Enabling Transboundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resources Management in the Chu and Talas River Basins

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Kyrgyzstan
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2018
Completion Date:
04/2018
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,487

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR MSP TE IW Kyrgyzstan.pdf tor English 1040.07 KB Posted 361
Download document UNDP_Chu-Talas_IW_TE_final_wAnnexes.docx report English 8638.68 KB Posted 379
Download document Mission Agenda of Terminal Evaluation_Chu-Talas_April 2018.docx related-document English 30.42 KB Posted 441
Download document UNDP_Chu-Talas_IW_TE_final_wAnnexes.docx report English 8638.68 KB Posted 263
Title Enabling Transboundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resources Management in the Chu and Talas River Basins
Atlas Project Number: 00091092
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Kyrgyzstan
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2018
Planned End Date: 04/2018
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,487
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 15,487
Joint Programme: Yes
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
  • Joint with Kazakhstan; UNOPS, UNECE
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Enabling Transboundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resources Management in the Chu and Talas River Basins
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 5310
PIMS Number: 5167
Key Stakeholders: State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry of the Kyrgyz Republic
Countries: KYRGYZSTAN
Lessons
Findings
1.

Relevance

With respect to relevance, the project is considered relevant / highly satisfactory, as the project clearly supports priorities for both countries, as demonstrated by the many previous years of cooperation, based on the 2000 agreement and 2006 establishment of the Chu—Talas Water Commission. Both the project design and strategy were appropriate and relevant. The project also conforms to Conforms with GEF international waters focal area strategies and priorities for GEF-5.


Tag: Water resources Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management

2.

Project Management and Cost-effectiveness (Efficiency)

Project efficiency is rated satisfactory. The project’s management (execution), partnership approach and communication, stakeholder engagement, financial management, and reporting are strong points. The project was able to produce the expected results within the planned budget, and was a reasonable least-cost approach for producing the TDA and SAP. Considering that the operational time of the project was actually less than three years, the project did an admirable job of getting so much work completed. The project also had good stakeholder engagement.


Tag: Efficiency Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Communication Policies & Procedures Programme/Project Design Project and Programme management

3.

Implementation, Including UNDP Oversight

UNDP is the GEF Agency responsible for the project, and carries general backstopping and oversight responsibilities. UNDP has fully and adequately supported the project during implementation, with no significant issues. The most significant issue is that the project manager left to take a new position at the originally planned end of the project, although the project received a four-month no-cost extension to complete some activities that are critical to achievement of the project objective. Therefore, it would have been better if UNDP had managed to find a way to retain the Project Manager through the end of the extended project. Implementation by UNDP is considered satisfactory.


Tag: Relevance Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management

4.

Execution (Project Management)

This was a direct implementation project (DIM), meaning that UNDP was also responsible for project management. The UNDP Kyrgyzstan Country Office has an internal program office for project execution (project execution can also be considered “project management”). Project execution is considered satisfactory. The Chu-Talas Project is characterized by professional and efficient project management, good work planning, timely reporting, transparent communication, and excellent engagement of partners.


Tag: Implementation Modality Project and Programme management

5.

Partnership Approach and Stakeholder Participation

The project had an excellent partnership approach, with very good cooperation and coordination with key partners including UNECE, OSCE, CAREC and others.


Tag: Relevance Bilateral partners UN Agencies Coordination

6.

Risk Assessment and Monitoring

The Chu-Talas Prodoc includes the risk analysis (Annex 1, p. 48 of the UNDP Prodoc). The risk analysis highlighted eight risks, which were rated in the range of moderate to low. Risks were monitored during project implementation quarterly through UNDP’s Atlas risk log, and annually through the PIR; no critical risks were identified during the project’s implementation.


Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Risk Management

7.

Flexibility and Adaptive Management

  1. Flexibility is one of the GEF’s ten operational principles, and all projects must be implemented in a flexible manner to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, and to ensure results-based, rather than output-based approach. Thus, during project implementation adaptive management must be employed to adjust to changing circumstances.
  2. On the whole the project was implemented in an adaptive manner, following a results-based approach. Budget revisions were made throughout the implementation period, in accordance with UNDP and GEF procedures, requirements and guidelines.

Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management Results-Based Management

8.

Financial Planning by Component and Delivery

  1. The breakdown of project GEF financing is indicated in Table 5 below. Additional details on project finances are included in tables in Annex 9. The total GEF-allocation was $1,000,000. Of this, $300,000 (30.0% of the total) was planned for Component 1, Component 2 was budgeted at $200,000 (20.0%), and Component 3 was budgeted at $400,000 (40.0%). Project management was budgeted at $100,000, or 10.0% of the total. Actual project expenditure by activity tracked relatively closely to the planned amounts, with expenditure for Components 1 and 2 being slightly more than planned, and expenditure for Component 3 and Project Management being slightly less than planned. Actual total project management expenses were 8.8% of total budget.

Tag: Efficiency Human and Financial resources Operational Efficiency Oversight Project and Programme management

9.

Planned and Actual Co-financing

The expected project co-financing was $6,173,970, from seven total partners, including both of the respective governments, and international development partners – the Swiss Development Corporation, and the Government of Finland. This is an expected co-financing ratio of 6.2: 1. Table 6 below shows planned and actual co-financing. According to data provided by the project team, the project had received a total of approximately $6.68 million USD in co-financing as of April 30, 2018. This is 108.1% of the expected co-financing. The breakdown of co-financing is not tracked by project outcome because it is not managed by the project, and much of the co-financing has gone to support all aspects of the project.

Planned and Actual Co-financing Received, as of December 31, 2018 (USD)Sources: Planned from Project Document. Actual total co-financing received as per data from UNDP/Project Team.

It appears that some sources of likely co-financing have not been fully accounted, and therefore it is likely that the actual co-financing received is greater than indicated. For example, there is no co-financing indicated in relation to the in-kind contributions made by the volunteer staff of the CTWC Secretariat.


Tag: Efficiency Bilateral partners Donor

10.

Monitoring and Evaluation

  1. The Chu-Talas project M&E design generally meets UNDP and GEF minimum standards, but had shortcomings related to the design of the Strategic Results Framework, and is considered moderately unsatisfactory. M&E implementation is considered satisfactory, and therefore overall M&E is considered moderately satisfactory.

 


Tag: Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management

11.

i.M&E Implementation

  1. The project M&E activities were partially implemented as foreseen; and M&E implementation is rated moderately satisfactory. The project team provided reports at required reporting intervals (i.e. quarterly progress reports, annual PIR), and UNDP oversight was adequate. Six formal Project Board meetings were held, since the CTWC served as the Project Board, and met bi-annually. The project did not have a financial audit (as discussed at the end of Section V.F above on financial management), although an audit was planned in the M&E plan.
  2. Although mid-term reviews (MTRs) are not required for GEF medium-sized projects, this project did include one, which is considered good practice. The MTR was conducted in May-June 2017. This is slightly late in the project implementation schedule, and did not allow for a significant amount of time for follow-up and completion of actions in response to the MTR recommendations. The MTR recommendations are indicated in Table 8 below, with a summary of the project’s responsiveness to these recommendations. The project adequately implemented five of the 13 MTR recommendations, partially implemented two, and did not implement six. The project did provide a Management Response to the MTR, indicating that some of the recommendations had been completed, although evidence seems to reflect otherwise, as discussed in the table below.

Tag: Effectiveness Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management

12.

 Effectiveness and Results: Progress Toward the Objective and Outcomes

The Chu-Talas Project has achieved the project objective and nearly achieved the two planned outcomes. The project’s effectiveness is rated satisfactory. The project activities and outputs strongly contributed to progress toward the planned outcomes and objective. The project strategy of focusing on technical aspects was very effective in getting the project to the finish line, and building trust and cooperation among stakeholders.


Tag: Water resources Effectiveness Communication Project and Programme management Capacity Building

13.

