GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation Egypt (1991-2008) Yasmine Fouad GEF Unit

1. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation Egypt (1991-2008) Yasmine Fouad GEF Unit Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

2. Why Egypt? • Selected through a stratified random selection of countries in the region • Large and diverse portfolio with potentially important results • Large and well established Small Grants Programme • Egypt has received a RAF allocation for climate change and • biodiversity (only few countries in the world)

3. Purpose of evaluation • Independently evaluate the relevance and efficiency of GEF support in the country • from several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes; the GEF mandate and achievement of global environmental benefits; and GEF policies and procedures • Assess the effectiveness and results of completed and ongoing projects in each relevant focal area • Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to: (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making process on allocating resources and developing policies and strategies; (2) the country on its participation in the GEF; and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in preparation and implementation of GEF support

4. Methodology CPE Egypt was conducted between Oct 08 – March 09 Evaluation Team: Egyptian consultants/GEF EO staff Primary source: existing project documents, monitoring & evaluation reports Qualitative and quantitative methods: use of protocols, interviews, and field visits Scope & focus: all 19 national projects in all implementation stages, 8 regional/global projects ongoing or completed were reviewed for impacts and outcomes

5. Process Ownership

6. Process • Establishing a team from office of operational focal point to regularly coordinate with national consultant and GEF M & E office for assessment of projects and participation in missions • Response to different questions related to the evolution of GEF portfolio in Egypt and its strategic importance. • Participating and preparation of the consultation workshop • Importance of government response

7. Limitations • GEF does not require a country strategy • Contribution of GEF to results in focal areas rather than attribution • Results are measured at the outcome & impact level but there is no easy methodology • Reliance on secondary sources • not always a full set of documentation • outcome & impact focus but weak M&E all around (indicators, formats & concepts applied) • relatively few completed projects • Limited time frame( 6 months assessment versus 18 years)

8. Limitations

9. Overview of Portfolio Projects Focal Areas Allocations

10. GEF Country Portfolio Egypt 19 national projects for $87.87 million with $174.69 million in co-financing 2 pipeline projects GEF Agencies: UNDP, WB, UNEP, UNIDO No ongoing projects by FAO, IFAD, AfDB Egypt has also received support through 17 regional and 6 global projects SGP has financed 219 projects since 1992 for $4.32 million RAF allocation to Egypt – BD: $4.3 million ; CC: $11.8 million 42% of the funding are for projects that are now completed

11. GEF Country Portfolio Egypt GEF Funding to Focal Areas by GEF Phases

12. GEF Country Portfolio Egypt GEF Funding by Implementing Agency

13. GEF Country Portfolio Egypt GEF Funding by National Executing Agency

14. GEF Country Portfolio Egypt Regional/Global Projects by Focal Area and Agency

15. conclusions

16. 1) GEF support to biodiversity in Egypt has been of strategic importance Outcomes of biodiversity projects • Without GEF-funding, there would have been a less consolidated protected areas network • Changes in sectoral regulations - full environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for tourism developments • Protection of wetland resources and their importance has been enhanced • Preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, First National Communication to CBD

17. (2)GEF support to Biodiversity in Egypt has been of Strategic importance Biodiversity - Catalytic/Replication Effects • Elevating the environmental agenda, improving communication between various agencies, and potentially generating behavioral change among some stakeholders • Research and monitoring data from wetland sites integrated into and utilized by BioMAP project, reported to Ramsar Convention • The MedWetCoast project secured co-financing from various Ministries and a private company to fund various habitat conservation activities • Medicinal Plants project aims to replicate certain tools used in Community-based Natural Resource Management in other protected areas

18. 2) Climate changeactivities have achieved results, particularly in energy efficiency Climate change Outcomes – Market transformations • Hybrid-electric buses: One local bus manufacturer is investing in the production of electric buses in Egypt • Energy Efficiency Codes put in place of major appliances (refrigerators, washing machines and air conditions) • Completion of codes for residential energy efficiency for new buildings and the issuance of ministerial decree for its enforcement (pending). • Efficient lighting system through the promotion and diffusion of CFL lamps. • Expansion of business and supporting services for energy efficiency has been expanded to nine ESCOs. • The Government is preparing a National Strategy for Improving Energy Efficiency in Egypt.

