Evaluation of the project “Shared prosperity through cooperation
Project Evaluation Series 13/2025
in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”
Project Evaluation Series 13/2025
Evaluation of the project “Shared prosperity through cooperation
in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2025
Required citation:
FAO. 2025. Evaluation of the project “Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan” – Project codes: UNJP/KYR/026/PBF and UNJP/UZB/014/PBF. Project Evaluation Series, No. 13/2025. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd5615en
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion what- soever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
© FAO, 2025
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If a translation or adaptation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required cita- tion: “This translation [or adaptation] was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not re- sponsible for the content or accuracy of this translation [or adaptation]. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Any dispute arising under this licence that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award ren- dered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute.
Third-party materials. This Creative Commons licence CC BY 4.0 does not apply to non-FAO copyright materials included in this publi- cation. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
FAO photographs. FAO photographs that may appear in this work are not subject to the above-mentioned Creative Commons licence. Queries for the use of any FAO photographs should be submitted to: photo-library@fao.org.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and print copies can be purchased through the distributors listed there. For general enquiries about FAO publications please contact: publications@fao.org. Queries regarding rights and licensing of publications should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Cover photo: © FAO/Mirbek Kadraliev
Abstract
This final evaluation provides an independent assessment of the project “Shared Prosperity through Cooperation in Border Regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”, implemented from December 2021 to June 2024. Commissioned under the supervision of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Office of Evaluation, the evaluation examined the extent to which project objectives were achieved within the planned timeframe, the relevance of benefits for targeted populations, and the project’s alignment with national development priorities.
The evaluation focused on the project’s contribution to conflict prevention and peacebuilding, implemented in a context shaped by recent bilateral agreements on border delimitation. Using a mixed-methods approach, the evaluation relied on project-generated secondary data, validated through triangulation and complemented by primary data collected from a strategically selected set of stakeholders in the two countries.
Findings confirm the project’s high relevance and timeliness, particularly in addressing needs identified during early assessments and “conflict sensitivity clinics”. Key interventions supported income generation for women and youth, challenged patriarchal norms and provided IT training. Support to Self-Help Groups (SHGs) helped increase economic output and facilitate access to cross-border markets. Climate-smart interventions empowered communities in addressing water scarcity. However, the evaluation found limited verifiable evidence of increased trust among communities—the project’s overarching goal—due to the inherent complexity and short implementation period. The project’s ambitious design and tight timeframe, implemented across two countries with differing schedules, further constrained impact measurement in areas such as peacebuilding and climate resilience.
Recommendations include replicating the SHG model in other border communities and establishing networks of SHGs and local associations to foster peer learning and resilience. The evaluation encourages the use of “conflict sensitivity clinics” at project inception stages and calls for the development of more robust systems to measure trust-building and peace outcomes. FAO and partners are also advised to update the 2020 border assessment study to reflect current conditions, particularly after the reopening of border crossings. Expanding this research to include other Central Asian countries could enhance the regional value of future peacebuilding initiatives.
The evaluation concludes that the project was relevant and introduced promising practices, but that future interventions should streamline objectives, reinforce mechanisms for sustainability, and embed adaptive approaches to complex, multi-level change processes.
Contents
Background and context of the project
Key findings by evaluation questions
Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix 1. People interviewed
Appendix 3. Field mission agenda
Boxes, figures and table
vi
1 2 3 4 5
Acknowledgements
The FAO Office of Evaluation would like to thank all those who contributed to this evaluation, including personnel from FAO headquarters, regional and country teams who supported this evaluation from planning stages throughout the entire process. The evaluation also benefited from the inputs of other stakeholders, including government officials, farmer beneficiaries, youth and the staff of the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (UN PBF). Their contributions were critical to the team’s work and are deeply appreciated.
The Evaluation Team was composed of the following people: Mrs Federica Lomiri, Evaluation Manager from the FAO Office of Evaluation; Mrs Katinka Patscher, Senior Evaluation Specialist; Mrs Elnura Kazakbaeva, National Evaluation Specialist, responsible for supporting the data collection in Kyrgyzstan, and Prof. Umidjan Nazarkulov responsible for supporting the data collection in Uzbekistan; Mr Luca Molinas, Evaluation Officer from the FAO Office of Evaluation, supervised the evaluation, and Ms Stanislava Sukhanova ensured administrative support throughout the process.
Abbreviations
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations PBF United Nations Peacebuilding Fund
SHG Self-Help Group
viii
1 2 3 4 5
UN United Nations
Map of the project villages
Note: Refer to the disclaimer on copyright page for the names and boundaries used in this map.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Project overview
Title | Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan |
Project code | UNJP/KYR/026/PBF; UNJP/UZB/014/PBF PBF/IRF-442 |
Countries | Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan |
Project implementing sites | Kyrgyzstan:
|
Project dates | 16 December 2021 – 16 June 2024 (including six months no-cost extension) |
Funds recipients | FAO and UNFPA |
Total Project Budget | USD 3 000 000 |
Budget by RUNOs | FAO Kyrgyzstan: USD 850 000 FAO Uzbekistan: USD 850 000 UNFPA Kyrgyzstan: USD 650 000 UNFPA Uzbekistan: USD 650 000 |
Evaluation timeline | January – June 2024 |
x
1 2 3 4 5
Source: Authors‘ own elaboration.
Executive summary
This report presents the findings of the final evaluation of the project “Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”, conducted between January and May 2024. The recommendations and lessons learned are aimed at governments, donors, United Nations (UN) agencies and civil society partners to ensure that relevant project results can be sustained, good practices can be scaled up, and future initiatives in the border regions can build on the experiences from this project.
The overall objective of the project, funded by the Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), was to strengthen cooperation and build trust between border communities in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The project was designed to achieve this outcome through enhanced economic cooperation and exchange, women and youth’s economic empowerment, and climate-smart technologies to address water scarcity issues. This includes strengthening livelihoods, improving communication with local authorities and establishing relationships with other border communities.
As main conflict drivers, the original project document from 2021 identified the “disputed ownership over certain territories with infrastructure and resources of social and economic importance such as water reservoirs, roads, and natural and built resources […].” Issues such as the incomplete demarcation of the border – a post-Soviet legacy of both countries’ history -, the competition for natural resources (pastures), the presence of enclaves/exclaves as well as ineffective water management, governance gaps, and the enforcement of the border regime sometimes with human rights violations have contributed to grievances and tensions over the years. While major border conflicts had been avoided, risks remained that had the potential to trigger violence.
This evaluation analysed project activities implemented from January 2022 to 16 June 2024 in 12 project sites in the Jalalabad and Osh regions of Kyrgyzstan and the Andijan and Namangan regions of Uzbekistan. It included a critical review of the project’s effects and changes on the different stakeholders, particularly direct beneficiaries.
More specifically, the final evaluation sought to answer key evaluation questions based on the following criteria: i) relevance; ii) coherence; iii) effectiveness; iv) efficiency; v) sustainability, as well as additional peacebuilding criteria: vi) conflict sensitivity; vii) catalytic impact; viii) innovation; and
ix) gender equality and youth as cross-cutting issues.
The Evaluation Team comprised an internationally recruited lead evaluator and two local consultants, one from each target country. An evaluation specialist from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Office of Evaluation managed the evaluation, which was supervised by the Office’s Regional Evaluation Coordinator for Europe and Central Asia.
The evaluation followed a consultative, impartial, participatory and gender-sensitive approach. It adhered to the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards (UNEG, 2016), complying with established guidance of the United Nations, FAO and PBF.
The Evaluation Team conducted a thorough desk review, which served as a basis for drafting the inception report, identifying context-specific evaluation subquestions, and preparing interview protocols and field visits. The selection of sites was based on the document review, information from the project team and FAO personnel, and review by the evaluation reference group. In total, the evaluators interviewed 112 relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries including personnel at the FAO and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) offices in Bishkek and Tashkent and FAO headquarters in Rome on operational, technical, administrative and financial management questions.
The evidence and information gathered were critically triangulated with complementary data and available documents to underpin their validity. This allowed for drawing conclusions, providing recommendations and compiling lessons learned.
Findings, conclusions and recommendations
The evaluation found the project to be relevant and timely as it coincided with the conclusion of agreements between the two governments on border delimitation and demarcation. The project benefitted from a political window of opportunity, as the situation at the border between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan has dramatically improved with the finalization of the border delimitation and demarcation in January 2023. The territorial agreements provided a greater sense of security for border communities since they allowed the opening of crossing points, a pre-condition for exchange and cooperation in border regions.
The evaluators found the project to have responded to the needs of the beneficiaries. The project addressed the demands that were identified in the needs assessment and in the “conflict sensitivity clinics” carried out during the inception phase of the project. The demands included creation of employment opportunities for women and youth, addressing patriarchal gender norms, as well as giving IT training to youth participants. Stakeholders appreciated the combination of economic and environmental activities: learning about mitigation and adaptation measures to deal with increasing water scarcity issues.
The project activities reportedly helped to increase the economic output of the Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and helped them explore cross-border markets. The evaluators were unable to verify that an increase in trust levels – the main project’s goal – has been achieved. While observing an increase of collaboration due to project activities and an interest among border communities to continued collaboration and exchange, the Evaluation Team could not confirm that there have been improvements in cross-border trust levels due to the project’s interventions. This has mainly to do with the inability to measure trust within the monitoring and reporting system set up for the project (see also Conclusion 10).1
The project was very ambitious as it was meant to operate at the intersection of multiple technical areas and produce multilevel results within a short period of time, and in two different countries. A combination of an ambitious design and a tight schedule in two different countries operating at different implementation schedules, made it more challenging to measure the results of the more innovative, but also time-consuming, project activities (i.e. artificial glaciers, e-fences), than those entailing a shorter time frame (greenhouses, distribution of water boxes, etc.). Also, the SHG activities in Kyrgyzstan got a head start as they benefitted from the pre-existence of such groups under a previous project.
The SHGs contributed to the economic empowerment of women and strengthened their livelihoods. Bringing women together and grouping them by interest, training them in business development skills, and providing them with equipment was an effective way of starting or upscaling local businesses. Most of these groups lasted over time, and only a few reportedly disappeared during implementation. The revolving fund mechanism helped the SHGs in making decisions about investments, and the group structure taught the members accountability and responsibility for shared property.
The climate-smart activities carried out by the project gave communities a sense of agency in dealing with water scarcity issues. However, given the challenges around measuring climate change resilience, including the short time frame of the project, it was impossible for the Evaluation Team to assess the project’s contribution to enhancing communities’ resilience to climate change. Local communities visited by the evaluators highly appreciated the seminars addressing the effects of climate change,
1 The OECD guidelines are a good source on how to conceptually and practically conduct trust measuring (OECD, 2017)
as this made it possible to discuss mitigation measures. Participants also enjoyed introducing and accessing climate-smart technologies, such as e-fences, drip irrigation systems and the construction of artificial glaciers. The communities interviewed expressed satisfaction about the short-term changes that happened through project interventions and are planning to build on them and possibly expand them. Whether these measures will effectively contribute to enhancing communities’ climate resilience can only be assessed in the longer-term.
The project design underestimated the barriers and constraints to participation faced by young men and women from the border communities. The difficulty experienced by the project team in mobilizing youth and women beneficiaries reflects their coping mechanisms with the bleak situation in their villages. For some young people this means getting married and having children at an early age; for others, pursuing education or trying to find work opportunities in the bigger cities or, for a larger group, in labour migration abroad. As a result, the young people remaining in the border areas are tied up with household and childcare duties, taking kettle to pastures, and working in agriculture. As it proved difficult to mobilize them for youth-focused activities, the project team adapted to the situation and expanded their outreach to a wider group of participants.
Sustainability of project results depends on local infrastructure improvements and opportunities for smooth border crossings. Local communities and SHG members are highly interested in opportunities for exchange and cooperation with neighbouring communities, both for economic and social reasons. However, they depend on their governments to provide the needed infrastructure and administrative facilities, including roads, additional border crossing points, transparent border protocols, etc., to engage in frequent, smooth and productive exchanges.
The targeting strategy didn’t fully follow the initial plan. The project design document listed several resource-related conflicts between Kyrgyz and Uzbek communities. However, the project targeting strategy didn’t include those communities that have experienced conflicts over natural resources, as the selection of participating communities was not based on previous conflict experiences. Some villages were not even near the border crossing points, making regular cross-border cooperation more challenging. Instead, the targeting strategy – which was decided in consultation with both governments during the project’s inception phase – focused on communities in the border areas that had the key characteristics and infrastructure needed for the project, such as availability of agricultural land, communities in need of strengthened livelihoods or the pre-existence of SHGs. The final targeting strategy followed a more cautious approach than the project design had suggested.
