Mid-term evaluation: Adaptation fund project on climate resilience of farming

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Uzbekistan
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
06/2018
Completion Date:
03/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terms of Reference.pdf tor English 257.38 KB Posted 48
Download document MTR-AF-Uzbekistan-Report-FINAL2_JB_260418.pdf report English 2006.50 KB Posted 68
Download document MTR-AF-Uzbekistan-Report-FINAL2_JB_260418.pdf report English 2006.50 KB Posted 39
Title Mid-term evaluation: Adaptation fund project on climate resilience of farming
Atlas Project Number: 66434
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Uzbekistan
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2018
Planned End Date: 06/2018
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.4. Scaled up action on climate change adaptation and mitigation across sectors which is funded and implemented
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding:
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 23,126
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: Yes
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Jean-Joseph Bellamy International consultant JJ@Bellamy.net
Saida Yusupova National consultant UZBEKISTAN
Jean-Joseph Bellamy International consultant JJ@Bellamy.net
Saida Yusupova National consultant saidayusupova@gmail.com UZBEKISTAN
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Centre of Hydro-meteorological Service
Countries: UZBEKISTAN
Lessons
Findings
1.

a) The project has been very relevant for Uzbekistan; even more so since the recently reforms of the agriculture sector.

The AF project is well aligned with national priorities, national policies and legal instruments, particularly the priorities identified this past year (the 2017-2021 five priorities areas and the Aral Sea programme 2017-2021) as well as with the reforms of the agriculture sector currently underway following several key government Decrees adopted in 2017. The project provides resources to address the barriers identified at the outset of the project and should contribute to the development of the resilience to climate change of farming and pastoral communities in the Karakalpakstan region. It is also well aligned with the AF results framework. The project is part of the UN partnership with the government of Uzbekistan, which, under UNDAF, supports the national priorities identified by the government of Uzbekistan with a focus on the most vulnerable populations in Uzbekistan.


2.

b) It is a complex project strategy with a lack of clarity and logic to understand how planned activities will reach the expected results and particularly the targets.

Despite that the overall strategy is a clear response to national priorities, when reviewing the entire logical “chain of results” Activities è Outputs è Outcomes è Objective, the PRF quickly becomes complex, particularly when reviewing outputs, indicators and targets set for measuring the progress of the project. The outputs were, in most cases, identified as deliverables with, in some cases, targets embedded in the output statements. With ambitious targets and the current context of the agriculture sector in Uzbekistan, it is difficult to know how results from project supported activities will reach these targets. The project document does not provide a useful “blue print” for the project team to guide the implementation of the project.


3.

c) The implementation of the project progresses unevenly.

The project is making progress and it has 2.5 more years of implementation left. It has made good progress under outcome 1 and 4 and it is anticipated that it will meet its targets under these two outcomes. However, regarding outcome 2 & 3, the focus is, currently, more on piloting and constituting a “catalog of adaptation measures” adapted to the Karakalpakstan region and less on an “outreach model” to reach out to thousands of farmers and communities in the region. In the meantime, when considering the project resources and the current context, the best the project can do under these two outcomes is to demonstrate adaptation measures and pilot an “outreach model” targeting farmers, dekhan farmers and small plot owners and promoting climate change adaptation measures. The targets under outcome 2 and 3 are too ambitious and will not be reached.


4.

d) The “outreach model” planned to be established under output 1.4 to reach out to 40,000 dekhan farmers is insufficient.

The logic of the strategy to reach out to farming and pastoral communities is mostly through output 1.4 that is to establish a science-based extension services for the farming communities. However, this output has a very limited total budget of USD 58,000 (1.2% of the AF grant). It is completely insufficient and it will not provide the resources needed to end up with a viable and well performing extension service, which should “connect” with farming and pastoral communities in Karakalpakstan.


5.

e) The project is addressing the four barriers limiting the development of the agriculture sector in Karakalpakstan and its adaptation to climate change.

Removing the identified barriers is critical for the development of the agricultural sector in Karakalpakstan and also for the success of the project that is to promote climate change adaptation. The project is timely and has been contributing to the removal of these barriers. The more effective the project will be, the less barriers will still limit the development of the agricultural sector in the region. It is anticipated that during the second part of the project, the project will use its “catalog of adaptation measures” and reach out to farming and pastoral communities to promote the adoption of these measures.


6.

f) The management arrangements are adequate but the management structure will need to be adapted to be more present in the Karakalpakstan region in the near future.

