes (e.g. WB health II,
UNICEF). However reliability and accuracy of some indicators, notably health, to be addressed
• Most vulnerable groups benefitted most due to the nature of improved public services. Drinking
water systems had positive impacts on health status of children and women in particular but also
economic effects by reducing opportunity costs for females heads of households
Efficiency of the ELS programme management
• Preliminary evidence that sizeable cost-saving has been achieved through resource sharing with
UNDP ABD programmes in Karapalkastan and Kashkadar in the spheres of personnel, training
and procurement
• In general, outputs produced with the agreed means, modifications in resource utilisation
however cumbersome
• Planning for procurement of equipment to community projects has taken into account seasonal
factors
• UNDP internal systems and controls are applied to the ELS programme. They provide a
framework of accountability including reporting and oversight mechanisms, control and
procurement procedures, accounting systems and procedures. For the findings on the adequacy
of this framework we refer to the final report of the verification mission carried out during
November-December 2009

Visibility
• Visibility of the overall ELS programme in the 3 target regions is high among the populations. The
high number of beneficiaries and long-term duration of the programme are the main explanatory
factors.
• Visibility of the EC contribution in the field is also high and implementation of the EC Visibility
Guidelines has progressively improved from project to project
• The information on the ELS programme web-site is relevant, complete and regularly updated in
both English and Russian languages. The web-site is, however, not available in Uzbek language
which is the main language used outside Tashkent. The design is generally consistent with the
EC funding visibility requirements and the contents emphasize the concept of EC-UNDP
partnership for development in Uzbekistan. Nevertheless, web-links are not updated and
complete and do not include EC relevant websites.
• A wide range of information materials has been produced including brochures, manuals, leaflets
and videos in Russian, Uzbek and English languages. Articles about the ELS projects outputs are
published in local newspapers.
• Little or no ELS programme materials were found in the MICs
• Key manuals and materials are often disseminated only in Russian when target groups in rural
areas only master Uzbek language
• Materials in Uzbek language only produced using Latin alphabet and no Cyrillic alphabet which is
the only alphabet older population in rural areas can read

55 SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF TTHHEE MMAAIINN FFIINNDDIINNGGSS
• ELS project objectives continue to be relevant to the country programmes and target
groups
• The mix of “soft” and “hard” components match well with the needs
• Implementation of ELS 6 activities behind schedule but accelerating
• Effectiveness is high by working through community based groups, CDP planning
process and because of synergies between project interventions and with other donors
• Drinking water systems particularly successful: targets reached or exceeded
• Micro-credit schemes are important but not effectively combined with other activities
• Strong sense of ownership by beneficiaries developed through the application of
participatory, relevant and verifiable selection processes of communities in partnership
with both district governments and communities
• Ownership enhanced by the mainstreaming of participatory local planning processes for
community projects (CDP process) centred on community initiative groups and supported
by MICs
• District authorities more responsive to the needs of communities through support of and
participation in the CDP process and increased capacity to target resources allocation to
priority community needs through district annual investment plans
• Indicators are systematically used, however accuracy and reliability are weak
• The building blocks approach to capacity building of district and regional governments in
strategic management including a monitoring and evaluation framework promises to
further enhance the sustainability of programme results
• Quantified measures provide initial evidence that sizeable cost-saving (to the extent of
US$ 260000) has been achieved through resource sharing with UNDP ABD programmes
in Karapalkastan and Kashkadar in the spheres of personnel, training and procurement
• Visibility of the overall ELS programme in the 3 target regions is high among the
populations. The high number of beneficiaries and long-term duration of the programme
are the main explanatory factors.
• Visibility of the EC contribution in the field is also high and implementation of the EC
Visibility Guidelines has progressively improved from project to project
• The ELS web-site is regularly updated and generally consistent with EC visibility
requirements. However it is not available in Uzbek language which is the main language
used outside Tashkent. Also, links with relevant EC sites not inserted.
• Key manuals and materials are often disseminated only in Russian when target groups
in rural areas only master Uzbek language

