Summary Sheet for Terminal Evaluation
1. Outline of the ProjectCountry: The Kyrgyz Republic
Issue/Sector: Environment (Forest Conservation)
Division in Charge: Global Environment Dept.
(R/D): Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2014
Period of(Extension):
Cooperation(F/U):(E/N):

Project Title: Project for the Support for Joint Forest
Management
Cooperation Scheme: Technical Cooperation
Total Cost (planned): 290 Million JPY
Partner Country’s Implementing Organization:
State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry(SAEPF), National Agency for Affairs of Local
Self-Governance (NALSG)**NALSG has been reorganized as State Agency for Local
Self-Governance and Interethnic Relations (SALGIR).

Supporting Organization in Japan: Forestry Agency
1-1 Background of the ProjectDue to inefficient forest management, the forest cover in the Kyrgyz Republic decreased from 1.19 million
hectares (6% of tits land area: 1930) to 0.62 million hectares (3%: 1966). After that, by promoting theafforestation policy, the forest area increased to 0.87million hectares (4.3%: 2003), although a lack of thinning
has resulted in forest degradation.
Aimed at efficient forest management, the Kyrgyz Republic has undertaken reforms including theprivatization of productive activities in the forests. One of the pillars of the reforms was the adoption of the Joint
Forest Management (JFM) scheme, in which forest users (tenants) manage forests based on the agreement
between three parties: local forest stations (Leskhozes), village associations (Ail-Ockumorues) and the forest
users.
While JFM was decided as a policy institution, however, detailed activities were not specified, and theinstitutional base was not adequate. For these reasons, there was a need to enhance the capacity of key players
and strengthen the institution in order to implement and promote JFM.
With this background, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic requested for technical cooperation to theJapanese Government in 2007 for reforestation and conservation by JFM. The Record of Discussions (R/D) was
signed in January 2009, and the project started for the five-year period between January 2009 and January 2014.
1-2 Project Overview(1) Overall Goal
JFM implemented area is increased.
(2) Project Purpose
Framework for expanding JFM in a sustainable manner by the State Agency for Environmental Protection
and Forestry (SAEPF) and National Agency for the Affairs of Local Self-Governance (NALSG) is strengthened.
(3) Outputs
1. JFM mechanism on involving stakeholders into decision-making are functioned in the Project Sites of JFM in
Issyk-Kul Province and Chui Province.
2. The forest management activities are implemented by Forest Users in the Project Sites of JFM.
3. The forest management activities by Forest Users and the supporting activities by Leskhozes and
Ail-Okumotues in the Project Sites of JFM are monitored properly.
4. JFM implementation guideline is comprehended among relevant organizations.
(4) Inputs
1) Japanese side:a) Dispatch of Experts-Long-term experts: Chief Advisor and Project Coordinator/Participatory Forest Management (122man/months in total) were dispatched during the project period.
-Short-term experts: Experts in five fields including nursery management and disease/pest control weredispatched (145 days in total).
b) Trainings in Japan-A total of 33 counterparts participated in the training courses in Japan during the project period.
c) Provision of equipment-Two vehicles, GPSs, PCs and other items necessary for the project implementation were provided.
d) Local cost
-Local operation was supported by the project budget, including local employment and travels.