A.Component 1: TDA including climate scenario analyses to inform adaptive management of the Chu-Talas shared water resources.

  1. The first component of the project is focused on completion of the TDA. The total GEF funding planned for the component was $300,000 million USD, which was 30.0% of the total GEF funding for the project; the actual expenditure as of December 31, 2018 was $312,153 USD. The component activities were organized around three outputs:
  • Output 1.1: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of the Chu and Talas River Basins
  • Output 1.2: Scenarios of Water Futures with a focus on climate variability and transboundary issues
  • Output 1.3: Seminars for stakeholders on adaptive management
  1. Key results indicators for Component 1 are summarized in Table 8 below.

Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Water resources Effectiveness Global Environment Facility fund Results-Based Management

14.

A.Component 2: Building the foundation for broadened and improved bilateral water cooperation

  1. The second component of the project aimed for completion and adoption of the SAP. The total GEF funding for Component 2 was originally planned at $200,000 USD, which is 20.0% of the total GEF funding for the project; actual expenditure as of December 31, 2018 was $226,868. The component activities are organized around six key outputs:
  2. Output 2.1: A Strategic Action Program (SAP) formulated and approved by the countries at Ministerial level (Horizon 5 years) addressing main issues of transboundary concern and containing concrete actions (legal, policy, institutional reforms, and investments).
  3. Output 2.2: Establishment of Inter-ministerial committees in each recipient country, or strengthening of existing inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms
  4. Output 2.3: A stakeholder involvement, gender mainstreaming and outreach communication strategy
  5. Output 2.4: Revised Statutes of the Commission/Secretariat and establishment of a joint Environmental Expert Group under the Commission with clear mandate and work plan.
  6. Output 2.5: Twinning and experience sharing exchange with another transboundary basin, strategy for replication of best practices in the Chu Talas basins
  7. Output 2.6: Project web page (following IW LEARN standards) created on the Commission website, international waters experience notes with best practices from the project produced, use of GEF 5 IW tracking tool and participation at GEF IW conferences and other IW LEARN activities ensured. 1% of the project total budget will be used for these types of activities as required by GEF.
  8. Key results indicators for Component 2 are summarized in Table 9 below.

Tag: Effectiveness Rule of law Communication Country Government Capacity Building National Institutions

15.

A.Component 3. Strengthening capacity of water resources monitoring in the Chu and Talas River Basins

  1. The third component of the project addressed issues related to the water monitoring framework in both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The total GEF funding for Component 3 was originally planned at $400,000 USD, which is 40.0% of the total GEF funding for the project; actual expenditure as of December 31, 2018 was $373,201. The component activities are organized around four key outputs:
  2. Output 3.1 Assessment of present situation of surface and groundwater quantity and quality monitoring in the two basins
  3. Output 3.2: Training on water quantity monitoring and data exchange
  4. Output 3.3: Training and capacity building for joint water quality monitoring
  5. Output 3.4: Formalization of agreement on coordinated monitoring and data exchange in the two basins
  6. Key results indicators for Component 2 are summarized in Table 10 below.

Tag: Water resources Effectiveness Capacity Building

16.

Impacts and Global Environmental Benefits

  1. The GEF Evaluation Office and UNDP require a rating on project impact, which in the context of the GEF international waters focal area, relates to actual change in environmental status (e.g. improvements in water quality, improvements in aquatic ecosystems, improved ecosystem services related to water, etc.). The impact rating is not highly relevant in the context of the Chu-Talas Project, since the project was a “first stage” project that focused on the TDA/SAP, and not on field-based interventions or implementation of the SAP. Therefore, according to the intentional design and strategy of the project, the project is likely to contribute to long-term impacts, but only long after project completion. However, an impact rating is provided as required for the terminal evaluation, and consequently, impact ratings for the project must be assessed as follows:
  • Environmental status improvement is assessed as negligible;
  • Environmental stress reduction is assessed as negligible; and
  • Progress toward stress/status change is assessed as negligible.