66 MMAAIINN RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS
• Both income generation and community rehabilitation projects are needed:
the future project should strengthen the income generation activities and continue to support the
rehabilitation of community infrastructure in new districts and new communities.
• Community rehabilitation projects should promote energy-efficient technologies in construction
and the use of affordable alternative energy sources (e.g. bio-energy).
• The CDP process should be consolidated and enriched through the further development of
networking activities among the MICs
• The concept of district Business Development Centres should be replicated to all new districts
and expanded in current districts
• Resource centres under Regional Hokimyats should be established to collect and disseminate
knowledge of best local and international practices in farming to support the development of
BDCs and of a network of Extension Agents
• Capacity building of district and regional governments should concentrate on the further
development of the network of trainers and the refinement and expansion of the monitoring
framework being piloted in Andijan region, with particular attention to the relevance and reliability
of indicators.
• Further activities can be explored notably in the area related to the MDG target on nutrition and
vitamin A deficiency, including support for data selection, collection, analysis, verification jointly
with UNICEF and support for small businesses in flour enrichment
• Projects information materials should be better targeted in terms of language
• The ELS web-site should develop a version in Uzbek language and should insert web-links to
relevant EC sites
• The implementation of the ELS funded micro-credit schemes should be co-ordinated with the
implementation of the income generation activities of the project
• An exit strategy should be developed in the Inception Phase of the new project incorporating the
above elements

77 AANNNNEEXXEESS
Annex I – List of persons met
Annex II -Table of acronyms
Annex III - Outcomes of meetings

AANNNNEEXX II –– LLIISSTT OOFF PPEERRSSOONNSS MMEETT
Name Title Organisation Location
Ms Anna Nirody Resident
Representative
UNDP
Tashkent
Ms Kyoko Postill Deputy Resident
Representative
UNDP
Tashkent
Ms Laura Rio ELS Programme Co-
ordinator
UNDP
Tashkent
Mr Kodir
Bobojonov
ELS Technical
Advisor
UNDP
Tashkent
Ms Dildora
Abidjanova
ELS National Expert
on Community Dev.
UNDP
Tashkent
Ms Laylo Zakirova ELS Public Relations
Specialist
UNDP
Tashkent
Mr Tom
Thorogood
ELS International
Consultant on
Community Dev and
Income Generation
UNDP
Tashkent
Mr Baktior
Safidinov
ELS National Expert
Income generation
UNDP
Tashkent
Mr Dilshod
Rasulov
ELS Project Manager
UNDP
Namangan
Mr Abror
Khodjaev
ELS Task Manager
Community Dev
UNDP
Namangan
Mr Ulugbek
Dedabaev
ELS Task Manager
Income generation
UNDP
Namangan
Ms Gulchiroy
Ishmatova
ELS Community
Mobilization Officer
UNDP
Namangan
Ms Maksuda
Kenshibaeva
ELS Local Assistant
on Community Dev
UNDP
Namangan
Mr Tanuo
Sunahara
First Secretary Japanese
Embassy
Tashkent
Ms Sayaka Usui Programme Officer
(GAGHSP)
Japanese
Embassy
Tashkent
Mr Akram
Tohtamirzaev
Loan Officer
Nurafshon
Bagdad
Mr A. Askarov Executive Director Nurafshon Bagdad
Mr A.K. Kadirov Adviser to Chairman Microcredit
Bank
Tashkent
Mr M. Mahmudov Director Mahalla
Information
Centre
Besharik
Mr S. Begmatov Lead Specialist Ec Dept
District Gov
Andijan

Mr Shurat
Ahmedov
ELS Project Manager UNDP Fergana
Ms Adila
Tadjibaeva
ELS Task Manager
Community Dev
UNDP Fergana
Mr Baktior
Toshtemirov
ELS Task Manager
Income Generation
UNDP Fergana
Mr Sardor
Alimdjanov
ELS Project Manager UNDP Andijan
Mr Alisher
Satahanov
ELS Task Manager
Community Dev
UNDP Andijan
Mr Alisher
Muradov
ELS Task Manager
Income Generation
UNDP Andijan
Mr Ulugbek
Olimov
Project Manager
Statistical Capacity
Building for MDG
Monitoring project
UNDP Tashkent
Mr Pierre Paul
Antheunissens
Co-ordinator EH Tashkent
Mr Hayrullo
Malikov
Social Policy Officer UNICEF Tashkent
Ms Oyunsaihan
Dendevnorov
Social Policy
Specialist
UNICEF Tashkent
Mr Yakov
Asutukin
Social Researcher “Tahlil”
Centre for
Social
Research
Tashkent
Mr Ildus Kamilov Deputy Director Centre for
Economic
Research
Tashkent
Ms Muattara
Rakhimova
Director Academy of
State and
Social
Construction
Tashkent
Mr Bekzod
Teshabaev
Director National Co-
ordinating
Unit
Tashkent
Mr Otabek
Alimatov
Consultant National Co-
ordinating
Unit
Tashkent
Mr Robert Davey TL Drainage Irrigation
Wetland Improvement
project
Mott
MacDonald
Tashkent
Ms M.
Mamaktulova
Deputy Hokim for
women affairs
District
Government
Bagdad
Ms M. Karimova Leader Community
Initiative
Group
Tinchlik
Mr D. Urinov Trainee District Govt Izboskan