19. 2) Climate changeactivities have achieved results, particularly in energy efficiency Outcomes – individual, institutional and systemic capacity building • Enabling activities have built the capacities • The Initial National Communication on climate change created a critical mass of experts and institutions, including the National Committee for Climate Change. • Two-tiered institutional mechanism enable coordination of the activities to develop policy options related to climate change and to comply with the provisions of the UNFCCC • Climate change policy dialogue process initiated among governmental and non-governmental, academic, and grassroots sectors

20. 2) Climate changeactivities have achieved results, particularly in energy efficiency Outcomes – individual, institutional and systemic capacity building • Enhanced national capability was created in the areas of climate change assessment, mitigation, and project development through programmes that strengthened existing institutions. • Inventory of GHG emissions and their removal by sinks was developed • Public awareness: Websites have been created for the Energy EEIGGR and the Climate Change Unit at EEAA to facilitate information dissemination, promote training, education and public awareness in Egypt. • Challenges: government’s lack of implementation of time-of-use tariffs, and development of regulations for cogeneration, renewable energy tariffs and power purchase agreements for small generators.

21. 2) Climate changeactivities have achieved results, particularly in energy efficiency • Four relatively new national projects in climate change are currently ongoing: • Solar Thermal Hybrid project (GEF/UNDP) • Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development project( GEF/UNDP) • Sustainable Transport project ( GEF/UNDP) • Adaptation to Climate Change in the Nile Delta through Integrated Coastal Zone Management ( GEF/UNDP)

22. 2) Climate changeactivities have achieved results, particularly in energy efficiency Risks to climate change projects • Solar power: No large scale solar thermal power plants have been built in developing countries to date. Solar thermal industry is small and financially weak. • Biomass: external (policy related) and internal risks (risks inherent to the project implementation itself including stakeholders and technologies). • Transport: risks are related to the institutional and public perception barriers. • Adaptation: overcome the political resistance since there will be a need for changes within governments, NGOs and communities from reactive crisis management to proactive risk management and securing the required co-funding.

23. 3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for waterconservation. The common objectives and expected results from regional GEF International Waters projects, are: “to lay the foundations for collaboration between the countries over these transboundary resources” and “to strengthen the institutional, legal and coordination frameworks for the sustainable management and use of shared resources”.

24. 3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for waterconservation. National projects • the Lake Manzala Engineered Wetland project demonstrated a low cost technology capable of treating large bodies of wastewater in Egypt, hence reducing the impact of land-based sources of pollution on the Mediterranean Sea, while addressing the national development challenge of poor water quality • The Developing Renewable Ground Water Resources in Arid Lands: A Pilot Case – the Eastern Desert of Egypt project has demonstrated the benefits of selecting, designing and approaching research in a way to respond to policy and development concerns. Moreover, the project has successfully managed to link research to development focused on a vital natural resource, ground water

25. 3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for waterconservation (2). Regional projects : • Initiates a dialogue between countries which might not have taken place otherwise. Accordingly, GEF projects have succeeded in putting such dialogues in place. In the cases of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and the Nubian Aquifer, this has been of particular strategic importance. • Once GEF supports a regional institutional set-up, such as the NBI and Red Sea SAP, the likelihood of it being sustainable has proven to be quite high, and ex-post project these regional mechanisms will continue to function with their own momentum; albeit, at reduced effectiveness.

26. 3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for waterconservation(3) Regional projects • Coordination between national institutions in most of the participating countries is not always efficient. Dissemination and utilization of information and regional outputs is less than satisfactory • Weakness of the environmental institutions in some of the countries, as well as the inadequacy of some important policy tools such as legislations and /or information in these countries complicates collaboration

27. 3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for waterconservation(4) As other regional projects • The capacities and competence of the relevant national stakeholders in the different countries vary considerably. This results in capacity- building activities often being neither relevant nor sufficiently useful for institutions in Egypt. • The activities of regional projects with no national component are not visible enough, especially when compared with relatively large bilateral projects. Accordingly, these projects do not always receive the much needed political attention necessary.