The project monitoring and reporting system heavily focused on output level indicators and couldn’t sufficiently measure changes at the outcome level. The project team shared observations from monitoring missions at regular stakeholder meetings, including two meetings of the Joint Steering Committee. Progress reports, however, mainly focused on completion of project activities, while measurement of progress towards outcomes was delegated to the endline assessment. This approach proved ineffective in producing reliable data to compare with the baseline situation, mainly due to methodological differences and inconsistencies between the two appraisals. While context monitoring was done by the project team, the results were mainly used to inform project management and not as a basis for interaction with project beneficiaries.
Recommendations to FAO
1. Introduction
1
1 2 3 4 5
This report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the independent terminal evaluation of the project “Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”.
Purpose of the evaluation
The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (UN PBF) requires mandatory project evaluations by the fund recipients to strengthen the knowledge base on what works and what does not when supporting conflict-affected communities. This final evaluation provides an independent assessment conducted under the supervision of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Office of Evaluation of the extent to which the project objectives and outcomes have been achieved within the agreed schedule, the relevance of project benefits to target beneficiaries and the response to national priorities. Based on the terms of reference (TOR), the evaluation assessed which project elements were most successful in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The evaluation also synthesized lessons learned that may help improve future projects’ design and the performance of ongoing similar projects in the Central Asian region.
This evaluation was conducted from January to May 2024 by three independent consultants, one international senior specialist and two national consultants, one from Kyrgyzstan and the other from Uzbekistan. Personnel from the FAO Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Country Offices provided logistical support.
Intended users
This evaluation’s intended users are the Governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, the Peacebuilding Fund, the project team and technical staff, FAO and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Management, including regional and local authorities, and other stakeholders, such as Self-Help Groups (SHG) and civil society associations.
Scope and objectives of the evaluation
The evaluation covers most of the project’s implementation period, from 16 December 2021 to 16 June 2024 (official not-to-exceed date). As the evaluation report had to be finished before the official closure of the project, a few activities are still scheduled to take place. In contrast, the evaluation report is being drafted. The Evaluation Team has tried to assess all key activities carried out within the framework of the project at the local and regional levels.
As the PBF funded this project, the evaluators focused on assessing the peacebuilding results of the project’s activities. For this reason, the evaluation methodology includes questions on progress towards project targets within each thematic area and reports on how the activities may have contributed to addressing relevant conflict factors.
Regarding the evaluation’s geographic coverage, all documented activities implemented in the two participating countries have been considered. However, given the limited evaluation budget and time constraints, the in-depth assessment conducted through field visits concentrated on six out of twelve villages – three in each country.
Methodology
The TOR (see Annex 1) outlines the scope and questions that need to be addressed by the evaluation. The assessment largely relies on secondary data produced by the project, which was validated by the Evaluation Team through targeted data collection and triangulation. Primary data was collected from different categories of stakeholders selected in a directed and reasoned manner.
Table 1
Main evaluation questions
The evaluation address questions that have been developed by considering the criteria requested by the UN Peacebuilding Fund,2 including areas such as conflict sensitivity, catalytic, innovation, women and youth. They also include cross-border and cross-cutting aspects such as climate resilience among the questions (see Table 1).
Relevance |
EQ 1. To what extent was the project design aligned with the strategic peacebuilding priorities of the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan? |
EQ 2. To what extent were the project objectives relevant to the needs of the beneficiary communities and women and youth in terms of increasing social cohesion and economic interaction? |
Coherence |
EQ 3. Is the project coherent with other relevant initiatives and programmes in the Central Asia region and/or with relevant governmental strategies? To what extent were there synergies and complementarities between different elements of the project (internal coherence)? |
Effectiveness |
EQ 4. To what extent were the project objectives achieved? |
EQ 5. To what extent did the introduction of climate-smart agriculture practices and technologies contribute to reducing resource-driven conflicts? |
EQ 6. Did the cross-border nature of the project lead to better relations, increased business and employment opportunities, and improved multistakeholder cross border partnerships? |
Efficiency |
EQ 7. To what extent has the project been implemented efficiently and cost-effectively? |
EQ 8. To what extent has the management been able to adapt to any changing conditions to maintain and improve the efficiency of project implementation? |
Sustainability |
EQ 9. To what extent did the project contribute to long-term institutional, environmental, and social sustainability? |
EQ 10. What is the level of engagement and ownership of the government(s), cross-border communities, and their organizations/associations? |
EQ 11. Did the project include an exit strategy agreed upon by key partners to ensure sustainability of results? |
Conflict-sensitivity |
EQ 12. Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict sensitivity? Were the implementing agencies’ internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict-sensitive approach? |
Catalytic |
EQ 13. Was the project financially and programmatically catalytic? |
Innovation |
EQ 14. To what extent has the project promoted innovations aligned with stakeholders’ needs or challenges? |
Women and Youth |
EQ 15. Were gender equality and youth empowerment considerations reflected in project design and implementation? |
EQ 16. To what extent did the targeting approach reproduce or overcome traditional norms or practices that exclude crucial stakeholders such as women, young people, persons with disabilities, and stakeholders? |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
2 The Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) Project Evaluation Checklist (PBF and DPPA, 2023).
To respond to the questions regarding project relevance and coherence, the evaluation examined the quality of the project design, including the validity of the problem targeted by the project and its coherence with other initiatives. It also analysed the project’s alignment with country priorities and the strategic objectives of FAO, UNFPA and the PBF. To assess project effectiveness, a comparison of the results obtained was made against those expected. To facilitate this assessment, the Evaluation Team reconstructed the theory of change to identify the cause-effect relationships between activities and outputs, including internal and external factors that influenced project implementation and results (see section 2.3).
The assessment of the project efficiency focused on the timeliness of project implementation and execution, while sustainability was examined in terms of the level of consolidation of results and ownership by the national stakeholders. The project’s catalytic effect was assessed in terms of its success in attracting additional donors or leveraging programmatic resources. Aspects such as “conflict sensitivity”, and the extent to which the project’s intervention considered the context and promoted gender, were analysed using a combination of primary and secondary data. More information about the evaluation questions and the methodology used in the assessment is available in the evaluation matrix (see Appendix 2).
Data collection process, tools and analysis
The evaluation was conducted in three phases: i) the inception phase; ii) the data collection phase; and
iii) the reporting phase. The inception phase consisted of collecting all relevant documentation and conducting an initial desk review, in addition to scoping calls and the development of the evaluation methodology. Based on those preliminary activities, the Evaluation Team drafted the inception report.
The second phase included a more in-depth analysis of the project documents, the preparation and conduct of the field visit, including key informant interviews and focus group discussions with local authorities, project staff, implementing partners and beneficiaries. Initial findings from the desk review have been collected in evaluation templates based on the evaluation criteria. The third phase consisted of an analysis of the additional data collected during the field visits and the drafting of the final report (see timetable in Annex 1).
Desk review phase: A set of relevant documents had been collected and reviewed at the beginning of the desk review phase, including the project design document, semi-annual and annual progress reports, budget reports, the project logical framework, as well as the baseline survey and monitoring reports prepared by implementing partners. Background reports and studies were consulted, including a cross-border needs assessment that was conducted prior to the project start, as well as other project evaluation reports of similar projects in the same area. The Evaluation Team analysed the results of two conflict sensitivity clinics conducted in both countries in May 2022, as part of the project’s conflict-sensitive approach. Finally, available media reports were reviewed, as well as outcomes of the project activities, such as development plans of the Self-Help Groups that were established under the project. The data obtained from all the documents reviewed underpinned the discussions held during the project key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Data from the project documents were gathered in project templates based on the evaluation criteria.
Data collection phase: The Evaluation Team conducted interviews in Bishkek and Tashkent as well as in the border communities. The team visited three Kyrgyz and three Uzbek villages; in Kyrgyzstan, the evaluators visited Mangyt/Osh region, Kajar/Jalal-Abad region and Olon-Bulak/ Jalal-Abad region. In Uzbekistan, they conducted interviews in Qorabogich/Andijan region, Obodon/Namangan region and Qayroki/Namangan region. The interviews were conducted with FAO and UNFPA project managers/coordinators, technical experts, the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialist, implementing partners, beneficiaries, local, regional and national authorities, and academic researchers and previous PBF and UNFPA staff who were involved in the design and early implementation of the project. These were semi-structured and covered the evaluation questions, with specific questions tailored to the characteristics of each group. At the end of the field mission, the team presented and discussed the preliminary findings with key stakeholders.
Data analysis: The Evaluation Team conducted an in-depth consultation of resource documents, tools, statistics and scientific sources, including other project evaluations. This included virtual discussions with key people, in person interviews during the field mission, and a few follow-up calls after the mission. This allowed the evaluators to also address challenges related to staff turnover and the resulting lack of institutional memory.
Overall, the Evaluation Team interviewed 112 people (see Appendix 1), which represent the division among the purposive sampling categories listed below:
FAO headquarters officers
project management and project personnel
implementing partners
external observers
beneficiaries: SHG members, individual beneficiaries, local authorities
researchers and other individuals recommended
All the interviews were conducted on a confidential basis. When discussing the interview data, the report refers to feedback from interviewees but does not identify specific interviewees or their organization, position or location. The Evaluation Team reviewed secondary data from the project and other sources (see bibliography). The data and information collected were coded by question and evaluation criteria. All analyses considered gender differences and stereotypes. To ensure the security and confidentiality of the primary data collected, the Evaluation Team anonymized all interview notes and transcripts. The Evaluation Team analysed key patterns across stakeholders to identify emergent themes. Finally, the evaluators employed triangulation among sources, methods and field information to confirm or refute findings from primary and secondary data sources.
Ethical standards: The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for Evaluation and is in line with the FAO Office of Evaluation Manual and methodological guidelines and practices. The principles outlined in the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, and all rights and confidentiality of information providers have been prioritized and safeguarded as per UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The evaluation followed a consultative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. The triangulation of evidence and information gathered underpinned validation and analysis, and supported the conclusions and recommendations.
Gathering data on peacebuilding interventions can be a sensitive activity as evaluators confront stakeholders in their interviews with the conflict factors that the project has been trying to change in a positive manner. As there were no recent conflicts between the communities involved in the project, discussions with beneficiaries about peace and peacebuilding brought up the importance of peace within the family and within communities in multiple conversations.
Limitations
In implementing the aforementioned methodology there were a few limitations that affected the data collection process. These limitations and the corresponding mitigation strategies elaborated by the Evaluation Team are presented below:
The project’s main goal was twofold, i.e. to strengthen cross-border cooperation as well as confidence and trust between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. To be able to measure both categories, the Evaluation Team relied on the availability of relevant data to triangulate results and report about the outcomes and impact. The quantitative increase in economic cooperation and exchange was assessed only based on project reports and the endline assessment. For example, the Evaluation Team was not able to verify the full operationality of all 78 SHGs created and/or supported by the project, due to time constraints.
As it was not required by the PBF, the project was not reviewed at mid-term. As a result, the assessment of the project impact on building trust had to rely on personal accounts collected for the project reports, along with the endline assessment. As the endline survey only became available after the field mission was concluded, the Evaluation Team was unable to validate its findings and confirm the soundness of the project’s supposed accomplishments.
As some of the activities experienced a considerable delay, the results were not verifiable. For example, at the time of the visit of the Evaluation Team, only one family had just received their greenhouse and had just started to grow tomatoes. The effect of their participation in the project and the impact on their lives was thus not yet evident or quantifiable.
The evaluators also faced logistical challenges. Due to budget constraints, the Evaluation Team only had four full days for conducting interviews and focus group discussions with project beneficiaries in the selected villages. Border crossing limitations for international visitors forced the Evaluation Team to travel for more than 1 000 km along the border to reach six of the twelve villages to be visited, thus significantly reducing the time available for site visits, individual interviews and focus group discussions on each village. As a mitigation measure, the team split up to be able to cover more people in each community.
© FAO/Mirbek Kadraliev
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan share a border of 1 378 km. The Kyrgyz regions of Osh, Jalalabad and Batken border the Uzbek regions of Andijan, Namangan and Ferghana. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the independence of the former Soviet republics, the formerly administrative boundaries became international borders with custom controls and sometimes visa requirements. This in turn created a challenge to intraregional trade and to the movement of people and goods within single countries, especially in the densely populated Fergana Valley shared between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In many places the border had not been demarcated, and people oftentimes did not even know on which territory their houses were built. In addition, there are ethnic enclaves in both countries.
