GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation

Egypt

( 1991-2008)

Yasmine Fouad GEF Unit

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

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)

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

Purpose of evaluation

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

Ownership

Process

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

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)

Limitations

IndicatorValue 1990s/early 2000sValue mid-2000s

Population size66.5 million (2000)81.7 million (2008)

Population growth (annual)1.8%( 2000)1,7( % 2007)

School attendance by population aged 5-24 N/A96 % male, 94 % female (2000-2006)

Literacy rate population aged 15+ N/A71% :male 83 %, female 59.4 % (2005)

GDP growth4.5%( 1997)7.1%( 2007)

Per capita GDP growth2.6%( 1997)5.2%( 2007)

Official Development AssistanceUS$ 1.123 (2002)US$ 787 million (2007)

Unemployment7.9( % 1999)10.9( % 2005)

Population living on less US$1/day23.4( % 2005)18.9( % 2008)

Gini coefficient29( 2000) N/A

Life expectancy61 years (2000)71 years (2007)

Birthrate2.33( % 1997)N/A

Mortality rate, under 5 (per 1,000)51( 2000)35( 2006)

Energy use (oil equivalent per capita)683 kg (2000)841 kg (2005)

Electric power consumption (per capita)1,01 kWh (2000)1,25 kWh (2005)

Number of subscribers in the electricity network N/A 21.5 million (2006)

HIV prevalence (ages 15-49)N/A0.1( % 2007)

New registrations of passenger cars55,470( 2004)200,760( 2008)

Economic contribution of tourism N/A9.7 million US$ (2006)

Surface area protected for biodiversity 5.3( % 2002) 15( % 2008)

Overview of Portfolio

Projects

Focal Areas

Allocations

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

GEF Country Portfolio Egypt

GEF Country Portfolio EgyptGEF Funding to Focal Areas by GEF Phases

MFA $0.20

$0.50

POPs $0.50

$5.26$0.83

$3.62$4.29

$4.75 BD $1.06

BD $0.30

$14.52

$50.85

$0.80

CC $0.40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pilot Phase GEF - 1 GEF - 2 GEF - 3 GEF - 4

Million $

Climate Change

Biodiversity

International Waters

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Multi-focal Areas

GEF Country Portfolio EgyptGEF Funding by Implementing Agency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

UNDP UNEP UNIDO World Bank

Million $

Pilot Phase

GEF - 1

GEF - 2

GEF - 3

GEF - 4

GEF Country Portfolio EgyptGEF Funding by National Executing Agency

GEF Country Portfolio EgyptRegional/Global Projects by Focal Area and Agency

Focal areas

UNDP UNEP World Bank

UNIDO IFAD Grand Total

Biodiversity

2 4 6

Climate change

1 1 2

International waters

4/1 1 2 8

Land degradation

1 1

POPs

1 1 2

Multifocal

1 3 4

Total

8 7 6 1 1 23

conclusions

1 )GEF support to biodiversity in Egypt has

been of strategic importance

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

Outcomes of biodiversity projects

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

Biodiversity - Catalytic/Replication Effects

( 2) GEF support to Biodiversity in Egypt

has been of Strategic importance

2 )Climate change activities have achieved

results, particularly in energy efficiency

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.

Climate change Outcomes – Market transformations

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

Outcomes – individual, institutional and systemiccapacity building

2 )Climate change activities have achieved

results, particularly in energy efficiency

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.

Outcomes – individual, institutional and systemiccapacity building

2 )Climate change activities 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)

2 )Climate change activities have achieved

results, particularly in energy efficiency

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.

Risks to climate change projects

2 )Climate change activities have achieved

results, particularly in energy efficiency

3 )Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation.

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”.

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

3 )Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation.

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.

Regional projects :

3 )Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation )2(.

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

Regional projects

3( Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation)3(

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.

As other regional projects

3( Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation for collaboration between countries and demonstrated innovative technologies and approaches for water conservation)4(

4( GEF support to Egypt in the areas of Land Degradation and Persistent Organic Pollutants has been limited.

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

Land degradation

POPs

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.

Relevance

Relevance to NSSD

Relevance to NEAP

comparison to other donors

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

Relevance )1(

In general, GEF projects and activities address national priorities and coincide well with the environmental agenda in Egypt.

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.

Relevance )2(

The GEF support in Egypt has been of particular

strategic importance as compared to other Donors in

the field of the Environment.

Relevance )3(

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Million $

0

10

20

30

40

50

Million $

ODA Disbursements in Egypt in all sectors

GEF Funding in Egypt

ODA Disbursements vs. GEF Disbursements

Efficiency

Time, Effort & Financial Resources

GEF Focal Point Mechanism

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.

Efficiency )1(

Predesign/concept

development

Design/ preparation

Approval by Council/ work

program inclusion

Approval by IAs/EAs

Implementation

Entry into GEF pipeline

GEF CEO endorsement

Project start-up

A

B

C

D

E

GEF Activity Cycle

Project supervision and/or steering committees need to be more

proactive and responsive to address problems and facilitate

implementation in a timely manner.

Efficiency )2(

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

Efficiency )3(

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.

Recommendations

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.

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.

Government response

Thank you