i2) Kyrgyz side:a) Assignment of counterpart personnel-Counterpart personnel of the Project were assigned in Bishkek and local offices.
b) Office space-Office space for the Project was provided by SAEPF in the building of its headquarters in Bishkek.
c) Project cost
-Part of local costs for project activities including vehicle fuel and maintenance, employment and travel
expenses was provided by the Kyrgyz side.
2. Evaluation Team
Members of Mr. Kenichi Shishido, Leader, Deputy Director General, Global Environmental Department, JICA
the Mission Mr. Mikihiro Inoue, Forest Management, Senior Policy Analyst for Overseas Forestry, Forestry
Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Mr. Kenji Kitamura Planning Cooperation, Technical Advisor, Forestry and Nature Conservation
Division 1, Global Environmental Department, JICA
Mr. Koji Asano, Analysis & Evaluation, Senior Engineer, Environmental Science & Engineering
Department, Nippon Koei Co.,LTD.
Period ofFrom 7 July 2013 to 27 July 2013
Type of Evaluation: Terminal Evaluation
Evaluation
3. Results of Evaluation
3-1 Achievement of the Project(1)Results of Inputs (as described above)(2)Project Progress
1) Output 1
Indicators:
1.1 More than 5 Project Sites of JFM are selected in the two Provinces.
1.2 Persons of Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues who understand their role of JFM are involved in decision-makingof JFM pilot project in each Project Site.
1.3 Selected Project Sites are approved as JFM implementation area by SAEPF.
Out of three indicators set for the output 1, all are achieved.
・ Nine in Issyk-Kul and Chui and one in Talas, a total of ten pilot sites were selected. (Indicator 1.1)
・ There were many cases of those persons in charge for lands in Ail-Okumotues have taken part in the tenant
selection committee. Besides, directors of Leskhoz and heads of Ail-Okumotu took major role in the tenant
selection committee in many cases. (Indicator 1.2)・ All pilot sites were approved by Working Group Meetings (WGM). (Indicator 1.3)
2) Output 2
Indicators:
2.1 Forest users will appreciate JFM scheme and their awareness for forest conservation will be enhanced
through JFM activities.
2.2 Administrative procedures related to JFM such as on land use are clarified.
Out of two indicators set for the output 2, one is achieved and another is almost achieved.
・ The number of application for JFM tenant recruitment at each pilot site has been increasing. Besides, forest
users became not use the wood of illegal logging in some JFM pilot sites, as the Project secured forest for
their timber production or the revenue from forest activities. For above reasons, people’s consciousness onforest conservation was considered to be raised by the Project. (Indicator 2.1)
・ Although the regulatory procedures on land lease already exist, level of understanding in staff concerned isconsidered to be low. The Guidelines will provide summary of existing regulatory procedures in precise andcomprehensive manner that is expected to deepen their understanding. For existing legislations, which areconsidered to have been making the JFM application difficult (e.g. tenant selecting criteria, etc.), possible
revision is to be suggested. (Indicator 2.2)
3) Output 3
Indicators:
3.1 Procedure and indicator of the monitoring are set down in each Project Site.
3.2 The forest management activities and the supporting activities are recorded in the documents.