The closure of most of the border crossing points between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan until 2016 resulted in worsening of people-to-people relations, economic cooperation and stagnating cultural exchange across the border. Several disputes and incidents have occurred along this border. Although both countries avoided major conflicts and cooperation has increased over the years, risks remain that have the potential to trigger conflict incidents.
Access to water resources and pastures for kettle have been sources of conflict in the past. Kyrgyzstan controls the flow in the Syr-Darya river at the Toktogul dam, on which it is highly dependent for its hydro-power energy. In 2016, tensions over the water reservoir Kasan-Say (Orto-Tokoy) near the border with Uzbekistan led to military build-up at the border. Locally, water shortages are directly impacting livelihoods, particularly in agriculture. Reduced electricity supplies are hindering businesses, and rising energy prices are driving inflationary pressures.
In 2017, the two states came to an agreement to demarcate 1 170 km of the Kyrgyz Uzbek frontier (about 85 percent of the total length of the border). In January 2023, the presidents of both countries announced that the delimitation process had been finalized. Along with the border delimitation deal, they signed around 20 agreements ranging from cooperation on customs protocols to energy and strengthening of agricultural and industrial cooperation, aiming to increase the bilateral trade to USD 2 billion in the coming years (Imanaliyeva, 2023).
The UN’s Common Country Analysis (UN Kyrgyz Republic, 2023) for the Kyrgyz Republic highlights the impacts of climate change for the region. Its effects have become increasingly noticeable, affecting both the government and the people. The dry summer of 2023 underscored the rapidly intensifying effects of melting glaciers, reducing water resources essential for irrigation and hydropower. The resulting water scarcity has the potential to strain relationships between upstream and downstream communities and countries, such as parts of Kazakhstan reliant on Kyrgyzstan for water for irrigation.
In Kyrgyzstan, the status of women and girls has been increasingly polarized over the last five years. Public views on social norms and gender roles support a resurgence of traditional views that confine women’s role to family and household duties. Rural women fall out of community-based and local government decision-making processes. In Kyrgyzstan, only 3 percent of rural women possess sole land ownership in contrast to approximately 22 percent of rural men (FAO, 2016). The baseline assessment in Uzbekistan highlighted that unemployment is also one of the major issues for women and youth in the border areas. While some government programmes are in place to support the unemployed, they sometimes must travel more than 100 km each day to get to the factories in other districts.
The gender analysis from the project document highlights that the prevalence of harmful gender stereotypes and patriarchal norms contribute to a missed opportunity of engaging women and youth in peacebuilding processes. Domestic violence, unpaid care responsibilities, poor nutrition, unemployment and poverty are specific factors that affect mostly women in the cross-border area (Elnura, 2021).
The baseline report for Kyrgyzstan, which was conducted by a local Kyrgyz non-governmental organization (NGO) in 2022, highlights the dire situation of youth in the Kyrgyz border communities: “There is an outflow of young people from the villages. […] There is a lack of work in the villages, except for seasonal agricultural work. More than 80 percent of respondents do not see opportunities and prospects in the village for young people. […] No land for residential housing is allocated in the pilot villages for many years, which is an additional factor for the outflow of young people” (FAO, 2022b).
© FAO/Vyacheslav Oseledko
The Uzbek baseline study for the target communities paints a similar picture for the Uzbek villages in the border region: “Unemployment among young people causes labour migration and reduces opportunities to obtain professional knowledge and skills. Young people are only employed in seasonal
works” (FAO, 2022c). For instance, in Obodon/Uzbekistan most youth are involved in agriculture (growing potato, carrot, green beans) and animal husbandry (sheep herding). Another issue facing youth is the lack of roads, which prevents them to move between mahallas for trade or education purposes.3 Consequently, many young people leave to work abroad, mostly in the Russian Federation.
Background and description of the project
In this context, the joint FAO/UNFPA project “Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan” was designed to provide a solution to some of the challenges described above. Its main goal was to enhance cross-border environmental and socioeconomic cooperation and build confidence and trust between local governments, communities and civil society organizations of the two countries. The PBF-funded project had an overall budget of USD 3 million. FAO, as the lead agency, received USD 1.7 million and UNFPA received USD 1.3 million. The project started in December 2021 for initially 24 months. After a six-month no-cost extension, the project will conclude in June 2024. This evaluation has been conducted from January to May 2024, therefore before the closure of the project. The project was not reviewed at mid-term.
Box 1
Overview of project outputs
The main goal of strengthening cooperation and building trust is being supported by four project outputs (see Box 1 below). The project focuses on the empowerment of women and youth as important peacebuilding agents. Through the establishment of SHGs, public platforms and networks, the capacities of women and youth are being strengthened to foster positive social, cultural and economic exchange between communities on both sides of the border. In addition, climate-smart agriculture practices in sustaining common resources use, are introduced to strengthen communities’ resilience to resource-driven conflicts around water scarcity and management and reduce the effects of climate change.
Output 1. Youth and women have the capacity and tools to serve as connectors between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan;
Output 2. Economic cooperation between border communities strengthened through women- and youth-led innovative entrepreneurship development programmes;
Output 3. Farmers, with focus on young ones, are equipped with innovative climate-smart agriculture technologies;
Output 4. The capacity of local authorities on cross-border cooperation is enhanced through capacity-building, expansion of communication and establishment of new areas of cooperation.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Theory of change
The project document contained an outcome-level theory of change (TOC) reflecting the one of the PBF’s Strategic Results Framework 2021–2026 for Kyrgyzstan, which includes three outcome statements, each of which has a TOC attached to it. This project’s theory of change is closely aligned with the third outcome of the PBF’s Strategic Framework. It reads very similar, but is more specific with respect to the target groups and beneficiaries, as illustrated in the boxes below:
3 The term “mahalla” is formally used in Uzbekistan to mean neighbourhood, local community, or state administrative unit. There are some 12 000 mahallas in Uzbekistan, each of which consists of anything between 150 and 1 500 households (Micklewright and Marnie, 2005).
Box 2
PBF Strategic Framework Kyrgyzstan
Box 3
Project theory of change
Theory of change: “Addressing the multidimensional drivers of conflict by promoting equitable access to services, building upon, or establishing local mechanisms for inter-group dialogue and cooperation, and expanding livelihood opportunities—especially for youth and women —will enhance the confidence of beneficiaries (SHGs), local authorities and entrepreneurs within and between border communities, and reduce internal and cross-border conflict.”
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Theory of change: “Addressing the multidimensional drivers of conflict by promoting equitable access to services, building upon or establishing local mechanisms for inter-group dialogue, conflict resolution and cooperation, and expanding livelihoods opportunities—especially for youth—will enhance confidence between identity groups within and between border communities, and reduce internal and cross-border conflict.”
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Since the project TOC has not been explicitly elaborated in the design phase, the Evaluation Team reconstructed it by mapping out the pathways through which the inputs are expected to achieve planned outcomes. The evaluation examines whether the links at the various results levels are present or missing and under what conditions the project activities have resulted in the intended change.
The approach of the project is to achieve change through different impact pathways towards the achievement of the intended changes in the communities located on both sides of the Kyrgyz Uzbek border, as follows:
Establishing SHGs and platforms to empower marginalized women and youth so that they can express their priorities and develop relevant strategies to meet their needs. Conflict sensitivity trainings, community-based dialogues and a conflict monitoring mechanism involved women and youth in engaging actively in peacebuilding processes at the local level, thereby fostering ownership and active participation.
Trainings to develop business skills and business plans, combined with exchange visits, participation in fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc. between participants of the two countries to explore economic opportunities across the border and to kick-start interest-based economic cooperation.
Innovative climate-smart technologies, including drip irrigation systems, drought- and frost- resistant seedlings and seeds, and the installation of artificial glaciers and distribution of water boxes to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence of conflict between border communities over water mismanagement and water scarcity, but also to strengthen rural communities’ resilience to the effects of climate change.
Strengthening the skills of local government representatives to enable them to better deal with cross-border processes.
If the intended pathways are achieved, the expected long-term outcomes are i) political and economic empowerment of women and youth; ii) strengthened income generation for border communities;
Figure 1
Theory of change diagram
iii) decreased resource-related cross-border conflicts; and iv) increased communication and cooperation of local authorities on border-related issues. The overall vision of the project is to achieve peaceful relations, economic cooperation, food security and resilience to water scarcity and climate change in the Ferghana valley.
Intergroup dialogue platforms, conflict monitors and participatory approaches create synergies and serve as early monitoring mechanisms
Outcome
Increased cross-border cooperation strengthens trust between Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan
Outputs
Women and youth are economically empowered,
their livelihoods strengthened and they act as connectors
Income generation, trade and cultural exchange is enhanced
Strengthened cooperation between local authorities across the border
Decreased resource- related conflicts in cross -border areas
Activities
Local Self- Help Groups established, priorities identified and revolving funds created
Business skills developed, and youth- and women led
entrepreneurial initiatives supported
New relationships formed and collaborative exchanges initiated
Water scarcity reduced and agricultural productivity expanded
Communication between local authorities
and water and pasture user associations across the border increased
Establishment of
community- based platforms and conduct of needs assessments
Business development capacity building
Cross-border exchange visits, festivals, conferences, exhibitions, fairs, IT camps
Distribution of agroequipment, capacity building on water saving technologies
Capacity building for local authorities on communication, mediation, peacebuilding
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
© FAO/Vyacheslav Oseledko
Key findings by evaluation questions
Relevance
The project was relevant and well aligned with the governments’ development strategies and commitments for strengthened cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. These include the National Development Strategy of the Kyrgyz Republic for the period 2018–2040, the National Strategy for Achieving Gender Equality in the Kyrgyz Republic 2021–2030, as well as the special State Programme on Women and Entrepreneurship 2021–2025. The project also contributed to the Kyrgyz Youth Policy Concept for 2020–2030 which aims to create an effective system of youth participation at the decision-making level and promote social development (entrepreneurship, trade, exchange of agricultural practices).
In Uzbekistan, the project contributed to the implementation of the Agriculture Development Strategy 2020–2030, the National Gender Equality Strategy 2030, as well as the Concept for the Development of State Youth Policy in Uzbekistan until 2025.
The project’s aims were discussed with representatives from national governments included early on. The focus of the project was confirmed in a prioritization workshop held in the design phase with participation of the Presidential Administration of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, both UN Resident Coordinators Offices, representatives of the Cabinets of Ministers as well as civil society experts. During this workshop, participants agreed that the project’s focus should be on economic cooperation and social cohesion. It was also agreed not to include water infrastructure-related issues as the delimitation process was not yet completed and therefore deemed too sensitive.
From a peacebuilding perspective, the project was fully in line with PBF’s Strategic Results Framework for Kyrgyzstan (2021–2026) which consists of three outcomes. The FAO/UNFPA project falls under Strategic Outcome 3: “Mutual understanding and cooperation within and between border communities are strengthened”. Uzbekistan doesn’t have a peacebuilding framework at this point. For both countries, the border assessment commissioned by the PBF in 2021, outlined the key conflict risks as well as the foundations for sustaining peace in the border region, which also served as underlying conflict analysis for the project.4
As water scarcity is a pressing issue for the border communities and a potential conflict driver, the project included activities to strengthen climate change resilience even without the existence of National Adaptation Plans in place in either country. In Kyrgyzstan, the first draft National Adaptation Plan is currently being prepared and expected to be released in the fall of 2024. This plan is also
4 The border assessment outlined six priority areas for UN support of national and local authorities: i) making border crossings safe and accessible; ii) expanding and deepening trade and cross-border economic cooperation;
iii) supporting national and local dialogue and trust-building; iv) enhancing local governments’ capacity to lead cooperation and address conflicts; v) supporting efforts of job creation and strengthening resilience of local small and medium private enterprises vi) investing in the improvement of key economic and social infrastructure in the border regions. (Dzhuraev, Shairbek/Tolipov and, Farkhod, 2021).
expected to include provincial plans for Osh, Jalalabad and Batken. The Government of Uzbekistan, with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is currently also working on the formulation of a National Adaptation Plan.
