Country Assistance Program Evaluation for Tajikistan | Asian Development Bank

Country Assistance Program Evaluation for Tajikistan

Evaluation Document | 6 August 2014

This evaluation provides the first assessment of ADB strategies and programs in Tajikistan from 1998 to 2013 with the objective of improving the effectiveness of the development support ADB provides to the country. 

This country assistance program evaluation report provides the first assessment of the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) strategies and programs in Tajikistan during August 1998–October 2013. Its primary objective is to improve the effectiveness of the development support ADB provides to the country. Taking into account the economic, political, and development context in which the program was formulated and implemented, the evaluation aimed to (i) independently assess the performance of ADB assistance to the country, (ii) identify factors affecting this performance, and (iii) draw lessons and make recommendations on operational improvements for consideration in ADB’s forthcoming country partnership strategy for Tajikistan.

During the evaluation period, ADB approved 38 projects and programs worth about $1,035 million. About 95% of the initiatives approved were funded by the Asian Development Fund (ADF), and almost 61% of the funds were provided on a grant basis. Around 40% of the funds have been disbursed. Tajikistan’s performance-based allocation from the ADF ranged from $20 million to $53 million a year under ADF VII–XI. Nearly 42% of the total was allocated to the transport sector, followed by energy (24%), agriculture (9%), and public sector management (8%). Policy advice and capacity building formed an important component of ADB’s assistance program. These initiatives were supported by 69 technical assistance projects worth a total of $46.4 million.

The evaluation found plausible positive links between the development impacts of ADB’s programs and three key objectives of the ADB’s country strategies: (i) economic growth and poverty reduction, (ii) transition to a market economy, and (iii) regional cooperation. ADB supported economic growth and improved food security by financing physical and non-physical investments and strengthened the access of the poor to basic social services and markets. ADB supported Tajikistan’s transition to a market economy, and the country has made progress in this regard. Significant additional work is required, however, and Tajikistan’s ranking in the international business and investment climate surveys is still low. ADB support for regional cooperation facilitated trade in energy and other products, although political challenges to the ongoing projects may affect the impact and outcomes of ADB program. The evaluation rated the overall ADB program successful.


  • Executive Summary
  • Chapter 1: Introduction
  • Chapter 2: Country Context and Government Strategies and Plans
  • Chapter 3: ADB's Country Partnership Strategy and Program
  • Chapter 4: ADB's Role and Donor Coordination
  • Chapter 5: ADB's Development Contriution and Challenges
  • Chapter 6: Performance of ADB Program
  • Chapter 7: Issues, Lessons, and Recommendations
  • Appendixes

Note on IED's Country Evaluations and Validations

Using its 2015 Guidelines for the Preparation of Country Assistance Program Evaluations and Country Partnership Strategy Final Review Validations, the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) intends to provide an objective and informed judgement of the performance and results of country partnership strategies (CPSs), particularly in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and development impacts.

In ascertaining relevance, IED considers not only the alignment of the program with country needs and government objectives, but also cross-sector CPS objectives, appropriateness of modalities and sector program designs, and sufficiency of donor coordination.

The effectiveness of a country program in delivering results is also an important aspect of an IED evaluation. Primary focus is on the achievement of the outcomes and outputs of ADB interventions (and the likelihood of achievement if the program is still ongoing), as worded in CPSs and their results frameworks. These include knowledge products and institutional development efforts.

Performance and results are likewise judged from an efficiency perspective, that is, whether the program was delivered in a cost-effective and timely manner, and generated value for money. It also considers the capacity of executing agencies that may contribute to start up and implementation delays, and cost overruns.

Another critical element of IED's evaluation is the likely sustainability of results over the medium term, technically, financially, environmentally, socially, politically, and institutionally. Further, IED looks at how results led to development impacts. Specifically, whether ADB contributed to achieving the CPS objectives, directly through its sector programs and implementing cross-cutting agenda(s) across various modalities in different sectors and by various development partners.

IED gives special importance to cross-cutting objectives by considering how the cross-sectoral and thematic objectives of the CPS are articulated in the results framework and provided with appropriate indicators and targets; and how the program achieved the cross-sector thematic results. Equal weights are given to the achievement of sector and cross-cutting objectives in the relevance and development impact assessments, in both country assistance program evaluations (CAPEs) and CPS final review validations (CPSFRVs). This aligns with ADB's increasing emphasis on achieving corporate strategic priorities.

In preparing its country evaluations and validations, IED conducts document reviews, consults with concerned departments, staff, governments and other stakeholders, and undertakes evaluation missions. IED has put in place a quality assurance system to ensure consistent application of its 2015 guidelines. In CPSFRVs, IED's primary focus is to validate the evidence presented in the CPS Final Review.