Tripartite Review Report Form

TRIPARTITE REVIEW REPORT FORM

I. Basic programme/project information

Programme or project number and title: RER/98/005 Aral Sea Capacity Development Programme

Designated institution: International Fund to Save the Aral Sea (IFAS)

Executing agency UNOPS

Project starting date: Originally planned: 1 January 1998 Actual: 1 October 1998

Project completion date: Originally planned: 31 December 2000 New: 1 October 2001

Total budget ($): Original: US$ 1,700,000 Latest signed revision: US$ 1,700,000

Delivery rate (%): 95%

Date of the tripartite review 5 October 2001

II. Follow-up to the previous tripartite review and evaluation

Briefly discuss the status of any follow-up action to the previous TPR or evaluation, if one was conducted.

The following is the set recommendations adopted at the previous TPR held in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, on the 30th of January 2001.

1. Efforts should be made so that the agenda for the next IFAS Board/Heads of States meeting (tentatively scheduled for April 2001) includes the issue of establishing a permanent location for EC IFAS, with rotating Chairmanship. 2. Financing of the recurrent costs (administrative and operational) of IFAS and ISDC (Interstate Sustainable Development Commission) by the project should be gradually phased out and an exit strategy for phasing out donor support should be developed. 3. IFAS budgeting processes by Central Asian countries (contributions, allocations and expenditures) should become more transparent. 4. The meeting of all parties involved in the Project is to be held in June 2001 in order to assess the implementation of the recommendations outlined above and decide on future steps. 5. UNDP will shortly appoint an expert to provide policy advice and closely monitor the implementation of the above recommendations, and will report to the June 2001 meeting. Although the project has done some work in the direction of implementing these recommendations, due to the external factors (mainly due to the fact that IFAS Board/Heads of States meeting was postponed indefinitely) it wasn’t possible to implement them fully. Policy expert has conducted two missions in the region and it was recommended by him and agreed with all the parties that it wasn’t expedient to hold a meeting in June 2001 since there were no changes in the political horizon over the half of the year. The report from the second mission by the Policy expert is expected to contain recommendations on the future role of UNDP in the water management sector at the national and regional levels in the Aral Sea Basin.

III. Conclusions of the review

Based on the assessment of the annual programme/project report (APR), briefly discuss the conclusions of the TPR on the following:

1. Programme or project relevance, potential and actual results; 2. Issues and problems in programme or project design and implementation. 3. Significant actions to be taken regarding the short-term programme or project strategic plan.

The Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) presented the terminal project report (Annex 3 and Annex 4). The Project activities with regard to strengthening technical and human capacity of EC IFAS were only partly successful due to the difficult political (countries willing to work more on a bilateral basis rather than on regional, no IFAS Board meeting during last 2 years, etc.) and technical environment (EC IFAS relocation every two years, etc.).

The Project managed to improve the capacity of the ISDC and it has become a partner to many major regional projects in the field of environment and sustainable development. One example of it the fact that the ISDC, consisting of Ministers of Environment of all five Central Asian countries, adopted the Regional Environmental Action Plan and now embarking on its implementation phase. However, there is a long road ahead in this sector too. The necessity of introducing environmental concerns into sectoral plans is not yet fully embraced by the decision-makers.

The project was able to create a critical mass and ensure the networking of sustainable development experts in the region. These SD experts have developed documents and methodologies for assessment of SD in the respective countries.

The presentation also highlighted the lessons learnt during the implementation of the project:

 Technical vs. political levels of co-operation. Main reasons for critical evaluation of the project were the decreasing political interest and support to the regional cooperation on the Aral Sea basin issues at the highest political level. At the same time cooperation at the technical (expert) level is much more active and better received and supported by countries. Lack of high-level political support provides, of course, serious limits to the cooperation but, on the other hand, without mutual understanding and common language of sustainable development at technical level no one should expect success even in case of huge political support  Success of such regional institution as IFAS will remain very limited unless: - it has common budget (managed by IFAS itself) and transparent decision- making process; - the decisions of IFAS automatically become compulsory for the member Governments; - all key stakeholders are involved from the very beginning of the decision-making process

 There is a growing understanding in the region that water management problems couldn’t be solved within the water sector and that multisectoral approach is necessary. However, the added value of integration (including integrated resource management and basin management) is not yet fully recognized by governments and decision-makers 

After the presentation by the CTA, the participants shared their views on the project implementation.