ii

Out of two indicators set for the output 3, all are achieved.
・ The Project supported SAEPF to revise the monitoring format and procedures to receive information from
Leskhozes in every quarter (from 2012, every half a year). (Indicator 3.1)
・ Leskhozes have been implementing monitoring activities in JFM pilot sites, and submitting monitoring
reports using monitoring format to SAEPF HQ every half a year. When monitoring was carried out quarterly,
the submission ratio was considered to be low, however, after revising monitoring format, and at the sametime, made it to be submitted every half a year, all Leskhozes became to submit. (Indicator 3.2)
4) Output 4
Indicators:
4.1 At least one seminars is conducted in each Raion of Issyk-kui Chui Oblast, and all of AOs in each Raion are
participated to those.
4.2 "JFM implementation guideline" is admitted by SAEPF and NALSG.
Out of two indicators set for the output 4, all are not yet achieved.
・ As soon as the Guidelines will be completed, the Project plans to conduct seminars in each Raion (district) of
Issyk-kul and Chui Oblast(province) to promote JFM application. (Indicator 4.1)
・ Second draft of the Guidelines (English and Russian version) was completed in June 2013. JFM guideline
seminar was held in June 2013 to collect comments on the second draft. After collection of opinion andamendment necessary, the Project will finalize the Guidelines. Besides, the Project will discuss on proposalof necessary revision of related legislations to promote JFM. (Indicator 4.2)
(3) Progress towards the Project Purpose
Indicators:
1. Comprehension on the JFM implementation knowledge and experience is shared among relevant staff of
SAEPF and NALSG.
2. JFM is implemented by only Kyrgyz side in more than two (2) sites different from the project pilot sites by theend of the project.
3. Legalization process of rules and regulations for JFM implementation should be initiated.
4."JFM implementation guideline" is utilized by relevant organizations.
Out of four indicators set for the project purpose, two are achieved and other two are not yet achieved. All
indicators are predicted to be achieved before the completion of the Project.
・ The understanding on JFM implementation among relevant staff of SAEPF and SALGIR is considered to be
deepening enough. Since project conducted seven seminars, invited concerned staff of Leskhozes in allprovinces except one, and there was no doubt on the importance of JFM; on the other hand, there foundmany needs for similar JFM activity in their territory. Latest news concerning project activities has been
provided by newsletters widely not only to SAEPF, SALGIR, Leskhozes and related Ail-Okumotues, but also
to all State Parks and international organizations. (Project Purpose Indicator 1)
・ According to survey to Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues where pilot sites were established, new JFM activity
without Project’s support has started in the territory of four (4) Leskhozes and three (3) Ail-Okumotues.
(Project Purpose Indicator 2)
・ When first draft of the Guidelines was presented, to promote legalization process, the Project suggested on
new regulations or amendment of existing regulations to SAEPF and SALGIR. Besides, when presented thesecond draft of the Guidelines, the Project suggested SAEPF to initiate drafting of new or amendment ofregulations. (Project Purpose Indicator 2)
・ The second draft of the Guidelines has prepared, yet to be finalized after integrating comments from relatedparties. (Project Purpose Indicator 3)(4) Prospects of achieving the Overall Goal
Indicators:
1. JFM is implemented in not less than 10 sites different from the project sites and such sites should be selected
not only from SFF areas but also from AO areas.
2."JFM implementation guideline" is utilized in other Provinces.
The situation is too premature to assess the prospects of achieving the overall goal. However, there are somegood signs for achieving the overall goal in future.
・ According to survey to Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues where pilot sites were established, new JFM activity
without Project’s support has started in the territory of four (4) Leskhozes and three (3) Ail-Okumotues.

iii

(Overall Goal Indicator 1)
・ The Project sought opinion in the seminars held in almost all provinces of the country in order to improve thesecond draft of the Guidelines. The JFM Project plans to diffuse the Guidelines to Leskhozes of otherprovinces using occasion such as field visit. (Overall Goal Indicator 2)