28. 4) GEF support to Egypt in the areas of Land Degradation and Persistent Organic Pollutants has been limited. Land degradation • No national projects, only the regional MENARID - no national component in Egypt (yet) • Enabling activity: National Implementation Plan for Stockholm Convention prepared in 2005 • Regional project: Demonstration of Sustainable Alternatives to DDT and Strengthening of National Vector Control Capabilities in Middle East and North Africa, June 2007, no national component, executing agency: WHO Regional Office for Eastern Mediterranean in Cairo (Ministry of Health) • Current preparation of POPS( GEF/ Worldbank is underway with an amount of 9 million USD POPs

29. 5) The long term sustainability of achieved results remains a challenge's • sustainability is often undermined by the challenge of anchoring complex • environmental projects and priorities within public structure and institutions.. • Another challenging area for sustainability is that dissemination of project • outcomes and outputs to policy makers, executive bodies and the public does not • receive adequate attention. • Dissemination of results of GEF projects is one of the key tools for achieving • sustainability of project results through policy changes, wide scale replication • and consequently tangible local and global benefits.

30. Relevance Relevance to NSSD Relevance to NEAP comparison to other donors

31. Relevance (1) In general, GEF projects and activities address national priorities and coincide well with the environmental agenda in Egypt. • The Framework for the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) was launched in 2007, still being formulated • NCSA project on mainstreaming global environmental issues in national plans was linked to the NSSD - shown the importance of mainstreaming global environmental objectives into the national and sectoral plans • Given close link between environmental sustainability and social and economic development in Egypt, shift in GEF focus to integrate local community livelihoods into project activities makes GEF support very relevant • The GEF portfolio is generally relevant to the NEAP 2002-17 • Egypt’s SGP is aligned with GEF priorities and criteria, as well as national priorities

32. Relevance (2) Cofinancing • Country ownership and commitment has strengthened • Cofinancing ratios double the GEF grant • For the $87.87 million of GEF support for national projects (excluding the SGP), cofinancing amounts to $174.69 million. • This is a ratio of almost $2 for every $1 from the GEF is a rather small ratio compared with most cases around the world. • The low levels of cofinancing from national institutions may suggest that Egypt is facing problems financing for environmental activities.

33. The GEF support in Egypt has been of particular strategic importance as compared to other Donors in the field of the Environment.

34. Relevance (3) ODA Disbursements vs. GEF Disbursements ODA Disbursements in Egypt in all sectors GEF Funding in Egypt

35. Efficiency Time, Effort & Financial Resources GEF Focal Point Mechanism

36. Efficiency (1) GEF project cycle tends to be lengthy • The longest individual step in the GEF cycle for FSP is from pipeline entry to Council approval, which averaged 3.1 years. This is equivalent to 64 percent of the overall processing time. • The shortest step in the cycle for full size projects is from CEO endorsement to Agency approval which averaged 26 days. • MSP took 5 months from CEO endorsement to Agency approval, and took 3 months from Agency approval to project start-up. GEF Activity Cycle

37. Efficiency (2) • Project supervision and/or steering committees need to be more proactive and responsive to address problems and facilitate implementation in a timely manner.

38. Efficiency (3) GEF Focal Point Mechanism • The establishment of the GEF National Steering Committee has made the project approval process more systematic and transparent. • The establishment of the GEF Unit in EEAA is leading to improved coordination, synergies between GEF and the four conventions and communications. • Capacity of the GEF Unit is limited given the extended responsibilities of the operational focal point, particularly since the RAF. • The vehicle for the participation of the political focal point is through the GEF National Steering Committee

39. Recommendations • Recommendation 1: The GEF Council should address the significant gap of available resources in Land Degradation to support key challenges facing countries like Egypt. • Recommendation 2: Prepare a GEF national framework in order to enhance the strategic use of GEF funds. • Recommendation 3: Improve the overall effectiveness of the GEF support.

40. Government response • the impact of the GEF projects on the global environmental issues need to be considered within the context of the collective activities supported by the national government and other donors in the same area. • The government has been cooperating with the GEF as one of the multilateral donors/Fund. Such cooperation has been based on country's drivness and owner ship rather than fulfilling donors needs. This had led to the fact that the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and the National Action Plan (NAP) of each convention were the guiding principle for developing GEF project proposals.

41. Government response • Conclusion 5 states the long term sustainability of achieved results remains a challenge" is generic finding that could apply to any of donors funded projects in any developmental area. In our specific context, this cannot be applied to all GEF small, medium and large scale projects as there are successful ones that were sustained and even upscaled . • Moreover, it is in our opinion that the GEF portfolio has been heavily institutionalized and more visible at the national level in the Ministry of Environment through the establishment of GEF unit last year. • Also, the responsibility of disseminating projects results and especially best practices is not the sole responsibility of the government. The joint responsibility lies within the GEF Sect. Implementing agency and the government.

42. Thank you