Microsoft Word pcr uzb public Finance Management Reform Project Final 7Sept2017. docx

II. 
EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 
A. 
Relevance of Design and Formulation 
5. 
The project was 
relevant
at appraisal and was consistent with the government’s 
comprehensive plan and key priority agenda for PFM system reforms. These long-term reforms 
were expected to continue through 2018. In early 2000, Uzbekistan set the goal of improving its 
fiscal management system by reducing central budget expenditure to below 50% of gross 
domestic product and gradually reducing its fiscal deficit, largely eliminating it in 2004. The 
public finance reforms were initially supported by substantial TA from the IMF, the United States 
(US) Agency for International Development, the US Treasury, and the World Bank. The IMF and 
the US Treasury have each provided one long-term adviser to assist the MOF in implementing 
the budget and PFM reforms outlined in the Budget System Law, 2000 and in drafting the 
proposed treasury law. The World Bank worked with the MOF from 2001 on preparing a project 
to help finance the creation of the Treasury and a treasury system within the MOF, including 
hardware and software. France’s MOF also provided advice and training. The reforms aimed to 
modernize tax administration, thereby reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of commercial 
banks for this purpose; work on the procurement law and systems; and identify fiscal measures 
to reduce regional inequities in overall revenue distribution. 
6. 
ADB assistance for PFM reform did not fall into its four country strategy and program, 
2006–2010 priority areas for Uzbekistan and was not originally envisaged as a project.
2
However, ADB approved the project because the government prioritized PFM reforms and other 
funding for this initiative became unavailable. ADB supported the government’s determination to 
keep the momentum and continue to improve public resource planning and use through 
improved effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and accountability of budget execution 
processes. Other international donors provided TA support to the government for other aspects 
of the PFM reform strategy.
3
At the same time, ADB recognized sector-related risks by 
indicating the existence of technical and other challenges rooted in the country’s economic and 
political system that could take longer to address. The project was adequately formulated 
through project preparatory TA. ADB also provided a TA grant to help the government prepare a 
project that would help improve public resource planning and use [footnote 1]. 
7. 
The project was 
less than relevant
at completion.
4
The government continues to 
emphasize the need for public finance reforms. During 2007–2016 the government took 
2
ADB. 2006. 
Country Strategy and Program: Uzbekistan (2006–2010)
. Manila. 
3
The government also received TA from the United Nations Development Programme and the European Union 
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States. 
4
Although the ADB loan closed in November 2012, the project was substantially completed only in June 2017. 
ADB’s Project Administration Instructions on Project Completion Report for Sovereign Operations stipulate that
 
“a 
project is completed when components and facilities to be constructed or provided have been substantially 
completed and are ready for operation. Q The fact that ADB loan disbursement is complete is not in itself the basis 

---

3 
significant steps to improve the accountability, transparency, and efficiency of budget planning 
and execution. This required the adoption of new laws, regulations, and instructions, such as 
the introduction of a new Budget Code in 2014 and the MOF’s approval of the first Budget 
Accounting Standard, which sets requirements for the accounting policies of budget 
organizations, in 2016. The government implemented other legislative and normative changes 
to adjust the institutional arrangements between the Treasury and the budgetary organizations 
and to improve state procurement. At the same time, slippages from the original timeline were 
quite substantial, extending project completion by 4.5 years because of implementation delays 
in activities planned under the PFM Reform Strategy, 2007–2018. While slippages, changes, 
and corrections to the original plan are understandable, this delay resulted in project design 
changes and the delay of expected benefits to government and other beneficiaries.