Transcript GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation - Egypt

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)
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
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
Process
Ownership
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
Indicator
Value 1990s/early 2000s
Value mid-2000s
Population size
66.5 million (2000)
81.7 million (2008)
Population growth (annual)
1.8% (2000)
1,7 % (2007)
School attendance by population aged 5-24
N/A
96 % male, 94 % female (2000-2006)
Literacy rate population aged 15+
N/A
71%: male 83 %, female 59.4 % (2005)
GDP growth
4.5% (1997)
7.1% (2007)
Per capita GDP growth
2.6% (1997)
5.2% (2007)
Official Development Assistance
US$ 1.123 (2002)
US$ 787 million (2007)
Unemployment
7.9 % (1999)
10.9 % (2005)
Population living on less US$1/day
23.4 % (2005)
18.9 % (2008)
Gini coefficient
29 (2000)
N/A
Life expectancy
61 years (2000)
71 years (2007)
Birthrate
2.33 % (1997)
N/A
Mortality rate, under 5 (per 1,000)
51 (2000)
35 (2006)
Energy use (oil equivalent per capita)
683 kg (2000)
841 kg (2005)
Electric power consumption (per capita)
1,01 kWh (2000)
1,25 kWh (2005)
Number of subscribers in the electricity network
N/A
21.5 million (2006)
HIV prevalence (ages 15-49)
N/A
0.1 % (2007)
New registrations of passenger cars
55,470 (2004)
200,760 (2008)
Economic contribution of tourism
N/A
9.7 million US$ (2006)
Surface area protected for biodiversity
5.3 % (2002)
15 % (2008)
Overview of Portfolio
Projects
Focal Areas
Allocations
GEF Country Portfolio Egypt
19 national projects for $87.87 million with $174.69 million in cofinancing
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 Funding to Focal Areas by GEF Phases
Million $
60
Climate Change
Biodiversity
50
International Waters
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Multi-f ocal Areas
40
30
$50.85
20
$14.52
10
$4.75
$0.80
CC $0.40
$5.26
BD $0.30
0
Pilot Phase
GEF - 1
$4.29
BD $1.06
POPs $0.50
MFA $0.20
$0.83
$0.50
GEF - 2
GEF - 3
$3.62
GEF - 4
GEF Country Portfolio Egypt
GEF Funding by Implementing Agency
Million
$
55
Pilot Phase
50
GEF - 1
GEF - 2
GEF - 3
45
GEF - 4
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
UNDP
UNEP
UNIDO
World Bank
GEF Country Portfolio Egypt
GEF Funding by National Executing Agency
GEF Country Portfolio Egypt
Regional/Global Projects by Focal Area and Agency
Focal areas
UNDP
UNEP
Biodiversity
2
4
Climate change
1
International waters
4/1
1
World
Bank
UNIDO
1
2
2
8
1
POPs
1
Multifocal
1
3
7
6
8
Grand
Total
6
Land degradation
Total
IFAD
1
1
2
4
1
1
23
conclusions
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
(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
2) Climate change activities 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.
2) Climate change activities 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
2) Climate change activities 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.
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
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.
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”.
3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation
for collaboration between countries and
demonstrated innovative technologies and
approaches for water conservation.
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 (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.
3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation
for collaboration between countries and
demonstrated innovative technologies and
approaches for water conservation(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
3) Internat’l waters projects have laid the foundation
for collaboration between countries and
demonstrated innovative technologies and
approaches for water conservation(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.
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
POPs
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
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
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
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.
The GEF support in Egypt has been of particular
strategic importance as compared to other Donors in
the field of the Environment.
Relevance (3)
ODA Disbursements vs. GEF Disbursements
ODA Disbursements
in Egypt in all sectors
Million $
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
0
Million $
50
40
30
20
10
0
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
GEF Funding in
Egypt
Efficiency
Time, Effort & Financial Resources
GEF Focal Point Mechanism
Efficiency (1)
GEF project cycle tends to be lengthy
GEF Activity Cycle
Predesign/
concept
development
Design/
preparation
A
Entry into
GEF pipeline
B
Approval by
Council/ work
program
inclusion
D
Approval by IAs/
EAs
C
GEF CEO
endorsement
Implementation
E
Project startup

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 (2)

Project supervision and/or steering committees need to be more
proactive and responsive to address problems and facilitate
implementation in a timely manner.
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
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.
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.
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.
Thank you