The management arrangements are adequate for the implementation of the project, including a good support from Uzhydromet, the National Implementing Partner. The project is implemented partly from the Tashkent office (outcome 1 and 4) and partly from the Nukus office (outcome 2 and 3). However, as the pace of activities under outcome 2 and 3 increases, the project management structure needs to be reviewed and provide a greater presence of the project in the Karakalpakstan region. This management change has been discussed at the project board level and a decision was made at the December 2016 meeting to formally change the position of the project manager of the UN Joint Programme based in Nukus into a joint position including the responsibilities to coordinate activities under outcomes 2 and 3. This change is being implemented since January 2017.


7.

g) The project set up a good structure to engage stakeholders.

Following good consultations with stakeholders undertaken during the design of the project, a good structure to engage stakeholders during the implementation of the project has been developed. It includes 2 inter-agency working groups that were formally established by government resolutions – one based in Tashkent and one in Nukus - and 5 initiatives groups – one in each pilot district. This structure provides the project with an excellent mechanism to link national decision makers with regional and district decision makers and ultimately with farming and pastoral communities. Meetings and workshops are taking place within these bodies to disseminate knowledge.


8.

h) The disbursement of the AF grant is slow and it is estimated that the grant will not be expended by the end of project in May 2020.

As of the end of September 2017, total project expenditures amount to about USD 1.06M representing only 21% of the AF grant versus 56% of the project timeline. So far, 54% of the expenditures were expended on outcome one, 14% on outcome two, 4% on outcome three, 8% on outcome four and 20% on project management. When compared to the budget for each outcome, outcome 2 and 3 low expenditures are confirming the limited progress in these areas with respectively 11% and 2.5% of their budget expended so far. In the meantime, the project management expenditures stand at 20% of the total expended so far; this is high and it will need to decrease during the second phase of the implementation. Finally, when assessing the “project burning rate” it is doubtful that the remaining AF grant (USD 3.93) will be expended during the remaining 32 months of implementation; the project monthly expenditures would need to increase five-fold.


9.

i) There is a complex set of indicators and targets to measure the performance of the project and some ambitious targets will not be achieved by the end of the project.

The set of 15 indicators and targets to measure the performance of the project is complex to understand and ambitious; it is complemented by a large set of yearly targets. The set of 15 indicators monitor the project at the output level and focus on quantitative results. However, the contribution of the project may not be measurable only in strict quantitative terms. With a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators, the M&E system would have also provided qualitative findings measuring the capacities developed. Nevertheless, the M&E framework provides adequate monitoring and reporting information. The key challenge in this area is that some targets are much too ambitious and they will not be met by the project by May 2020. It is not clear how the project can reach out to 40,000 dekhan farmers to adopt adaptation measures, invest in greenhouses covering 20,000 ha, establish 10 cooperatives with a total number of 20,000 members and plant 70,000ha.

 


10.

j) Knowledge management and communication is “embedded” in the strategy of the project; it provides tools and methods to disseminate knowledge to stakeholders/beneficiaries.

Knowledge management and communication is part of the expected results of the AF project. As such it is monitored through the M&E system in place which measures the performance of the project. With its information strategy, the project is now equipped with tools and methods to collect, structure, package and disseminate knowledge on climate change adaptation measures adapted to the Karakalpakstan region. It provides the project team with instruments to manage knowledge and communicate with stakeholders and beneficiaries. Currently, activities under this outcome are focusing much on raising awareness about adaptation measures. It is anticipated that, as the project needs to reach out to farming and pastoral communities, activities under this component will focus more on the adoption of these measures particularly through appropriate capacity development activities.


11.

k) Project achievements should be sustained over the long-term.

The sustainability strategy presented in the project document is not fully convincing; particularly for achievements under outcome 2 and 3. It relies mostly on a potential uptake by beneficiaries of the adaptation measures that are being demonstrated in five districts. However, despite a not-so-convincing uptake of these best practices to replicate project achievements, those achievements that were demonstrated in the five pilot districts should be sustained over the long run. The implementation of these best practices should improve the livelihood of these farming and pastoral communities; hence they should be sustained by the beneficiaries of these piloted measures. The challenge resides with the replicability and scaling up of these adaptation measures after the project end.


Recommendations
1

It is recommended to analyze the new agriculture policy and legislation framework as well as the key programmes related to the project.

Recently, the government passed new Decrees to reform the agriculture sector, particularly strengthening its extension services and the roles and responsibilities of the Council of Farmers, which was changed to the Council of Farmers, Dekhan Farmers and Household Plot Owners. Additionally, this past year, the government adopted its “Strategy for Further Development 2017-2021” and also in 2017, the government of the Republic of Karakalpakstan approved the "State Programme for the Development of the Aral Sea 2017-2021”. These governmental new instruments are critical for the implementation of the project. The success of the project is mostly based on the adoption of adaptation measures by farming and pastoral communities in the Karakalpakstan region. It requires reaching out many farming and pastoral communities. The main approach to do that is through the development of a sustainable extension service and the capacity development of the Council of Farmers, Dekhan Farmers and Household Plot Owners, a government body linking policy makers with farmers/land users. A full review of these new instruments is needed, to assess how the project strategy fits within this new framework and how best the project can support these reforms within the context of the AF approved project strategy.