Tag: Ecosystem based adaption Environmental impact assessment Water resources Impact Global Environment Facility fund

17.

Sustainability

There are some risks to the sustainability of the project results but overall sustainability is considered moderately likely. Much related to the sustainability of the project depends on the ultimate formal government approval and adoption of the SAP by the Government of Kazakhstan and Government of Kyrgyzstan. If the governments agree on the SAP, then it is fully expected that additional funding for implementation of the SAP will be available from the GEF and other donors. Therefore, financial sustainability is considered moderately likely. Institutional and governance sustainability is also considered moderately likely.


Tag: Climate Change Adaptation Water resources Sustainability Risk Management Country Government

18.

Catalytic Role: Replication and Up-scaling

The major catalytic potential for the project is if the SAP is adopted by the two participating countries, which will then catalyze implementation of the SAP.


Tag: Impact Sustainability

19.

Gender Equality and Mainstreaming

Gender equality and mainstreaming was considered during the project, even though the project was designed prior to implementation of UNDP’s Gender Equality Strategy 2014-2017, and the project design did not include a gender analysis. The project regularly consulted with the UNDP Kyrgyzstan gender mainstreaming expert, and worked to breakdown results framework indicator reporting by gender, although the results framework was not originally designed with gender disaggregated indicators. In the 2017 PIR, the project reported that 50% of members of Working Group on Environment, 52% of members of SAP Working Group are women. There is a set of trainings to be held on the fall 2017 and careful consideration of the gender balance among participants is to be ensured.


Tag: Sustainability Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Programme/Project Design Capacity Building

Recommendations
1

Ideally, the project stakeholders, supported by UNDP, should hold a donor coordination meeting prior to the July inter-governmental meeting between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan at which the SAP will be discussed. The purpose of such a meeting would be to concretely confirm funding opportunities for SAP (Strategic Action plan) implementation. If it is not feasible to organize such a meeting (since any formal meeting would need to be organized by the respective ministries of foreign affairs from each country) then UNDP should continue proactive dialogue with key potential SAP funding partners in order to be able to communicate to the government in specific terms how much funding, and from which sources, will be available to support SAP implementation if the SAP is approved. This could include a draft PIF (Project identification form) for GEF-funding of SAP implementation

2

The CTWC Secretariat should be established as a legal entity prior to SAP implementation, most likely as a legal entity in each country, to facilitate implementation of SAP activities. Effective operation would need to include at least one salaried staff person in each country. [Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan, UNDP]

3

Since the project manager has moved to a position at another organization at the initially planned completion of the project, if it is at all practically feasible, UNDP should immediately contract additional staff on a short-term contract to support the consolidation and finalization of project results. This is particularly critical with respect to support for promoting and pushing the SAP within the governments prior to the July inter-governmental meeting between the two countries. Rapidly contracting such short-term experts could be a challenge administratively, but there are experts available who have been involved with the project, who could make valuable contributions, such as the volunteer staff of the CTWC Secretariat in each country. [UNDP Kyrgyzstan Country Office]

4

If the SAP is jointly approved by the governments, UNDP and the GEF should be prepared to provide support for SAP implementation as rapidly as possible so as not to lose momentum and sustainability of current project actions. This would include, for example, drafting a PIF for GEF funding even before SAP approval. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat]

5

The SAP, as it is now, is not sufficiently detailed and specific to be directly implementable. This current document is coherent, logical, and very useful for reaching joint agreement between the countries. If the SAP is approved, during the project preparation phase for a GEF-funded SAP implementation project, additional work should be done to develop a more detailed SAP document that could be effectively implemented. This would necessarily include additional rounds of stakeholder consultation with water resource users, private sector stakeholders, and civil society. This should also include a strengthened analysis of complementarities and synergies with other ongoing related initiatives (such as the establishment of river basin councils in Kyrgyzstan), and with national plans and strategies. [UNDP, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