3-2 Review by the Five Criteria(1) RelevanceThe relevance of the Project is evaluated as “high” from the following reasons.
1) Project’s JFM approach to involve local residents in Joint Forest Management is concordant with one of
the main aims of the forest policy of the Kyrgyz Republic. Also the JFM approach is concordant with thedevelopment policy indicated in the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) which the WorldBank advocated, the State Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP) and the Medium-Term Development
Program (2012-2014).
2) The approach to start JFM practices in the field rather than developing theory on the desk is relevant
considering the needs and expectation of implementing agencies(SAEPF and SALGIR) and local
residents. Pilot projects has demonstrated advantages of forest management based on multiple
partnerships for mutual benefit, which includes local people, local self-governance bodies (Ail-Okmotu
and city), territorial state forest management bodies (Leskhozes, and State Park Office) and other parties.
3) Unemployment rate especially in interior part of the country is very high. The approach for forest
management of the Project is to support local residents to improve their livelihood by providing way of
income through JFM project. It is the approach of the Project to advance forest management under theagreement among Leskhozes, Ail-Okumotues, and forest users that meets local resident's needs.
4) The JFM approach seeks the way to realize rural development and effective forest management in parallel.
Rural development is one of the priority areas for Japan’s development assistance policy in the Kyrgyz
Republic.
(2) EffectivenessThe effectiveness of the Project is evaluated as “medium” from the following reasons.
1) The Project has already achieved most of its Outputs as summarized in “3-1(2) Project Progress”. PDM
states to have more than five pilot projects in two provinces in its indicator. The Project undertook tenmodel JFMs in three provinces that secured the diversity of the contents of location, natural conditions,and activity. All pilot projects have been successfully implemented, and the Project effectively
accumulated knowledge and experience for the implementation of JFM projects.
2) Activities of Output 1, 2 and 3 were designed to extract lessons for developing the Guidelines in Output 4.
To achieve the Project Purpose, the Project needs to further integrate the latest results of the monitoring(Output 3) at the same time, lessons learned obtained through implementation of pilot projects (Output 1& 2) into the Guidelines. As soon as finalizing the Guidelines, the Project needs to support SAEPF on
drafting of amendment or/and new regulations concerning JFM. Besides, to promote JFM application on
the forest management in the state, SAEPF HQ is expected to have an effort to get an additional budget
for JFM dissemination.
(3) Efficiency
The efficiency of the Project is evaluated as “moderately high” from the following reasons.
1) In view of the project progress and the situation at the time, PDM was revised twice and PO was revised
three times. Activities have been conducted according to the latest version of PDM and PO. The revised
PDM and PO made it possible to have appropriate input, in terms of quality, quantity and timing, ofexperts, equipment, facilities, training in Japan and so on, and contributed to have outputs efficiently as
expected. All inputs from Japanese side were properly used for project activities.
2) By the time of terminal evaluation, over the past fifty-four (54) months, JCC meetings were conducted six(6) times, and WGMs have been conducted eighteen (18) times. Besides, Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues
who are managing JFM pilot project had weekly regular meetings to have coordination for the Project.
The periodical and daily communication between Japanese experts and C/Ps as well as among C/Ps
contributed to have expected outputs efficiently.
3) Although, the Project Director and the Co-Project Managers have been assigned, C/Ps under exclusive
assignment for daily operation have not been existed in both SAEPF and SALGIR; therefore, many of the
project activities had been implemented by the Japanese experts. The situation madetechnology/knowledge transfer from the Japanese experts not efficient. Since qualified C/Ps in SAEPF
and SALGIR to discuss on the technical aspect of the Guidelines and the regulatory framework topromote JFM was inadequate, participation in the development of the JFM Guideline was limited.