2

It is recommended to review the strategy of the project to emphasize the need to develop and pilot an “outreach model”.

In the first part of the project, the focus was much on piloting and constituting a “catalog of adaptation measures” adapted to the Karakalpakstan region and less on the development of an “outreach model” to reach out to thousands of farmers and communities in the region. Yet, 63% of the AF grant has been allocated to the adoption of climate resilient farming practices by farming and pastoral communities and the implementation of community-based landscape level adaptation measures for soil conservation and moisture retention. One strategy to reach out to these communities has been through output 1.4 that is to establish a science-based extension services for the farming communities. However, this output has a very limited total budget of USD 58,000 (1.2% of the AF grant). It is completely insufficient, and it will not provide the resources needed to end up with a viable and well performing extension service reaching out to thousands of farmers and that will bring change in these rural areas and improve their livelihoods.

It is recommended to fully review the strategy of the project and re-focus the project by building on the initial achievements under output 1.4 to develop an extended “outreach model”– an extension service – version that will be piloted with the support of the project in collaboration with the relevant national, regional and local institutions in the five pilot districts. The recommendation is to put the development of an extension service at the core of project activities moving forward. As the model is being implemented, capacities should be developed, including discussion with relevant institutions to institutionalize such service with corresponding resources, mandates, skills and knowledge for staff, etc. The aim would ultimately be setting up a sustainable extension service[1] as a link between policy and legislation making and farmers (practitioners) but also as a mechanism to increase the efficiency of farms while adapting to climate change and increase the standard of living of farming and pastoral communities. As part of developing a sustainable extension service, it should also include the review of financing needs for implementing some of these adaptation measures, particularly for Dekhan farmers. In relation to current development in Uzbekistan, micro-financing mechanisms should be considered as financing options.

 


[1] A good discussion on “understanding extension” can be found on the FAO website at http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0060e/T0060E03.htm#Extension%20and%20education and on the “role of extension services” on the IFAD website at https://www.ifad.org/topic/resource/tags/rainfed_agriculture/2088038

3

It is recommended to review any existing community-based sustainable land management practices and the mechanisms to promote these practices; particularly any extension service experiences in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia.

A central part of the project to ensure that farming and pastoral communities adopt adaptation measures is the establishment of an extension service. This is through such a service that promoting these measures can happen accompanied by appropriate training and knowledge transfer. It is also the mechanism for replicability and scaling up the appropriation of these adaptation measures to surrounding communities and possibly elsewhere in Uzbekistan. A recent government decree (No. PP-3318 of October 10, 2017) strengthened the role of the Council of Farmers as the mechanism to provide a comprehensive support to farmers, dekhan farms and household landowners in “production, processing, storage and sale of agricultural products, including the implementation of modern agro-technical activities”. Based on this decree, the Council of Farmers is becoming a key organization for the development of the agricultural sector in Uzbekistan. In the meantime, the project has been supporting the development of a science-based extension service for these same farmers to assist them in adopting adaptation measures. Currently 2 extension services are functional and 3 more are being established with the support of the project. Within this context, it is recommended to conduct a review of existing community-based sustainable land management practices for farmers and pastoralists in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia as well as a review of international best practices and the review of mechanisms – mostly extension services - to promote these practices to communities.

4

It is recommended to review and revised some targets to more achievable level

Most targets are too ambitious, including some targets embedded in output statements such as output 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1. These ambitious targets include: at least 40,000 Dekhan farmers have adopted climate resilient conservation agriculture practices and water saving irrigation practices on 80,000 ha; over 70,000 ha of arid land of Karakalpakstan is covered with saksaul and tamarix plantations; 40% of targeted dekhan farmers have established horticulture greenhouses on 20,000 ha of farms; at least 20,000 people organized in at least 10 cooperatives at the Khokimiyat and Makhalla levels. It is not clear how the project can have this reach, particularly when considering that there are no existing extension services in place to strengthen and that as part of its implementation strategy, the project also needs to establish such services. It is anticipated that the project will not meet these targets by May 2020.

At this point, one dilemma facing the project is to decide if it is better to reach out broadly to farming and pastoral communities in Karakalpakstan to raise their awareness on the need to adapt to climate change and what they can do about it or to focus more on demonstrating and piloting an extension service in smaller areas such as the current five pilot districts with the goal of maximizing the number of farming and pastoral communities adopting these measures in these areas; i.e. as opposed to a broader approach to raise awareness but less on the adoption (a change process) of adaptation measures. It is recommended to review carefully these targets within the strategic context of the project moving forward – particularly the focus on developing/piloting an extension service (see recommendation #1) - and identify appropriate and achievable targets by the end of the project. If targets are revised, some indicators in the “Result Tracker” of the PPRs will also need to be revised.

