A total of 162.3 trillion UZS was planned for the implementation of 152 development programs across 44 ministries and agencies acting as primary budget spending units.

The assessment revealed that out of 715 target indicators set within the framework of these programs, 573 (80%) were fully achieved, 99 (14%) were partially achieved, and 43 (6%) were not achieved.

Despite certain efforts made to ensure the implementation of target indicators, a number of systemic shortcomings were identified during the assessment. In particular:

– There is no unified approach to setting indicators.

Specifically, in 25 (57%) ministries and agencies, target indicators were formed directly based on development programs, whereas in the remaining 19 (43%) they were established within the framework of current budget expenditures.

For example, in the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change, indicators were set based on six development programs, while in the Competition Committee they were defined within current maintenance expenditures.

Furthermore, when defining indicators for current expenditures, sector-specific strategic objectives were not taken into account.

For instance, in 2025 it was planned for Uzbekistan to reach 62nd place in the Global Innovation Index (Decree PF-165 dated July 6, 2022), however, in practice, the country ranked 79th. This indicator was not assigned as a performance indicator for the Innovation Agency.

– Target indicators are mainly focused on volume and quantitative measures. In particular:

The majority of indicators are not outcome-based but rather process-oriented (output), which limits the ability to fully assess real economic efficiency.

Indicators such as “number of information systems developed” and “number of events held” only reflect the volume of work performed and do not answer whether the activities were effective, whether costs were reduced, or whether time savings were achieved.

The core functions and responsibilities of ministries and agencies are not adequately covered by target indicators.

In some cases, the current indicator system is largely formal in nature and does not reflect real economic outcomes.

For example, in the Ministry of Economy and Finance, formal indicators such as “number of pensioners,” “number of events,” and “number of training courses” have been established.

Indicators have been set for metrics that are not directly related to the mandates of ministries and agencies.

For instance, an indicator assigned to the Academy of Arts regarding the installation of 34 monuments to prominent scholars and statesmen in Uzbekistan and other countries was not achieved, as it depends on factors beyond its authority.

Indicators have been defined for metrics that are formed naturally without direct influence.

For example, for the national broadcasting company, the annual volume of television and radio programs—naturally occurring outputs—was set as an indicator.

In international practice, indicators such as “social impact,” “audience engagement,” “content quality,” and the reduction of the share of budget funds in total expenditures through increasing extra-budgetary revenues are commonly used.

During the assessment, international experience was analyzed, and proposals and recommendations were developed to introduce, alongside quantitative indicators, qualitative, outcome-based, and impact-oriented indicators in order to ensure a more comprehensive and objective evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented measures.

In particular, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as other ministries and agencies, were recommended to:

review certain indicators taking into account ongoing institutional reforms and new governance mechanisms, and eliminate functional inconsistencies;

ensure alignment and proportionality between financial resources and indicators;

place particular emphasis on indicators reflecting efficiency and effectiveness, and enhance their practical impact, including by introducing measures such as return on investment (ROI), cost-effectiveness, and user satisfaction;

revise the indicator system by increasing the share of outcome- and impact-level indicators and linking each indicator to results and effects;

develop indicators strictly within institutional mandates, retaining only those directly influenced by the entity, while using macroeconomic indicators as indirect measures;

establish a list of core indicators and optimize duplicative indicators;

expand opportunities for international benchmarking.

For example, for the Ministry of Health, the main indicators for child immunization include the number of vaccinated individuals and coverage rates. However, outcome-based indicators reflecting the effectiveness of immunization—such as reductions in disease incidence or improvements in the epidemiological situation—have not been included.

International experience (the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and OECD countries) shows that key indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of oncology services include 1-year and 5-year survival rates, the share of early-stage detection (screening and early diagnosis coverage), reductions in cancer mortality rates, and population coverage by targeted screening programs (e.g., breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer).

Additionally, the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change was advised to develop indicators reflecting improvements in Uzbekistan’s position in international environmental rankings, including those related to the implementation of automated air quality monitoring systems and reductions in pollutant emissions.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Economy and Finance was recommended to assess the quality of target indicators based on international standards (IMF, World Bank, OECD) using the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).

The need to establish internal audit systems was also noted for several organizations, including the National Anti-Doping Agency, the Committee on Religious Affairs, the Committee on Family and Women, the Agency for Development and Regulation of the Energy Market, the Committee on Industrial, Radiation and Nuclear Safety, and the Inspectorate for Oversight of the Agro-Industrial Complex.

Based on the above, the Accounts Chamber issued instructions to discuss the findings within ministries and agencies, develop necessary measures, and take effective actions in cases of irresponsible performance in fulfilling target indicators.