Mr Shukhrat
Turdikulov
Regional ELS Project
Co-ordinator and
Deputy Governor
Regional
Government
Fergana
Mr Shukhrat
Shukurov
Co-ordinator and
Deputy Governor
Regional
Government
Namangan
Mr Shavkat
Ibragimov
Co-ordinator and
Deputy Governor
Regional
Government
Andijan
Mr Rustam
Shoabdurakhmanov
National Co-ordinator
and Deputy Minister
Ministry of
Economy
Tashkent
Mr Avazbek
Rakhmanov
Head of Economic
Department of
Fergana Region
Ministry of
Economy
Fergana
Mr Shavkat
Kusanbaev
Head of Health
Department of
Fergana Region
Ministry of
Health
Fergana
Mr Uktam
Mavlanov
Deputy District Hokim
for Social and
economic
development
District
Government
Pap
Mr Bahodir
Madaliev
Chairman Mahalla Fund Pap
Mr Bahodir
Sultanov
Dep. Chairman Mahalla Fund Pap
Mr Zukhredin
Isomidinov
Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Vodiy
Mr Avazbek
Temirov
Agricultural
Extension Agent
Vodiy
Mr Muminjon
Ergashev
Small Farmer Vodiy
Mr Alisher
Bayhanov
District Hokim District
Government
Chartak
Mr Hamidulo
Jabbarov
First Deputy District
Hokim
District
Government
Chartak
Mr Mahmudjon
VahobJonov
Chairman Mahalla Fund Chartak
Mr Ilhom Togibaev Entrepreneur Macaroni and
Flour Co-
operative
Ayqiron
Mr A. Mahmadov Extension Agent Langor
Mr Rustam
Abdurahmanov
Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Langor
Mr I. Joraev Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Ottizambar
Ms U. Naziralieva Director Kindergarten Ottizambar
Mr E. Nazarov Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Nabi
Mr. Dilshod
Mamajanov
Lead Specialist
Inf Analysis Unit
Ec Dept –
Reg Govt
Andijan

Ms Jayrahon
Hojieva
Chairman
Mahalla Fund
Norin
Mr Bahodir
Mahkamov
Chairman
Mahalla
Committee
Akmal
Ikramov
Mr Ergash Qodirov Farmer ‘Chinor’ Farm Norin
Mr Abdhuramon
Soliev
Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Guldirov
Mr B. Karimov Deputy District Hokim District
Government
Besharik
Mr Baktior
Turagulov
Chairman ‘Sardor Qobul
Bogi’ Co-
operative
Bagdad
Mr Axhmadon
Tillaev
Accountant ‘Sardor Qobul
Bogi’ Co-
operative
Bagdad
Mr Fashodjan
Hamdamov
Agricultural
Extension Agent
Gayrat
Mr Ahmedov
Hakimjon
Small Farmer Gayrat
Mr. C. Rizubaev District Hokim District
Government
Bagdad
Mr. M. Maksudov Director Mahalla
Information
Centre
Bagdad
Mr. A. Boltabaev Deputy District Hokim District
Government
Akunbabaev
Mr. Karimov Chairman Mahalla Fund Akunbabaev
Mr. B. Niazmatov Head of Economic
Department of
Andijan Region
Regional
Government
Andijan
Mr. A. Akbarov District Hokim District
Government
Andijan
Mr. A. Jalolov Deputy District Hokim District
Government
Andijan
Mr. J. Hodjiev Deputy District Hokim District
Government
Izboskan
Mr. Salikh Khamzin Soil and water
management expert
World Bank
Oltiarik
Mr. Tohiajan
Dadaboev
Chairman Mahalla
Committee
Oltiarik
Ms C. Khodjibaeva Chairman Mahalla Fund Norin
Mr. Sherzod
Alimov
Sales Support
Manager
Sakata
Vegetables
Europe
Tashkent
Muhiddinovs Community
household
Nabi

FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549

FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549

Similar to FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549 (20)

More from Emilio Valli

More from Emilio Valli (11)

FWC_Revised_Draft Final Activity Report_Uzbekistan_2009-223549