The project was in line with the needs of beneficiaries. The project team made a concerted effort to identify the needs of the target villages and included beneficiaries in the identification of their needs. Two baseline assessments were conducted in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with the participation of local communities. The assessments showed that the main income in the border communities was generated through sewing, drying of fruit, baking, greenhouse farming, livestock and sale of fodder crops, processing of dairy products, growing vegetables, production of bio humus, beekeeping, and wool processing. The projects’ activities were then tailored to strengthen and upscale beneficiaries’ businesses.
The results of the above-mentioned needs assessments were much broader than what was covered by the project activities. For example, all six Kyrgyz villages highlighted the need for the water and irrigation infrastructure to be repaired and four villages had the building of a kindergarten and schools among their top priorities. The Uzbek needs assessment also revealed issues with access to drinking and irrigation water, outdated water pumps and unstable electricity supply. As outlined earlier, those issues were deliberately excluded due to the sensitivity around territory. Consultations with both governments resulted in the decision to focus on mitigation measures and economic empowerment of SHGs.
The project was very timely. After the changes in the Presidential Administration in Uzbekistan in 2016, the cooperation between the two countries intensified at multiple levels, including between the country leaders, local administrations and local populations. The project accompanied the governments’ talks about delimitation of the border and re-opening of border crossing points, and benefitted from a window of opportunity and political commitment to strengthen cross border cooperation. In November 2022, an agreement was signed by the two Presidents about the exchange of territory and the joint management of a water reservoir which paved the way to delimitate the border.
Coherence
Since the changes in the Presidential Administration in Uzbekistan in 2016, several UN-funded projects have been implemented involving Uzbekistan, to improve relationships and strengthen cooperation with the neighbouring country. For example, in 2019–2020, the PBF supported a United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), UNFPA and UNDP project on “Promoting Kyrgyzstan’s youth cohesion and interaction towards Uzbekistan” (UNICEF, 2020). Other initiatives include the “Central Asia Water and Energy Program” of the World Bank, European Commission, Switzerland, and the support provided by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to regional coordination, strengthening institutional capacities and promoting intersectoral integration to help achieve regional energy supply and water security in Central Asia. With its approach – combining women and youth’ economic empowerment with climate resilience activities and cross-border exchanges focusing on peacebuilding – this project was the first of this kind in the region, involving country offices in both countries.
The PBF has been supporting peacebuilding efforts in Kyrgyzstan since 2010, starting in the aftermath of the violent clashes in the southern regions with a focus on restoring damaged social fabric, help build trust towards the government through enforcing justice mechanisms and prevent relapse of conflict through engaging youth and women. Since then, Kyrgyzstan has received multiple allocations both from the Immediate Response Facility as well as the Peacebuilding Recovery Facility facilities of the fund, addressing the country’s evolving peacebuilding priorities over the years (Patscher-Hellbeck, 2021). The current three main directions have been formulated in a Strategic Results Framework for Kyrgyzstan for the years 2021–2026. They combine i) the strengthening of horizontal and vertical trust to improve government mechanisms for intergroup dialogue, inclusivity and accountability; ii) the creation of an inclusive Kyrgyz civic identity policy (Kyrgyz Jarany); and
iii) the understanding and cooperation within and between border communities. As discussed under section 2.3, this project closely aligns with the third priority area.
The project built on lessons learned from an economic empowerment project for rural women which was implemented in Kyrgyzstan by FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UN Women and the World Food Programme (WFP) from 2014 to 2021 (FAO, 2021). For example, previous reviews and evaluations showed that interest-based cooperation result in stronger peacebuilding dividends. This includes establishing durable ties between people that continue after the project ends, or the importance to address multidimensional risks through the climate-peace- economy nexus based on the conclusions of a Regional Risk and Resilience Assessment, a joint study by the UN, the World Bank and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2021 analysing fragility in the Ferghana valley. The assessment highlighted the need to work with water-users associations to strengthen trust and confidence of people living in the border areas (World Bank, United Nations, United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, 2021).
The project was led by FAO and jointly implemented with UNFPA. Project team members underlined that the cooperation went very well. FAO oversaw the agriculture and climate-smart components of the project as well as the mobilization and of new SHGs. UNFPA oversaw the youth and IT components. While both agencies had separate responsibilities, the activities were implemented jointly, which also enabled them to create synergies. For example, some of the SHGs were recipients of greenhouses and seedlings and participated in the climate change awareness trainings. Or, another example, youth participants of the IT trainings designed logos and packaging for the SHG businesses.
Effectiveness
EQ 4: To what extent were the project objectives achieved?
EQ 5: To what extent did the introduction of climate-smart agriculture practices and technologies contribute to reducing resource-driven conflicts?
EQ 6: Did the cross-border nature of the project lead to better relations, increased business and employment opportunities, and improved multistakeholder cross border partnerships?
The overall outcome of the project was to strengthen “mutual trust and interest-based cooperation between border communities of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan”. Three indicators were developed to measure the increased trust and cooperation. The endline assessment, which was supposed to be the
main tool for measuring progress on project outcomes, produced questionable results, as it employed different methods and measures as the baseline survey, thus preventing any plausible comparison between baseline and endline data, and making it challenging to capture project-related progress over time.5
The Evaluation Team observed an increase in connections with other communities that had been established through the project. Beneficiaries from the SHGs described how they set up WhatsApp/ Telegram groups as well as Instagram accounts through which they are connected and advertise their products. The youth groups established new connections through the IT camps. The endline assessment did measure a small increase in trust between Kyrgyz and Uzbek project beneficiaries. The Evaluation Team, however, couldn’t verify the results of this assessment given the lack of comparable data to support the effectiveness and sustainability of the connections established. In addition, the endline report was submitted to the Evaluation Team at the end of the field mission, making it impossible for the Evaluation Team to collect the missing data.6
Overall, 78 SHGs were established or revived in the two countries (21 in Uzbekistan, 57 in Kyrgyzstan) by the project (FAO, 2023, pp.6-7), totalling 525 members (93 percent women and 19 percent youth under the age of 30). The SHGs were grouped according to their interests and business expertise and were provided with six wool combing machines, 39 dairy processing sets, and 145 sewing machines and tables.
Through the revolving fund mechanism, the SHGs accumulated USD 11 666 in savings, which were primarily utilized for internal lending among members with an interest rate of 1–5 percent per month. They also used savings for the needs of SHG members and for the development and extension of income-generating activities. In some villages, the SHGs donated part of the money to support vulnerable families.
The 21 SHGs in Uzbekistan collectively amassed savings of UZS 155 310 000 and generated an average monthly income of USZ 21 523 333 (roughly USD 1 660) per group which strengthens the participating households.7
In addition, six SHG Associations were founded in Kyrgyzstan to sustain the results in the long term and to provide a platform for SHGs to exchange experiences and learn from each other. The revolving funds of six SHG Associations were established for further financial support, i.e. for providing quality vegetable seeds.
The members of the business acceleration programme were trained to manage and grow their businesses. The types of cross-border business specific area include production of honey, organic
5 For indicator a), it reports a 2-point increase on a 10-grade scale for Kyrgyzstan and a 0.25-point increase for Uzbekistan. Indicator b) was not comparable to the baseline as this measured percentages of key stakeholders who believed that economic cooperation at the local level is good or very good (Kyrgyzstan 44 percent, Uzbekistan 74.1 percent). The endline, again, measured those people on a 10-grade scale (Kyrgyzstan 5.5, Uzbekistan 5.3). Indicator c) mixed both measures for household level interviews (10-point scale) and for in-depth interviews (percentages). The in-depth interviewees in both countries reported to 97.9 percent that they had “positive cross-border interactions”.
6 The project team highlighted that since the project has been closed there are “continued joint interactions and communication of SHGs, who continue to share product information, organize joint holidays, marketing efforts or engage in trade through these platforms”.
7 These numbers were provided by UNFPA Uzbekistan after the Evaluation Team’s field mission.
vermicompost, dried prunes, kurut (traditional Kyrgyz snack made from sour milk or yoghurt), the opening of a confectionery shop, poultry farming, clothing industry, fresh juice, and greenhouse production.
For youth participants, the project implemented a digital acceleration programme in Uzbekistan and an IT camp for youth aiming to boost their digital skills and empower them to address common challenges together. The Agro-Hackathon in Kyrgyzstan provided women and youth with a better understanding of the IT industry and helped them apply digital strategies to advance their small businesses. Laptops and cash grants were awarded for participants with the most promising business ideas.
UNFPA decided to also include Tajik youth in the IT camp to add a regional component. The IT camp, which took place in the Andijan region of Uzbekistan, provided a platform for youth from these three countries to work in interest-based groups and discuss community issues like gender-based violence (GBV), food and climate security, youth empowerment, and to develop joint solutions. The project enhanced youth engagement by building their digital skills through acceleration programmes, empowering them to address community challenges. It brought together youth from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and grouped them according to their interests.
Language was not an issue. Both Kyrgyz and Uzbek are Turk languages and, while having considerable differences, the local dialects in the border region are easily understandable for the local communities. Many people have family members on the other side of the border and are looking forward to further border openings to be able to reconnect.
Output 2: Economic cooperation between border communities strengthened through women- and youth- led innovative entrepreneurship development programmes.
Establishing SHGs and empowering them with entrepreneurship skills and equipment helped reduce grievances associated with geographic isolation and lowering the dependence on state support. The project interventions have provided some economic opportunities to youth and women. For example, in Kyrgyzstan, the mini bakery “Kajar buhankasy” has reportedly increased its volume by 70 percent in three months, while another project “Cheber koldor” was able to provide additional salary to women in the amount of KGS 10 000 (approximately USD 120).
Most of the businesses of SHG members were based on traditional practices in the region: honey production, sewing or baking. Some communities engaged in bio-humus production and proudly reported to be able to produce clean vegetables without chemical fertilizers now. More innovative were the marketing strategies using social media platforms as Instagram and Telegram to advertise their products.
With the reopening of the Aravan-Marhamat border crossing point in 2023, the project has been able to add more opportunities for mutual trade, agricultural exchange and cultural interactions. The planned establishment of a marketplace in Kerben/Kyrgyzstan has the potential to provide selling opportunities for Uzbek farmers.
According to the PBF Final Progress Report (FAO, 2024), the project contributed to foster exchange of experience and network building among youth through exchange visits, including an IT camp with participation of youth from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. These visits have resulted in informal interactions and cooperative efforts, contributing to positive exchanges and collaboration in the border areas.
Output 3: Farmers, with focus on young ones, are equipped with innovative climate-smart agriculture technologies.
The PBF Final Progress Report claims that in both Kyrgyz and Uzbek pilot areas, the adoption of water-efficient practices such as drip irrigation, water boxes, and artificial glaciers has improved water availability and bolstered agricultural productivity by 30 percent in arid regions. The Evaluation Team, however, was not able to confirm this result on the ground.
The beneficiaries under this output were community members who cultivate their property attached to their houses (backyard) or who rent land from the community for a period during the year. They do not own land outside of their homes. Climate-smart agriculture initiatives promoted by the project included the provision of drought- and frost-resistant seeds and seedlings, the installation of drip irrigation systems, and strengthened capacity of beneficiaries to conserve water and soil.
A total of 19 beneficiaries were equipped with greenhouses and drip irrigation systems; 26 received two-wheel tractors for land preparation and weeding; and 12 beneficiaries were provided with fruit drying equipment. In addition, 300 water boxes were distributed to Uzbek beneficiaries.
According to the progress report of November 2023, in Mangyt, Kyrgyzstan, farmers have received a 30– 40 percent increase in cucumber yield compared to the year before because they planted higher quality seeds and were taught how to properly care for them. The SHGs generated a total income of about USD 7 304 from produce sales, which averages about USD 912 per member of the group. The endline assessment even reports an average 59 percent increase of crop yield following the project interventions (Kyrgyzstan 66 percent%, Uzbekistan 49 percent). As some of the greenhouses were only installed right before the evaluation mission, the Evaluation Team was not able to verify the effects of their use.
Progress monitoring reports from the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) highlight that the demonstrations of resource-saving technologies such as drip irrigation, mulching, conservation agriculture, and no-tillage methods have significantly contributed to improving water and soil use efficiency of project beneficiaries. These techniques were highlighted during training sessions for project beneficiaries and local communities. Over 120 participants, including pasture and water users, representatives of local self-governments, and interested farmers engaged in these sessions.
The introduction of these new techniques in combination with the capacity building seminars have enhanced dialogue among communities about the challenges of climate change and local opportunities for mitigation and adaptation. The project provided individuals with better knowledge and tools to cultivate their own small piece of land with available resources. According to participants interviewed, the seminars have increased awareness and helped communities to apply a more efficient use of natural resources and make these individuals more resilient in the short-term.