6

The SAP (Strategic Action plan) implementation should include further work on harmonization policies and legislation for IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) between the countries, perhaps starting with regulations related to water monitoring. [UNDP, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

7

Implementation of the SAP (Strategic Action plan) should include pilot activities for community-based water management, and in particular community-based monitoring, as an awareness raising tool, but also for additional data collection. Other excellent opportunities for practical activities for SAP implementation include media training, and study tours to examples of watershed-based Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

8

SAP (Strategic Action plan)  implementation will also require increasing the availability of spatial data, and the use of spatial data for mapping. This may require some attention to and investment in digitizing existing historical data. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

1. Recommendation:

Ideally, the project stakeholders, supported by UNDP, should hold a donor coordination meeting prior to the July inter-governmental meeting between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan at which the SAP will be discussed. The purpose of such a meeting would be to concretely confirm funding opportunities for SAP (Strategic Action plan) implementation. If it is not feasible to organize such a meeting (since any formal meeting would need to be organized by the respective ministries of foreign affairs from each country) then UNDP should continue proactive dialogue with key potential SAP funding partners in order to be able to communicate to the government in specific terms how much funding, and from which sources, will be available to support SAP implementation if the SAP is approved. This could include a draft PIF (Project identification form) for GEF-funding of SAP implementation

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

The SAP was endorsed by the 24th meeting of the CTWC (Chuy-Talas Water Commission) and the SAP was subject to further approval by the Governments of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and the recommendations is well noted for implementation.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Support the CTWC (Chuy-Talas Water Commission) with preparations for the SAP (Strategic Action plan) discussions at the upcoming Inter-governmental meeting between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on August 17, 2018
[Added: 2018/11/20]
UNDP, UNECE, CTWC 2018/08 Completed Comments received from the Kyrgyz MFA (Ministry of foreign affairs) prevented the SAP to be part of the IG (Intergovernmental group) meeting in Astana.
Engage additional experts in case of any comments from the governments over the SAP (Strategic Action plan) document
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP, UNECE, CTWC 2019/05 Completed Technical support was provided through engaging local consultant and the company History
Support the CTWC (Chuy-Talas Water Commission) with approval of the SAP (Strategic Action Plan) document
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP, UNECE and CTWC 2019/05 No Longer Applicable [Justification: SAP (Strategic Action Plan) is pending approval of the Government due to the weak political will to prioritize approval of SAP. Nevertheless, UNDP will continue providing technical and advisory support to the CTWC with promoting the SAP. UNDP will monitor the situation and use any opportunity and platform to promote the SAP. ]
History
2. Recommendation:

The CTWC Secretariat should be established as a legal entity prior to SAP implementation, most likely as a legal entity in each country, to facilitate implementation of SAP activities. Effective operation would need to include at least one salaried staff person in each country. [Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan, UNDP]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

This was among the project priorities and some legal support was already provided to the CTWC on this. However, the CTWC as advised by the Governments is planning to implement this after the SAP has been formally approved by the countries, which is to serve a legal basis.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Registration of CTWC (Chuy-Talas Water Commission) Secretariat as a legal entity
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP, CTWC 2019/05 No Longer Applicable [Justification: This was among the project priorities and some legal support was already provided to the CTWC on this. However, the CTWC as advised by the Governments is planning to implement this after the SAP has been formally approved by the countries, which is to serve a legal basis.]
This became beyond UNDP's control due to the pending SAP approval rpovcess. CTWC will follow up on this once the SAP endorsed by the Gov. History
3. Recommendation:

Since the project manager has moved to a position at another organization at the initially planned completion of the project, if it is at all practically feasible, UNDP should immediately contract additional staff on a short-term contract to support the consolidation and finalization of project results. This is particularly critical with respect to support for promoting and pushing the SAP within the governments prior to the July inter-governmental meeting between the two countries. Rapidly contracting such short-term experts could be a challenge administratively, but there are experts available who have been involved with the project, who could make valuable contributions, such as the volunteer staff of the CTWC Secretariat in each country. [UNDP Kyrgyzstan Country Office]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

There were two contracted national experts from both countries to facilitate SAP approval process. However, after the resignation of a Project Manager, another Project Manager who was knowledgeable of the project environment was tasked to follow-up on the pending activities by providing his regular support.    