5

It is recommended to extend the project until the AF grant will be expended.

As of the end of September 2017, total project expenditures amount to about USD 1.06M representing only 21% of the AF grant versus 56% of the project timeline. When considering the average burning rate of the first 40 months of implementation of USD 26,420 per month and the remaining budget of USD 3.93M, it is doubtful that the AF grant will be fully expended by the end of the project in May 2020; the project monthly expenditures would need to increase five-fold. This low disbursement is partly due to the fact that this project had to face 2 critical delays: one at the start-up phase due to a longer than expected time to sign the project document; and the second delay estimated at 6 months due to the delayed transfer of the second tranche of the AF grant to UNDP Uzbekistan.

In the meantime, according to the “Adaptation Fund Policy fore Project/Programme Delay (Amended in October 2017)” – Article 3.1, the starting date of a project is the first day of the project’s inception workshop (Decision B.18/29)[1], which would be October 22, 2014 for this AF project. Moreover, according to Article 14 of this policy “an implementing entity may request for a project extension beyond the original completion date for up to 18 months for a concrete adaptation project if (i) no additional funds are required; (ii) the project’s originally approved scope will not change; and (iii) the entity provides reasons and justifications for the extension”. According to Article 13, a project extension must be approved by the AF Board and that any request for additional time must be done through the submission of a request for a time extension using the AF template appended to the policy. Finally, according to Article 12, any delays should be reported through the PPRs.

Considering the above, it is recommended to review the starting date according to the AF policy and report this in the next PPR. It is also recommended to extend the project for at least 6 to 9 months corresponding to the implementation delays occurred so far. However, the exact duration of the time extension should be decided closer to the termination date of the project. It is proposed to review the timeline during the last quarter of 2018 when more detailed financial information will be available, including the remaining budget from the AF grant and submit a time extension request to the AF by November 2018.

 


[1] AF Policy for Project/Programme Delay (Amended in October 2017) - Article 3.1: For concrete adaptation projects/programmes the Board decided to consider the start date the first day of the project/programme’s inception workshop (Decision B.18/29).

6

It is recommended to support Uzhydromet in making weather information and forecasts and climate change models available to farming and pastoral communities.

The project is making good progress under outcome 1; it is contributing to strengthen the capacity of Uzhydromet by investing in better equipment to collect weather data and by supporting the organization in developing weather forecast and models to assess climate change impacts. As per the World Meteorological Organization, investments in this area bring socio-economic benefits; all economic studies have consistently concluded with benefit-cost ratios greater than one. However, it is also clear that these services do not generate economic and social value unless users benefit from decisions as a result of the information provided. Therefore, in order to optimize the investments made in this area, it is recommended that the project focuses in making weather information and forecast and climate change models available to farming and pastoral communities (users). A feasibility study may be needed to assess the user needs related to weather information and to assess the potential bottlenecks that may exist to make this information readily available, such as public access to this type of information.

7

It is recommended to conduct a gender analysis in the five pilots.

Gender considerations were not included in the design of this project and no specific sections discuss gender aspects of the project in the project document. In the meantime, the project team reports gender disaggregated data in PPRs. One indicator is singularly targeting women: “Number of female lead horticulture greenhouses established” but no quantitative target is set for this indicator. Considering that the project is targeting different groups of farmers (commercial farmers, dekhan farmers and small plot owners), it is recommended that the project conducts a gender analysis in the pilot areas to better understand gender roles and gender issues in farming and pastoral communities. It is recommended to conduct this analysis sooner than later, to provide critical information for the development of greenhouses as anticipated in the strategy of the project.

8

It is recommended to organize “Open Farmers’ Days” on pilots to bring national and regional decision makers and farmers/pastoralists together, observing field results and exchanging knowledge.

The success of outcome 2 and 3 will depend mostly on the capacity of the project to reach out to farming and pastoral communities. Additionally, as a project it is crucial to build along the way the capacity of organizations such as Uzhydromet, Council of Farmers, local authorities, and also decision makers from ministries at regional and national levels. In addition to workshops and other training events, it is recommended to organize “Open Farmers’ Days”, where decision makers, local authorities, researchers, Council of Farmers representatives and of course farmers and pastoralists come together to visit, observe, exchange and share knowledge in the field. This is an excellent approach to acquire knowledge, build trust among stakeholders (farmers-local/regional organizations-national organizations), which should also lead to more adoption of climate change adaptation measures.