Three artificial glaciers were established in Kyrgyzstan with help from many community members, and provided additional water for households and pastures. A local authority representative in Kashka-Suu confirmed that the artificial glaciers also helped to revive mountain springs that had stopped giving water. Pasture committee users highlighted that the glaciers’ functioning depends on the climate conditions. For example, in 2024, after a warm winter they melted earlier than in 2023. Local communities were very interested in installing more artificial glaciers and study their potential. Local authorities in Kashka-Suu/ Kyrgyzstan have pledged to allocate money to install additional artificial glaciers.
According to the project reports, the artificial glaciers in Aksy district of Kyrgyzstan provided 128 households with additional water to restore 24 ha of pasturelands. This led to the reduction of disputes over access to pastures among the local population. It decreased the risks of conflicts related to cattle
rustling on border territories and disputes over access to natural resources within communities. The reliability of the artificial glaciers as a water resource and mitigation measure to reduce water shortages can only be assessed over time.
In Kyrgyzstan, the climate-smart technologies also included e-fencing, a modern pasture recovery technique that has the potential to help restore pastures from overgrazing by temporarily fencing off certain areas. Six e-fencings were installed across 3 ha of pastureland in six pilot districts which, according to the implementing agency’s reports, significantly improved pasture conditions. Interviews with pasture users confirmed that the use of drought-resistant pasture seeds, coupled with protective fencing, ensured that these areas were safeguarded from overgrazing by livestock. This approach not only enhanced the regeneration of pasturelands, but also helped reduce conflicts over pasture access among communities. By promoting equitable resource management and fostering cooperation, the initiative has contributed to more sustainable and resilient pasture use practices.
Output 4: The capacity of local authorities on cross-border cooperation is enhanced through capacity- building, expansion of communication and establishment of new areas of cooperation.
Eighty-six representatives of local authorities from both sides of the border participated in joint training sessions, exchange visits and the festivals and fairs that were established under the project together with the SHGs. They also communicated with each other through WhatsApp and Telegram groups. The progress reports state that local authorities have “fostered stronger ties between formal and informal entities across community, district, and regional tiers” and “relationships at the district level have already been leveraged for quicker resolution of minor cross-border matters”, which was not possible for the Evaluation Team to verify, given the lack of evidence to support these statements.
A three-day workshop was held in August 2023 for 42 representatives from local authorities from the border provinces of Namangan and Andijan in Uzbekistan and Jalalabad and Osh provinces of Kyrgyzstan, as well as community activists. The event was organized for skills development of local authorities on gender aspects of rural development and planning, interrelationship between climate change and peacebuilding, as well as natural resources management. The consultant who conducted the workshop reported that participants were highly motivated to acquire new knowledge and skills, share their experiences and getting to know each other. However, the interviews revealed that while the project created an informal online platform (Telegram groups), the exchanges between local authorities mainly happened through social media on an ad hoc basis. One participant, the former head of Kashka-Suu village, highlighted a strengthened cooperation between local self-governments from bordering villages in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan resolving water-related issues collaboratively. Lacking documentation, it was not possible for the Evaluation Team to verify how widely and for what the social media groups were used and how sustainable those exchanges on social media are.
Efficiency
EQ 7: To what extent has the project been implemented efficiently and cost-effectively?
EQ 8: To what extent has the management been able to adapt to any changing conditions?
In Uzbekistan, due to a cumbersome approval process at multiple governmental levels (local, regional and national) the implementation of project activities was delayed, including the establishment of the SHGs. In Kyrgyzstan, similar projects had already been implemented in the past and therefore the SHGs already existed. This resulted in different implementation speeds of activities in the two countries.
According to the project team, the delay did not have an impact on the functionality of the SHGs in Uzbekistan. The interviews revealed that many SHG members had already worked with sewing machines before but were able to upscale with the project’s support. For example, due to the strengthened capacity, one Uzbek SHG managed to secure a contract with a Russian company to sew large quantities of towels. The Evaluation Team observed, however, that some of the agriculture activities (establishment of greenhouses) were also delayed in Uzbekistan and farmers couldn’t estimate the results.
The project had an overall budget of USD 3 million, equally split between both country offices in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. FAO, as the lead agency, received a budget of USD 850 000 for each country office, and UNFPA USD 650 000 for each country office respectively.
At the end of 2023, the budget delivery by FAO was 78.23 percent and by UNFPA 84.57 percent. The project was extended by six months at no-cost until June 2024 to ensure the sustainability of project results. After a revision of the scope and scale of activities with the donor in 2023, the project team re-allocated 73 percent of funds originally planned for output 1.4 (support to local administration), outputs 1.1 and 1.2 to strengthen the capacities of SHGs in Uzbekistan and SHG associations in Kyrgyzstan (see Figure 2). This mainly included additional exchange visits between the SHGs to further strengthen relationships between SHG members of both countries.
Figure 2
Distribution of project costs
The project’s operational costs exceeded the PBF’s criteria on “value for money” by roughly 8 percent (see Figure 2 below). According to the PBF guidelines, the project’s operational costs – which include travel – should not exceed 15–20 percent of the total project budget. Based on a project document from December 2021, the project’s operational cost, including travel, amounted to 27.8 percent. The project team justified the extra costs with the travel expenses of the SHG members as part of the exchange visits which were a central component of the project.
General operating costs 15.30%
Transfer and grants to counterparts 17.30% Travel 12.40%
Contractual Services 10.7%
Equipment, Vehicles and Furniture 10.30% Supplies, Materials and Commodities 6.50% Staff and other personel 19%
Indirect costs 7%
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on available financial project documentation.
With regards to direct beneficiaries, the project strengthened the 25 pre-existing SHGs in Kyrgyzstan and established 53 new SHGs in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with a total of 525 members. In addition, 19 small-scale farmers received agricultural equipment, such as fruit drying equipment, handheld tractors, seedlings, greenhouses, dairy processing equipment, etc. The original target in the project document was to establish a total of 120 SHGs with a total of 600 members, 300 in each country. The final core target group was thereby 12.5 percent smaller than initially projected which the project team attributed to the detailed selection criteria for participants. Family members of SHG participants benefitted from the additional income as it was spent on, for example, children’s education and kids’ after-school activities. According to the endline assessment, the average family accounted for approximately six people which would raise the number of beneficiaries to about 3 264 people.
The final number of indirect beneficiaries cannot be conclusively determined. The project document estimated that there would be 36 000 people indirectly benefitting from the project activities, counting roughly 3 000 inhabitants per pilot village. The number is based on the data included in the baseline report, which estimated how many people are indirectly involved in natural resources management and business activities. This number could not be verified by the Evaluation Team, as the villages were of different sizes and didn’t equally benefit from each activity under the project. For example, the sewing SHGs sold their products in many cases outside of their communities. However, in some villages there was some spillover effect of the increased business activities of project beneficiaries. For example, in Korabogich/Uzbekistan a milk separator helped to increase cream production by ten times, or, in Kairoki/Uzbekistan, where a bakery was opened due to the donation of an oven under the project, the village inhabitants were able to buy fresh bread in their village and didn’t have to drive to another village for baked goods.
The Strategic Results Framework for Kyrgyzstan provided the outcome level framework for the project (see also section 2.3). The overall project outcome was defined as follows: “Mutual trust and interest-based cooperation strengthened between border communities of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan”.
While the cooperation aspects of the project were closely monitored and reported, the trust building parts were missing from the project reports. This was left to the endline assessment which, however, was not a reliable source, as explained below. Instead, there was a strong focus on project implementation and reporting on activities of the SHGs, the agricultural and IT components of the project. Also, there was no differentiation between vertical and horizontal trust and the different activities to support the trust-building.
Due to the methodological differences between the baseline and the endline assessments most of the results are not comparable.8 For example, the endline study assessed young people aged between 18 and 35, whereas the project considered young people aged between 18 and 28. The baseline also uses the 18–28 age group. This inconsistency in defining the groups of people to be assessed hamper to check whether the results have been achieved for each group targeted by project activities. In addition, the endline assessment became available to the Evaluation Team only after the conclusion of the data collection phase, making it impossible to corroborate its findings and confirm the validity of the project’s supposed accomplishments.
8 The Kyrgyz baseline assessment was done by the Kyrgyz NGO “CAMP Alatoo Public Foundation”. The Uzbek needs assessment was conducted by the Uzbek research company “Ergo Analytics”. For the endline assessment, the Tajik consulting company “Zerkalo Asia” was hired.
The original project timeline of 24 months (which was extended by six months) turned out to be too short to achieve the project outcome of increased “mutual trust”.9 The endline assessment measured an increase of trust in Kyrgyzstan by 2 points and in Uzbekistan by 0.25 points on a 10-point-scale. The Evaluation Team observed a lot of interest and enthusiasm among the SHG members about the increased exchanges and the new relationships that had been formed. This is confirmed by the endline assessment which reports that 97.9 percent of “key stakeholders in target areas […] believe that the project has contributed to increasing positive cross-border interaction in target locations”.
The consulting company that conducted the endline assessment highlighted several challenges during their assignment, including too little time given to conduct the survey which resulted in insufficient preparation of the field work. Law enforcement agencies in the border regions interfered by questioning and delaying the researchers. Also, the timing for the endline assessment was not chosen right. Field work during the month of Ramadan complicated the data collection process in rural areas as drivers were not available after a certain time and women were not available for conversations as they started preparing dinner in the afternoons.
Sustainability
EQ 9: To what extent did the project contribute to long-term institutional, environmental and social sustainability?
The Evaluation Team observed that local beneficiaries are very interested to keep their new businesses going as they serve themselves but also their communities. For example, the wool combing machine in one Kyrgyz village is now being used by many kettle owners in the district to process wool instead of burning the wool. The additional income has strengthened families’ livelihoods, and they are committed to keep working with the SHGs. Many also reported on business expansion plans.
The revolving fund mechanism is a powerful incentive to keep the SHGs working after the project closure and many groups reported that neighbours had expressed interest in joining a group. In some Kyrgyz villages, the SHGs established associations to exchange experiences with other SHGs and to pool their funds to be able to make even bigger investments. These associations have appointed a secretary and an accountant and, so far, run on a volunteer basis.
The fact that the women’s businesses were established inside their private homes contributed to the success of the project. Many of the sewing workshops were established in a small room of one of the SHG member’s homes. The women didn’t have to travel to a business centre in another district and their business activities were not disrupting their household and childcare duties. It was a low level, manageable and impactful change.
The project contributed to strengthened relationships between SHGs and local authorities within the communities to a certain extent. This can be particularly observed in Kyrgyz communities where a good connection between residents and local authorities already existed before the project. For example, in Kashka-Suu’s Jalalabad district authorities provided support to install special electrical outlets necessary to operate the wool combing machine. In another Kyrgyz village, local authorities were absent and the SHGs mostly functioned on their own. In Uzbekistan, local authorities were strongly involved in all steps of the project, including beneficiary selection and encouraging community members to participate.
9 The project documents do not differentiate between vertical vs horizontal trust. Also, they equate “increased trust” with “improved relationships” and use both interchangeably.
WhatsApp and Telegram groups created through the project between representatives of local authorities across the border have helped strengthen communication channels. However, the communication and exchange still seem to be on an ad hoc basis, as no evidence has been found of an institutionalized platform for regular exchanges between local authorities.
Assessing the sustainability of the environmental activities of the project was more difficult in the short period of project implementation. For example, the Evaluation Team did not have access to the sites of the artificial glaciers and was told that they had already melted by the time of the evaluation mission (mid-April 2024). It needs to be seen whether the additional water from the artificial glaciers will be sufficient to generate water for Kyrgyz households and pastures in the medium- to long-term. Residents reported positively about being able to take initiative under the project to address climate change-related issues that affect them directly. However, many admitted that the artificial glaciers probably wouldn’t be enough to deal with the overall water scarcity issue.
Drip irrigation systems are a short- to medium-term measure for small-scale farmers to water their crops with limited amounts of water. They are a manageable tool to save water and only use as much as needed, especially to irrigate the small plots on people’s properties. According to a recent report of the Eurasian Development Bank, 40 percent of water in Central Asia is lost due to filtration from irrigation canals which is the main irrigation infrastructure (Vinokurov, E. (ed.), Ahunbaev, Chuyev, Adakhayev and Sarsembekov, 2023). However, drip irrigation systems only last approximately five years and will then require repair or replacement. They are just temporary mitigation measures for private households, but don’t address the larger issue of irrigation and water flow management in Central Asian countries.