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Coordinate with the national experts on implementation of pending items
[Added: 2018/11/20]
UNDP 2018/08 Completed All activities are completed except for the SAP approval, which is mentioned in the Recommendation #2
4. Recommendation:

If the SAP is jointly approved by the governments, UNDP and the GEF should be prepared to provide support for SAP implementation as rapidly as possible so as not to lose momentum and sustainability of current project actions. This would include, for example, drafting a PIF for GEF funding even before SAP approval. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

This recommendation is well noted and right away the SAP has been approved, UNDP in coordination with other partners like UNECE will start working on development of a PIF to GEF-7 funding window.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Drafting a PIF (Project Identification Form) for GEF funding.
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP CO, Regional Technical Advisor (RTA) 2019/05 Completed This depends on SAP approval process History
5. Recommendation:

The SAP, as it is now, is not sufficiently detailed and specific to be directly implementable. This current document is coherent, logical, and very useful for reaching joint agreement between the countries. If the SAP is approved, during the project preparation phase for a GEF-funded SAP implementation project, additional work should be done to develop a more detailed SAP document that could be effectively implemented. This would necessarily include additional rounds of stakeholder consultation with water resource users, private sector stakeholders, and civil society. This should also include a strengthened analysis of complementarities and synergies with other ongoing related initiatives (such as the establishment of river basin councils in Kyrgyzstan), and with national plans and strategies. [UNDP, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

The SAP is a framework document and it is an evolving one subject to changes as the environment changes. The relevant activities will be detailed to the extent possible at the PIF and PPG development stages. However, new circumstances will be integrated into the current version when and as necessary.     

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Take this into account when drafting a PIF (Project Identification form) for GEF funding.
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP CO, RTA (Regional Technical Advisor) 2019/05 Completed depends on SAP approval History
6. Recommendation:

The SAP (Strategic Action plan) implementation should include further work on harmonization policies and legislation for IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) between the countries, perhaps starting with regulations related to water monitoring. [UNDP, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

These activities will be given a priority when implementing the SAP through grant and state funded projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Take this into account when drafting a PIF (Project Identification plan) for GEF funding.
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP CO, RTA (Regional Technical Advisor) 2019/05 Completed Meanwhile it is beyond the UNDP's control and depends on SAP approval process, as it is still pending approval of the Government as mentioned in the previous key actions. History
7. Recommendation:

Implementation of the SAP (Strategic Action plan) should include pilot activities for community-based water management, and in particular community-based monitoring, as an awareness raising tool, but also for additional data collection. Other excellent opportunities for practical activities for SAP implementation include media training, and study tours to examples of watershed-based Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

These activities will be given a priority when implementing the SAP through grant and state funded projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Take this into account when drafting a PIF (Project Identification form) for GEF funding.
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP CO, RTA (Regional Technical advisor) 2019/05 Completed This beyond the UNDP's control and depends in SAP approval by the Government. History
8. Recommendation:

SAP (Strategic Action plan)  implementation will also require increasing the availability of spatial data, and the use of spatial data for mapping. This may require some attention to and investment in digitizing existing historical data. [UNDP, GEF Secretariat, Government of Kazakhstan, Government of Kyrgyzstan]

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2021/01/13]

The recommendation is well noted and is subject to additional consultations with the countries and partners when developing the PIF (Project Identification form) and PPG (Project Preparation Grant) for a grant funded project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Take this into account when drafting a PIF (Project Identification form) for GEF funding.
[Added: 2018/11/20] [Last Updated: 2019/05/16]
UNDP CO, RTA (Regional Technical Advisor) 2019/05 Completed As mentioned above, this is beyond the UNDP's control and depends on SAP approval of the Government. History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org