9

It confirms the Project Board decision to adapt the management structure ensuring more project presence in Karakalpakstan

Despite the current adequate management arrangements for the implementation of the project with an office in Tashkent focusing on outcome 1 and 4 and one office in Nukus focusing on outcome 2 and 3, it is expected that more project presence and effort is needed in the Karakalpakstan region in the near future to undertake more activities in the region, particularly reaching out to farmers and pastoralists. The Project Board has already reviewed this question and made the decision to change the current position of the project manager of the UN Joint Programme into a combined position taken also the responsibilities for coordinating the activities under outcome 2 and 3 of this project. The Reviewing Team confirm this decision that is being implemented since January 2017.

10

It is recommended to add three more risks to the risk log of the project and report their status yearly.

The review of the risk log revealed that the risks identified at the outset of the project are not comprehensive enough. They cover some good risk areas but the nature of this type of project has additional risks. It is recommended to add three (3) risks to the risk log of the project and report their respective status yearly through the PPRs. There are:

  • A change in political support for promoting and integrating adaptation measures into the agricultural sector – (low);
  • Insufficient capacity development and practical know-how within key state institutions and local authorities by the end of the project to allow sustainability of project achievements – (medium);

Implement legislative changes in a timely manner that are required to develop an adequate enabling environment for the promotion and use of adaptation measures – (low).

11

It is recommended to carefully monitor the project management expenditures, aiming to meet the target of the approved AF budget of 7.2% by the end of the project.

As of the end of September 2017, the ratio project management costs over total expenditures is about 20%. That is high and it needs to decrease to a more acceptable level. It is recommended to carefully monitor this ratio and implement measures to bring this ratio down to a more acceptable level aiming at meeting the ratio of 7.2% of total expenditures by the end of the project as per the approved AF budget.

1. Recommendation:

It is recommended to analyze the new agriculture policy and legislation framework as well as the key programmes related to the project.

Recently, the government passed new Decrees to reform the agriculture sector, particularly strengthening its extension services and the roles and responsibilities of the Council of Farmers, which was changed to the Council of Farmers, Dekhan Farmers and Household Plot Owners. Additionally, this past year, the government adopted its “Strategy for Further Development 2017-2021” and also in 2017, the government of the Republic of Karakalpakstan approved the "State Programme for the Development of the Aral Sea 2017-2021”. These governmental new instruments are critical for the implementation of the project. The success of the project is mostly based on the adoption of adaptation measures by farming and pastoral communities in the Karakalpakstan region. It requires reaching out many farming and pastoral communities. The main approach to do that is through the development of a sustainable extension service and the capacity development of the Council of Farmers, Dekhan Farmers and Household Plot Owners, a government body linking policy makers with farmers/land users. A full review of these new instruments is needed, to assess how the project strategy fits within this new framework and how best the project can support these reforms within the context of the AF approved project strategy.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Review new agriculture policy/programmes and newly established institutions/instruments legislation framework, and develop recommendations on sustainable extension service development and capacity building to support the reforms
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
1.2 Publish recommendations and disseminate among the project’s targeted groups and beneficiaries; and conduct round table to facilitate their adoption
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
2. Recommendation:

It is recommended to review the strategy of the project to emphasize the need to develop and pilot an “outreach model”.

In the first part of the project, the focus was much on piloting and constituting a “catalog of adaptation measures” adapted to the Karakalpakstan region and less on the development of an “outreach model” to reach out to thousands of farmers and communities in the region. Yet, 63% of the AF grant has been allocated to the adoption of climate resilient farming practices by farming and pastoral communities and the implementation of community-based landscape level adaptation measures for soil conservation and moisture retention. One strategy to reach out to these communities has been through output 1.4 that is to establish a science-based extension services for the farming communities. However, this output has a very limited total budget of USD 58,000 (1.2% of the AF grant). It is completely insufficient, and it will not provide the resources needed to end up with a viable and well performing extension service reaching out to thousands of farmers and that will bring change in these rural areas and improve their livelihoods.

It is recommended to fully review the strategy of the project and re-focus the project by building on the initial achievements under output 1.4 to develop an extended “outreach model”– an extension service – version that will be piloted with the support of the project in collaboration with the relevant national, regional and local institutions in the five pilot districts. The recommendation is to put the development of an extension service at the core of project activities moving forward. As the model is being implemented, capacities should be developed, including discussion with relevant institutions to institutionalize such service with corresponding resources, mandates, skills and knowledge for staff, etc. The aim would ultimately be setting up a sustainable extension service[1] as a link between policy and legislation making and farmers (practitioners) but also as a mechanism to increase the efficiency of farms while adapting to climate change and increase the standard of living of farming and pastoral communities. As part of developing a sustainable extension service, it should also include the review of financing needs for implementing some of these adaptation measures, particularly for Dekhan farmers. In relation to current development in Uzbekistan, micro-financing mechanisms should be considered as financing options.