iv

(4) Impact
The impact of the Project is evaluated as “moderately high” from the following reasons.
1) The Project aims at that local residents and Leskhozes become Win-Win; for example, the fruit tree
development as represented at Kok-Moinok pilot site had great success economically. Such success casehad demonstrated advantage of JFM project extensively especially in the neighborhood of pilot sites.
2) However, to achieve the Overall Goal in near future which states to have JFM projects also in lands of
Ail-Okumotues, SAEPF is expected to work extensively for the diffusion of the Guidelines and topromote JFM application as their priority.
3) JFM pilot projects have generated employment for local residents. As, there are many people who don’t
have job in local communities in the Kyrgyz Republic, the Project provided ways of getting income forthose people and decrease social grievance.
4) Many cases of that the JFM pilot projects stimulated other neighboring businesses such as tourism andagriculture were observed. For example in the case at Issyk-Kul Leskhoz, the pilot project repaired theforest road to spruce forests which are located at the higher part of the mountain. The road, originallyfacilitated to gather wind fallen trees, provided access to pasture land for local farmers to graze theirlivestock, also it attracted tourists so that tourism companies constructed “Yurtas(tent-style house which
are used by nomads)” for getting extra income.
(5) Sustainability
The prospect of sustainability is evaluated as “medium” from the following reasons.
1) (Policies, legislations & institutional viewpoint) JFM practices under the jurisdiction of Leskhoz are inline with the Forest Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. However, because the reform on organizational
structure in SAEPF and SALGIR is still undergoing, jurisdiction of staff for the JFM Project has been
unclear. Continuous reform may spoil efficient dissemination of JFM concept as stated in the overall Goal.
2) (Technical viewpoint) Although, the field operational staffs in Leskhozes seem to be confident forcontinuous management of JFM pilot projects, GPS survey technique, nursery managerial technique,apricot cultivation techniques and spruce forest research, which were introduced by the Project, need tohave continuous improvement to be self-sustainable technically. Besides, to go to next stage of fruit
production, technology/knowledge on processing, transportation, marketing, harvesting and so on, need to
be developed through the cooperation with other sectors such as agriculture.
3) (Human resource viewpoint) Although change of personnel in the management level at SAEPF andSALGIR has been frequent, the personnel in the field level at Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues arecomparatively stable. Many of Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues have adequate number of personnel andthey are willing to disseminate JFM scheme to their neighboring territories. On the other hand, it seems
that there is not sufficient number of people who have technical expertise in the field level.
4) (Financing viewpoint) The government budget has been observed to be quite limited, and the situation
may continue. Continuous financial input will be required to maintain facilities (e.g. fence, water-well,
water-wheel, low-temperature storage, suspension bridge) supported by the Project. As stated in theOverall Goal, to disseminate JFM concept in all over the Kyrgyz Republic, external financial assistance
may be necessary. To start new JFM project, financial incentive for installing irrigation, fencing, seedlingetc., may be required. Forestry fund shall be spent for financing of forest management activities and isconsidered to be stable rather than the ordinary government budget.
3-3 Factors positively affected the results(1) PlanningHigh relevance of the project to the development policy of the Kyrgyz Republic, and the emphasis on
implementation on the ground rather than conceptual work on documents contributed to appropriate planning.
(2) Implementation Process
In addition to the two levels of regular meetings, Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) and Working Group
Meeting (WGM), pilot sites also had occasional discussions maintaining close communication among thestakeholders of the project, which contributed to smooth operation of the project.
3-4 Factors negatively affected the results(1) Planning
N/A(2) Implementation ProcessvThere was no counterpart under exclusive assignment for the project in either SAEPF or SALGIR;
therefore, many of the project activities were implemented by JICA side. This situation limited the extent oftechnology/knowledge transfer from the project experts.
3-5 Conclusions(1) The Project implemented an innovative framework of JFM in the Kyrgyz Republic. The Project undertook
activities in the pilot sites, where positive impacts were observed such as increase in the forest area,
improvement in the local livelihoods, awareness regarding JFM, cooperation between local authorities(Leskhozes and Ail-Okumotues) and participation of local people, despite unexpected political reforms
during its implementation. In some cases, JFM also contributed to environmental education.
(2) The pilot sites were set up and they are moving forward with positive outcomes being expected. Theseexperiences in the pilot sites were compiled as the guidelines. JFM is understood by an increasing numberof people, and is in the process of spreading out more broadly. We conclude that the Project has beensuccessfully implemented.
(3) However, for broader application of JFM, the legal framework and the institutional capacity, such as
human and financial resources (including the forestry fund) in SAEPF, need to be strengthened. Efforts ofseeking opportunities for collaboration with partner organizations should also be continued in order for the
JFM framework to be developed and applied further.
3-6 Recommendations(1) The JFM scheme should be adaptive to variations of forest activities such as production andenvironmental protection. Based on more practices, the guidelines should be revised occasionally for fairand strategic expansion of JFM activities.
(2) In accordance with the above mentioned revision of the guidelines, legislative adjustment should beconsidered by SAEPF. In addition, mechanisms like a dedicated fund should become a standard in JFM
arrangements for securing long-term forest management. Those mechanisms would also facilitate initialinvestment for accelerating the expansion of JFM.
(3) To promote JFM application in areas other than state forest fund, the cooperation between SAEPF andSALGIR should be continued and further strengthened.
(4) Capacity of staff responsible for JFM in SAEPF and SALGIR should be further developed.
(5) Networking with relevant groups such as the agricultural sector, universities and research institutes, donororganizations and NGOs should be enhanced for expansion of JFM. Good practices and knowledge should
be shared for mutual learning among the people in different JFM sites.
3-7 Lessons Learned(1) Participatory JFM is effective in not only increasing the forest area but also awareness and livelihoods of
local population, and contributes to the development of public infrastructure and related industries such as
production and tourism.
(2) Participation of local authorities in both forestry (Leskhozes) and local governance (Ail-Okumotues) is aneffective institutional arrangement for implementing JFM, which suits to the realities in the Kyrgyz
Republic.
(3) The Project places emphasis on implementation on the ground rather than conceptual work on documents.
Through the activities in the pilot sites, JFM produces practical guidelines and promoted understanding
and participation by stakeholders.

vi