The project has succeeded in building the human capacity in terms of SD concepts despite the institutional obstacles for effective cooperation at the regional level. It was hoped that the project could help in removing these institutional obstacles, but due to various reasons (lack of political will, etc.) it had failed to do so.

It was noted that this project was also a learning experience for UNDP in terms of implementation of such an ambitious regional initiative. A certain level of failures can also be attributed to this factor.

The role and support of the project was very substantial. The project assisted in building ISDC potential as a regional structure to incorporate SD concepts in socio-economic development planning in Central Asian countries. Highly qualified experts were involved in creation of the SD experts network in the region. At the last ISDC meeting its members expressed their appreciation of the work done by the project and by the CTA. ISDC expressed the desire to have follow-up initiatives by donors and possibly the 3rd phase of the project.

EC IFAS

EC IFAS Chairman has rated the project on behalf of the EC IFAS members and it was a common decision. In general, EC IFAS is satisfied with the project’s work although some shortcomings were present. It was suggested to continue the initiatives of the project taking into account the lessons learnt during the implementation of the 2nd phase.

Participants have also discussed necessary formal steps related to the operational closure of the project. UNOPS representative informed about the process of equipment disposal. Essentially, the project equipment can be divided into two parts: equipment currently used by institutions in the countries and the project office equipment in Tashkent. Equipment used by institutions will be properly handed over to their users. CTA has provided his recommendations with regard to the project office equipment and after its endorsement by UNDP Local Property Survey Board the equipment will be disposed accordingly. CTA has informed the participants of the TPR about his recommendations to hand over the project office equipment to the project beneficiaries in Uzbekistan. Part of the equipment is recommended to be transferred to the custody of UNDP Country Office in Uzbekistan to be used in the future for other initiatives.

IV. Decisions taken

List decisions taken with a brief discussion of the basis for each. Indicate the parties responsible and the time-frame for implementing each decision. (N.B. For the terminal TPR only: briefly discuss any recommended follow-up activity.)

Based on the views expressed at the TPR meeting the following was decided:

1. The project has satisfactorily achieved its objectives despite the difficult environment. 2. The project equipment used by the national counterparts should be transferred to its current users in the countries. 3. The project coordination office equipment should be disposed according to UNDP rules and regulations by the decision of UNDP Local Property Survey Board on the basis of recommendations by the CTA.

V. Need for an evaluation

If it is decided in the tripartite review to have the programme or project evaluated, indicate why and when the evaluation will be conducted and the issues that the evaluation will address.

______Resident representative

______Signature

______Date report prepared

VI. Tripartite review report annex

Names of TPR participants and organizations represented Annex 1. Tripartite Review Meeting (TPR) For RER/98/005 – Aral Sea Basin Capacity Development Project October 05, 2001 Tashkent, Uzbekistan

AGENDA

Venue: UN Conference Hall

1. Opening remarks:

Mr Richard Conroy, UNDP Resident Representative in Uzbekistan, PPRR and Chairperson for meeting.

2. Summary of Project achievements – Presentation by Mr Andriy Demidenko, Project Manager. (Docs: Terminal Report form)

3. Discussion

4. Closure of the Project, hand over of equipment; UNOPS.

5. Closing remarks: List of participants Terminal Tripartite Review Meeting for the RER/98/005 – Regional Aral Sea Basin Capacity Development Project, 05 October 2001, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Government

1. Mr. K. Ballyev, EC IFAS Member, Turkmenistan 2. Mr. M. Ospanov, EC IFAS Member, Kazakhstan 3. Mr. S. Aslov, EC IFAS Member, Tajikstan 4. Mr. S. Pernabekov, EC IFAS Member, Uzbekistan 5. Mr. G. Umarov, Secretary of Interstate Commission on Sustainable Development

1. Mr. Andrew Menz, Portfolio Manager, Division for Environmental Programmes

1. Mr. Richard Conroy, Resident Representative, UNDP, Uzbekistan 2. Mr. Vitalie Muntean, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP, Uzbekistan 3. Ms. Florida Perevertaylo, Chief of Programme Section, UNDP, Uzbekistan 4. Mr. Andriy Demydenko, Chief Technical Advisor, Aral Sea Project, RER/98/005 5. Ms. Marina Efimenko, Chief of PPSU, UNDP, Uzbekistan 6. Mr. Ajiniyaz Reimov, National GEF Officer, UNDP Uzbekistan 7. Ms. Gulmira Tolibaeva, Project Assistant 8. Mr. Alisher Aminov, Project Network Administrator