Local communities visited by the Evaluation Team appreciated the seminars discussing water scarcity issues in the whole region. Respondents in Uzbekistan mentioned that they only found out through the trainings that Kyrgyzstan was also suffering from water scarcity.
Additional factors also had an impact on the project’s sustainability. The baseline studies that were conducted in the early stages of project implementation identified the following sustainability risks for project results: financial limitations to buy climate-smart equipment; bad road infrastructure hindering communities to transport their products across the border and complicated border procedures for border crossings, and export and import goods from the neighbouring country. All these factors may have an impact on the sustainability of the project results.
Those challenges still exist, according to what was observed by the Evaluation Team. Border crossings are not smooth, and people are exposed to random harassment and checks by border guards. In addition, there is uncertainty about which food and dairy products can be brought across the border for trading purposes. As Uzbekistan is not a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), questions of import and export tariffs as well as quality certificates need to be resolved.
The Administrative Territorial Reform being implemented in Kyrgyzstan may pose challenges to the relations between communities and local authorities across the border. By merging territorial districts, services for many local communities are becoming less accessible as residents must drive to adjacent districts to resolve administrative matters.10
10 Only in one village residents welcomed the administrative territorial reform. They did not have a good experience
Conflict sensitivity
EQ 12: Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict sensitivity? Were the implementing agencies’ internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict-sensitive approach?
The project team, with support from the Peace and Development Adviser, the PBF Secretariat and the FAO Conflict and Peace Unit, actively included a conflict-sensitivity lens into the project design. The project document contained lessons learned from previous projects, which included relevant conflict-sensitivity considerations. For example, in a situation of incomplete border delimitation, water infrastructure projects in border areas are extremely sensitive. However, the cross-border project only focused on the mitigation of immediate risks of the conflict driver (water scarcity and access to water sources), but not on addressing water irrigation infrastructure or shared water management issues.
Led by the FAO Lead Technical Officer, two conflict-sensitivity clinics were conducted, one in each country, in the early phase of the project (May 2022). These clinics brought together project stakeholders, including FAO and UNFPA, the Resident Coordinators Offices, officials from local self-administration, implementing partners as well as members of civil society. During the two-day seminars, participants identified project risks and issued recommendations on how to mitigate those risks. More specifically, they identified peace and conflict drivers, did a stakeholder analysis, including potential spoilers, undertook a peace and conflict impact assessment of the project and identified project implementation risks and developed comprehensive recommendations on how to mitigate them. They also discussed heightened gender-based violence risks for women and recommended to integrate GBV monitoring into the project’s internal M&E processes.11
The reports of the conflict sensitivity clinics, the context analysis from the project document, the 2020 border cooperation needs assessment, as well as an FAO conducted “Context analysis related to renewable natural resources in Osh and Jalal-Abad Oblasts” from 2021 provided a solid context/conflict analysis for the project. While many participants confirmed the usefulness of the conflict sensitivity clinics, the recommendations stemming from those seminars were only partially implemented and were not included in the project’s results framework nor in the M&E plan. A context monitoring tool was developed with the help of a UN volunteer in Kyrgyzstan with the idea to monitor the environment and adapt to any changes that may have an impact on project performance.12 Instead of discussing political issues in and within the communities, the team used the tool internally to monitor potential discontent among beneficiaries and stakeholders (i.e. distribution of harvest from greenhouses).
The Evaluation Team did not find unintended negative impacts of the project. Implementing partners in Kyrgyzstan were in close contact with the beneficiaries and helped them solve problems when they came up. For example, to increase transparency around handling the revolving funds of the SHGs, they suggested to appoint a treasurer for each SHG. Also, they widely and openly communicated about the project’s goals and selection criteria. This helped to dispel perceptions of exclusion from neighbours of SHG members who became interested in participating in the project at a later stage.
with their local administration. They were promised that through the reform more money would be available to deal with infrastructure needs, such as a new road that they needed.
11 Those risks covered from feelings of exclusion and untransparent selection of non-included community members, to patriarchal norms and social pressure being used to deny women’s participation, or perception of unequal distribution of goods and equipment between communities or the two countries potentially leading to reputational damage for the project.
12 The idea behind the community-based context monitoring is that the project team and implementing partners carry out context monitoring using a tool featuring several thematic areas. The tool works via informal discussions and project meetings with beneficiaries and helps to monitor the implications of the interventions on local sentiments and implication of local contextual changes to the project outcome.
Catalytic and Innovation
EQ 13: Was the project financially and/or programmatically catalytic?
EQ 14: To what extent has the project promoted innovations aligned with stakeholders’ needs or challenges?
The project had some financial catalytic effects. According to PBF guidelines “a PBF investment is also considered to have a catalytic effect when it facilitates new initiatives that bring in new resources to peacebuilding priorities in the country” (UNPBF, 2024). As a result of the acceleration programme, five young entrepreneurs received around USD 7 000 for their agrobusiness start-ups from local investors. Sixty SHG members received deposit accounts by a local bank free of charge. Others received free consultations, coaching and business trainings by local NGOs.
The Evaluation Team observed an increased cooperation within the communities. For example, in Kashka-Suu, the authorities facilitated the installation of stronger electricity outputs that were necessary for the wool combing machines to function. Also, 55 community members helped digging a trench and laying pipes for the installation of the artificial glacier.
The establishment of new relationships and the exchange visits created some non-financial catalytic effects. Independently from the project, 35 SHG members from the Osh and Jalalabad regions in Kyrgyzstan visited the region of Namangan in Uzbekistan to participate in a flower festival. In 2023, SHG members from both countries came together to jointly celebrate Nowruz, the Persian New Year which is being celebrated in many Central Asian countries on the first day of spring.
The project had a very ambitious goal of strengthening trust between communities of two countries within a relatively short project timeline of originally 24 months. It combined different activities to address a wide range of issues, some of which were more innovative than others. For example, the artificial glaciers – an adaptation from an example in Nepal – and the e-fences were an innovation which generated a lot of interest among local communities and administrations. Also, the conduct of conflict-sensitivity clinics and engaging local men in discussions around family planning and their childcare and household responsibilities through the “MenEngage” approach was an innovative way to engage with the local communities.
Many of the agricultural project activities had been implemented in other projects before, such as the climate-smart agriculture component with the installation of green houses and drip irrigation systems. However, combining the agricultural activities with the SHGs was an innovation that also added a sustainability factor: as SHG members jointly owned the greenhouses or wool combing machines, they were jointly responsible for their maintenance and distribution of harvest.
Women and youth
EQ 15. Were gender equality and youth empowerment considerations reflected in project objectives and design and in the identification of beneficiaries?
The project mainly targeted women and youth beneficiaries in the selected cross-border regions: 70 percent of beneficiaries were women and youth representatives. In Kyrgyzstan, 525 women and 60 youth were organized in SHGs; in Uzbekistan, 182 women and 18 youth participated in the SHGs. In Uzbekistan, the communities along the border were selected together with local authorities. In Kyrgyzstan, the implementing partners together with UNFPA and FAO chose the beneficiaries. As part
of the conflict sensitivity clinics that were organized in the early phase of the project, the following participation criteria were jointly established. They served as basis for selection of group members:
women and men aged 25–65 (30 percent men)
30 percent youth (18–28)
vulnerable families
people living with disabilities
women with disabled family members
interested in the project
one participant per household
The project had a positive effect on women and their communities on multiple levels. According to local traditions, young brides, “kelins” (17–19 years old), move into the homes of their husbands and live with the in-laws. Kelins occupy the lowest position in the family hierarchy and respond directly to the authority of their mother-in-law. They’re expected to take care of the household, the in-laws, and their own children. In many cases, their husbands are not living with them as they’re trying to earn money in the bigger cities or in migration abroad. Consequently, these young women tend to be isolated in their husbands’ villages and don’t participate in community matters. Many women reported that meeting their neighbours and community members for the first time in the trainings and SHGs had changed their lives. Working together towards a common goal and jointly participating in exchange visits to the neighbouring country provided them with new relationships, a new purpose, and experiences outside of their homes and childcare duties (Zhussipbek and Nagayeva, 2021).
The establishment of the SHGs was a successful tool to support women’s economic empowerment in the border communities. The combination of group decision-making about the revolving fund money, group ownership of the equipment and group accountability required the women to discuss their needs and agree on investment priorities, through constructive debates and consultations.
Using pre-existing structures helped to get a head start for project implementation. In some Kyrgyz villages, SHGs had already been established under a previous FAO project in 2016. Those groups were easily revived and resumed working. In Uzbekistan, it took more “legal work” by the agencies to explain the concept and functioning of the SHGs to the beneficiaries, implementing partners and authorities, which resulted in delays. In multiple villages, the Evaluation Team observed that the beneficiaries had previously established their own business (i.e. dairy production or sewing) but with the project support were able to boost it, involve more women and make it much more profitable. In other places, they started a completely new business (i.e. beauty salon, wool processing, vegetable growing in green houses).
Women’s participation in economic activities had a positive impact also on personal relations. Because of the additional income generated through their work, women’s confidence and sense of self-worth increased. Being less financially dependent from their husbands enabled them to make independent decisions on how to spend their money. Multiple women reported they were proud to be able to support their kids’ education and finance their after-school activities (i.e. tutoring).
Women reported that the project helped to build a more peaceful environment within the families. They explained that men were initially sceptical about the project’s benefits and their involvement. But they changed their minds once the results became visible, and the family started benefitting from additional income. Women reported that their husbands started supporting them by, for example, driving them to the markets to sell their produce or helped them build the sewing workshops or set up the greenhouses.13
13 While GBV was discussed as a risk for women in the conflict sensitivity clinics, it did not come up in the FGDs.
The project’s activities helped not only the younger women to connect within their communities. Older women and men also reported that the project provided them with opportunities to learn new skills. The combination of trainings on both “soft” and more technical skills was highly appreciated by beneficiaries. Both men and women highlighted their newly gained knowledge about, for example, family planning and conflict resolution, as well as business plan development or drip irrigation. Participating in those trainings improved communication within the communities.
The seminars also provided information to beneficiaries that has the potential to contribute to conflict prevention in the future. Many respondents in Uzbekistan mentioned that they learned that Kyrgyzstan was also suffering from water shortages which they were not aware of before. Instances of water cut offs had led to conflicts in the past and are likely to occur in the future. Beneficiaries were highly appreciative of their newly gained knowledge which may make them less susceptible to harmful narratives about the reasons for water scarcity.
There was some evidence that the cross-border community relations had been strengthened through increased communication. Many respondents reported that they were active in WhatsApp and Telegram groups that included community members from both countries. The exchange visits organized under the project brought local border community members together to exchange experiences and learn from each other. The planned creation of a new market in Kerben, Kyrgyzstan, has the potential to further strengthen those new relationships through regular interactions on the sidelines of the market.
Younger women with small children, that would fall into the youth category of 18 to 28-year-olds, mentioned childcare as a challenge for participation in activities away from home. Some were not able to participate in the month-long IT trainings organized in Namangan, Uzbekistan, as their home and childcare duties would have to be covered by another family member. They were not given authorization to leave the house for such a long period.
This reflects one of the biggest challenges of this project: the participation of youth from the border communities. Multiple reports highlighted that youth in these border villages were not easily mobilized. Most young women under the age of 28 were busy with young children and household duties. Young men were mostly absent, either busy herding livestock, working in bigger cities or abroad. As a mitigation measure, the project’s activities were opened to a broader group of youth from other regions as well as university students. However, this was in contrast with the original selection strategy to attract young people from the district level.
Project activities targeting young people were IT acceleration programmes, an agricultural hackathon, participation in fairs and exchange visits with youth from neighbouring country. These events took place in three stages: selection, training, and awarding of cash prices or notebooks for their business ideas. As part of the trainings, efforts were made to teach participants business skills, support promising ideas by providing funding and technical assistance, and establish connections between experienced entrepreneurs and programme participants through mentoring. As a result, a networking platform between women/youth of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan was created. Project participants received information about agricultural machinery, cultivation methods and soil fertilization. The Evaluation Team did not have the opportunity to speak with participants of those trainings directly and relied on the reporting from implementing partners and the project management team.
Through these exchange visits, young people have had the opportunity to experience each other’s cultures, build personal connections and dispel stereotypes. By fostering understanding and promoting cooperation, this initiative laid the foundations for strengthened interest to cooperate and exchange in the region. The dire situation of young people in both countries – characterized by limited education, vocational and employment opportunities – made the selected participants very receptive of the IT trainings, business development classes and exchange visits.