 


[1] A good discussion on “understanding extension” can be found on the FAO website at http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0060e/T0060E03.htm#Extension%20and%20education and on the “role of extension services” on the IFAD website at https://www.ifad.org/topic/resource/tags/rainfed_agriculture/2088038

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 Develop an extended “outreach model”– an extension service – version; and pilot it in collaboration with the relevant national, regional and local institutions in the five pilot districts
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
2.2 Conduct discussion with relevant institutions to institutionalize extension service model findings with corresponding resources, mandates, skills and knowledge for staff, etc.
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
2.3 Review financing needs for implementing adaptation measures by particularly Dekhan farmers; and consider micro-financing mechanisms as an option
[Added: 2018/08/15]
Project team 2019/07 Not Initiated
3. Recommendation:

It is recommended to review any existing community-based sustainable land management practices and the mechanisms to promote these practices; particularly any extension service experiences in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia.

A central part of the project to ensure that farming and pastoral communities adopt adaptation measures is the establishment of an extension service. This is through such a service that promoting these measures can happen accompanied by appropriate training and knowledge transfer. It is also the mechanism for replicability and scaling up the appropriation of these adaptation measures to surrounding communities and possibly elsewhere in Uzbekistan. A recent government decree (No. PP-3318 of October 10, 2017) strengthened the role of the Council of Farmers as the mechanism to provide a comprehensive support to farmers, dekhan farms and household landowners in “production, processing, storage and sale of agricultural products, including the implementation of modern agro-technical activities”. Based on this decree, the Council of Farmers is becoming a key organization for the development of the agricultural sector in Uzbekistan. In the meantime, the project has been supporting the development of a science-based extension service for these same farmers to assist them in adopting adaptation measures. Currently 2 extension services are functional and 3 more are being established with the support of the project. Within this context, it is recommended to conduct a review of existing community-based sustainable land management practices for farmers and pastoralists in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia as well as a review of international best practices and the review of mechanisms – mostly extension services - to promote these practices to communities.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Conduct a review of existing community-based sustainable land management practices for farmers and pastoralists in Uzbekistan and in Central Asia
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
3.2 Review international best practices and mechanisms – mostly extension services
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
3.3 Develop recommendations on promotion the most applicable best practices to rural communities
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/03/05]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
4. Recommendation:

It is recommended to review and revised some targets to more achievable level

Most targets are too ambitious, including some targets embedded in output statements such as output 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1. These ambitious targets include: at least 40,000 Dekhan farmers have adopted climate resilient conservation agriculture practices and water saving irrigation practices on 80,000 ha; over 70,000 ha of arid land of Karakalpakstan is covered with saksaul and tamarix plantations; 40% of targeted dekhan farmers have established horticulture greenhouses on 20,000 ha of farms; at least 20,000 people organized in at least 10 cooperatives at the Khokimiyat and Makhalla levels. It is not clear how the project can have this reach, particularly when considering that there are no existing extension services in place to strengthen and that as part of its implementation strategy, the project also needs to establish such services. It is anticipated that the project will not meet these targets by May 2020.

At this point, one dilemma facing the project is to decide if it is better to reach out broadly to farming and pastoral communities in Karakalpakstan to raise their awareness on the need to adapt to climate change and what they can do about it or to focus more on demonstrating and piloting an extension service in smaller areas such as the current five pilot districts with the goal of maximizing the number of farming and pastoral communities adopting these measures in these areas; i.e. as opposed to a broader approach to raise awareness but less on the adoption (a change process) of adaptation measures. It is recommended to review carefully these targets within the strategic context of the project moving forward – particularly the focus on developing/piloting an extension service (see recommendation #1) - and identify appropriate and achievable targets by the end of the project. If targets are revised, some indicators in the “Result Tracker” of the PPRs will also need to be revised.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is partially supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Review corresponding final targets within the strategic context of the project moving forward with a particular focus particularly the focus on developing/piloting an extension service
[Added: 2018/08/15]
Project team 2019/07 Not Initiated
4.2 Identify appropriate and achievable targets for the end of the project
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/31]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated According to the guidelines (see reference), changes are not possible in case of AP because targets could be revised only in exceptional circumstances and up to the first PPR. AP has already submitted third PPR .That’s why only reformulation of targets is possible with new due data identified History
4.3 Revised the relevant indicators in the “Result Tracker” of the PPRs
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
5. Recommendation:

It is recommended to extend the project until the AF grant will be expended.

As of the end of September 2017, total project expenditures amount to about USD 1.06M representing only 21% of the AF grant versus 56% of the project timeline. When considering the average burning rate of the first 40 months of implementation of USD 26,420 per month and the remaining budget of USD 3.93M, it is doubtful that the AF grant will be fully expended by the end of the project in May 2020; the project monthly expenditures would need to increase five-fold. This low disbursement is partly due to the fact that this project had to face 2 critical delays: one at the start-up phase due to a longer than expected time to sign the project document; and the second delay estimated at 6 months due to the delayed transfer of the second tranche of the AF grant to UNDP Uzbekistan.

In the meantime, according to the “Adaptation Fund Policy fore Project/Programme Delay (Amended in October 2017)” – Article 3.1, the starting date of a project is the first day of the project’s inception workshop (Decision B.18/29)[1], which would be October 22, 2014 for this AF project. Moreover, according to Article 14 of this policy “an implementing entity may request for a project extension beyond the original completion date for up to 18 months for a concrete adaptation project if (i) no additional funds are required; (ii) the project’s originally approved scope will not change; and (iii) the entity provides reasons and justifications for the extension”. According to Article 13, a project extension must be approved by the AF Board and that any request for additional time must be done through the submission of a request for a time extension using the AF template appended to the policy. Finally, according to Article 12, any delays should be reported through the PPRs.

Considering the above, it is recommended to review the starting date according to the AF policy and report this in the next PPR. It is also recommended to extend the project for at least 6 to 9 months corresponding to the implementation delays occurred so far. However, the exact duration of the time extension should be decided closer to the termination date of the project. It is proposed to review the timeline during the last quarter of 2018 when more detailed financial information will be available, including the remaining budget from the AF grant and submit a time extension request to the AF by November 2018.

 


[1] AF Policy for Project/Programme Delay (Amended in October 2017) - Article 3.1: For concrete adaptation projects/programmes the Board decided to consider the start date the first day of the project/programme’s inception workshop (Decision B.18/29).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Develop and submit the Project Progress Report for fourth tranche
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/31]
Project team, SDC, RTS in IRH 2019/03 Completed The PPR report has been technically cleared by UNDP-GEF for submission and submitted by the IRH to UNDP-GEF HQs for the formal submission to the Adaptation Fund. However submission has not been done due to technical problems with the registry/e-system through which all UNDP submissions are processed. Colleagues at HQs are addressing/checking on this. Colleagues from RBEC have been following up every day. Evidance; RTA e-mail notification dated on 25 Jan 2019 History
5.2 Submit request for with request for at least 6 to 9 months no cost extension of the project based on detailed financial information about remaining budget from the AF grant by November 2018
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/31]
Project team, SDC, TRS in IRH 2019/03 Completed The request on good date for the submission of the request on project’s time extension was sent to RTA RBEC. Most realistic date to do that is date of receiving of the fourth tranche. The UNDP has received the 4th tranche and ASL to be allocated soon. History
6. Recommendation:

It is recommended to support Uzhydromet in making weather information and forecasts and climate change models available to farming and pastoral communities.

The project is making good progress under outcome 1; it is contributing to strengthen the capacity of Uzhydromet by investing in better equipment to collect weather data and by supporting the organization in developing weather forecast and models to assess climate change impacts. As per the World Meteorological Organization, investments in this area bring socio-economic benefits; all economic studies have consistently concluded with benefit-cost ratios greater than one. However, it is also clear that these services do not generate economic and social value unless users benefit from decisions as a result of the information provided. Therefore, in order to optimize the investments made in this area, it is recommended that the project focuses in making weather information and forecast and climate change models available to farming and pastoral communities (users). A feasibility study may be needed to assess the user needs related to weather information and to assess the potential bottlenecks that may exist to make this information readily available, such as public access to this type of information.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Implement activities aimed at making weather information/forecast and climate change models available to farming and pastoral communities (users)
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated History
6.2 Conduct a feasibility study to assess the user needs related to weather information, and assess the potential bottlenecks to make this information readily available
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/03/05]
Project team 2019/04 Initiated History
7. Recommendation:

It is recommended to conduct a gender analysis in the five pilots.

Gender considerations were not included in the design of this project and no specific sections discuss gender aspects of the project in the project document. In the meantime, the project team reports gender disaggregated data in PPRs. One indicator is singularly targeting women: “Number of female lead horticulture greenhouses established” but no quantitative target is set for this indicator. Considering that the project is targeting different groups of farmers (commercial farmers, dekhan farmers and small plot owners), it is recommended that the project conducts a gender analysis in the pilot areas to better understand gender roles and gender issues in farming and pastoral communities. It is recommended to conduct this analysis sooner than later, to provide critical information for the development of greenhouses as anticipated in the strategy of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Conduct gender analysis in the pilot areas to better understand gender roles and gender issues in farming and pastoral communities
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/24]
Project team 2019/04 Initiated The contract was concluded with qualified NC able to meet all requirements identified in ToR. But due to accident (arm breakage) happened with NC the contact was terminated. That’s why due date was changed. History
7.2 Extract from the analysis finding/information critical for development of greenhouses by female lead households/farms/dekhans farms/cooperatives
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/16]
Project team 2019/04 Initiated History
8. Recommendation:

It is recommended to organize “Open Farmers’ Days” on pilots to bring national and regional decision makers and farmers/pastoralists together, observing field results and exchanging knowledge.

The success of outcome 2 and 3 will depend mostly on the capacity of the project to reach out to farming and pastoral communities. Additionally, as a project it is crucial to build along the way the capacity of organizations such as Uzhydromet, Council of Farmers, local authorities, and also decision makers from ministries at regional and national levels. In addition to workshops and other training events, it is recommended to organize “Open Farmers’ Days”, where decision makers, local authorities, researchers, Council of Farmers representatives and of course farmers and pastoralists come together to visit, observe, exchange and share knowledge in the field. This is an excellent approach to acquire knowledge, build trust among stakeholders (farmers-local/regional organizations-national organizations), which should also lead to more adoption of climate change adaptation measures.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 Organize “Open Farmers’ Days” for decision-makers, local authorities, researchers, Council of Farmers representatives to visit, observe, exchange and share knowledge in the field
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/24]
Project team 2019/05 Initiated Due to long lasted cotton campaign it was not possible to convened decision makers and representatives of local authorities for this event as planned. The event will be organized once in October 2018 and twice (March, October) in each year during 2019-2020 History
9. Recommendation:

It confirms the Project Board decision to adapt the management structure ensuring more project presence in Karakalpakstan

Despite the current adequate management arrangements for the implementation of the project with an office in Tashkent focusing on outcome 1 and 4 and one office in Nukus focusing on outcome 2 and 3, it is expected that more project presence and effort is needed in the Karakalpakstan region in the near future to undertake more activities in the region, particularly reaching out to farmers and pastoralists. The Project Board has already reviewed this question and made the decision to change the current position of the project manager of the UN Joint Programme into a combined position taken also the responsibilities for coordinating the activities under outcome 2 and 3 of this project. The Reviewing Team confirm this decision that is being implemented since January 2017.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 Re-classify position of National Field Coordinator to more thematic oriented position specifically focused on agro conservation and water saving technologies and practices implementation to increase project presence and effort in the Karakalpakstan region to undertake more activities and reaching out to farmers and pastoralists
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/24]
Project team, SDC 2018/09 Completed Position of National Field Coordinator to more thematic oriented position has been re-classified. Hiring of Task Manager is hired. SC # 2018-0032-UZB-01 History
10. Recommendation:

It is recommended to add three more risks to the risk log of the project and report their status yearly.

The review of the risk log revealed that the risks identified at the outset of the project are not comprehensive enough. They cover some good risk areas but the nature of this type of project has additional risks. It is recommended to add three (3) risks to the risk log of the project and report their respective status yearly through the PPRs. There are:

  • A change in political support for promoting and integrating adaptation measures into the agricultural sector – (low);
  • Insufficient capacity development and practical know-how within key state institutions and local authorities by the end of the project to allow sustainability of project achievements – (medium);

Implement legislative changes in a timely manner that are required to develop an adequate enabling environment for the promotion and use of adaptation measures – (low).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 Add the three (3) risks to the risk log in ATLAS and update its status by mid and end point of each year, and report their respective status yearly through the PPRs
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/01/31]
Project team 2019/07 Initiated 3 new risks uploaded to the risk log in ATLAS. 3 new risks uploaded to the risk log in ATLAS. Its updated status will be available at mid point of the current fiscal year History
11. Recommendation:

It is recommended to carefully monitor the project management expenditures, aiming to meet the target of the approved AF budget of 7.2% by the end of the project.

As of the end of September 2017, the ratio project management costs over total expenditures is about 20%. That is high and it needs to decrease to a more acceptable level. It is recommended to carefully monitor this ratio and implement measures to bring this ratio down to a more acceptable level aiming at meeting the ratio of 7.2% of total expenditures by the end of the project as per the approved AF budget.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/08/15]

Recommendation is fully supported

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
11.1 Monitor ratio project management costs over total expenditures, and implement measures to bring this ratio down to a more acceptable level aiming at meeting the ratio of 7.2% of total expenditures by the end of the project as per the approved AF budget
[Added: 2018/08/15] [Last Updated: 2019/03/05]
RBEC, CO, PMU 2019/04 Initiated History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org