© FAO/Vyacheslav Oseledko
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
The conclusions are based on findings that emerged from the data collected and analysed by the Evaluation Team.
Conclusion 2. The project responded to the needs of the beneficiaries. It addressed the demands that were identified in the needs assessment and in the “conflict sensitivity clinics” carried out during the inception phase of the project. The demands included creation of employment opportunities for women and youth, addressing patriarchal gender norms, as well as giving IT training to youth participants. Stakeholders appreciated the combination of economic and environmental activities: learning about mitigation and adaptation measures to deal with increasing water scarcity issues.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusion 7. The project design underestimated the barriers and constraints to participation faced by young men and women from the border communities. The difficulty experienced by the project team in mobilizing youth and women beneficiaries reflects their coping mechanisms with the bleak situation in their villages. For some young people this means getting married and having children at an early age; for others, pursuing education or trying to find work opportunities in the bigger cities or, for a larger group, in labour migration abroad. As a result, the young people remaining in the border areas are tied up with household and childcare duties, taking kettle to pastures and working in agriculture. As it proved difficult to mobilize them for youth-focused activities, the project team adapted to the situation and expanded their outreach to a wider group of participants.
Recommendations for future interventions supporting peacebuilding in the region
© FAO/Sergey Kozmin
Lesson 1. Operational: Small changes can have a big impact. Many of the project activities were not par- ticularly innovative or groundbreaking, but they influenced peoples’ lives by contributing to generating additional economic benefits. For example, replacing the mechanic hand-operated dairy processing ma- chine by an electric one increased the beneficiary’s production by ten times.
Lesson 2. Operational: Integrating change into people’s daily life enhanced participation of rural women in project activities. The fact that the members of the SHGs could work out of their homes enabled even women with children to participate, as the work was not disrupting their household and childcare duties. This is a good example of grassroots level changes that have a positive effect on rural women’s lives. However, those activities that required more time or resource commitment (such as traveling to a regional centre for an IT intensive course) left out young women without childcare alternatives.
Lesson 3. Operational: Combining multiple purposes into one activity increases probability of success. The model of the SHGs served multiple purposes: they provided a platform for women to engage in eco- nomic activities according to their talents and interests and, at the same time, reduced the social isolation of women in the communities. Finally, they served as an accountability mechanism and support group.
Lesson 4. Operational: Participatory planning approaches should be adopted to avoid pitfalls during proj- ect implementation. The implementation of participatory assessment methods is key to avoid low partic- ipation rates or even lack of engagement of target groups, as they allow to identify and address partici- pants’ constraints to participation and to raise the value of the programme’s benefits to the participants.
Lesson 5. Strategic: Creating a safe space to discuss sensitive issues early on helps avoid the negative impact of a project. Conflict sensitivity clinics are a good practice to bring key stakeholders together and think through conflict sensitivity risks that a project could face. It would be ideal to hold them at a very early stage of a project, so that the recommendations made can be fed back into the project workplan and the monitoring, evaluation, adaptation and learning framework.
Bibliography
References
Dzhuraev, Shairbek/Tolipov & Farkhod. 2021. Needs assessment for cross-border cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Rome, FAO.
Elnura, K. 2021. UNFPA Youth Situation analysis. New York, United States of America, UNFPA https:// kyrgyzstan.unfpa.org/en/publications/youth-situational-analysis
FAO. 2016. National Gender Profile of Agricultural and Rural Livelihoods - Kyrgyz Republic. Country Gender Assessment Series. Ankara. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/1cf4c70a-c82c- 4dbc-9bb8-170f9fef9176/content
FAO. 2021. Global Evaluation Brief: Joint Programme on Rural Women’s Economic Empowerment. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/826ec604-827c-4c1c-93ea-903eb3f2078e
FAO. 2022a. Operationalizing pathways to sustaining peace in the context of Agenda 2030 – A how-to guide. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/974b9bd4-e496-4802-adef- ce8da45f2156/content
FAO. 2022b. Baseline report Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek. Internal document.
FAO. 2022c. Baseline study Uzbekistan. Tashkent. Internal document.
FAO. 2023. Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Final report of the project. Rome.
FAO. 2024. Shared prosperity through cooperation in border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Final progress report. Rome. Internal document.
Imanaliyeva, A. 2023. Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan complete border delimitation process. The two countries hope improved ties will massively boost bilateral trade to $2 billion annually. In: Eurasianet (27 January 2023). [Cited 6 May 2024]. https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-complete-border-delimitation-process
Micklewright, J. and Marnie, S. 2005. Targeting Social Assistance in a Transition Economy: The Mahallas in Uzbekistan. Social Policy and Administration, 39 (4), 431-447. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ j.1467-9515.2005.00448.x
OECD. 2017. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278219-en
Patscher-Hellbeck, K. 2021. Strategic Peacebuilding Review: PBF portfolio in Kyrgyzstan 2018-2020. New York, United States of America, UN. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org.peacebuilding/ files/documents/synthesis_review_kyrgyzstan_2018-2020.pdf
PBF & DPPA. 2023. The Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) Project Evaluation Checklist. Last Updated: September 2023. New York, United States of America. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/ www.un.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/pbf_project_evaluation_checklist-english.pdf
PBF. 2024. PBF Catalytic Effect Guidelines. New York, United States of America. https://www.un.org/ peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/pbf_catalytic_effect_guidelines_ final_03-20-24.pdf
UN Kyrgyz Republic. 2023. United Nations Common Country Analysis for the Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek. https://kyrgyzstan.un.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/ENG%20UN%20Common%20country%20 analysis%20for%20the%20KG-2023.pdf
UNICEF. 2020. Promoting Kyrgyzstan’s youth cohesion and interaction towards Uzbekistan (2019-2020). Inception report. Paris. https://www.unicef.org/kyrgyzstan/media/6941/file/Evaluation%20of%20 UNICEF,%20UNFPA,%20UNDP%20project%20%E2%80%9CPromoting%20Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%99s%20 youth%20cohesion%20and%20interaction%20towards%20Uzbekistan%E2%80%9D%20(2019-2020).pdf
United Nations Evaluation Group. 2016. Norms and Standards for Evaluation. New York, United States of America. https://www.unevaluation.org/sites/default/files/file_uploads/ UNEGNormsStandardsforEvaluation_English-2017_1914_11512579289962.pdf
Vinokurov, E. (ed.), Ahunbaev, A., Chuyev, S., Adakhayev, A., Sarsembekov, T. 2023. Efficient Irrigation and Water Conservation in Central Asia. Reports and Working Papers 23/4. Almaty, Eurasian Development Bank.
World Bank, United Nations, United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. 2021. Central Asia & Afghanistan Border Areas: Regional Risk and Resilience Assessment Summary of Findings. Washington, DC, London. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099330012232131334/ pdf/P1752340b67521097092610c048ec6641f8.pdf
Zhussipbek, G., Nagayeva, Z. 2021. Human rights of daughters-in-law (kelins) in Central Asia: harmful traditional practices and structural oppression. Central Asian Survey, 40(2): 222-241.
Additional resources
Ernstorfer, A. 2023. Synthesis Review of UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) 2021–2022 Evaluations and Evaluative Exercises. New York, United States of America, UN. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org. peacebuilding/files/documents/synthesis_review_pbf_2021-2022.pdf
FAO. 2019. The Programme Clinic. Designing Conflict Sensitive Interventions. Approaches to working in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. A facilitation guide. Rome.
FAO. 2021. Context Analysis related to renewable natural resources in Osh and Jalal-Abad Oblasts. Rome.
Kazakhbaeva, E. 2021. Youth Situation analysis. New York, United States of America, UNFPA. https:// kyrgyzstan.unfpa.org/en/publications/youth-situational-analysis
Appendix 1. People interviewed
Surname | Name | Institution/Country | Responsibility | Position | Date of interview |
Heine | Tim | PBF | PBF Monitoring and Evaluation Manager | 19 January | |
Priestley | Phil | FAO headquarters | Project Design and implementation | LTO | 14 February and 15 May |
Bouslama | Aicha | PBF | Project Officer | Associate Programme Officer | 15 February |
Gribaudo | Deborah | PBF | M&E Officer | M&E Officer | 15 February |
Khujaeva | Nargiza | FAO UZ | Project implementation | Project Manager | 2 April |
Grawe | Antje | UN | Co-chair of Steering Committee | Resident Coordinator Kyrgyzstan | 11 April |
Bapaev | Kuvatbek | FAO Kyrgyzstan | Acting Deputy Representative | 12 April | |
Toktomametova | Jyldyz | FAO Kyrgyzstan | Project implementation | Project Manager | 12 April |
Kamchybekov | Aisuluu | FAO Kyrgyzstan | Project implementation | Gender specialist | 12 April |
Mambetov | Omurbek | FAO Kyrgyzstan | Project implementation | Agronomist | 12 April |
Kaalykova | Gulnaz | FAO Kyrgyzstan | M&E Officer | M&E Specialist | 12 April and 13 May |
Egemberdiev | Abdymalik | Kyrgyz Jaiyty - National Pasture Association | Implementing partner | Director | 13 April |
Usubaliev | Baibek | Kyrgyz Jaiyty - National Pasture Association | Implementing partner | Pasture Expert | 13 April |
Shabdanova | Tajykan | FTI | Implementing partner | Director | 13 April |
Fumagalli | Marc | PBF Secretariat | Donor liaison | Peace & Development Adviser Kyrgyzstan | 13 April |
Ermatov | Gulzhigit | PBF Secretariat | Donor liaison | Peace & Development Officer Kyrgyzstan | 13 April |
Kainazarov | Baktybek | UNFPA Kyrgyzstan | Project implementation | Head of Office | 13 April |
Tilebaldieva | Kiyal | CARD | Implementing partner | Director | 13 April |
Shamiev | Azamat | Ministry of Agriculture Kyrgyzstan | FAO Focal Point | Chief specialist | 15 April |
Bakyt uulu | Chynybai | Government company Agro smart Kyrgyzstan | Partner | Director | 15 April |
Kalmatova | Sanobar | Mangyt/Aravan District, Kyrgyzstan | Beneficiary | Leader of SHG | 16 April |
Surname | Name | Institution/Country | Responsibility | Position | Date of interview |
Jusupova | Roza | Mangyt/Aravan region, Kyrgyzstan | Beneficiary | Leader of SHG | 16 April |
Orunbaev | Sherali | Mangyt/Aravan region, Kyrgyzstan | Beneficiary | Head of pasture committee | 16 April |
Musaev | Arzybek | Mangyt/Aravan region, Kyrgyzstan | Local government partner | Head of village Toloikon | 16 April |
Uldashev | Bobur | Marhamat/Andijan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Hokim | 17 April |
Maradjapova | Olmahon | Qorabogich/Andijan region, Uzbekistan | Implementing partner | Deputy of Women Council | 17 April |
Urinboev | Alischer | Qorabogich/Andijan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Chairman of the Mahalla Committee | 17 April |
Yuldashev | Saidkamol | Qorabogich/Andijan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Assistant to the Khokim for the Mahalla Karabogich | 17 April |
Mansurova | Saida | Qorabogich/Andijan region, Uzbekistan | Beneficiary | A farm with milk processing | 17 April |
Nazarbekov | Baiysh | Kajar, Jalal-Abad region, Kyrgyzstan | Local government partner | Head of Aiyl Okmoty | 18 April |
Orolbaev | Sabyr | Olon-Bulak, Jalal-Abad region, Kyrgyzstan | Local government partner | Head of Kara-Tobo village | 18 April |
Kurbanov | Asan | Olon-Bulak, Jalal-Abad region, Kyrgyzstan | Beneficiary | Head of Aksy Pasture Committee | 18 April |
Kamchybek uulu | Shekerbek | Olon-Bulak, Jalal-Abad region, Kyrgyzstan | Local government partner | Head of Aiyl Okmoty | 18 April |
Saidahmedov | Muradkhon | Kasansai, Namangan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Head of the Department of Agriculture and Water Management | 19 April |
Juraeva | Dilnoza | Qayroki, Namangan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Chairman of the Mahalla Committee | 19 April |
Abduvakhidov | Djumabay | Qayroki, Namangan region, Uzbekistan | Beneficiary | A new greenhouse user | 19 April |
Tashpulatov | Fahriddin | Obodon, Namangan region, Uzbekistan | Local government partner | Head of the Mahalla Committee | 19 April |
Tolipov | Farkhod | Tashkent, Uzbekistan | Co-author or Border Needs Assessment | Researcher | 20 April |
Umarov | Sherzod | FAO Uzbekistan | Project implementation | FAO Assistant Representative in Uzbekistan | 22 April |
Vidal-Bruce | Consuelo | UN | Stakeholder | UN Resident Coordinator in Uzbekistan | 22 April |
Isroiljon | Ministry of Agriculture of Uzbekistan | National government partner | Head of the Department of Food Security | 22 April |
Surname | Name | Institution/Country | Responsibility | Position | Date of interview |
Akhmadjanova | Adiba | Association of Agrarian Women | Implementing partner | Head | 22 April |
Akhmadaliev | Akmal | UNFPA Uzbekistan | Project implementation | Project Manager | 22 April |
Zafari | Khurshid | National Social Protection Agency | Project design and implementation | Former Project Coordinator UNFPA Uzbekistan | 22 April |
Jackson | Julius | FAO headquarters | Conflict and Peace Unit Lead | 3 May | |
Suiunova | Gulbarchyn | Enactus Kyrgyzstan | Implementing partner | Director | 12 May |
Abdulganiyev | Kurtmolla | UN RCO Kazakhstan | Project Design | Former Peace and Development Adviser in Kyrgyzstan | 12 May |
Zakirova | Madina | Digital City Technopark | Implementing partner | Specialist | 13 May |
Appendix 2. Evaluation matrix
Evaluation criteria and questions | Subquestions | Indicators | Data sources | Data collection methods |
Relevance | ||||
EQ 1: To what extent was the project design aligned with the strategic peacebuilding priorities of the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan? | Did the intervention relate in a meaningful way to key factors and actors of conflict or peace (conflict analysis)? Women/Youth: Are there any linkages between the project and the national action plans on the Women, Youth, Peace and Security (WYPS) agendas? Climate: Are there any linkages between the project and the national adaption plan in terms of benchmarks and indicators? Were outputs consistent with the objectives of reducing or preventing conflict? | Extent to which the national peacebuilding strategies relate to the local peacebuilding interventions of the project Extent to which the outputs are designed to address conflict factors and relevant actors | Government strategies UN frameworks Project documents Conflict/Context analysis Needs assessments Context monitoring tool Project document | Desk review Key informant interviews (KIIs) with programme staff |
EQ 2: To what extent were the project objectives relevant to the needs of the beneficiary communities and women and youth in terms of increasing social cohesion and economic interaction? | Were these factors and actors validated with (community- level) stakeholders? Was the project well-timed to address a conflict factor or capitalize on a specific window of opportunity? | Correlation between the issues and needs raised by direct and indirect beneficiaries, and the logic of the project interventions. Number of people from vulnerable groups, foremost women and youth, consulted on or associated with the drafting and design of the project. Extent to which the beneficiaries feel the project activities were relevant and accessible to them and others. Analysis of the timeliness in addressing the link between the objectives of the project and the political situation in the respective countries. | Needs assessments Conflict sensitivity clinics | Desk Review KIIs with beneficiaries Focus group discussions (FGDs) |
Coherence | ||||
EQ 3: Is the project coherent with other relevant initiatives and programmes in the Central Asia region and/ or with relevant governmental strategies? To what extent were there synergies and complementarities between different elements of the project (internal coherence)? | To what extent were there synergies and complementarities between different elements of the project (internal coherence)? | Level of alignment with UN and government priorities in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Level of alignment of project outputs | Project document PBF portfolio in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan | Desk review KIIs with programmatic staff and headquarters |
Evaluation criteria and questions | Subquestions | Indicators | Data sources | Data collection methods |
Did the two implementing agencies truly deliver together beyond joint project design or periodic coordination? Did the programme complement, duplicate, or undermine the work of others? | Level of coordination and cooperation between FAO and UNFPA | Coordination minutes | ||
Effectiveness | ||||
EQ 4: To what extent were the project objectives achieved? | Did the project activities contribute to enhancing cross- border (environmental and socioeconomic) cooperation between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan? Did the project activities contribute to strengthening the capacities of local authorities and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) to promote the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies and practices? Were the creation of artificial glaciers and electric fences effective in supporting degradation of remote pasture areas and did it provide people of Kashka-Suu with efficient water? To what extent did the project strengthen beneficiaries’ resilience to climate change effects and resource-driven conflicts? Peacebuilding aspects: To what extent did the introduction of climate-smart agriculture practices and technologies contribute to reducing resource-driven conflicts? To what extent did the creation and/or strengthening of common platforms contribute to promoting economic cooperation and social cohesion between cross- border communities and local authorities? Did individual level change translate into socio-political change? Were there any unintended results (positive or negative)? | Number and variety of economic initiatives involving cooperation between women and youth of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Share of interviewed youth, parents and local communities who display support towards diversity and youth led initiatives Number of cross-border sustainable business project plans between SHGs as result of joint meetings of SHGs between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Number of group development plans updated in Kyrgyzstan and launched in Uzbekistan as a result of exchange visits Number of cross-border entrepreneurship initiatives supported through small grant facility. Number of business plans by acceleration programme participants supported by investors and financial institutions Number of women and youth- led entrepreneurs engaged in collaborative exchanges (platforms) between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (including ENACTUS and acceleration exchange programmes; agrofairs and handicraft festivals, exhibitions, etc.) Examples of priority issues raised by women and youth before the local government transferred into projects/plans/budgetary commitments by local self- government (LSG) bodies Assessment of the level of change achieved through the project’s activities | Progress reports Endline survey LOP, minutes, video, agreements between participants, List of platforms with number of members, local development plans, endline survey | Desk review KIIs and FGDs |
EQ 5: To what extent did the introduction of climate-smart agriculture practices and technologies contribute to reducing resource- driven conflicts? | Level of clarity of the distribution of project areas between the UN agencies according to specific competence and mandate | KIIs with FAO and UNFPA staff PBF Secretariat | ||
Evaluation criteria and questions | Subquestions | Indicators | Data sources | Data collection methods |
EQ 6: Did the cross- border nature of the project lead to better relations, increased business and employment opportunities, and improved multistakeholder cross border partnerships? | ||||
Efficiency | ||||
EQ 7: To what extent has the project been implemented efficiently and cost- effectively? | How does the project cost/ time versus output/outcomes equation compare to that of similar projects? | Degree of satisfaction of implementing staff and cooperation partners about coordination among project implementers and partners Occurrences of duplication Share of activities implemented within planned time frame Costs and time span related to the imple mentation mechanisms of the project compared to other projects | Budget reports Project documents Monitoring reports Other projects with cross-border, gender and youth, environmental peacebuilding components | Desk review KIIs with project staff and partners |
EQ 8: To what extent has the management been able to adapt to any changing conditions to maintain and improve the efficiency of project implementation? | Was the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan system efficient? Was the information from the M&E system appropriately used to make timely decisions and foster learning and adaptation during project implementation? | Analysis of specificity and clarity of indicators with respect to the measured outputs and outcomes Assessment of project’s team decision-making during implementation period Number of examples of reaction and adaptation of action according to monitoring findings | M&E plan | Desk review KIIs with project staff and partners |
Sustainability | ||||
EQ 9: To what extent did the project contribute to long-term institutional, environmental, and social sustainability? | Were mechanisms put in place to ensure the continuity of project activities beyond its completion? (For example: artificial glaciers, business projects: Did participation in the programme help develop business ideas?) | Instances of plans expressed by interviewed stakeholders to continue cooperation plans | KIIs with project staff, government representatives, local stakeholders | |
EQ 10: What is the level of engagement and ownership of the government(s), cross-border communities, and their organizations/ associations? | Level of consensus on principles of diversity, inclusion, interethnic and cross-border cooperation among interviewed stakeholders and in social media | Project reports Media coverage | KIIs with project staff, government representatives, local stakeholders | |
Evaluation criteria and questions | Subquestions | Indicators | Data sources | Data collection methods |
EQ 11: Did the project include an exit strategy agreed upon by key partners to ensure sustainability of results? | Are there indications that the peacebuilding outcome will be maintained after donor support has ended? What are the main factors that may affect the sustainability of project benefits? To what extent have relevant/ appropriate measures been identified or applied to prevent or mitigate them? | Level and source of financial support for the future after the project has ended; proof of engagement of international partners, government and other key stakeholders to sustain the achieved results after the project has ended Assessment of risk factors of project results | Project documentation | KIIs with government partners, international partners, and stakeholders Desk review |
Conflict-sensitivity | ||||
EQ 12: Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict sensitivity? Were the implementing agencies’ internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict sensitive approach? | To what extent were the risks associated with conflict dynamics factored into the project’s approach and implementation monitoring? Were the implementing agencies’ internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict sensitive approach? Were conflict sensitivity risks identified within the project document continuously monitored throughout implementation? Was the project responsible for any unintended negative impacts? Mitigation? | Level of integration of conflict sensitivity issues during design process Level of staff awareness of conflict sensitivity issues in early project implementation phase Level of continued conflict sensitivity awareness throughout project implementation Evidence of project’s negative effects | Conflict sensitivity clinics, Project document Conflict monitoring system Conflict/Context analysis | |
Catalytic | ||||
EQ 13: Was the project financially and programmatically catalytic? | Did the government(s) undertake to ensure provision of funds and/or human resources to ensure the continuation of project- supported activities? Other donors? Does the project include any climate funding (e.g. from the Green Climate Fund or the Adaption Fund) as part of its catalytic effect? | Analysis of the link between this project and the planning/ financing of other follow-up projects | Project documentation Endline survey | Desk review KIIs with key stakeholders, including PBF Secretariat, project staff, government representatives |
Innovation | ||||
EQ 14: To what extent has the project promoted innovations aligned with stakeholders’ needs or challenges? | Can lessons be drawn to inform similar approaches elsewhere? | Analysis of the implementation plan of the project | Project documentation Conflict sensitivity clinics Needs assessments | Desk review KIIs with programme staff |
Evaluation criteria and questions | Subquestions | Indicators | Data sources | Data collection methods |
Gender & Youth | ||||
EQ 15: Were gender equality and youth empowerment considerations reflected in project design and implementation? | Were gender equality and youth empowerment considerations taken into account in project implementation and staff management? Have gender relations been affected by the project, in terms of: i) equal decision- making; ii) equal access to productive resources; iii) equal access to goods, services and markets; and iv) reduction of women’s work burden | Level of integration of gender and youth issues into project document and for selection of target beneficiaries Level of intentional hiring of young and female candidates as project staff Proportion of women reporting empowerment support from male community members as part of MenEngage programme | Conflict sensitivity clinics Gender analysis, project reports Agenda, list of participants, feedback and recommendations from participants Endline survey | KIIs with project staff, headquarters Desk review FGDs |
EQ 16: To what extent did the targeting approach reproduce or overcome traditional norms or practices that exclude crucial stakeholders such as women, young people, persons with disabilities, and stakeholders? | Were special measures taken to accommodate specific groups to ensure their participation (for example, childcare for young mothers or conducting activities in venues accessible to people with disabilities)? | Level of effort to include a broad selection of beneficiaries Mention of changed behaviour in semi-structured interviews | Project documents | KIIs with beneficiaries KIIs with programmatic staff, FGDs |
Lessons learned | ||||
EQ 17: What knowledge has been generated from project results and experiences, that have the potential for replication? | KIIs with programme staff, implementing partners | |||
Appendix 3. Field mission agenda
Day | Events |
12 April, Fri |
|
13 April, Sat |
|
14 April, Sun |
|
15 April, Mon |
|
16 April, Tue | Morning:
|
17 April, Wed | Morning: Travel to and site visits in Qorabogich (UZB)
|
18 April, Thu | Morning:
|
Day | Events |
19 April, Fri | Morning:
|
20 April, Sat | Travel to Tashkent by car |
21 April, Sun | Morning:
|
22 April, Mon | Meetings with Uzbekistan stakeholders:
|
23 April, Tue | Presentation of preliminary findings at Wyndham Hotel Tashkent |
24 April, Wed | Departure from Tashkent |
Annex
Annex 1. Terms of reference http://www.fao.org/3/ccXXXXen/UNJP_KYR_026_PBF_UNJP_UZB_014_PBF_Annex_1.pdf
Office of Evaluation evaluation@fao.org www.fao.org/evaluation
CD5615EN/1/06.25
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy