57538 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) november 2009 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) November 2009 (The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in June 2009.) Evaluation Report No. 52 © 2009 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Internet: www.gefeo.org Email: gefevaluation@thegef.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF Council or the governments they represent. The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. ISBN-10: 1-933992-24-7 ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-24-2 Credits Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg Evaluation Team Leaders: Claudio Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, and Anna Viggh, Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Team: Mohamad Kayyal, EcoConServ Environmental Solutions; and Timothy Ranja, GEF Evaluation Office Editing and design: Nita Congress Cover photo: Lake of Balloran Dam, Lattakia Province, Syria, Anna Viggh, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Report No. 52 A FREE PUBLICATION Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... x Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xi 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Evaluation Framework ............................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.4 Limitations of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 11 3. Context of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Syria: General Description ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Status of Environmental Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas............................................................. 16 3.3 Environmental Legal, Institutional, and Policy Framework .............................................................. 26 3.4 The GEF and the Syria Focal Point Mechanism ................................................................................... 38 4. The GEF Portfolio in Syria...................................................................................................... 41 4.1 Projects in the GEF Syrian National Portfolio ....................................................................................... 41 4.2 Allocation by Focal Area ............................................................................................................................. 45 4.3 Project Status ................................................................................................................................................. 45 4.4 Allocation by GEF Agency ......................................................................................................................... 45 4.5 Allocation by National Executing Agency .............................................................................................. 46 4.6 The Small Grants Programme................................................................................................................... 46 4.7 Regional and Global Projects ..................................................................................................................... 48 v 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria ............................................................................................ 49 5.1 Biodiversity..................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.2 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................ 53 5.3 International Waters ................................................................................................................................... 55 5.4 Land Degradation ......................................................................................................................................... 57 5.5 POPs ................................................................................................................................................................ 57 5.6 Multifocal Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 58 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Syria ....................................................................................... 60 6.1 The GEF Portfolio and Syria's Development Plans and Environmental Priorities ....................... 60 6.2 Support of the GEF Mandate and Focal Area Programs and Strategies ........................................ 63 6.3 Relevance to the GEF Mandate and Strategic Objectives ................................................................... 65 6.4 Relevance to GEF Agency Strategies and Frameworks ....................................................................... 65 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria................................................................... 67 7.1 Resources Required for Project Processing ............................................................................................ 67 7.2 Roles and Relationships............................................................................................................................... 70 7.3 Learning ......................................................................................................................................................... 71 7.4 GEF Focal Point Mechanism ...................................................................................................................... 72 Annexes A. Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................... 75 B. Evaluation Matrix ......................................................................................................................................... 83 C. Objectives and Outcomes of GEF Projects ............................................................................................ 88 D. Interviewees ................................................................................................................................................... 93 E. Sites Visited .................................................................................................................................................... 95 F. Workshop Participants................................................................................................................................ 96 G. Small Grants Programme Projects ........................................................................................................... 97 H. Country Response ........................................................................................................................................ 99 References ................................................................................................................................. 101 Box 5.1 Energy Efficiency Laws................................................................................................................................ 54 Figures 4.1 Locations of National Projects ................................................................................................................. 41 4.2 SGP Projects by Focal Area ........................................................................................................................ 47 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle ....................................................................................................................................... 68 Tables 3.1 General Profile for Syria ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Syria's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends ....................................................... 15 vi GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 3.3 Syria's Endemic Species by Biological Group......................................................................................... 16 3.4 Status of Plant Species in Syria .................................................................................................................. 17 3.5 Status of Pteridophytes in Syria ................................................................................................................ 17 3.6 Syria's National GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005.................................................................................. 19 3.7 Total CO2 Emissions in Syria ..................................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Per Capita Selected Energy Indicators, 2004 ......................................................................................... 20 3.9 Energy Consumption for Various Sectors in Syria, 2005 .................................................................... 20 3.10 Changes in Land Use in Syria between 1994 and 2003 ....................................................................... 25 3.11 Status of POPs in Syria, 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.12 Formal Protected Areas and Main Biodiversity Biomes in Syria ...................................................... 31 3.13 Bilateral Water-Sharing Agreements between Syria and Its Neighbors.......................................... 37 3.14 International Conventions Ratified by the Government of Syria by Focal Area and Year of Ratification ....................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 GEF Portfolio in Syria, 1994­2008 ........................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria by Focal Area and Modality .................. 44 4.3 RAF Allocation and Use as of February 2009 ........................................................................................ 44 4.4 GEF Funding by Focal Area, 1994 through GEF-4 ............................................................................... 45 4.5 National Projects by Status and Focal Area ........................................................................................... 45 4.6 GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Agency as of February 2009 ..................... 46 4.7 SGP Allocations by Phase as of February 2009 ..................................................................................... 47 4.8 Number of Regional and Global Projects in Which Syria Participates, by Focal Area............... 48 6.1 Completed Projects, Main Themes, and Their Relevance to National Development Plans ...... 62 7.1 Duration of the Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported FSPs and MSPs in Syria ................................. 68 7.2 Planned and Actual Durations of FSPs, MSPs, and Enabling Activities in Syria .......................... 70 Contents vii Foreword This evaluation was one of two country portfolio of the evaluation is that Syria has limited access to evaluations in 2009 examining Global Environ- GEF investment agencies, since the World Bank ment Facility (GEF) support in the Middle East. does not have a program in the country and Syria Syria was selected for review because it is eli- does not belong to any of the regional banks with gible for an individual country allocation under direct GEF access. the Resource Allocation Framework in climate The GEF Evaluation Office and the GEF focal change and for a group allocation in biodiversity, point invited a wide range of stakeholders to dis- and because its portfolio is diverse and includes projects in all the GEF focal areas. Syria has also cuss the findings of the evaluation on March 4, benefited from the Small Grants Programme 2009 in Damascus. During the workshop, the since 2006. context and methodology were presented as well as the preliminary findings and emerging recom- The evaluation found that GEF support in Syria mendations. This was followed by small group has contributed to the formal protection of glob- discussions on select issues and a very fruitful ally significant biodiversity and strengthened open forum discussion jointly chaired by the Syr- management systems. Projects introduced alter- ian GEF focal point and the GEF Chief Evaluation native livelihood practices which decrease threats Officer. The feedback received was highly con- to biodiversity including local community depen- structive, and comments have been incorporated dency on such resources as medicinal and aro- into this report as appropriate. matic plants. In the climate change area, it is dif- ficult to quantify direct greenhouse gas emissions The Syria evaluation was presented to the GEF avoidance from GEF activities, but projects have Council in June 2009 together with the Annual introduced efficiency and maintenance manage- Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2009, a ment systems that have been replicated at sev- report that synthesizes the main conclusions eral power generation plants. GEF support has and recommendations from three country port- also influenced national energy efficiency laws folio evaluations: Cameroon, Egypt, and Syria. with potential long-lasting impacts. Results in The GEF Council asked the GEF Secretariat to the other focal areas have been limited to estab- explore, within the GEF partnership, modalities lishing the foundation for national and regional to address the gap in available resources for com- action plans, policy development, and enhancing bating land degradation to support key challenges capacity. Overall long-term sustainability of proj- facing countries such as Cameroon, Egypt, and ect results remains a challenge. Another finding Syria and to conduct a survey of countries that ix are, like Syria, in the exceptional circumstance of conducting this evaluation. The Evaluation Office having limited access to GEF partner international remains fully responsible for the content of the financial institutions. report. The government of Syria has responded to the evaluation, and its response can be found in annex H of this report. I would like to thank everyone for their very active Rob D. van den Berg and supportive participation in the process of Director, GEF Evaluation Office Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Claudio Representatives of the Syrian General Com- Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, and Anna mission for Environmental Affairs and Minis- Viggh, an Evaluation Officer in the Evaluation try of State for Environmental Affairs provided Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). full cooperation and participated actively in the The team's lead consultant was Mohamad Kayyal, evaluation. The Evaluation Office is particularly a subcontractor to the regional environmental thankful to them for their contribution to project company EcoConServ Environmental Solutions. information and data. The team is grateful for the Timothy Ranja, an Evaluation Analyst in the GEF field mission support provided by Abir Zeno of Evaluation Office, served as research assistant. the UNDP Office, Syria, and for her assistance in meeting project stakeholders. x GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Abbreviations CBD Convention on Biological Diversity LS Syrian pound CBO community-based organization MAAR Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian CDM Clean Development Mechanism Reform CEO chief executive officer MSEA Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and MSP medium-size project Flora NCSA national capacity self-assessment CO2 carbon dioxide NEAP national environmental action plan CPE country portfolio evaluation NGO nongovernmental organization FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of NIP national implementation plan the United Nations PCB polychlorinated biphenyl FSP full-size project PDF project development facility GCEA General Commission for Environmental PIF project identification form Affairs POP persistent organic pollutant GDP gross domestic product RAF Resource Allocation Framework GEF Global Environment Facility SGP Small Grants Programme GHG greenhouse gas UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat GTZ German Agency for Technical Desertification Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für UNDP United Nations Development Technische Zusammenarbeit) Programme IA Implementing Agency UNEP United Nations Environment IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Programme Development UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention INC initial national communication on Climate Change All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. xi 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Background environmental benefits, and GEF policies and procedures. Syria has received support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through national, z Assess the effectiveness and results of completed regional, and global projects since 1994. GEF and ongoing projects in each relevant focal area. funding in Syria is estimated at about $12.7 mil- z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other lion for 10 national projects--5 in the biodiver- evaluations conducted or sponsored by the sity focal area, 2 in climate change, 2 in persistent GEF Evaluation Office, especially the Fourth organic pollutants (POPs), and 1 multifocal--in Overall Performance Study. addition to national implementation of the GEF z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to corporate Small Grants Programme (SGP). Bio- (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro- diversity and climate change account for the larg- est shares of GEF support--40 and 44 percent of cess to allocate resources and develop policies total GEF funding, respectively. POPs and multi- and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- focal area projects account for about 11 percent tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies of GEF funding. There are no projects combating and organizations involved in the preparation land degradation in the country. Syria has par- and implementation of GEF support. ticipated in one international waters project, a Syria was selected for evaluation through a strati- regional project along the Mediterranean coast. fied randomized selection that took into account In all, Syria has participated in seven regional and all the countries in the region. Syria was consid- six global projects supported by the GEF, half of ered a good choice for review because it is eligible which are in the biodiversity focal area. for an individual allocation in the climate change Based on the overall purpose and terms of refer- area under the Resource Allocation Framework ence of the GEF country portfolio evaluations (RAF) and for a group allocation in biodiversity, (CPEs), this evaluation of GEF support to Syria and because it has a relatively small GEF portfolio has the following objectives: compared to similar countries in the region. z Independently evaluate the relevance and An evaluation team consisting of staff of the GEF efficiency of GEF support in a country from Evaluation Office and a lead consultant based in several points of view: national environmental Syria, subcontracted by a regional environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, firm, conducted the Syria CPE between October the GEF mandate and achievement of global 2008 and April 2009. 1 1.2 Conclusions trees and native species, in addition to wild rela- tives and land races of wheat, barley, and legumes. Results and Effectiveness The project promoted alternative land use prac- Conclusion 1: GEF support to biodiversity con- tices through collaboration with farmers who servation in Syria has yielded some impacts, started to rehabilitate these species. These prac- specifically contributing to the formal protec- tices are being replicated in other agricultural tion of globally significant biodiversity and lands across the country. The project provided strengthened management systems. the resources needed for the establishment of a The GEF's two national projects in Syria in the genetic resources unit in the General Commission biodiversity focal area supported improved man- for Agricultural Scientific Research and a herbar- agement of protected areas and facilitated their ium for targeted species. These institutions are expansion. At the impact level, biodiversity proj- financially supported by the Syrian government. ects supported by the GEF introduced alternative A national enabling activity in the biodiversity livelihood practices, which decrease threats to focal area facilitated preparation of Syria's National biodiversity, including local community depen- Strategy and Action Plan on Biodiversity, creating a dence on biodiversity resources such as medicinal nationally owned strategic basis for setting policies and aromatic plants. These national projects have for sound decision making and future investments supported activities that have increased the num- in biodiversity protection. A global enabling activ- ber of migratory birds flying into protected areas. ity supported strengthened national capacity to However, development of the financial instru- develop a regulatory biosafety framework for the ments needed to sustain these improvements import and export of living modified organisms. upon project completion presents challenges and requires additional institutional reforms (see con- GEF support in the biodiversity focal area has clusion 4). GEF support to biodiversity projects been quite successful in building capacity and influenced the institutional set-up among Syrian raising awareness within targeted government government entities, notably by providing stron- institutions, in addition to academic and local ger coordination between the former Ministry communities. The projects have provided access of Local Administration and Environment--now to information on best practices and increased the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs awareness by local populations of lessons and best (MSEA)--and the Ministry of Agriculture and practices on the importance of preserving biodi- Agrarian Reform (MAAR) that led to improved versity and protected areas. In particular, the SGP management practices of protected areas.1 continues to present useful opportunities for local The GEF regional project "Conservation and Sus- communities, households, and nongovernmen- tainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity of the tal organizations (NGOs) to learn and replicate Fertile Crescent" was crucial in disseminating results regarding alternative livelihoods and new over 16 target varieties of wild relatives of fruit approaches to the sustainable use and manage- ment of biodiversity resources. 1 The MSEA was created in 2009 to take over the environmental functions of the Ministry of Local Conclusion 2: There are no data to estimate the Administration and Environment; throughout this direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions, but report, "MSEA" is used to refer to both the present GEF support has influenced national energy effi- agency and its predecessors. ciency laws with potential long-lasting impacts. 2 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) The "Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Con- had been prepared as part of this project. The servation and Planning" project established a plan was reflected in national policies and socio- target to reduce national energy consumption economic development plans. The project also by 1.83 percent and carbon dioxide (CO2) emis- generated potential funding for several related sions by 765.5 tons by 2008. Although no data are projects to protect the global environment of the available to support this result, the project did Mediterranean Sea through external investment introduce efficiency management systems and institutions. maintenance management systems which have The enabling activity conducted for the Stock- been replicated at several power generation plants holm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollut- around the country. The project also created the ants resulted in Syria's National Implementation National Energy Research Centre, an institution Plan (NIP), which, in turn, has enabled the initial within the Ministry of Electricity mandated with collection, verification, and analysis of POPs and researching new alternative energy resources the POPs situation in Syria and of options that and energy efficiency initiatives; the center also can inform decisions at all levels. The government has the capability of conducting energy audits. has consequently allocated funding for actions to Under project auspices, two energy efficiency laws eliminate POPs in Syria. The project also helped were prepared and recently enacted. The first of create a system for managing data on hazardous these sets efficiency standards for consumption chemicals imported into Syria, and aided govern- of electrical energy in the domestic, service, and ment agencies in strengthening national capaci- commercial sectors; the second involves energy ties to manage POPs and chemicals, particularly conservation. with regard to proper management and disposal The SGP has contributed to greenhouse gas of solid hazardous wastes. (GHG) reduction in Syria through biogas projects In the multifocal area, the "National Capacity which offer good opportunities for communities Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environment and NGOs to learn and replicate results in this Management" project enabled government insti- area. tutions to develop new project concepts in bio- diversity, land degradation, and climate change, Conclusion 3: Results in other focal areas are limited to establishing the foundation for and to coordinate the requirements of the three national action plans and policies and develop- relevant conventions. The project also provided ing national capacities. capacity building for government institutions and their staff, and highlighted gaps in existing capaci- In the international waters area, the regional ties for determining needs and coordinating pri- project "Determination of Priority Actions for the orities in these three thematic areas. Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Mediterra- No projects in the land degradation focal area nean Sea" brought the negative impacts of land- have been supported by the GEF in Syria, although based sources of pollutants on the coastal zone the government did promote a proposal for such a and marine environment to policy makers' atten- project. This project was ultimately not approved tion. As a result, the Syrian government adopted by the GEF for several reasons: the United Nations in 2008 the National Action Plan for Reduction Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) of Pollutants from Land-Based Sources which indicated that Africa was the priority region for 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 3 the GEF; there were not sufficient funds within been addressed, however, such as inland inter- the GEF; and it was decided to conduct a proj- national waters and land degradation. ect focused on the Middle East and North Africa The GEF portfolio in biodiversity protection and region (MENARID). The International Fund for climate change constituted about 84 percent of Agricultural Development (IFAD), one of the GEF GEF funding in Syria. These two focal areas were Agencies, has financed an extensive rural devel- addressed in the last three five-year development opment program in Syria since 1982 which has plans which coincide with the period during which land degradation components, but this receives the GEF has worked in Syria. However, Syria has no GEF support. equally pressing national priorities in integrated water resource management and sustainable land Conclusion 4: Long-term sustainability of management but has not received support for achievements continues to be a challenge. these from the GEF. Freshwater scarcity in the Long-term sustainability of GEF project results region and Syria's important surface water bodies is a challenge in Syria, and two issues emerged shared with its neighbors point to missed oppor- during the CPE that shed light on why this is so. tunities for the GEF's meaningful involvement in The first issue is related to the ability of the gov- projects that directly affect the quality of life of ernment to introduce policy changes in line with the peoples of the region. Similar arguments may institutional and legal frameworks. In this regard, be applicable to desertification and degradation the government's response to developments in the of agricultural lands as food scarcity becomes a biodiversity and climate change areas has been problem of regional significance given the area's slow at times, but often forthcoming. The second population explosion. issue relates to allocation of the necessary financial The underlying issue is one of global versus resources to implement required measures. Syria's national priorities. While biodiversity and climate general financial framework law has constrained change projects are considered to be responding executing agencies from acquiring the funding more to a global or international agenda, the focal needed to implement recommended measures in areas related to water and land degradation are GEF projects. For example, budgets are typically seen as entirely national priorities. set based on the number of permanent employees, and this number cannot be changed without the Conclusion 6: The outcomes of SGP projects are issuance of a special decree; thus, it is no simple more likely to be sustained by local communities matter to increase human resources to implement than are those of full- or medium-size projects. recommended measures. Similarly, the collection The SGP provides access to GEF funds for local of additional funds as part of new financial instru- communities and NGOs responding to their pri- ments is not possible because government agen- orities and needs within the GEF mandate and cies cannot take on this role, which can only be focal areas. As was discovered by the Joint Evalu- played by the Ministry of Finance. ation of the GEF SGP (GEF EO 2008), the Syria CPE found that the outcomes of SGP projects Relevance are more likely to be sustained by local groups Conclusion 5: GEF support addressed national because these benefit them more directly than priorities in the biodiversity and climate change do medium-size projects (MSPs) or full-size focal areas; other national priorities have not projects (FSPs), which consequently require 4 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) government funding in order to sustain their processes and procedures in the project prepara- outcomes. tion phase to be overly complicated and inefficient. For that reason, project preparation is often del- Conclusion 7: Country ownership of the GEF egated to GEF Agencies by governmental authori- portfolio is strong for national projects and less ties. A key frustration is the long delays in project so for regional and global projects. approval and completion. For the period reviewed, Concepts for national projects are typically pro- the time lag from project entry into the GEF pipe- posed by the General Commission for Environ- line to GEF Council approval could vary from mental Affairs (GCEA) in consultation with the three months to four years; the lag between Coun- GEF Agencies--mainly the United Nations Devel- cil approval and project start-up could range from opment Programme (UNDP)--based on previ- one to two years. The time period for the entire ously identified national priorities. The projects process (from entry into the GEF pipeline to proj- are fully locally owned. Consequently, when they ect start-up) ranged in Syria from 1.2 to 5.4 years. are completed, the relevant governmental execut- Another issue of concern relates to expected and ing agencies attempt to integrate their outcomes actual completion dates. Because many proj- into their mandate and typically request addi- ects set unrealistic end dates to complete highly tional budget allocations, although there are some ambitious objectives, managerial and organiza- shortcomings as noted in conclusion 4. tional problems arise, and executing agencies are Regional and global projects, on the other hand, deprived of a firm timetable for incorporating are typically initiated by GEF Agencies and com- their findings and conclusions into their institu- municated to national government counterparts; tional structures. Project extensions for MSPs and these in turn consult with the GCEA to coor- FSPs varied from 60 to 120 percent of planned dinate with relevant government agencies for project duration; extensions for enabling activities approval to join the project. Government support varied from 27 to 100 percent. at project completion is generally forthcoming to sustain project outcomes, but to a lesser extent as Conclusion 9: Syria has limited access to GEF compared to national projects. This disparity is investment agencies, since the World Bank does evidenced by government cofinancing, which has not have a program in the country, and Syria been found to be more significant when project does not belong to any of the regional banks objectives are directly in line with national priori- with direct GEF access. ties for socioeconomic development. Syria has limited access to GEF investment agen- cies; the only one with which it participates is Efficiency IFAD. The World Bank has not had a lending Conclusion 8: The GEF is perceived by national program or country strategy in Syria since 1986, stakeholders as too complicated and inefficient although more recently, it has provided support in ways that negatively affect project proposals through technical assistance. Furthermore, Syria and implementation. is not a member of any of the regional develop- The Syria CPE confirms the findings of previ- ment banks that can implement and manage GEF ous evaluations conducted by the Evaluation projects such as the African Development Bank Office. National executing agencies consider GEF and the Asian Development Bank. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 5 Conclusion 10: The GEF focal point is overly waters project in which Syria has participated is internalized within the Ministry of State for a regional action program for the Mediterranean Environmental Affairs, and there is no clear Sea, which did not address important shared sur- mechanism for developing and approving GEF- face water bodies and freshwater scarcity issues supported projects. in the region. The GEF's lack of support to these In Syria, there is no clear and systematic mecha- areas is keenly felt in a country such as Syria where nism--such as a national committee--for pri- land degradation and freshwater are major chal- oritizing, developing, and approving GEF-sup- lenges in the environmental sector. ported projects. The role of the GEF focal point The possibility of additional allocations for activi- is assigned to the deputy minister in the MSEA, ties in the field of sustainable land management which is the primary executing agency for GEF and integrated water resource management projects in the country. The ministry oversees the should be further explored. In the future, GEF's work of the GCEA which consists of a number support should include of environmental directorates. The ministry and the GCEA assume the responsibilities of the focal z increased funding to national projects combat- points for relevant international conventions-- ing land degradation and desertification; such as the Convention on Biological Diversity z increased funding to regional projects on inter- (CBD), the United Nations Framework Conven- national inland waters--in particular, the GEF tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and so on-- should provide support to the government of in the GEF focal areas. Line ministries relevant to Syria based on the extensive experience it has GEF work such as the MAAR and the Ministry of acquired in this area in other parts of the world. Electricity are not represented in the focal point mechanism. In selecting priority areas for alloca- Recommendation 2: The GEF should focus tion of GEF funds, the focal point consults with attention on those countries with limited access the convention focal points and national execut- to the international financial institutions. ing agencies via such management tools as project Syria is in an exceptional situation in that it has committees and priority-setting workshops. limited access to the GEF investment agencies. Other countries may be in a similar position. The 1.3 Recommendations GEF should conduct an inventory of such coun- tries and develop proposals on how support can Recommendations to the GEF Council be provided through other institutions. Recommendation 1: The GEF should increase its funding for land degradation and water man- Recommendations to the Syrian agement issues, both of which are high priorities Government for countries such as Syria. Recommendation 3: Adopt a proactive role in GEF projects in Syria focus mostly on biodiversity creating appropriate financial instruments and and climate change, with land degradation and establishing legislative and institutional frame- inland international waters receiving no support works to support the sustainability of GEF proj- ect results. despite their being high national priorities. No GEF-supported projects combat land degrada- The government should develop financial tion, and the only GEF-supported international instruments that will ensure the sustainability 6 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) of GEF project outcomes; examples include the Action Plan (NEAP). Committee members would following: include convention focal points from the MSEA and the GCEA, a broad range of ministerial part- z Foster private sector participation in the man- ners involved in GEF work (for example, from the agement of protected areas. Engaging the local MAAR and the Ministries of Electricity and Irri- community that has a clear interest in the sus- gation), the SGP, NGOs, the private sector, and tainability of this natural resource for its live- academia. Such a committee would set priorities lihood is crucial to the success of this instru- for the programming and implementation of GEF ment. resources. Approaches to consider in this regard z Authorize special fees to cover the implemen- include the following: tation costs of measures recommended by GEF projects. Where appropriate, establish z Use the NCSA enabling activity to identify the self-sustaining government entities that can capacity required to implement the strategy recover their costs and use their profits for fur- and plans for meeting the requirements of each ther development. Such a mechanism may be convention. needed to provide adequate financial support z Establish priority plans and budgets to act on in implementing the management plans gener- the identified country needs for future GEF ated by GEF-supported protected area projects. support, particularly in GEF-5 (2010­14), as z Provide the necessary resources to govern- very little funds are left in GEF-4 (2006­10). ment agencies so they can train their personnel z Actively seek the cooperation of GEF Agencies within a framework that ties training budget such as the World Bank, IFAD, and the Food allocations to trainees' ability to implement the and Agriculture Organization of the United measures recommended by GEF projects. Nations (FAO). z Establish a system of registration fees for newly z Expand the roles of national executing agencies introduced living modified organisms that sup- in the project preparation process to include ports implementation of the regulatory require- stakeholder government institutions, NGOs, ments of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. and the SGP. Recommendation 4: Syria should establish a per- z In coordination with neighboring countries, manent GEF national coordination committee. consider participating in projects in land degra- dation and inland international waters through The focal point mechanism should be strength- funds allocated for GEF-5, and attempt to ben- ened through the establishment of a permanent efit from the GEF experience in politically sen- GEF national committee. This committee should sitive international water basins. be linked to existing government development plans and strategies such as the 10th five-year z Use the National Dialogue Initiative to involve development plan and the National Environmental a wide range of stakeholders. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 7 2. Evaluation Framework This chapter presents the background informa- recommendations from these CPEs as well as from tion, objectives, and methodology related to and Cameroon (the Cameroon CPE was not com- used in GEF country portfolio evaluations. pleted until after the April 2008 Council meeting) were synthesized in a single report and presented 2.1 Background in June 2009 to the GEF Council to assess and The CPEs were initiated following a decision by report on experiences and common issues across the GEF Council that the GEF Evaluation Office different types of countries (GEF EO 2009). should conduct evaluations of the GEF portfolio Syria was selected for evaluation on the basis of at the country level. The overall purpose of the its individual allocation for climate change and its GEF CPEs is twofold: group allocation for biodiversity under the RAF, z To evaluate how GEF-supported activities fit and its relatively small GEF portfolio, among sev- into national strategies and priorities, as well eral other considerations. as within the global environmental mandate of the GEF 2.2 Objectives z To provide the Council with additional infor- Based on the CPE's overall purpose, this evalu- mation on the results of GEF-supported activi- ation had the following specific objectives (see ties and how these activities are implemented annex A for the terms of reference): Countries are selected for portfolio evaluation z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- from the 160 countries eligible for GEF support, ciency of GEF support in Syria from several based on stratified randomized selection and a set points of view: national environmental frame- of strategic criteria. works and decision-making processes, the GEF mandate and achievement of global environ- To date, the Evaluation Office has conducted mental benefits, and GEF policies and proce- seven CPEs: for Costa Rica (pilot case in 2006); dures. the Philippines and Samoa (in 2007); and Benin, z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- Cameroon, Madagascar, and South Africa (in pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant 2008). Documents for the completed evaluations focal area. are available on the GEF Evaluation Office Web site. Most recently, portfolio evaluations were z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other undertaken in Syria and Egypt. The findings and evaluations conducted or sponsored by the 8 GEF Evaluation Office, especially the Fourth GEF financing to the SGP amounted to about Overall Performance Study. $1 million. This program has been in existence in Syria since 2005. GEF support also includes a z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to series of enabling activities for all the focal areas as (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro- requested and required by the international con- cess to allocate resources and develop policies ventions for which the GEF serves as a financial and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- mechanism. Financing for the enabling activities tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies supported by the GEF is about $1 million. Syria and organizations involved in the preparation has participated in 13 initiatives supported by and implementation of GEF support. the GEF that have a regional or global scope. The CPEs do not aim to evaluate or rate the Chapter 4 outlines GEF support to the national, performance of the GEF Agencies, partners, or regional, and global projects in which Syria has national governments. The evaluations do analyze participated. the performance of individual projects as part of Proposals under preparation--for example, those the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating such that are in pipelines--were not explicitly part projects. of the evaluation. Projects that have received endorsement by the GEF Chief Executive Officer Key Evaluation Questions (CEO), and for which the GEF has made a finan- Chapters 5, 6, and 7 address the three main areas cial commitment, but do not yet have activities in of the evaluation, namely the results and effective- Syria are identified but not discussed. ness, relevance, and efficiency of GEF support, respectively. Each chapter begins by listing certain Thus, the GEF portfolio assessed in this evalua- key questions that have guided the evaluation pro- tion is the aggregate of the national projects plus cess. Each question is supported by an evaluation the regional and global projects. The project stage matrix (see annex B), which contains a tentative determined the evaluation focus, as shown in list of indicators or basic data, potential sources table A.3. of information, and methodology components. The context in which the projects were developed The matrix was continuously developed through- and approved and in which they are being imple- out the evaluation process. The evaluation made mented constitutes the focus of the evaluation, as use of the indicators in GEF project documents, discussed in chapter 3: as well as indicators in each of the focal areas, the RAF, and any appropriate national sustainable z Potential for securing global environmental development and environmental indicators. benefits in each focal area. This situational analysis provides a basis for assessing whether Scope of the Evaluation the maximum potential national and global To date, since 1994, the GEF has invested about benefits have been secured. $12.7 million (with about $32 million in cofinanc- z Relevant national policy, legislative, strategy, ing) through 10 national projects (5 biodiversity, planning, and institutional frameworks. This 2 climate change, 2 POPs, 1 multifocal) and the context provides a basis for assessing the rel- Small Grants Programme in Syria. This portfo- evance of the portfolio to national frameworks lio of projects is the main focus of the evaluation. and priorities. 2. Evaluation Framework 9 z GEF policies, principles, programs, and strat- z Evaluative evidence at the country level from egies. This context enables assessment of the GEF Evaluation Office evaluations and the relevance of the portfolio to the GEF. overall performance studies, or from national evaluations The evaluation is not intended to comprehen- sively cover the country's response to the different z Statistics and scientific sources, especially for global conventions, because this response goes the statistical abstracts beyond the GEF. Rather, it only considers GEF z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, including support; the country will usually have a wider relevant government departments, national set of responses to the conventions that do not executing agencies, NGOs, presently active include the GEF. GEF Agencies, and the SGP (annex D lists those interviewed) 2.3 Methodology z A limited number of field visits to project sites, The Syria CPE was conducted between October including interviews with GEF beneficiaries at 2008 and April 2009, and the evaluation team the community level where possible (annex E consisted of staff from the GEF Evaluation Office lists these field visits) and a lead consultant from a regional environ- z Information from the national consultation mental company, EcoConServ Environmental workshop held March 4, 2009, to enable com- Solutions. The team was headed by a task man- ager from the GEF Evaluation Office. The meth- ment and discussion on the draft report before odology included a series of components using it was finalized, as well as written comments a combination of qualitative and quantitative (annex F lists workshop attendees) methods and tools. The qualitative aspects of the The quantitative analysis used indicators to evaluation are based on the following sources of assess the efficiency of GEF support using proj- information: ects as the unit of analysis (that is, time and cost z At the project level, project documents, proj- of preparing and implementing projects and so ect implementation reports, terminal evalu- on). The evaluation team used standardized CPE ations or closure reports, and reports from tools and protocols and adapted these to the Syr- monitoring visits ian context. These tools included z At the country level, documents relevant to z an evaluation matrix outlining the information the broad national sustainable development relevant to the evaluation and expected sources and environmental agenda, priorities, and (see annex B); strategies; specific policies, strategies, and z project review protocols to conduct the reviews action plans relevant to focal areas; GEF-sup- of GEF national, regional, and global projects; ported strategies and action plans relevant to the global conventions; and national environ- z an interview guide for use with different stake- mental indicators holders. z At the GEF Agency level, country assistance Projects were selected for visits based on whether strategies and frameworks and their evalua- they had been completed and on their geographic tions and reviews, specifically from UNDP clustering (which made a visit to a number of 10 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) projects in a particular geographic area within than outputs. Project-level results are measured limited time frames a possibility). against the overall expected impacts and out- comes from each project (see annex C). Expected The process and outputs of the evaluation are out- impacts at the focal area level are assessed in lined in the terms of reference for the evaluation the context of GEF objectives and indicators of (see annex A). The three main phases of the evalu- global environmental benefits. Outcomes at the ation were to focal area level are primarily assessed in relation z conduct the evaluation, including at least one to catalytic and replication effects, institutional visit by GEF Evaluation Office representatives; sustainability and capacity building, and aware- ness. This report provides information compiled z present a draft report at a consultation work- primarily from project documents, reports, and shop with major stakeholders; evaluations, supplemented by interviews and a z prepare a final report incorporating any com- limited number of field visits. ments, which was then presented to the GEF Council and the recipient government. Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initia- tives is not straightforward. Many projects do 2.4 Limitations of the Evaluation not clearly or appropriately specify the expected impacts and sometimes even the outcomes of CPEs are challenging as the GEF does not oper- projects. Often, the type of information pro- ate by establishing country programs that specify vided by project reports and terminal evalua- expected achievements through programmatic tions is limited to outcomes or just outputs and objectives, indicators, and targets. In general, does not contain an evaluation of impacts. The CPEs entail some degree of retrofitting of frame- project documents do not always provide clear, works to be able to judge the relevance of the consistent formulations of objectives, indica- aggregated results of a diverse portfolio of proj- tors, and targets or baselines from which prog- ects. Accordingly, the basic evaluation frame ress can be assessed. The absence of information proposed by the GEF was adapted, along with on project impacts is also attributed to the time the other relevant policy, strategy, and planning frames of evaluation cycles; evaluations are usu- frameworks outlined in chapter 3, as a basis for ally conducted before measurable impacts can be assessing the results and relevance of the portfo- expected. lio to the Syrian context. As this evaluation was restricted to secondary Attribution is another area of complexity. GEF sources, it did not have scope for conducting pri- support within any area is one contribution mary research to supplement project reports or among others and provided through partner- identify impacts and outcomes. The evaluation ships with many institutions. The CPE does team depended on documentation supplied by not attempt to attribute development or even the GEF Agencies that was not always complete environmental results directly to the GEF, but and relied on project reports that were sometimes assesses the contribution of GEF support to relatively dated, given that the reporting cycle is overall achievements. at best annual. Also, the evaluation team did not The assessment of results is focused, where pos- have access to a complete set of terminal evalua- sible, at the level of outcomes and impacts rather tions for even completed projects, because some 2. Evaluation Framework 11 of the terminal evaluations are under preparation many projects provided some information that was or are not required by GEF procedures (such as relevant to impacts or outcomes or indicative of the for completed enabling activities). Nevertheless, potential for future impacts or outcomes. 12 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 3. Context of the Evaluation The first section of this chapter provides a gen- Table 3.1 eral context for the evaluation by presenting General Profile for Syria information about Syria's socioeconomic and Indicator Value environmental situation. The second presents Surface area 185,000 square kilometers a contextual analysis assessing the current state Population 2.19% (2008) of the environment in each GEF focal area. This growth rate analysis formed the basis for review of the rele- Population distri- male, 50.2% bution by gender Female, 49.8% vance of GEF support to Syria in the context of their joint goals and priorities. The third section Population Damascus 7.5 distribution by Damascus rural 7.7 summarizes a review conducted of Syria's policy, governorate (%) Aleppo 23.8 legislative, strategy, and planning frameworks as a Homs 8.9 basis for assessing the relevance of the GEF port- Hama 8.7 Lattakia 5.2 folio to Syria's environmental priorities in general Deir ezzor 6.8 and as reflected in the frameworks in each focal Idleb 8.4 area. The fourth section briefly discusses the GEF Hassakeh 6.5 focal point mechanism in Syria. rakha 4.0 Sweida 2.1 Dara'a 4.5 3.1 Syria: General Description Tartous 4.0 Quneitra 2.0 Socioeconomic Situation major sectors, Agriculture 20 2007 (% of GDP) mining & manufacturing 32 Syria is a middle-income country with a per cap- Wholesale & retail trade 17 ita gross domestic product (GDP) of about $2,060 Transport & communication 10 and an overall GDP of $40 billion in 2007 (Central Government services 10 other sectors 11 Bureau for Statistics 2008). According to statistics Social & personal 2% of GDP; distributed to 19.88 mil- from the International Monetary Fund, Syria's services lion people GDP growth rate was approximately 2.9 percent Source: Central bureau for Statistics 2008. in 2005. Country profile data are presented in table 3.1. The two main pillars of the Syrian econ- for more than 50 percent of the country's GDP. omy have traditionally been agriculture and oil The government hopes to attract new investment (this latter is subsumed under "mining and manu- in the tourism, natural gas, and service sectors to facturing" in the table), which together account diversify its economy and reduce its dependence 13 on oil and agriculture. The government has begun demand for access to additional water and land to institute economic reforms aimed at liberaliz- resources, and the need for infrastructure to ing most markets, but reform thus far has been enhance socioeconomic development for the grow- slow and ad hoc. ing population, are often characterized as threats to environmental conservation. Nevertheless, Syria's During the second half of the 20th century, Syria's current policies reflect decision makers' awareness population increased by more than 300 percent, and understanding of the need to balance the three reaching 19.5 million in 2007.1 The Syrian govern- pillars of sustainable development: social equity, ment estimates the average population growth economic development, and environmental con- rate over the past 10 years at 2.45 percent, with servation. Table 3.2 presents an environmental 75 percent of the population under the age of 35 snapshot of Syria, providing an integrated picture and more than 40 percent under the age of 15. of the state of the environment and environmental The literacy rate for Syrians aged 15 and older is sustainability trends through a range of indicators. 88 percent for males and 74 percent for females. Syria's ranking on the UNDP Human Develop- According to Syria's 10th five-year plan (2006­10), ment Index increased from 0.676 in 1995 to 0.724 opportunities and challenges for the environment in 2005. Approximately 200,000 people enter can be classified according to the three pillars of the labor market every year. The estimated 2008 sustainable development. unemployment rate is 9 percent. According to the UNDP poverty report, as of 2005, 30 percent of the z Economic. Opportunities include the intro- Syrian population lived in poverty and 11.4 per- duction of market instruments and the contin- cent lived below the subsistence level. The report ued economic transition toward a social mar- stated that economic growth was not pro-poor ket economy which doubled the GDP growth and that wealth inequality increased from 1997 to rate in the last three years. Challenges include a 2004 with the Gini coefficient rising from 0.33 to lack of clear long-term strategies and economic 0.37 over the time period (UNDP 2005b). In an reform plans, a lack of public participation in effort to reduce the growing gap between rich and policy-making processes, and the rigidity of poor, the government launched an investment government legal and institutional structures. drive for the northeastern regions, which are the z Social. Opportunities include the commitment country's poorest, aiming at over LS 65 billion of decision makers to account for the negative ($1.3 billion) worth of investment. These condi- socioeconomic impacts of development poli- tions provided opportunities and posed chal- cies and a willingness to implement measures to lenges on the environment as explained below. ensure social equity for all. Challenges include the high population growth rate, the scarcity of Opportunities and Challenges for the employment opportunities, and a lack of coor- Environment dination between educational institutions and Economic development is often regarded as the the labor market. main cause for environmental degradation. The z Environmental. Opportunities here include increased awareness regarding the need to Much of the data presented in this section are 1 from the CIA World Factbook, as compiled at http:// halt environmental degradation and the intro- indexmundi.com/syria. duction of institutional structures within 14 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 3.2 Syria's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends Factor Status/trends Agricultural practices Food production per person Increasing, notably for wheat and major food crops Food productivity per unit of land area Increasing, pointing to increased fertilizer use and irrigated agriculture Air quality Air quality in general Decreasing, with high particulate matter (Pm10) levels and sulfur dioxide Health problems attributable to air pollution Increasing in the next decade vehicle exhaust emissions Increasing, with various pollutants increasing by 15.5% by 2010 (from 2000 levels) if emissions controls are not put in place Biodiversity biodiversity loss Increasing, with almost 10% of birds, 25% of mammals, 30% of reptiles, and 5% of plants threatened ecosystem health Declining in general with forest, wetland, and semidesert ecosystems in worst condition due also to climatic conditions Programs to rehabilitate species Increasing, including Arabian oryx, Arabian gazelle, and bald ibis Climate change GHG emissions Increasing at a rate of 5% per year GHG emissions from road transport Increasing at a rate of 11% per year GHG emissions per person 2.8 tons per year Coastal development Uncontrolled coastal development Increasing, leading to habitat change and degradation Energy consumption and efficiency energy consumption Increasing at an average rate of 9% since 1991 energy efficiency Low, but slight improvement in recent years, particularly in building construction Freshwater resources Use of available water resources Increasing, most exploitable sources tapped and groundwater aquifers depleted Water quality Declining, with overall deterioration Health of lake ecosystems Declining, with effluent pollution from agricultural runoff and/or human settlements Health of river ecosystems Declining, with effluent pollution from industrial activities and human settlements Land degradation extent of land degradation Increasing, affecting 59% of the country's surface area Land use Availability of arable land Declining because of expansion of settlements and other activities, particu- larly in the vicinity of Damascus (continued) 3. Context of the Evaluation 15 Table 3.2 Syria's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends (continued) Factor Status/trends Marine biodiversity and fish stocks Threats to marine biodiversity Increasing, with almost 12% of marine fauna threatened Populations of abalone and line fish Declining dramatically Species listed as endangered or vulnerable Increasing, for example, bird species affected by long-line fishing Sardine fishery Recovering after near collapse in late 1960s, currently healthy POPs Inventory and quantities Determined and needs plans and means for disposal identified Renewable energy Use of renewable energy Increasing slowly, mainly solar water heating Urbanization and housing Informal settlements Expanding rapidly around urban centers and periurban areas, covering as much as 50% of the area of the cities of Damascus and Aleppo Source: mSeA 2006. government entities with a clear mandate for of ecosystems. Table 3.3 presents a snapshot of the preservation of the environment. Chal- Syria's biodiversity. lenges include the scarcity of environmental resources (such as water and land), the fact Status of Ecosystems that the concept of environmental capital has Biomes found in Syria include marine, coastal, not been incorporated into economic devel- forest, wetland, and semidesert. Presently, forests opment plans, a lack of tools and necessary financing to enforce environmental legisla- Table 3.3 tion, a lack of comprehensive plans and capac- Syria's Endemic Species by Biological Group ities for the preservation of environmental Number of Number resources, an absence of data and information endemic of world Share of on the state of environmental resources essen- Group species species total (%) tial for proper decision making, and overlap- Fungi 641 46,983 1.4 ping responsibilities among the various gov- bacteria 55 26,900 1.5 ernment entities for proper management of Algae 754 30,600 2.4 environmental resources. Gymnosperms 100 750 1.3 Angiosperms 3,100 220,000 1.4 Insects 1,449 751,000 0.1 3.2 Status of Environmental Fish 452 19,056 2.4 Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas Amphibians 16 4,184 0.4 reptiles 127 6,300 2.0 Biodiversity birds 394 9,040 4.4 Syria is home to a number of diverse flora and mammals 125 4,000 3.1 fauna owing to its varying topographical, climatic, Sources: mSeA 1998b; Syrian Society for Conservation of Wildlife and soil conditions, which create a wide range 2008. 16 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) cover around 3 percent of Syria's total land area. Table 3.4 However, at the beginning of the last century, Status of Plant Species in Syria they constituted over 32 percent of the land area. Status Amount Examples of the decline in forestland include the Total number of species 3,150 famous Orchards of Damascus, which used to number of extinct species 4 cover over 3,000 hectares and are now reduced to number of critically endangered species 7 only a few hundred hectares, and the decreasing number of endangered species 28 forest areas of Abdul Aziz, Abo Rajmein, and the number of variable species 36 Balaas Mountains, which were in their prime rich Percentage endangered 2 in ecological biodiversity. Source: mSeA 1998b. The Badia desert ecosystem, which provides a natural habitat and grazing grounds for live- Table 3.5 stock, has also come under threat as a result of Status of Pteridophytes in Syria overexploitation by human activities in hunting Number of and grazing, in addition to seasonal drought. species Number Number As a result, a variety of animals and birds have of of Threat- Group families genera Total ened disappeared, and many plant species have been Lycopodiophyta 2 3 3 2 replaced by grass of less nutritional value for cat- equisetophyta 1 1 2 2 tle grazing. Polypodiophyta 6 15 17 15 Aquatic ecosystems have experienced rapid deg- Total 9 19 22 19 radation as a result of overfishing and the use Source: mSeA 1998b. of illegal fishing methods (such as batch catch, explosives, and poison). Due to the pollution Concerning freshwater flora, Syria's 1998 of coastal waters from land-based and marine National Biodiversity Country Study recorded 17 sources, fish, marine mammals, and plant species families of bacteria consisting of 31 genera and are disappearing. The biodiversity of inland water an undefined number of species related to three bodies such as the Euphrates and Orontes Rivers main families: Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococca- are similarly affected. ceae, and Pseudomonaceae. The study also identi- fied 176 species of fungi, 27 species of Bryophyta, Status of Flora Species 13 species of Pteridophyta, and 298 species of There are at least 3,150 land plant species, classi- Spermatophyta. fied into 919 genera and 133 families, in Syria. This results in a diversity of 0.718 families, 4.97 genera, Finally, regarding marine flora, the National Bio- and 16.6 species per 1,000 square meters--a sig- diversity Country Study found that algae represent nificant figure as compared to other regions at the the most important type of marine life in Syria as same latitude. The status of Syria's plant species is far as biology and physiology are concerned. They presented in table 3.4. constitute one of the most important elements of the marine environment of significant economical Table 3.5 presents the status of the flora of Pteri- value. Research studies have provided evidence of dophytes. These consist of nearly 22 species, 19 of the existence of over 660 algae species in the east- which are threatened. ern Mediterranean marine environment. 3. Context of the Evaluation 17 Status of Fauna Species accompanied population growth, urban develop- The 1998 National Biodiversity Country Study ment, and an absence of strict enforcement of laws found more than 3,000 terrestrial and aquatic and regulations in Syria. The National Strategy fauna species in Syria. These include 394 bird spe- and Action Plan on Biodiversity which was ratified cies, 15 of which are labeled of global significance by Syria's Council for the Protection of the Envi- according to the IUCN Red List, Bird Life Interna- ronment and Sustainable Development in 2002 tional, and the Convention on International Trade encompasses the establishment of protected areas in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (natural reserves), genetic banks, animal zoos, (CITES) appendixes I, II, and III (2005). The study and botanical gardens; monitoring of national also found evidence of 125 species of land mam- and international trade of endangered species of mals and 127 reptiles, 34 of which are threatened. fauna and flora; control of hunting activities; and conducting awareness-raising campaigns for the Syria's wide animal biodiversity is endangered due local population, involving the public in protec- to the destruction of habitats by human activities tion campaigns, updating existing laws, devel- such as the use of pesticides, overhunting, and oping new legislation, and conducting research overfishing. activities. With the introduction of Environment Little information is available regarding the status Law No. 50 in 2002, biodiversity was recognized of freshwater fauna species, with the exception as a legitimate natural resource requiring protec- of fish, where reference calculations showed the tion. Consequently, the Ministry of Local Admin- presence of 157 species belonging to 56 genera istration and Environment2 in coordination with under 19 families of bony fishes. the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform issued a number of decisions and institutional- Concerning marine fauna, the study found evi- ized the protection and conservation of flora and dence of the presence of 1,027 species in the fauna in Syria. Nevertheless, implementation of coastal waters, including 100 species of Foramin- laws and decisions requires financing, awareness, ifera and 15 species of Spongia, most of which are and the commitment of decision makers to biodi- threatened with extinction due to overharvesting. versity conservation. Although significant efforts It also recorded around 295 species of marine fish have been made in this domain, there is still a (49 Chondrichthyes and 246 Osteichthyes). long way to go before reaching a satisfactory level of biodiversity conservation and maintenance in Mammals found in marine waters include 10 Syria. whale Cestacean whale species, in addition to the Mediterranean seal Monachus monachus, listed in Status of Biotechnology CITES appendix I; however, the seal is rarely seen As in most other developing countries, biotech- along the Syrian coastline. Four Chelonien turtle nology in Syria is still in its infancy, lagging behind species threatened with extinction have also been the progress of developed countries. Despite traced, while Caretta caretta is the most abundant some efforts to catch up in this rapidly growing turtle in Syrian marine waters. Protection Status of Biodiversity 2 In 2009, the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs was created, which took over the environmental Loss of biodiversity has been an inevitable con- functions of the Ministry of Local Administration and sequence of the habitat destruction that has Environment. 18 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) area, very limited work has been done on subjects 2387), which is being carried out in collaboration that are directly related to biodiversity. Most bio- with UNDP and supported by the GEF. Table 3.6 technological work in Syria is in areas that have shows emissions of the three main GHGs (CO2, direct economic return as in the field of agricul- methane, and nitrous oxide) for 2005 for the ture. Traditional biotechnology is common in various sectors in Syria. As can be seen, CO2 is food production. Plant tissue culture attracts high the most significant GHG, accounting for more attention from the public sector. Private labora- than 99 percent of emissions for all sectors, with tories commercially produce regenerated plants energy, transport, and household sources being such as ornamentals and date palm, potatoes, and the largest. bananas. Several universities have also established graduate and undergraduate programs in biotech- Table 3.6 nology or genetic engineering. Syria's National GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 kilotons Animal and human cell culture is mainly cen- Sector CO2 Methane Nitrous oxide tered on medical and veterinary applications. energy 18,000 0.81 0.140 Other commercial applications of biotechnology Industry 8,100 0.141 0.0148 in Syria include some agricultural input, particu- Transport 12,500 0.155 0.0164 larly in the plant protection area. The state has Household 10,600 0.154 0.010 initiated the production of alternatives to chemi- Agriculture 1,900 0.050 0.006 cal pesticides by commercializing biopesticides Total 51,100 0.715 0.071 for control of plant diseases and pests using nat- Source: eSrC 2000. ural enemies. It is also importing and marketing biopesticides. Sectors that are primary contributors to GHG emissions in Syria are shown in table 3.7, fore- Climate Change cast to 2010 based on the available 1990 and 1994 Status of GHG Emissions data. Electricity generation followed by trans- The most recent inventory of greenhouse gases port and residential heating are the main sectors; for Syria (1990­94) formed the basis for the report together, they account for more than 80 percent of (ESRC 2000) prepared by the Environmental and total GHG emissions in Syria. The yearly rate of Scientific Research Center in collaboration with increase in GHG emissions for all sectors varies, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation on average, between 4 and 6 percent. (GTZ).3 That inventory found that the 1990 total GHG emissions of 25.3 kilotons of CO2 equiva- Energy lent increased in 1994 to 30.8 kilotons, at a rate of The Syrian energy system is characterized by low 5 percent per year. Syria's GHG inventory is being per capita consumption. As presented in table 3.8, updated within the framework of the "Enabling primary energy consumption per capita in Syria Activities for Preparation of Syria's Initial National in 2004 was 0.99 tons of oil equivalent compared Communication (INC) to UNFCCC" (GEF ID to 1.77 tons of oil equivalent for the world average and 2.64 tons of oil equivalent for the Middle East. 3 No official emissions data are expected until the CO2 emissions per capita were at the same level as new inventory is completed in 2010. the world average. 3. Context of the Evaluation 19 Table 3.7 Total CO2 Emissions in Syria Million tons of CO2 Average Sector 1990 1994 2000 2005 2010 contribution ( %) electricity generation 8.4 10.5 14.0 18.0 22.6 35 Industrial 4.1 4.9 6.5 8.1 10.6 16 Transport 5.3 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.5 24 residential 5.6 6.0 8.5 10.6 12.4 21 Agriculture 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 5 Source: eSrC 2000. Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Per Capita Selected Energy Indicators, 2004 Energy Consumption for Various Sectors in Syria, 2005 Primary Final electricity energy consumption CO2 Megatons of (tons of oil (kilowatt- emissions Sector oil equivalent % Region equivalent) hours) (tons) energy industries 9.44 49 Syria 0.99 1,317 2.57 Public electricity 7.14 37 middle east 2.64 2,881 6.51 refining and extraction 2.30 12 Asia 0.63 617 1.22 manufacturing and construction 2.37 12 Africa 0.67 547 0.93 Transport 4.53 23 World avg. 1.77 2,516 2.57 other sectors 3.06 16 Source: IeA 2004. Service 0.44 2 residential 2.62 14 As indicated in table 3.9, the largest energy-con- Total energy consumption 19.40 100 Source: meslmani and Hainoun 2009. suming sectors in 2005 were the energy indus- tries including electricity generation and refining/ and financial--in addition to the practicability extraction (49 percent), followed by the transport and likely impact of the mitigation measure. sector (23 percent); together, these accounted The National Energy Research Centre assessed a for over 70 percent of total energy consumption. number of mitigation measures for energy effi- The remaining sectors accounted for less than ciency categorized by sector (industrial, trans- one-third of final energy demand in 2005, half of port, and residential) and for alternative renew- which went for residential heating (14 percent), able energies (Kraidy 2007). and 12 percent for manufacturing industries. Concerning energy efficiency in the industrial Mitigation Options sector, mitigation measures include Mitigation measures to deal with climate change can only be successful when they are integrated z substitution of fuel oil with natural gas in energy generation, with policies that take into account the challenges of development to meet basic needs. Typically, this z improvement of performance of electrical includes an analysis of the feasibility--technical power generators, 20 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) z improvement of output from boilers. include incentives to change to solar heaters or use energy efficient vehicles. Reductions in CO2 emissions likely to occur in comparison with the "business as usual" scenario Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Renewable vary from 3 percent for natural gas to 6 percent Energy Implementation in Syria for improving the performance of electrical power According to the national study for energy effi- generators. ciency and renewable energies undertaken by the In the transport sector, mitigation measures include National Energy Research Centre (Kraidy 2007), barriers that have been primarily responsible for z renewal of the transport fleet, the relatively limited development and acceptance z promotion of mass transport. of energy efficiency and renewable energy pro- grams, in particular pilot and commercial applica- Reductions in CO2 emissions likely to occur in tions, in Syria include the following: comparison with the "business as usual" scenario vary from 4 to 5 percent for both options. z the lack of an institutional structure with clear responsibility to develop policy and legislation, In the residential sector, mitigation measures and to support regulatory evolution; include z heavily subsidized conventional energy carriers; z replacement of standard light bulbs with z a lack of incentives in the public sector to energy-saving light bulbs, respond to market-driven demand; z improving heating processes. z a lack of favorable import duties for energy effi- ciency and renewable energy industries to the Reductions in CO2 emissions likely to occur in com- private sector; parison with the "business as usual" scenario vary from 4 percent for changing to energy-saving light z an absence of financial mechanisms and instru- bulbs to 11 percent for improving heating sources. ments to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy manufacture or use by the Concerning renewable energies, the National private sector; Energy Research Centre reports that by 2010, z a lack of awareness of energy efficiency and z wind turbines could reduce CO2 emissions by renewable energy potential or opportunities; 0.1 million tons; z a limited scope on the part of research insti- z solar panels could result in reducing CO2 emis- tutes to interface and network with interna- sions by 0.05 million tons; tional bodies and share expertise; z photovoltaic cells, which are the least efficient z a lack of a skilled labor base to support integra- measure, could reduce CO2 emissions only by tion of these technologies into the market. 0.00063 million tons. However, the situation is evolving. The process of Mitigation measures include institutional changes introducing market economy tools as promoted that promote the industrial and residential sec- by the 10th five-year plan is facilitating this evolu- tors shifting their economic activities and invest- tion, but needs support--internally--through pol- ment to less energy-intensive processes. Examples icy and regulatory measures to stimulate market 3. Context of the Evaluation 21 opportunities and--externally--to introduce management, and increasing rain effectiveness by innovative methodologies, attractive schemes, practicing conservation farming. investment capital, flexible financial mechanisms, Impacts on the water sector in the mid-21st and expertise. century will consist of a reduction of rainfall by Vulnerability to Climate Change and 25 percent, which will lower the discharge of Adaptation the Euphrates River (from which Syria obtains 36 percent of its renewable water resources) by According to "Vulnerability Assessment and 42 percent. Adaptations include modernization of Adaptation Measures," one of the subreports of on-farm irrigation systems; enhancement of regu- Syria's INC (Meslmani 2009b), potential changes latory measures to improve water management; in the eastern Mediterranean climate over the adoption of the integrated water resource man- next 50 years pose significant threats including agement concept; integration of water policies the following: and water-saving strategies into national policies z Average warming in Syria for the year 2041 will affecting water supply, water use, land use agricul- be higher than the global average. ture and environment policies; and building insti- tutional and technical capacity of water-related z The highest temperature increases, varying institutions. between 2.0 and 2.1 degrees Celsius, will occur in the northwest and southeast regions of the For forests, a decrease in precipitation and an country; the rest of the country will see a rise increase in temperature may cause spatial shifts in in temperature of at least 1.0 to 1.2 degrees Cel- forest vegetation zones in mountain areas; man- sius. made forests, which make up more than 52 per- z The highest increase in precipitation will occur cent of the country's forests, will be vulnerable to in summer and autumn in all regions. climate change as most of these are planted in low rainfall areas. Adaptation includes protection of z Sea level will rise by an average of 70 centime- forests and development of strategies to combat ters by 2100. wildfires, rehabilitation of burned and degraded Meslmani (2009b) concludes that impacts on the forests, and establishment of a network of func- agricultural sector will consist of an increase tional protected areas. in water requirements for wheat by about 9 per- In terms of biodiversity, 68 species in Syria are cent--which, if not available, would result in a currently considered threatened. Seven are listed yield reduction of between 10 and 14 percent. For as critically threatened, 26 are endangered, and cotton, water needs will increase by 8 percent, or 35 are vulnerable (IUCN 2008). Climate change would lead to a reduction in yield of 5 percent. For may put additional pressures on these species, olive trees, the increase in water requirements will thus increasing the rate of their extinction. Also, be around 10 percent, or a reduced yield if these the increasing demand on water for irrigation will needs are not met of 5 percent. Adaptation mea- deplete groundwater aquifers; this in turn will sures include adopting heat-tolerant cultivars, have a negative impact on wetlands. changing crop practices (optimum sowing date, cultivars, water amount, and plant density), mod- The physical impacts of the rise in sea level will ernizing water practices and improving irrigation include the following (Meslmani 2009b): 22 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) z inundation of about 22 percent of the coastline, industrial development, and physical alteration and destruction of habitats. Concerning the urban z increased salinity of aquifers due to seawater environment, the report indicates that urban intrusion, activities affect the marine environment along the z erosion in some coastal areas. Syrian coastline via municipal sewage and munici- pal solid waste. Regarding industrial development, International Waters the report distinguishes between the impacts of Marine Resources major industrial complexes and small-scale indus- The Syrian coastline extends for about 183 kilo- trial facilities. Major industrial complexes include meters along the Mediterranean Sea. The region the Banias oil refinery, the Tartous cement plant, is characterized by its sandy mountainous ter- the phosphate loading dock at the Port of Tartous, rains and flat lowlands. The coastal strip includes the two oil terminals of Banias and Tartous, and wetlands, river estuaries, coastal cliffs, and other the thermal power generation station in Banias. diverse habitats. Sandy beaches are encountered Small-scale industries include steel rolling mills, near the city of Lattakia and do not exceed 40 kilo- food processing, beverage, olive oil mills, cattle meters in length. The sea is generally deep, and and sheep slaughterhouses, textiles, and various the continental shelf is narrow (less than 1 kilome- agricultural-related activities such as confined ter in some locations; the widest point is 16 kilo- animal facilities and greenhouses. meters to the south of the city of Tartous). The shoreline has few gulfs and bays, and does not Inland Water Resources support nursing and reproduction of biological Syria is an arid to semi-arid country, with average species. Freshwater input into the sea is very low rainfall ranging from more than 500 millimeters due to the damming of coastal rivers. This results per year in the coastal areas to less than 200 milli- in higher pollution concentration in the coastal meters per year inlands toward the southeast of the rivers and their estuaries. Consequently, the sea- country. The uneven rainfall distribution directly water along the Syrian coastline (as along other affects the availability of water in Syria's seven sur- parts of the eastern Mediterranean) is oligotro- face water basins, five of which are in water defi- phic and characterized by high salinity, low pri- cit (MSEA 2006). Average per capita water avail- mary productivity, slow water currents, and low ability is estimated at 800 cubic meters per year, tidal waves. These conditions slow the dispersion including Syria's share of water from the Euphra- rate of pollutants and increase the impact of pol- tes River; Turkey and Iraq also share this resource lution on marine life. (SPC 2005). Syria is thus a water-stressed country, since water availability is below the threshold of The most recent report on priority pollution 1,000 cubic meters per year per capita. hotspots (Kayyal 2002) identified four areas along the Syrian coastline that have a significant nega- Syria has signed the U.N. Convention on the Law tive effect on human health, ecosystems, biodiver- of Non-Navigational Uses of International Water- sity, and the economy. The most critical hotspot courses, which requires concluding watercourse is Banias. The "National Diagnostic Analysis of agreements with neighboring states to protect and Syria" report (Ibrahim 2003) states that common preserve the ecosystems of international water- environmental problems in the Syrian coastal courses. As of this writing, Syria has concluded region have their origins in the urban environment, two international watercourse agreements with 3. Context of the Evaluation 23 Lebanon (Kabir and Orontes Rivers) and some east of Damascus). Surface and groundwater pol- bilateral agreements with the riparian states along lution by pathogens, nitrates, biological oxygen the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. demand, ammonia, or heavy metals is evident in some water basins due to the lack of appropriate The average internal renewable water resources in wastewater collection and treatment as well as to Syria are approximately 9 billion cubic meters per leaching of agricultural chemicals (GTZ, KfW, and year, of which 5 billion cubic meters are ground- BGR 2004). This pollution hampers the hygieni- water. Adding Syria's share from the Euphrates cally safe drinking water supply in both urban River of 6.6 billion cubic meters per year results in and rural areas. Furthermore, contaminated river total annual renewable water resources of approx- water is heavily used for irrigation purposes, imately 15 billion cubic meters. Between 1992 and which poses a major health hazard to consumers 2003, annual water use exceeded these total renew- of irrigated vegetables. able water resources by 14 percent. Irrigated agri- culture accounts for more than 90 percent of water Land Degradation use. Only 8 percent is used for domestic purposes; Degradation and desertification are important 2 percent is used for industrial, commercial, and forms of land transformation; both are among tourist purposes (BMZ 2004). Per capita drinking Syria's most critical environmental issues. As water consumption ranges between 82 liters per much as one-half of Syria's total land area consists day in rural areas and 176 liters per day in urban of grazing pastures, and one-third of agricultural areas (SPC 2005). lands. Taking into account the unreliability of rain- Falling groundwater levels in various regions are fall and droughts, those soil types that are already evidence of groundwater depletion. The main vulnerable to degradation and unsustainable land cause is the extraction of groundwater for irriga- use practices are particularly susceptible to deg- tion. In the 2001­02 season, groundwater use in radation and desertification. Changes in land use agriculture exceeded 150 percent of renewable and surface areas in Syria are listed in table 3.10. resources (SPC 2005). The political, economic, Land degradation is caused by wind and water and social context of the region necessitates a erosion, soil salinity, and sand accumulation. In policy of food self-sufficiency which distorts crop turn, wind erosion is caused by the removal of prices and the cost of irrigation water supply to natural plant cover by cultivation, deforestation, farmers. In addition, the use of unlicensed wells is and overgrazing. The impact of wind erosion has widespread. As a consequence, agricultural pro- led to the decline in agricultural productivity of duction is not geared toward efficient use of water. irrigated lands in the Euphrates Valley and sand Pressure on water resources is expected to accumulation in low precipitation areas in the increase further due to the country's rapid pop- northeastern regions of Syria. Water erosion has ulation growth and the political and economic caused soil losses, especially on steep slopes where importance of agriculture, as well as increasing poor plowing and tilling techniques are practiced. tourism and industrial development. This is most common on coastal slopes exceed- ing 12 percent in inclination, where it is estimated Water shortages are exacerbated by poor water that about 20 tons of soil per hectare are being lost quality, particularly in those areas hosting heavy every year. Soil salinity in irrigated lands is most economic activities (for example, parts of Utaibah pronounced in the Euphrates Valley due to the use 24 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 3.10 Changes in Land Use in Syria between 1994 and 2003 Surface area in thousand hectares Percentage of total land Type of land use 1994 2003 area in Syria (2003) Agricultural--irrigated 1,082 1,361 7.3 Agricultural--rain fed 3,787 3,300 17.8 Agricultural--unexploited 484 385 2.1 Agricultural--to be cultivated in following cycles 618 818 4.4 Forests 487 590 3.2 Grazing lands 8,299 8,335 45.0 Urbanized areas 606 636 3.4 Lakes 138 159 0.9 Sandy or rocky lands 3,017 2,935 15.9 Source: mAAr 2006. of flood irrigation techniques: it is estimated that 46 percent of the population living in rural areas 72 percent of cultivated lands face an acute level of depends on livelihoods derived from the natural salinity (MAAR 2006). This problem is also com- resource base (Central Bureau for Statistics 2008). mon to the west of Syria in the Al Ghab Valley. Global climate change (discussed above) threat- ens to worsen desertification in some parts of the Land degradation is also caused by the uncon- country, making it even more difficult to feed a trolled growth of informal settlements around rapidly growing population. major city centers due to poor regional and eco- nomic planning (MSEA 2006). For example, the Persistent Organic Pollutants city of Damascus, which is situated in the middle POPs are chemical substances that are toxic, per- of rich agricultural lands, lost over 8,000 hectares sist in the environment for long periods, and bio- between 1994 and 2003. These constitute about accumulate as they move up the food chain. POPs 20 percent of the total land suitable for agriculture pose risks to both human health and the environ- surrounding Damascus (Ghota area). ment. Evidence of long-range transportation of The immediate impacts of land degradation are these substances to regions where they have never manifested in the loss of agricultural and graz- been used or produced, as well as the threats they ing lands. According to data published by the pose to the environment of the Earth as a whole, MAAR (2006), about 17 percent of Syria's agri- have spurred the international community to call cultural lands have undergone degradation, and for urgent global actions to reduce and eliminate 25 percent of the Badia region grazing lands have releases of these chemicals. been lost due to the growth of plant species of A national inventory of POPs in Syria and their less nutritional value to grazing herds, in contrast registration status was established in 2008; this is with the natural vegetative cover. In the long term, summarized in table 3.11. land degradation poses a serious threat to eco- system functioning, biodiversity, household food To control the impacts of POPs and pesticides, the security, and rural livelihoods--particularly since Syrian government has banned the importation of 3. Context of the Evaluation 25 Table 3.11 Status of POPs in Syria, 2008 Compound Inventory and registration status Aldrin Withdrawn, 1990; remaining stocks (7,500 kg) quarantined by mAAr Chlordane Withdrawn, 1990; none available in stock DDT Withdrawn, 1976; banned completely, 1978; remaining stocks (1,500 kg) quarantined by mAAr Dieldrin Withdrawn, 1990; none available in stock endrin Withdrawn, 1990; none available in stock Heptachlor not used in Syria Hexachlorobenzene not used in Syria Lindane Withdrawn, 1982; remaining stocks (217 tons) quarantined by mAAr mirex Withdrawn, 1999; none available in stock PCb 91 transformers contain 1,384.3 tons of oil with PCb compounds; 225 large transformers suspected of containing 2,392.3 tons of PCb compounds Toxaphene Withdrawn, 1999; none available in stock Polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxin/ Total dioxin-furan emissions estimated at 623 g toxic equivalent per year polychlorinated dibenzo-furan Source: nIP 2008. pesticides that are classified as POPs and required 5. Identifying POPs hotspots that all transformers not contain oils with PCB 6. Implementing good management practices compounds (NIP 2008). In addition, efforts are for POPs being made to ban open-air burning of wastes. 7. Building capacity to control and manage POPs Several industrial activities in Syria were identified as potential sources of polychlorinated dibenzo-p- 8. Raising awareness of the dangers and risks of dioxins, dibenzofurans, and hexachlorobenzene: POPs waste incineration (municipal and industrial), thermal processes in the metallurgical and energy 3.3 Environmental Legal, industries, production of construction materials, Institutional, and Policy Framework transport, uncontrolled burning, production of Syria was the first Arab country to establish an chemicals, and waste disposal. independent environment ministry (in 1992) and to incorporate environmental aspects into Priority actions for POPs in Syria include the fol- development planning. Nationally, environmen- lowing, as established by the country's NIP: tal issues are dealt with at three levels. At the first 1. Soliciting financial aid to dispose of POPs level, an interministerial body, the Council for the 2. Developing special legislation to manage Protection of the Environment and Sustainable POPs Development, is responsible for setting national policy and coordinating environmental manage- 3. Creating the necessary infrastructure to man- ment activities. The council is headed by the prime age POPs minister. At the second level, the MSEA plays a 4. Conducting the necessary studies for POPs regulatory and coordinative role in collaboration 26 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) with related ministries. At the third level, local z Protect natural and cultural resources directorates in the governorates enforce environ- z Build capacity, educate, and raise awareness of mental regulations. the general population In 2002, Parliament ratified an environment law, As currently amended, the NEAP aims at achiev- which sets out the responsibilities and authorities ing sustainable development. According to the of the GCEA. Since then, the council has issued a Syrian National Strategy Report for Sustainable number of directives for pollution control in dif- Development which was presented to the 2002 ferent environmental media. Legislation was also World Summit on Sustainable Development enacted in the fields of agriculture, water and irri- (MSEA 2002), goals for sustainable development gation, and waste management to support imple- in Syria address mentation of the environment law. z poverty eradication; National Sustainable Development z population growth and distribution; Framework z education, capacity building, and research; In 2001, the MSEA, in collaboration with other z food and water security; relevant ministries, adopted the Syrian NEAP, z land degradation and desertification; which proposes several action subplans and pro- z transfer of technology; grams leading to overall sustainable development z globalization; in Syria. z trade and patterns of consumption; z cultural heritage. The Syrian NEAP is considered one of the major results produced through the implementation Efforts to promote sustainable social and eco- of the "National Project for Strengthening the nomic development are supplemented by an Capacity of Environmental Affairs in Syria," an action plan to restore and protect from further initiative financed by UNDP and the Capacity 21 degradation and depletion those natural resources program and implemented under the supervision on which the poor most depend. This makes mea- of the World Bank. The NEAP's aim is to integrate sures for adaptation to the negative effects of cli- national development plans with environmental mate change--and specifically for halting deserti- management. The overall goals are to contrib- fication, land degradation, and pollution--of ute to the protection of the health of the Syrian central importance. The Syrian National Strategy population, manage scarce materials and cultural Report for Sustainable Development does provide resources in a rational and cost-effective manner, a prioritized plan addressing the five priority areas and allow economic growth to continue unim- of the NEAP, against which the relevance of the peded by environmental degradation. The NEAP GEF portfolio can be assessed. actions target five priority areas in Syria, which were identified through a broad consultation exer- The Five-Year Development Plans cise supported by a thorough technical study: (1995­2010) z Prevent exploitation of land and water resources Socioeconomic development in Syria is central- ized and governed by five-year plans administered z Improve living quality in urban areas by the State Planning Commission, a government z Reduce effects of pollution on human health agency directly affiliated with the Council of 3. Context of the Evaluation 27 Ministers in the prime minister's office. Since the achievement of environmental protection and GEF was initiated in the country, Syria has ratified sustainable development. three five-year plans: the 8th five-year plan (1996­ z Raise the level of general environmental aware- 2000); the 9th five-year plan (2001­05); and the ness; build institutional, individual, and organi- 10th five-year plan (2006­10), which is currently zational capacities in the environment sector; being implemented. and contribute to the introduction of economic The 10th five-year social and economic devel- tools into environmental planning. opment plan was ratified by Parliament in 2006. The plan is laid out in accordance with current Specific plans and programs are elaborated for economic and social trends toward a social mar- each objective, and government agencies are ket economy system. It emphasizes production required to present their annual plans in line with efficiency and sustainable economic growth on these objectives. the one hand, and fair income distribution and The 9th five-year plan (SPC 2001) introduced improvement of underprivileged segments of the the concepts of environmental protection, sus- population on the other. The plan sets the future tainable use of resources, and balancing environ- vision for Syria during the next two decades aim- mental resources and population growth. In addi- ing "to provide a proper enabling environment for tion, it promoted the use of clean and renewable the Syrian Society, and to bring about economic, energies. Priority actions of relevance to GEF focal social, political, and technological advancement areas included the following: and prosperity." Concerning the environmental sector, the plan envisages z Promoting sustainable development and pre- ...the improvement of the quality of life and serving natural and environmental resources environmental performance; change of pro- z Incorporating environmental aspects into duction and consumption patterns; conser- development plans vation of natural resources; incorporating of the principles of sustainability in investment z Limiting environmental degradation and planning and utilization of natural resources desertification by adopting appropriate mitiga- through the shared responsibility of the State, tion measures the private sector and civil society (SPC 2006). z Improving agricultural productivity The general objectives of the plan in the environ- mental sector are as follows: z Implementing integrated water resource man- agement and introducing modern irrigation z Formulate overall national policies to alleviate techniques the various forms of pollution, combat deserti- fication, enrich biodiversity, and introduce sus- z Protecting water resources, including springs, tainable resource planning. rivers, and lakes, from contamination z Implement sustainable rural development and z Introducing a classification system for forests encourage local environmental work. and establishing protected areas z Create interactive planning and administra- z Promoting energy efficiency through projects tive partnerships among the environment, such as the rehabilitation of the Banias power production, and service sectors to ensure the generation plant 28 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) z Building capacity and raising awareness in the tasks and responsibilities for both the Environmen- environmental field tal Protection Commission (established in 1985 by Prime Ministerial Decision No. 1239) and the The 8th five-year plan (SPC 1996) addressed Council for the Protection of the Environment and environmental issues relevant to GEF focal Sustainable Development (established by Decree areas through its sectoral priority actions. These No. 11 in 1991, which also created the GCEA). included the following: The Council for the Protection of the Environ- z Protection of agricultural land from erosion ment and Sustainable Development is headed and desertification by the prime minister with the membership of z Protection of forests selected ministers. It is responsible for determin- z Protection of fish stocks from overexploitation ing environmental policies and regulations, and has the authority to ban any activity that harms z Protection of water resources the environment. The GCEA, on the other hand, is a legal entity with financial and administra- The Constitution and Key Cross-Cutting tive autonomy, reporting directly to the MSEA Policy minister. The Syrian constitution delineates the basic function of the state's government. Among other Environment Law No. 50, Article 4, stipulates the things, it determines Syria's character to be Arab, basic rules of environmental safety and protection socialist, and republican. The constitution has from pollution, and prescribes the basic tasks the undergone only minor changes since its adoption GCEA is expected to undertake in this regard in in 1973. According to Article 12, cooperation and coordination with the relevant public entities. These tasks include The State is at the people's service. Its estab- lishments seek to protect the fundamental z addressing outstanding environmental prob- rights of the citizens and improve their lives. lems, It also seeks to support the political organiza- tions in order to bring about self-development. z developing environmental protection policies, z preparing national strategies and programs and It can be inferred from this that the state, through plans for implementation, its establishments and political organizations, is expected to protect the rights of citizens for a z developing public awareness campaigns, healthy environment by preserving and securing the z preparing specifications and standards for environmental and natural resources of the country. environmental media, The principal relevant law regulating environ- z monitoring environmental media, mental protection policies and activities in Syria z developing environmental emergency manage- is Environment Law No. 50, which was issued in ment plans, 2002 and designates the GCEA as the law's prin- z administering a database of environmental cipal implementer.4 The law also sets out specific information, The GCEA is now affiliated with the MSEA, 4 z coordinating with national authorities and which was created by Decree No. 25 on April 23, 2009. regional and international organizations. 3. Context of the Evaluation 29 The remainder of this section summarizes key The "Additional Enabling Activity Support for policy and legislation in each of the GEF focal Participation in the Clearing-House Mechanism areas. of the CBD" project (GEF ID 813), implemented through UNDP, also developed a biodiversity Biodiversity monitoring and review framework. The "Assess- In 1995, Syria became a party to the Convention ment of Capacity-Building Needs and Country- on Biological Diversity, and, as a result, a compre- Specific Priorities in Biodiversity" enabling activ- hensive process to protect the country's biodiver- ity (GEF ID 987) provided the scientific basis for sity components was initiated. Syria subsequently informing a range of legislative provisions for the prepared its National Biodiversity Country Study protection of biodiversity, including regulations and National Strategy and Action Plan on Biodi- for threatened species and ecosystems. Other key versity. These two documents were distributed to relevant regulations in terms of the national bio- all relevant ministries and institutions to put the diversity act include those on bioprospecting and plan under implementation. Syria prepared the benefit sharing, threatened and protected species, first, second, and third national reports for the and invasive alien species. Regulations have also CBD in 2003, 2005, and 2007, respectively. The been published for the national categories of pro- fourth national report is currently under prepara- tected areas in Syria. tion and is expected to be submitted in the second Syria has recently compiled a national protected quarter of 2009. In addition to the National Strat- areas expansion strategy, which will prioritize egy and Action Plan on Biodiversity, Syria devel- areas for inclusion into the national network of oped the Categories of Protected Areas in Syria protected areas (table 3.12). Since 1995, more (2003) document, based on the IUCN categories than 221,000 hectares have been declared pro- and national legislation, and covering tected areas (natural reserves). The MSEA has set z strict natural reserves/scientific research, a target of including at least 8 percent of terrestrial z wildlife reserves, land and marine and coastal surface area as pro- z man and biosphere reserves, tected areas by 2013. z national parks, Biosafety z marine and coastal reserves, z protection (buffer) reserves, Syria became a party to the Cartagena Biosafety z World Natural Heritage Sites, Protocol in 2004. Subsequently, it participated in z natural reserves of special importance. a global enabling activity, implemented through the United Nations Environment Programme The National Strategy and Action Plan on Biodi- (UNEP), to strengthen national capacity for devel- versity was informed by a range of integrated stud- oping a regulatory biosafety framework for noti- ies, and included the National Spatial Biodiversity fications and requests related to living modified Assessment. It presents a 20-year strategy for bio- organisms, and for establishing administrative diversity conservation, which is further enabled systems to assist with screening notifications and legally through a national biodiversity framework requests, risk assessment, decision making, and in terms of the National Environmental Manage- feedback. However, because biotechnology is still ment Biodiversity Act, a draft of which was pub- a relatively new field with rapid and ongoing devel- lished in 2007. opments, Syria has not yet produced specific laws 30 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 3.12 Formal Protected Areas and Main Biodiversity Biomes in Syria Name Area (hectares) Location Main biodiversity biome Damnet Al-Souida 653 Al-Sweida Degraded quercus forest Jubbat Al-khashab 133 Al-Qunaitera Forest Dair mar mousa -- rural Damascus Heritage site Al-Lazab 19,000 Homs/rural Damascus Degraded pisticia forest Deir-Atiya -- rural Damascus Degraded lands Abou Qubies 11,000 Hama evergreen forest Al Sha'ara- east 1,000 Tartous evergreen forest Cedar ­ Fir 1,350 Lattakia Cedar-abies forest ra'as Ibn Hane 1,000 Lattakia marine ecosystem Um Al-Toyour 1,000 Lattakia Pine forest; marine ras Al- bassit 3,000 Lattakia brutia pine forest Fronloq 1,500 Lattakia oak-pine forest Al-bassel Forest 2,000 edleb Forest Sabkhat Al-Jabboul 10,000 Aleppo Wetland Al-Thawra Island 590 rakka Wetland Jebel Abdul Aziz 49,000 Deir ezzor Degraded pistacia atlantica forest Huwaijet Ayaash -- Deir ezzor Forest and wetlands Huwaijet Abu Hardoub 450 Deir ezzor Forest and wetlands Jabal Al­bala'as 34,365 Hama Degraded pistacia atlantica forest Jabal Abou rojmen 60,000 Homs Pisticia/mountain bald Ibis 1,000 Homs Special protected area--reproductive habitat Talila 22,000 Homs Desert habitat Al-mouh Lake -- Homs Wetlands Allajat 2,000 Alsouida Degraded lands Source: National biodiversity reports. Note: -- = not available. that regulate biotechnology and biosafety. Active into the environment cannot be easily conducted steps in this direction are under way in response to in Syria. The goal of the recently completed global public concerns of importing foods and feeds con- enabling activity "Building Capacity for Effective taining genetically modified organisms. Impor- Participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House" tant factors limiting the adoption of effective bio- (GEF ID 2128), implemented through UNEP, is safety regulation include the confusion and lack to facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, of information about the nature of new advances environmental, and legal information on, and in living modified organisms and how they were experience with, living modified organisms and to produced, and the lack of a national active strat- assist Syria in accessing the relevant information egy to promote biotechnology. For example, risk so as to develop and adopt national legislation to assessment of releasing living modified organisms regulate biotechnology and biosafety. 3. Context of the Evaluation 31 Environmental Legislation the banning of fishing with large nets (1967); Two articles in Environment Law No. 50 refer Decision 460 (1965) to manage fishing activi- directly to biological diversity and protected areas; ties in seawater; Decision 461 (1965) to manage the other articles contribute indirectly to biodi- fishing activities in freshwater versity conservation. Based on these provisions, z Protection of the Badia ecosystem: Law the terms and conditions for establishing natural No. 140 for protection of Badia (1970), amended reserves in Syria were adopted by the Council for by Law No. 13 (1973) the Protection of the Environment and Sustain- able Development in October 2003. z Hunting: Law No. 152 for land hunting (1970); this law is being updated The main government agencies responsible for z Protection of animal resources: Law No. 237 biodiversity resource conservation in Syria are the (1960) to manage quarantine activities; Law MSEA, the MAAR, and the Ministry of Irrigation. No. 87 (1979) to protect animal resources from z The MSEA coordinates with national authori- diseases; Decision No. 60 for 1988 which orga- ties and regional and international organiza- nizes processes for importation of animals to tions concerned with biodiversity conservation Syria by carrying out activities that aim at estab- z Genetic flora protection: Ministerial Decision lishing protected areas, or any other activities No. 63 (1970), which specifies means for trade that support biodiversity conservation, and in plants and their components and fertilizers by monitoring protected areas and evaluating and pesticides their status as well as ongoing development. z Biosafety: No specific laws have yet been devel- z The MAAR establishes, develops, and man- oped that regulate biotechnology and biosafety, ages the terrestrial protected areas through its although steps are being taken in this direction appointed staff in governorate directorates. z The Ministry of Irrigation supervises the Climate Change and Energy Policy management, protection, and consumption of Initial National Communication water resources (rivers, dams, natural and arti- The first national GHG studies were launched in ficial lakes, and mires) through its departments. 1998 when the Environmental Research Center It is also responsible for wetlands protection. prepared a national study on climate change in Following is a list of the laws, presidential decrees, Syria that aimed at assessing GHG inventories and ministerial decisions of most relevance to bio- and sinks for 1990 and 1994. The study looked diversity conservation. to develop a baseline scenario of GHG emissions and to suggest and estimate technical and non- z Forest protection: Law for Forest Rangers technical options for GHG emissions reduction. No. 86 (1953) and its amendments in Decree 82 Currently, the INC on GHG emissions is being (1962) and Decree 870 (1969) addressing for- prepared by the MSEA with assistance from a est protection; Forests Law No. 7 (1994), which global enabling activity implemented through was replaced by Law 25 (2007) UNDP. The project's implementation strat- z Aquatic life protection: Law No. 30 for pro- egy includes preparing a national GHG inven- tection of aquatic life (1964); Law No. 152 on tory, analyzing potential measures to mitigate 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) increases in GHGs, analyzing the potential z Contribute photovoltaic and wind energy in impacts of climatic changes in Syria, implement- electricity produced into the grid to reduce the ing adaptive measures, and presenting the INC oil and gas used for that purpose. to the UNFCCC. z Allocate renewable energy needs according to area requirements; for example, use wind Renewable Energy Policy energy in electricity supply for regions with a Very few policies in Syria specifically cover renew- suitable average wind speed, or use biomass able energy. Projects in this area mostly rely on energy for thermal purposes in rural areas. guidance provided in Investment Promotion Law No. 8 of 2007, which governs capital investments z Provide government incentives for using in development projects by all parties, whether renewable energy applications, such as solar resident, nonresident, Syrian, or foreign, and thermal energy in the residential sector, and applies to approved economic and social devel- for manufacturing wind turbines, photovoltaic opment projects in energy, industry, transport, or cells, and solar thermal sets. any other sector the Supreme Investment Council Renewable Energies Master Plan deems within the scope of the law. The Ministry of Electricity, in cooperation with The objective of Syrian renewable energy strat- the United Nations Department of Economic egies is to ensure an increasing contribution of and Social Affairs, launched a master plan for the renewable energy applications to meet Syria's development of renewable energy use in 2002; it primary energy demand. The aim is to decrease is currently updating this plan with GTZ assis- dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources and tance. The plan delineates subplans to be carried promote environmentally sound and sustain- out in order to provide a major boost to renew- able development. Efforts were made by the Syr- able energy development in Syria. Recommended ian government and the industrial sector to use program initiatives include specific plans to be renewable energy sources in the past. These ini- taken up for mainstreaming renewable energy in tiatives had no significant impact on the country's the national energy mix; and research, develop- energy scenario partly because they were under- ment, and demonstration projects for technology taken in an uncoordinated manner and lacked development. Pilot projects for technology dem- sufficient planning. The government now recog- onstration as well as investment-worthy projects nizes that for renewable energy resources to play a covering different forms of renewable energy have greater role, a planned and coordinated approach also been identified based on national-level con- is required; this is codified in the 10th five-year sultations and extensive analytical work. plan. Strategies for renewable energies set at the national level in the five-year plan for 2006­10 The National Renewable Energy Master Plan con- include the following: sists of a set of actionable recommendations and proposals for renewable energy systems develop- z Obtain the maximum advantage from renew- ment and accompanying measures to facilitate this able energy sources in Syria such as hydropower development. The master plan proposals assume and wind energy, along with solar thermal energy applications and any other renewable z a 10-year implementation period from 2002 to energy sources available. 2011; 3. Context of the Evaluation 33 z that the development of energy systems con- The GCEA is the official focal point for climate tributes to meeting the primary energy demand change activities in Syria; since 2003, it has also in the country and would reduce dependence served as Syria's designated national authority for on hydrocarbon sources such as gas-based the CDM. In this latter capacity, its main tasks are electricity, gasoline generators, diesel heaters, to provide written approval to project participants and butane lamps; and, in case of a host party, confirm in writing that the CDM project activity assists it in achiev- z facilitating measures including the establish- ing sustainable development. Syria currently has ment of institutions, the conduct of studies and four CDM projects: two in municipal solid waste surveys, and training and capacity-building disposal (in Homs and Aleppo), one related to the efforts; reuse of gaseous effluents at the Banias refinery, z government commitment resulting in adequate and one in a fertilizer plant near Homs. resource allocation and establishment of an enabling institutional framework. Legal Framework for GHGs The legal framework for GHGs in Syria is pro- The Syrian Institutional and Regulatory Framework for Implementation of the CDM vided by Environmental Law No. 2 (2005) which addresses the emission of air pollutants includ- The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is ing GHGs. Other relevant legislation includes an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allow- Energy Conservation Law No. 3, which was issued ing industrialized countries with a GHG reduc- in February 2009 and developed in coordination tion commitment (called Annex B countries) to with the National Energy Research Centre, which invest in projects that reduce emissions in devel- was created in 2003 to carry out energy efficiency oping countries as an alternative to more expen- and renewable energy research and develop- sive emissions reductions in their own countries. ment in Syria. At the national level, the legislative Recognizing the importance of the Kyoto Protocol framework in GHG reduction, Syria certified the protocol in mid-2005. The sustainable development criteria z sets forth legal actions and activities related to for CDM projects in Syria include the following: energy conservation issues, 1. Conformity to political and legal dispositions z aims to replace unsustainable patterns of energy production and consumption, 2. Contribution to z establishes energy efficiency procedures in all z technology autonomy sectors, z sustainable use of natural resources z increases the availability of national existing z social criteria (improve quality of life and fossil fuel resources and reserves, equity, alleviate poverty) z seeks to reduce GHGs, z economic criteria (provide financial returns z engages public participation. to local entities, transfer of new technology) z works to develop national abilities and raise z environmental criteria (mitigation of global general awareness about the use of renewable climate change, reduce GHGs, conserve energy for sustainable development and envi- local resources) ronmental protection. 34 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) The Energy Conservation Law obligates all engi- Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from neering offices that design and construct new Ships, the Barcelona Convention and its proto- buildings or structures to install solar water heat- cols, and the International Maritime Dangerous ing systems with identified incentives. The law Goods Code. also includes a list of governmental incentives for renewable energy use projects and actions to The Public Directorate of Seaports in the Ministry encourage people, organizations, and manufac- of Transport is the principal Syrian government turers to adopt renewable energy use precepts. authority involved in the monitoring of ships' activities affecting seawater quality. The Direc- Efficiency Standards for Consumption of Electri- torate for the Coastal Basin within the Ministry cal Energy in the Domestic, Service, and Com- of Irrigation is mandated by Water Law No. 31 mercial Sectors Law No. 18, enacted in October (2005) to monitor pollution of river discharges to 2008 is also pertinent to GHG emissions. The law coastal seawater. The GCEA is mandated by Envi- aims to improve the energy efficiency of electri- ronment Law No. 51 (2002) to monitor seawater cal equipment so as to reduce national energy quality. Accordingly, in 2003, a monitoring and consumption and make national manufacturers environmental quality reporting system was estab- of electrical appliances more competitive in the lished based on the monitoring agreement signed world market. between the Programme for the Assessment and The National Energy Research Centre was also Control of Pollution in the Mediterranean region involved in preparing the first version of Syria's and the Syrian government. The objective is to Building Thermal Insulation Code in 2006. The meet the GCEA's mandate for promoting inte- code aims to improve thermal efficiency in build- grated coastal zone management, marine pollu- ings and reduce the amount of traditional energy tion control and sustainable use, and conservation used in cooling and heating systems. A prime of marine living resources while helping create ministerial decision was issued in November a database of parameters on the Mediterranean 2007 mandating all public and private enterprises seawater quality from all riparian countries. Five to incorporate code requirements in building laboratories were accredited, capacity-building designs to be included in the permitting process programs were conducted for laboratory person- of all structures effective January 1, 2008. nel, and testing equipment was provided. To date, the GCEA has established a regular bacteriologi- International Waters cal monitoring program for bathing waters, con- ducted laboratory analyses for heavy metals in sea Marine Resources sediments, and tested for nutrients in coastal river The most pertinent piece of legislation for marine waters. Extensive tests were also performed in resources in Syria is Marine Environment Protec- four hotspots, and all test results were submitted tion from Pollution Law No. 9 (2006), which aims to the Programme for the Assessment and Con- to prevent and combat oil pollution and waste trol of Pollution in the Mediterranean region sec- dumping from ships or shore installations, and retariat for incorporation in its database. sets regulations for storing and handling danger- ous goods by both ships and ports. The law refers Following the ratification of the Barcelona Con- to the framework stipulations and provisions vention and the Land-Based Sources of Pollution of Environment Law No. 50, the International Protocol, the GCEA prepared in 2006 a National 3. Context of the Evaluation 35 Action Plan for Protection of the Mediterranean has incorporated some of them into its 10th five- Sea from land-based sources of pollutants and year development plan. activities. The plan, which was approved by the Syrian government in 2008, addresses priority Inland Water Resources issues identified by key stakeholders for reduc- Syria has water rights agreements with its neigh- ing the discharge of pollutants from land-based boring countries of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and sources and activities to the Mediterranean Turkey. These agreements specify water shares Sea. The plan incorporates three categories of and include provisions for coordination and joint measures: water resource management. The stipulations of these agreements are summarized in table 3.13. z Specific measures for promoting sustainable Syria recognizes the importance of reaching equi- use of coastal and marine resources including table long-term water rights' agreements with its best available techniques, best environmental neighbors--particularly with Turkey, since the practice, and clean technologies Euphrates and Tigris Rivers constitute 85 percent z Requirements and incentives to encourage of Syria's surface water resources that originate compliance including economic instruments, in Turkey. To this end, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey regulatory measures, capacity building, and recently agreed to establish a joint center for the public awareness integrated management of water resources of the z Institutional arrangements with the relevant two rivers, in conjunction with the future plan- authorities and resources necessary for carry- ning of joint water infrastructure and irrigation ing out management tasks associated with the projects. strategies and program Environment Law No. 50, Article 22, stipulates Measures included in the action plan cover five that "Authorities, in cooperation, coordination sectors: and participation with the competent authori- ties, shall protect [the] environment from pollu- z Municipal sewage tion...related to water, air, soil and plant and ani- z Municipal solid waste mal creatures and [the] maritime environment." Water Law No. 31 (2005) and its executive orders z Industrial solid wastes and aqueous effluents provide specific stipulations for coordinating the z Hazardous wastes of particular interest to the efforts of the ministries responsible for irrigation Strategic Action Programme for the Mediter- and the environment in monitoring the pollution ranean Sea of public waters countrywide, including lakes, riv- z Air emissions from urban and industrial sources ers, and groundwater. Concrete projects are outlined in the national plan The 10th five-year plan identifies the Syrian and prioritized within the context of a realistic water sector as one of the key sectors targeted and politically acceptable financial strategy. The for fundamental reform at the national level. total cost for the identified projects in the four The plan specifies that by 2020 the population hotspots on the Syrian coastline is about $110 mil- should be provided with access to sustainable lion. The Syrian government is actively seeking and safe drinking water, sustainable management donor support to implement these projects and of water resources, and integrated planning for 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 3.13 Bilateral Water-Sharing Agreements between Syria and Its Neighbors Agreement Type of joint water infrastructure Country River Date Syria's water rights project Turkey euphrates 1987 500 cubic meters/second (Syria's share of euphrates A joint technical committee has been river is 6.627 billion cubic meters of water) formed that will exchange information Iraq euphrates 1989 Syria's share of euphrates river entering at the Turk- and conduct water measurements and ish border is 42% (58% for Iraq) land surveys in preparation for joint projects Iraq Tigris 2002 Syria's share of Tigris river is 1.25 billion cubic meters of water Jordan Yarmouk 1953 Agreement specifies joint management of water In 1987, Syria and Jordan agreed to con- resources for the benefit of both countries struct a dam on the river, with the water to be used mainly for drinking purposes for the city of Amman Lebanon orontes 1994 Syria's share of the 404 million cubic meters of river In 2005, Syria and Lebanon agreed to water is 80% (20% for Lebanon) construct a dam on the river on the Lebanese side Lebanon Kabeer Al 2005 Syria's share of Kabeer Junoubi river is 60% (40% In 2005, Syria and Lebanon agreed to Junoubi for Lebanon) construct a dam on the river bordering both countries Source: Data from the ministry of Irrigation. water sharing among all water users. A number of to preserve; among these, for example, is Law No. national laws and decrees are already in place to 25 (2007) for the protection of forests. support achievement of this vision. These include In January 1994, Syria signed the UNCCD, which Law No. 165 (1958), which coordinates the drill- it ratified in 1997. As required by the convention, ing of water wells and provides the principal man- the Syrian government, in close collaboration with date for water resource management to the Min- the Arab Organization for Agricultural Develop- istry of Irrigation; Decree No. 2145 (1971), which ment, prepared in 1995 a National Action Plan for stipulates general provisions for protecting water Combating Desertification. The plan, which was resources from contamination; and Law No. 10 ratified by the Council for the Protection of the (1972), which deals with water resource pollution Environment and Sustainable Development in prevention. 2002, advocated the following priorities: Land Degradation z The rational use and conservation of natural Environment Law No. 50 in Article 4, Clause 16, resources by which stipulates that "Authorities shall study rea- ­ expanding the integrated rural development sons [for] soil erosion and desertification and pro- programme into the Badia region, pose appropriate solutions thereto," offers the most ­ monitoring water erosion in coastal areas, direct reference to combating desertification and ­ sustainable land management of river basins soil degradation within the national legal frame- work. Other national laws and decrees indirectly z Involving the population/target groups in lead to natural resource conservation against deg- designing and implementing development pro- radation subject to the type of resources they aim grams and in decision making 3. Context of the Evaluation 37 z Empowering the local population to plan and Relevant International Treaties and lead actions to improve their livelihoods while Protocols sustaining their resource heritage Table 3.14 lists the key conventions and agree- z Adopting an integrated and holistic approach ments Syria has signed and ratified. to achieve economic development and alleviate poverty 3.4 The GEF and the Syria Focal Point Mechanism Two committees were instituted to implement the National Action Programme; these included rel- The GEF provides financial support to achieve evant stakeholders and representatives of NGOs, global environmental benefits in biodiversity, cli- UNDP, international organizations such as the mate change, international waters, land degrada- Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry tion, and POPs according to the respective inter- Lands, the International Center for Agricultural national agreements. Research in the Dry Areas, the Arab Organiza- GEF activities are implemented in partner- tion for Agricultural Development, and research ship with one or more of the GEF Agencies-- centers. the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP, regional banks, POPs FAO, IFAD, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization--and national and Syria ratified the Stockholm Convention on Per- regional governments, and civil society institu- sistent Organic Pollutants in 2002, which came tions. GEF Agencies have direct access to GEF into force in 2005. Syria completed its NIP in funding through a memorandum of understand- 2008, as required under Article E of the conven- ing with the GEF. Syria is not a member of any tion; this entailed three main activities: undertak- of the regional banks with direct access to GEF ing a baseline study, developing a strategy for miti- funding. gating emissions, and preparing an accompanying implementation framework. GEF support modalities include the following: Key national legislation dealing directly or indi- z FSPs: funding of more than $1 million rectly with hazardous chemical management includes Environmental Law No. 2 (2005) and Law z MSPs: funding of less than $1 million No. 49 (2004) which deals with cleanliness and z Small grants: funding of less than $50,000, beautification of cities, particularly Sections 3, 4, directed to NGOs and local organizations; and 5 which address disposal of industrial, toxic, these are provided through the SGP, which is hazardous, and health care wastes. Other relevant administered by UNDP legal instruments include ministerial decisions by z Enabling activities: these are intended to help the MAAR in relation to trading agricultural pes- countries meet their obligations under the vari- ticides (2006), licensing of companies importing ous conventions the GEF services pesticides (2004), banning importation of some pesticides (1990), and acceptance criteria for pes- z Project preparation grants: these grants, for- ticides (2003), in addition to a decision by the merly known as project development facility Ministry of Electricity in 1989 banning the impor- (PDF) grants, provide funding for the prepara- tation of transformers containing PCBs. tion and development of projects 38 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 3.14 International Conventions Ratified by the Government of Syria by Focal Area and Year of Ratification Focal area Convention Year ratified Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and biological Diversity in the mediterranean 1993 Amendments of the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and biological Diversity in the 1995 mediterranean Un Convention on biological Diversity 1996 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, as amended by the 1982 1998 Paris Protocol and the 1987 Amendments (ramsar Convention; 1971) bD Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the black Sea, mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic 2001 Area African-eurasian migratory Water-birds Agreement 2002 Convention on the Conservation of migratory Species of Wild Animals 2003 Convention on International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 2003 Cartagena biosafety Protocol 2004 United nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1996 a CC Kyoto Protocol 2005 Convention on the Law of non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses 1998 Convention for the Protection of the marine environment and the Coastal region of the mediterranean Convention 1978; (barcelona Convention) and its amendments amendment 2003 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1974) 2001 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers (1978) 2001 International Convention on Salvage (1989) 2002 International Convention on oil Pollution Preparedness, response and Cooperation, and the 2000 Protocol on Convention 2003; Preparedness, response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and noxious Substances protocol 2005 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and biological Diversity in the mediterranean (1995) 2003 IW International Convention on Civil Liability for oil Pollution Damage (1992) 2005 International Convention for the Control and management of Ships ballast Water and Sediments 2005 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Haz- 2007 ardous and noxious Substances at Sea (1996) Protocol for the Protection and elimination of Pollution of the mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and 2008 Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, as amended in 1995 Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Preventing Pollution from Ships and, in Cases of emergency, Combating 2008 Pollution of the mediterranean Sea (2002) Protocol for the Protection of the mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities, 2008 as amended in 1996 LD United nations Convention to Combat Desertification 1997 basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal 1992 PoPs Stockholm Convention on Persistent organic Pollutants 2003 rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent 2002 Source: GCeA. Note: bD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation. a. Syria signed the UnFCCC in 1995 and ratified it as a non-Annex 1 country in 1996. 3. Context of the Evaluation 39 The GEF officially began with a three-year pilot historically in any of the previous phases of the phase from 1991 to 1994. This was followed GEF. by three regular four-year replenishment peri- The GEF guidelines indicate that each coun- ods: GEF-1 (1994­98), GEF-2 (1998­2002), and try should designate two GEF focal points, one GEF-3 (2002­06). In July 2006, GEF-4 was initi- operational and one political. There is no require- ated and will continue until 2010. Through GEF- ment that these roles be filled by either one or two 3, allocations were not made by country. Eligible persons; this decision is left to each country. In GEF member countries submitted their requests Syria, both roles are assigned to the deputy min- to the various windows through the different GEF ister of state for environmental affairs, who also Agencies on a demand basis. Starting in July 2006 coordinates international projects assigned to the GEF Council approved the RAF, a system for his ministry and bilateral agreements with other allocating GEF resources to recipient countries for donors and international agencies. This role has the biodiversity and climate change focal areas, to remained unchanged since the GEF initiated proj- be implemented in GEF-4. Allocations are made ects in Syria. To date, no national GEF committee individually (country allocation) or to a group of has been formed in Syria, as is the case in other countries (group allocation), depending on the countries. The GEF focal point carries out proj- index assigned to each country based on its poten- ect-related consultations with convention focal tial biodiversity and climate change global benefit points and with the SGP steering committee and and country performance. relevant national executing agencies. This consul- Funding allocations during GEF-4 for the interna- tation process leads to recommendations regard- tional waters, land degradation, POPs, and ozone ing where GEF resources should be allocated. focal areas are not subject to the RAF and func- The MSEA is the primary executing agency for tion on a demand basis. GEF projects in Syria, with branch directorates in Under the RAF, Syria received a group allocation all Syrian governorates. The ministry oversees the for biodiversity with a GEF Benefits Index for Bio- work of the GCEA, which consists of a number of diversity of 0.1 percent and a maximum potential environmental directorates (water safety, air pollu- GEF funding of $3.2 million and a country allo- tion, climate change, land safety, biodiversity, chem- cation of $4.9 million for climate change with a ical safety, and so forth). The MSEA and the GCEA GEF Benefits Index of 0.3 percent. Based on these assume the responsibilities of the focal points for RAF indexes, Syria is receiving an allocation simi- relevant international conventions in the GEF focal lar to that of many other developing countries areas (for example, the CBD, the UNCCD, the and potentially more than the funding received UNFCCC, and the Stockholm Convention). 40 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 4. The GEF Portfolio in Syria This chapter presents an overview of GEF support Figure 4.1 to Syria in terms of financial resources provided Locations of National Projects and number of projects, discussed by type of proj- ect, GEF focal area, GEF Agency and/or national executing agency, and GEF phase. 497 4.1 Projects in the GEF Syrian 1169 National Portfolio 264 National projects vary from small investments for an enabling activity to large full-size projects. Syria has received about $12.7 million in GEF support to national projects (including support for preparation of projects that were canceled or are in the pipeline) and for the Small Grants Pro- gramme. National project locations are shown in figure 4.1, and a summary of project informa- Note: Projects are indicated by GeF project number as per table 4.1. tion is provided in table 4.1. The main objectives of GEF-supported activities in Syria by focal area and modality are presented in table 4.2. executing agency, $0.505 million by UNDP, and $0.18 million by the Organization of the Petro- Syria's first GEF FSP was "Supply-Side Efficiency leum Exporting Countries. To date, this has been and Energy Conservation and Planning" (GEF ID the largest project funded by the GEF in Syria and 264), a project in the climate change focal area accounts for over a third of total funding thus far. which was approved in January 1997 (GEF-1) with The only other national project approved in the GEF funding of $4.61 million. It was implemented GEF-1 phase (1995­98) was an enabling activity through UNDP and cofinanced with $25.1 mil- for the preparation of the "Biodiversity Strategy lion by the Ministry of Electricity,1 the national 1 The Syrian government committed funds for converting the combustion processes for two of four This commitment is in addition to the $25.1 million power generation units from heavy fuel to natural gas. initial Syrian government contribution to the project. 41 Table 4.1 GEF Portfolio in Syria, 1994­2008 GEF Total grant cofinancing Focal GEF GEF GEF ID Project status Project name area Agency Modality Million $ phase National projects 264 Completed Supply-Side efficiency and energy Conserva- CC UnDP FSP 4.61 25.79 GeF-1 tion and Planning 419 Completed biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and bD UnDP eA 0.19 0.04 GeF-1 report to the CbD 497 Canceled with Conservation of biodiversity and Protected bD Wb mSP 0.75 0.68 GeF-2 disbursement Areas management 662 Canceled without Increasing the efficiency of the Hydrocarbon CC Wb mSP 0.75 1.10 GeF-2 disbursement Sector by Using Waste Gas 813 Completed Additional enabling Activity Support for Par- bD UnDP eA 0.01 0.00 GeF-2 ticipation in the Clearing-House mechanism of the CbD 987 Completed Assessment of Capacity-building needs and bD UnDP eA 0.12 0.06 GeF-2 Country-Specific Priorities in biodiversity 1169 Under biodiversity Conservation and Protected bD UnDP FSP 3.47 3.43 GeF-3 implementation Area management 1832 Completed enabling Activities for the Stockholm PoP UneP eA 0.47 0.06 GeF-3 Convention on Persistent organic Pollutants: national Implementation Plan for Syria 2230 Completed national Capacity Self-Assessment for Global mF UnDP eA 0.20 0.03 GeF-3 environment management 2930 not repipelined Integrated Sustainable Land management in LD UnDP FSP 7.50 10.58 n.a. the eastern region 3678 PIF approved Prevention and Disposal of PoPs and obso- PoP FAo mSP 0.98 1.61 GeF-4 lete Pesticides in Syria n.a. ongoing Small Grants Programme mF n.a. FSP 1.15 1.16 GeF-3 &4 Regional projects 400 Completed Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland bD UnDP FSP 8.23 10.30 GeF-1 Agrobiodiversity of the Fertile Crescent 461 Completed Determination of Priority Actions for the IW UneP FSP 6.29 4.19 GeF-2 Further elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the mediterranean Sea 1028 Ceo endorsed mainstreaming Conservation of migratory bD UnDP FSP 10.24 15.60 GeF-3 Soaring birds into Key Productive Sec- tors along the rift valley/red Sea Flyway (Tranches 1 & 2) 2546 Council Demonstration of Sustainable Alternatives PoP UneP FSP 5.56 8.42 GeF-4 approved to DDT and Strengthening of national vector Control Capabilities in middle east and north Africa 2600 Ceo endorsed Strategic Partnership for the mediterranean mF UneP FSP 13.59 29.61 GeF-4 Large marine ecosystem-regional Compo- nent: Implementation of Agreed Actions for the Protection of the environmental resources of the mediterranean Sea and Its Coastal Areas 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table 4.1 GEF Portfolio in Syria, 1994­2008 GEF Total grant cofinancing Focal GEF GEF GEF ID Project status Project name area Agency Modality Million $ phase 2601 Council World bank­GeF Investment Fund for the mF Wb FSP 10.00 90.00 GeF-3 approved mediterranean Sea Large marine ecosystem Partnership, Tranche 1, 1st Allocation 3229 Council World bank­GeF Investment Fund for the IW Wb FSP 15.00 45.00 GeF-4 approved mediterranean Sea Large marine ecosystem Partnership, Tranche 1, 2nd Installment Global projects 23 Completed Promoting best Practices for Conservation bD UneP mSP 0.75 0.15 GeF-2 and Sustainable Use of biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones 172 Completed biodiversity Country Studies ­ Phase I bD UneP eA 5.00 0.80 GeF-3 2128 Completed building Capacity for effective Participation bD UneP eA 0.05 0.02 GeF-3 in the biosafety Clearing-House 2387 Under national Communications Programme for CC UnDP eA 0.41 0.07 GeF-3 implementation Climate Change (national Component) enabling Activities for Preparation of Syria's Initial national Communication for UnFCCC 2582 Completed Development of the national biosafety bD UneP eA 0.16 0.08 GeF-3 Framework for the Syrian Arab republic 3414 Under Support to GeF-eligible CbD Parties for Car- bD UnDP eA/mSP 1.00 0.75 GeF-3 implementation rying out 2010 biodiversity Targets national Assessments ­ Phase I (national Compo- nent ­ 2010 biodiversity Targets national Assessments) Note: bD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; eA = enabling activity; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; mF = multifocal; n.a. = not applicable. and Action Plan and Report to the CBD" (GEF ID the MAAR, the national executing agency, and 419); this was also implemented through UNDP. $1.025 million from UNDP. Two enabling activi- ties were also financed in this phase; the first in In GEF-2 (1999­2002), a World Bank­imple- the POPs focal area, and the second one (NCSA) a mented MSP, "Conservation of Biodiversity and multifocal project addressing biodiversity, climate Protected Areas Management" (GEF ID 497) change, and land degradation. received $0.75 million (although it was canceled later with disbursement of the GEF grant, but with Under the RAF in GEF-4, Syria participates in a no disbursements from UNDP and FAO), along group allocation for biodiversity (with a possible with two enabling activities in the biodiversity maximum of $3.2 million) and has received an focal area. individual country allocation for climate change of $4.9 million. Syria also received funding that In GEF-3 (2003­06), an FSP, "Biodiversity Con- has been used in preparing project identification servation and Protected Area Management" (GEF forms (PIFs) (table 4.3). Total allocated amounts ID 1169) received GEF funding of $3.486 million are also shown in table 4.3 for projects that have and was implemented through UNDP. The proj- been cleared, but not yet approved as projects. ect received $2.409 million in cofinancing from These consist of an approved PIF for a project 4. The GEF Portfolio in Syria 43 Table 4.2 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria by Focal Area and Modality Focal area FSP MSP Enabling activity SGP biodiversity y Demonstrating practical y Strengthening legal and y national Strategy Community-based methods of protected area institutional capacity and Action Plan on conservation of interna- management that effec- to protect and manage biodiversity tional waters introduced tively conserve biodiversity priority sites with high y biodiversity country and linked to enhanced and protect the interest of value for biodiversity of studies livelihoods local communities global importance y Clearing-House y Promoting sustainable y Promoting best prac- mechanism conservation and use of tices for conservation y national biosafety agrobiodiversity and sustainable use of framework biodiversity of global y biosafety significance in arid and Clearing-House semi-arid zones Climate reducing the growth of GHG national Communica- mitigation and adapta- change emissions that result from tions Programme for tion (biogas projects, electric power generation Climate Change national competitions for and inefficient consumption climate change mitiga- of carbon-based fuels tion and adaptation projects) Interna- Improving the quality of the tional marine environment in the waters mediterranean region by bet- ter shared management of land-based pollution Land empowered and environ- degradation mentally conscious civil society involved in formu- lating and implementing environmentally friendly local development plans PoPs nIP multifocal nCSA Table 4.3 in the POPs focal area, "Prevention and Disposal RAF Allocation and Use as of February 2009 of POPs and Obsolete Pesticides in Syria" (to million $ be implemented through FAO), in addition to Biodi- Climate $3.6 million from the climate change RAF allo- Allocation/use versity change cation that has been proposed for approval by GeF-4 indicative allocation Group 4.95 the GEF Secretariat for a project titled "Energy Allocation used Efficiency Building Code" (to be implemented Grants 0 0.12 through UNDP), and a PIF under development Agency fee 0 0.01 PIFs cleared by Ceo, awaiting approval for "Implementation of the National Biosafety Proposed grant 0 0 Framework" (to be implemented through UNEP), remaining to be programmed Group 4.83 a subproject of a global FSP, the "GEF Biosafety Source: GeF Country Profile: Syria, February 2009, www.thegef.org. Program." 44 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 4.2 Allocation by Focal Area regional and global approaches and are discussed in section 4.7. Biodiversity constitutes the largest focal area in terms of number of projects, accounting for 5 out of 11 national projects and 40 percent of total 4.3 Project Status funding (table 4.4). Climate change comprises the Over half of the funding allocated to Syria from largest in terms of financing, amounting to about 1994 to date is related to completed projects 44 percent of national GEF funds and two projects (table 4.5). One-third of the remaining funding (one completed on supply-side efficiency and one is for projects that are ongoing, and about one- canceled without disbursement related to increas- tenth is for projects that will begin implementa- ing the efficiency of the hydrocarbon sector by tion soon. Over half of the completed and ongoing using waste gas). The POP and multifocal areas projects are in the biodiversity focal area. Three each include one enabling activity, with one POP out of six national projects have been canceled or MSP in the pipeline accounting for about 11 per- not approved. The first project in the biodiversity cent of total funding. Projects in land degradation focal area was canceled with disbursement; the have been funded only through the SGP so far; second project in climate change was canceled international waters projects are funded through without disbursement; the third project in land degradation was not repipelined. GEF funding for these three projects constituted 50 percent of total Table 4.4 GEF funds for Syria, or about $9 million. GEF Funding by Focal Area, 1994 through GEF-4 Focal area Million $ % of total 4.4 Allocation by GEF Agency biodiversity 5.130 40 Table 4.6 shows GEF allocations by focal area Climate change 5.548 44 and Agency. UNDP, UNEP, FAO, and the World Land degradation 0.249 2 Bank are the GEF Agencies present in Syria. IFAD PoPs 1.444 11 and the United Nations Industrial Development multifocal 0.346 3 Organization are the two GEF Agencies that, to Total 12.717 100 date, have not handled any GEF projects in Syria. Note: Includes SGP projects. Table 4.5 National Projects by Status and Focal Area million $ Focal area Completed Ongoing Pipeline Total biodiversity 1.078 3.486 0 5.130 Climate change 5.360 0 0 5.548 Land degradation 0 0.249 0 0.249 PoPs 0.469 0 0.975 1.444 multifocal 0.200 0 0 0.346 Total 7.107 4.635 0.975 12.717 Percentage allocated 56 36 8 100 Note: Includes SGP projects. 4. The GEF Portfolio in Syria 45 Table 4.6 GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Agency as of February 2009 million $ Focal area UNDP UNEP World Bank FAO SGP Climate change 4.610 0 0.750 a 0 0.188 biodiversity 3.814 0 0.750 0 0.516 Land degradation 0 0 0 0 0.249 PoPs 0 0.469 0 0.975 0 multifocal 0.200 0 0 0 0.146 Total 8.624 0.469 1.500 0.975 1.099 Percentage allocation 68 4 12 8 9 a. one project of $0.750 million was canceled without disbursement. UNDP, which also administers the SGP, is respon- projects in Syria is the MSEA. The ministry man- sible for 7 of the 11 national projects, constituting ages projects in the biodiversity and POPs focal over two-thirds of GEF allocations, whereas other areas, which constitute about two-thirds of GEF Agencies' funding varies between 4 and 12 per- financial allocations so far. Syria's climate change cent of total GEF allocations. The UNDP portfo- project ("Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Con- lio covers mainly biodiversity and climate change servation and Planning") was handled by the Min- projects. istry of Electricity. With the exception of the SGP, all GEF funding has been channeled through gov- In this context, it should be noted that Syria is ernment entities. No NGOs have received GEF not a member of any of the regional develop- support directly other than through the SGP, which ment banks that can manage GEF projects such is implemented through NGOs and community- as the Asian Development Bank. Furthermore, based organizations (CBOs), as discussed below. the World Bank has not had a lending program or country strategy for Syria since 1986, although 4.6 The Small Grants Programme more recently it has provided support to the coun- The SGP was launched globally in 1992 to com- try through technical assistance. plement the GEF's other grants by supporting UNDP has been the main GEF Agency in Syria in activities of NGOs and CBOs in developing coun- all three GEF phases, while UNEP and the World tries that are aligned with objectives of the global Bank have played only a marginal role. FAO will conventions in each of the GEF focal areas, while be handling the PIF-approved POPs MSP to be generating sustainable livelihoods.2 Funded by the financed out of GEF-4 funds. GEF as a corporate program, the SGP is admin- istered globally by UNDP on behalf of the GEF partnership and is executed by the United Nations 4.5 Allocation by National Office for Project Services. The maximum grant Executing Agency National executing agencies are entities that take responsibility for executing GEF-supported proj- The information presented here is taken from the 2 ects. The main executing agency for GEF-funded SGP Web site (http://sgp.undp.org). 46 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) amount per project is $50,000, which is channeled Figure 4.2 directly to the recipient organizations. SGP Projects by Focal Area Formally initiated in Syria in 2005, the SGP actu- ally began operation the following year. As of Feb- Multifocal ruary 2009, the SGP portfolio included 25 proj- 13% ects (excluding one that was canceled and one Land degradation project that was not yet signed). Funded projects 23% cover the focal areas of biodiversity, land degrada- tion, and climate change; several were multifocal. Figure 4.2 shows the SGP allocations by focal area. Climate change The total amount allocated by the SGP for the mitigation/ Biodiversity adaptation 47% 25 projects was $1.099 million, with cofinancing 17% by NGOs and CBOs in the amount of $1,159,901 ($442,337 cash and $717,564 in-kind). The amount that had been disbursed as of February 2009 was $700,010. Table 4.7 shows SGP allocations by GEF phase, including number of projects in each phase, and RAF and core funds allocated and committed. By the end of February 2009, SGP allocations from GEF-4 included $125,000 from the RAF for climate especially to remote areas in the country. The SGP change. An additional amount of $275,000 was country program's priorities for the next reporting requested but had not yet been approved. period include revision of the country program strategy, revising SGP objectives and outcomes in The SGP has evolved since its inception as it line with GEF-4 objectives and strategies, position- attempts to improve its efficiency and effective- ing the Syrian SGP within the development arena, ness. Currently, the process for developing proj- promoting NGO/CBO capacity-building initia- ects is being completely revised. Problems facing tives, and promoting gender and legal empower- the SGP are limited options for financial transfers, ment initiatives. Table 4.7 SGP Allocations by Phase as of February 2009 SGP grants allocation ($) Number of Allocated Committed GEF operational phase projects RAF Core RAF Core GeF-3 (2005­06) 10 0 450,000 0 387,835 GeF-3 (2006­07) 11 0 600,000 0 542,000 GeF-4 (2007­08) 4 112,500 125,000 100,000 169,400 GeF-4 (2008­present) 1 123,750 200,000 none yet none yet Total 26 236,250 1,375,000 100,000 1,099,235 Note: excludes one $50,000 project that was terminated and one project that was not yet signed. 4. The GEF Portfolio in Syria 47 4.7 Regional and Global Projects implementation). Four out of these five biodiver- sity projects were implemented through UNEP; Syria has also received support from the GEF the fifth was performed by UNDP. The completed through regional and global projects (see table 4.1), biodiversity MSP focused on promoting best which means that the projects involved multiple practices for the conservation and sustainable countries within the Arab region--or even from use of globally significant biodiversity in arid and different regions of the world--and contain com- semi-arid zones. One completed enabling activ- ponents implemented within Syria. The numbers ity elaborated biodiversity country studies (with of completed or under implementation regional a currently ongoing enabling activity providing and global projects in which Syria participates support for carrying out CBD 2010 biodiversity are shown in table 4.8 by focal area. The biodiver- targets national assessments). Two other com- sity focal area accounts for over one-half of these pleted enabling activities focused on developing regional and global projects. the National Biosafety Framework and building capacity for effective participation in the Biosafety Table 4.8 Clearing-House. Finally, an ongoing national com- Number of Regional and Global Projects in Which munications program for climate change is aimed Syria Participates, by Focal Area at preparing Syria's INC for the UNFCCC; this is Focal area Regional Global implemented through UNDP and forms part of biodiversity 2 5 the list of global enabling activities. Climate change 0 1 The cost of national implementation for regional International waters 2 0 and global projects is not readily available and is Land degradation 0 0 very difficult to isolate. GEF grants are allocated PoPs 1 0 multifocal 2 0 for the entire project, not necessarily by country, Total 7 6 although in GEF-4 the grants for regional and global projects under the RAF are built with spe- cific country contributions. It is difficult to esti- Completed global projects are mainly in the mate exactly how much Syria is receiving from biodiversity area, with a single MSP and four its participation in these regional and global enabling activities (one of which is still under projects. 48 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria This chapter examines the following questions Note that enabling activities--which in Syria are regarding global environmental impacts of GEF particularly prevalent in the biodiversity focal projects in Syria: area--are not expected to produce direct impacts at the environmental level, although such impacts z What are the results (impacts and outcomes) of completed (and if appropriate, ongoing) proj- may be produced when follow-up activities are ects, according to focal area frameworks and implemented. cross-cutting issues (that is, catalytic effects, institutional sustainability, capacity building, 5.1 Biodiversity and awareness)? The results delivered through the national, z What are the aggregated results at the focal regional, and global biodiversity project portfo- area and country levels? lio since the start of GEF funding in Syria over z What is the likelihood that objectives will be 10 years ago are best viewed in the sequence of achieved for those projects that are still under project implementation, as the portfolio was implementation? influenced by experiences from earlier projects and the changing Syrian context. Of the 11 biodi- z What is the sustainability of GEF support?? versity projects, 9 have been completed and 2 are Results were measured by focal area using the under implementation. Five projects are national, following parameters: and six are regional or global. Two projects are full size, two are medium size, and seven are enabling z Impacts: changes in environmental status, especially those of global significance as well as activities. In addition, 11 of the 27 projects in the reductions in threats to the globally significant Syrian SGP portfolio are in the biodiversity focal resource area. z Outcomes: Global Environmental Impacts ­ Catalytic and replication effects At the project level, GEF support to biodiversity ­ Policy changes and institutional sustainability conservation in Syria has resulted in significant ­ Capacity building and awareness global benefits by contributing to the formal pro- Information on results was compiled from inter- tection of globally significant biodiversity and has views, reviews of existing project documentation, strengthened management systems as evidenced and a few field visits to selected projects. from the following impacts: 49 z GEF support to the national project "Conserva- Environment (now the MSEA); this has proven to tion of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Man- be quite effective in the follow-on project "Biodi- agement" resulted in the development of alter- versity Conservation and Protected Area Man- native livelihoods for the local communities in agement" which is now under implementation. the Cedar and Fir Protected Area. Impacts were Additionally, a management plan was published evident from the reduction of one of the main and has been replicated for other protected areas threats to biodiversity--local communities' around the country. Lessons learned from the livelihood dependency on medicinal and aro- original protected areas project regarding coor- matic plants--and an increase in the number of dination among relevant government institutions migratory birds flying into the protected area. were crucial in the design of the follow-on project; Local communities also showed an improved the latter project has also benefited from experi- understanding of and willingness to adopt new ence gained in the dryland agrobiodiversity project approaches for sustainable use and manage- involving tools and methods for developing alter- ment of their biodiversity resources. native livelihoods for local communities. Alterna- z The regional project "Conservation and Sus- tive land use practices were also developed. These tainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity of outcomes are being replicated with farmers and the Fertile Crescent" was crucial in dissemi- agricultural lands in other parts of the country. nating over 16 target varieties (wild relatives The global enabling activity "Biodiversity Country of fruit trees and native species, in addition to Studies" provided the GCEA with the resources wild relatives and land races of wheat, barley, needed to assemble and combine all biodiversity and legumes) through the MAAR's national studies in a single report. This outcome was cru- agricultural research commission. The proj- cial for introducing sound decision-making pro- ect promoted alternative land use practices by collaborating with farmers to introduce wild cesses based on factual data. relatives of fruit trees and land races of major The SGP continues to provide opportunities for a crops. Also, propagation plots were created at number of communities, households, and NGOs research centers in the two target areas (Sweida to learn and replicate the results of GEF-funded and Lattakia). As a result, collaborating farm- projects. Four projects with microcredit compo- ers started to rehabilitate wild species and land nents (two on the revival of silkworm raising and races and wild relatives of target species. silk production, and two on sustaining livelihoods and land resources in the Olive Mountains in Outcomes northwest Syria) financially supported more than Catalytic and Replication Effects 100 individuals, and are expected to reach more The "Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected than 250 people by the end of 2009. Areas Management" project had a significant influence on the institutional set-up of those Syr- Policy Changes and Institutional Sustainability ian government entities dealing with protected A key challenge in the biodiversity focal area in areas. For example, a formal arrangement for coor- Syria is the ability of institutions to change their dination was established between the MAAR and current policies and sustain the institutional gains the former Ministry of Local Administration and made through GEF projects. 50 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) GEF support for the "Conservation of Biodiversity and legislation related to biodiversity conserva- and Protected Areas Management" project helped tion and protected area management. New legis- expand and improve the protected areas system lation to protect genetic resources was prepared in Syria. The project established the foundation and is now pending parliamentary approval. The for producing long-term management plans for project brought into existence new policies at the biodiversity conservation of protected areas and MAAR to conserve wild species and biodiver- highlighted the need to protect two endangered sity. It also helped establish a genetic resources species. It introduced the concept of training staff unit and biodiversity department in the General who will be employed to manage the protected Commission for Agricultural Scientific Research; areas; however, the institutional sustainability of a herbarium for targeted species was also created. this measure was not effective, as trained staff were The government is sustaining these institutions later assigned to other positions within the MAAR. by allocating a special budget for managing the herbarium, genetic resources unit, and biodiver- Ultimately, the project proved to be a testing sity department. ground for coordinating efforts between the MAAR and the GCEA concerning the responsi- The GEF enabling activity supporting Syria's first bilities for managing the conservation efforts of national report to the CBD initiated implementa- biodiversity in protected areas. Lessons learned tion of the Syrian government's response to the from this project were applied to the follow-on CBD. The key policies identified in this report project "Biodiversity Conservation and Protected provided an important baseline for the scope of Area Management," in which a new organiza- the following enabling activities, namely in pro- tional structure for protected areas was adopted viding support to the Biodiversity Directorate in by the MAAR and approved by its minister. The the GCEA for participating in the Clearing-House original project also demonstrated the need for Mechanism of the CBD, and in ensuring effective central government allocation of funds to finance communication with the CBD secretariat and conservation of protected areas (Syrian financial other international organizations. laws do not allow for the collection of fees to be The global enabling activity supporting Syria's used solely to manage protected areas). Addition- development of its National Biosafety Framework ally, the project provided government officials strengthened national capacity to develop a draft with specific information for institutionalizing regulatory biosafety framework for the import protected area conservation in the relevant laws, and export of living modified organisms. The and for updating the new Forestry Law No. 25 in framework was presented to the Council for the 2007, which took into account the conservation of Protection of the Environment and Sustainable protected areas and recognized the relevant inter- Development, and was approved in 2008. A pro- national conventions and treaties in this domain. cess for screening and receiving notifications has The "Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dry- been established; this is awaiting approval prior to land Agrobiodiversity in the Fertile Crescent" implementation. project resulted in the formation of a national task force drawing from two national executive Capacity Building and Awareness agencies (the GCEA and the MAAR), with the The GEF's biodiversity projects in Syria have aim of reviewing and updating national policies invested significant effort in capacity building and 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria 51 awareness raising, partly because their success and conservation of biodiversity. Over 160 aca- directly depends on changing behaviors. demic and government experts participated in the preparation of various studies related to biodiver- The national project "Conservation of Biodiver- sity components, including an outline for a first sity and Protected Areas Management" conducted strategy for biodiversity protection. training in macrolevel conservation, protected areas management planning, decision making The national enabling activity "Biodiversity Strat- and administration, protected areas field manage- egy and Action Plan and Report to the CBD" ment techniques, fauna and flora surveying and provided support to the GCEA in submitting its monitoring, community conservation, ecotour- national strategy to the convention. Similarly, the ism and visitor handling, monitoring and evalua- national enabling activity "Assessment of Capac- tion, socioeconomic data sheet and use, socioeco- ity-Building Needs and Country-Specific Priori- nomic aspects of protected areas, and alternative ties in Biodiversity" provided the GCEA with the incomes. necessary capacities to send its second report to the CBD and to determine its priority areas The regional project "Conservation and Sustain- for the second phase. And the global enabling able Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity in the Fertile activity "Carrying out 2010 Biodiversity Targets Crescent" undertook intensive capacity-building National Assessments" provided the GCEA with programs for both individuals and groups. Some the resources to complete and submit its fourth project staff now working at the MAAR's Agri- report to the CBD secretariat in April 2009. cultural Research Centre received master's and doctorate degrees in the field of agrobiodiversity All biodiversity projects raised awareness by tar- conservation. geting key government institutions and local communities, particularly by communicating the The global project "Promoting Best Practices importance of preserving biodiversity and pro- for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodi- tected areas. For example, "Conservation of Biodi- versity of Global Significance in Arid and Semi- versity and Protected Areas" raised awareness and Arid Zones" provided increased availability of understanding among government institutions of and access to information on best practices, and the concept of biodiversity conservation and the increased awareness by local populations of les- role of protected areas in improving local com- sons and best practices in arid and semi-arid munities' livelihoods within key institutions. The ecosystems. "Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and Report As part of the "Biodiversity Conservation and to the CBD" included seven awareness-raising Protected Area Management" national project, workshops for policy makers and other stakehold- a capacity-building program for work teams was ers on biodiversity conservation. initiated to apply effective protected area manage- Members of local communities received infor- ment plans at three project sites. As part of this pro- mation through GEF projects on alternative gram, 28 training modules have been provided thus livelihoods in order to sustain and preserve the far for work teams on national and regional levels. resources of the protected areas. The SGP is play- The "Biodiversity Country Studies" global ing an important role in this area, as awareness enabling activity provided Syria's first-ever oppor- raising is always included in SGP project design. tunity to raise issues related to the management For example, "Protecting Biodiversity and Limited 52 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Natural Resources in the Jebel Abdul Aziz Pro- Global Environmental Impacts tected Area" project aims to raise awareness of The supply-side efficiency project set a target to alternative livelihoods on the part of local com- reduce national energy consumption by 1.83 per- munities in raising livestock in order to sustain the cent and CO2 emissions by 765.5 tons from pre- area's natural resources. This project synergizes implementation levels by 2008. However, there with the GEF FSP "Biodiversity Conservation and are no factual data to support this result yet. To Protected Area Management" and directly sup- achieve these targets, the project introduced effi- ports its outcomes. ciency and maintenance management systems for The global enabling activity aimed at develop- the four power generation units in the Banias ther- ing the National Biosafety Framework provided mal power plant situated on the Syrian coastline, mechanisms for public participation and informa- concurrent with government plans to convert the tion dissemination. Awareness-raising workshops combustion processes of these power generation were conducted for government agencies, univer- units from heavy fuel to natural gas. sity staff, NGOs, and the private sector in differ- Concerning the second project, it is not possible ent parts of the country to disseminate informa- to link the INC directly to GHG emissions; how- tion on the framework's aims and outputs, and on ever, impacts will likely be found in the future in the risks of living modified organisms. Similarly, terms of both climate change mitigation and adap- the global enabling activity "Building Capacity for tation, when the baseline studies--including the Effective Participation in the Biosafety Clearing- GHG inventories--will significantly strengthen House" has strengthened capacity in the GCEA the foundation for effective strategic decisions Directorate for Biodiversity through training on and action. data input and information on living modified organisms. Outcomes 5.2 Climate Change Catalytic and Replication Effects The GEF portfolio in Syria in the climate change The efficiency and maintenance management focal area consists of two projects. The first is a systems developed by the supply-side efficiency national project, "Supply-Side Efficiency and project have been disseminated to other power Energy Conservation and Planning," implemented generation plants around the country. The SGP is through UNDP. This project, which has been com- also providing good opportunities for a number of pleted, was intended to assist Syria in its efforts communities and NGOs to learn about and repli- to reduce the growth of GHG emissions resulting cate the results of GEF-funded projects. A biogas from electric power generation and the inefficient project in the villages of Roha and Um Rumman consumption of carbon-based fuels. The second visited by the evaluation team in the Sweida gov- project is a global enabling activity related to the ernorate in southern Syria demonstrates the effi- preparation of Syria's Initial National Communi- ciency and benefits for manure digesters to pro- cation for the UNFCCC, which is currently under duce biogas as an alternative energy resource for implementation. Also, 5 of the 27 projects in the heating purposes and organic fertilizer. The proj- Syrian SGP portfolio are in the climate change ect is supporting three households and is expected area. to support eight more by the end of 2009. 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria 53 The INC is likely to have tangible catalytic effects enterprises to incorporate the thermal insula- on Syria's climate change projects, but these have tion code in building designs of all structures to not been measured yet. be submitted to the permitting process effective January 1, 2008. Policy Changes and Institutional Sustainability The INC has already established a working group The supply-side efficiency project created the in the GCEA with the specific task of conducting National Energy Research Centre, an official insti- an inventory of GHG emissions in Syria. A steer- tution within the Ministry of Electricity mandated ing committee made up of the head of the State with researching new alternative energy resources Planning Commission, the MSEA minister, the and energy efficiency initiatives. A project Web GCEA general director, the GEF focal point, and site was developed jointly with the ministry which the project's national coordinator meets regularly includes an energy efficiency email service. The to discuss project activities and outcomes; these project also developed two energy efficiency laws are communicated to the relevant government that were recently enacted in Syria (see box 5.1). agencies so they can be incorporated into national The first law deals with efficiency standards for development policies and plans. consumption of electrical energy in the domes- tic, service and commercial sectors. The sec- Capacity Building and Awareness ond law is a framework energy conservation Capacity building was an integral part of the sup- law. The National Energy Research Centre was ply-side efficiency project. The central project also involved in preparing the first version of the team was trained by the international contractor on Building Thermal Insulation Code in 2006 which systems maintenance and efficiency assessment, aims at improving thermal efficiency in build- in addition to participating in on-the-job training ings. A prime ministerial decision was issued in at the power plant itself. Instrumentation and soft- November 2007 requiring all public and private ware for undertaking systems maintenance were procured. Technical internal and external teams Box 5.1 were trained to replicate experiences learned and Energy Efficiency Laws applied in the Banias plant to other power plants Law for Efficiency Standards for Consumption of in Syria. In all, 300 walkthrough audits and 98 Electrical Energy in the Domestic, Service and Com- detailed audits were conducted, and 20 detailed mercial Sectors (Law No. 18) was enacted in october feasibility studies were performed.1 More than 2008. The law aims at raising the energy efficiency of electrical equipment to reduce national energy con- 200 engineers and 60 auditors were trained, more sumption and increase the ability of national manufac- than 30 managers attended awareness-raising turers of electrical appliances to compete in the world courses, and 5 conferences were convened. Data market. Energy Conservation Law No. 3 was issued in Feb- ruary 2009 and developed in coordination with the 1 Walkthrough audits entail a preliminary assess- national energy research Centre. The law determines ment of energy consumption in a specific estab- the regulating mechanism for renewable energy use lishment; detailed audits investigate the different at the national level. It includes a list of government energy-consuming sources and assess their efficiency. incentives for renewable energy use projects and Feasibility studies evaluate the technical and economic actions to encourage adoption by people, organiza- aspects of existing and alternative measures to reduce tions, and manufacturers. energy consumption in a specific establishment and the time needed for cost recovery. 54 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) related to industrial energy consumption at public improved international cooperation in the man- and industrial facilities were processed and clas- agement of land-based pollution of transbound- sified, and 3 scenarios on consumption and 18 ary and regional significance. This was achieved estimated energy-saving measures were evaluated by supporting the activities of the Mediterranean and shared with relevant stakeholders. Action Plan (MAP) through the implementation of a strategic action program to address pollution The project also helped raise awareness of cli- of the Mediterranean Sea from land-based activi- mate change. It created an advertisement which ties. The program was adopted by the contracting was aired on national TV on energy efficiency and parties to the Barcelona Convention in 1997. Proj- conservation. A package of training programs on energy efficiency was also prepared, a new film ect activities included conducting transboundary on energy efficiency targeting both youth and analysis for 103 hotspots; formulating and adopt- adults was made, a Web site on energy efficiency ing principles, approaches, measures, timetables, was developed, brochures for energy savings were and priority actions to address each major land- disseminated, seven seminars were conducted based source of pollution and assisting countries in the various Syrian governorates as a follow- in the implementation of such actions; conducting up to the public awareness campaign, publica- preinvestment analysis of expected baseline and tions for schools were developed, and a program additional actions needed to address the selected was announced in which government employees hotspots, and securing recipient country agree- would receive an interest-free loan to install solar ment to baseline investments; and helping coun- heaters. tries prepare, adopt at the highest level, and imple- ment country-specific national action plans based The SGP is also helping raise awareness about cli- on the regionally prepared and adopted guide- mate change issues. The "National Competition lines. The project was completed in 2006, and will for Environmental Inventions--Climate Change be followed by two GEF-approved regional FSPs Mitigation and Adaptation" project is launching to be implemented through UNEP and the World a national competition for the best research or Bank, respectively. invention on climate change adaptation and use of alternative energy resources. The project looks The first project, "Strategic Partnership for the to create partnerships among inventors, youth, Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem Regional and the private sector to turn new inventions into Component: Implementation of Agreed Actions small-scale projects and highlight the importance for the Protection of the Environmental Resources of using renewable energy sources. of the Mediterranean Sea and Its Coastal Areas," (CEO approved), builds on the model and lessons 5.3 International Waters learned from the GEF Black Sea/Danube Partner- The GEF portfolio in international waters in ship. It is a basinwide multistakeholder collabo- Syria consists of a regional FSP, "Determination ration whose main objective is to help the Medi- of Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration terranean basin countries implement reforms and Implementation of the Strategic Action Pro- and investments in key sectors that address gramme for the Mediterranean Sea." The project's transboundary pollution reduction, biodiversity goal was to improve the quality of the marine envi- decline, habitat degradation, and living resource ronment in the Mediterranean region through protection priorities. 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria 55 The second project, "World Bank­GEF Invest- their implementation. The project also promoted ment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large a participatory approach and coordination among Marine Ecosystem Partnership, Tranche 1, 2nd government entities and NGOs, which allowed Allocation" (Council approved), aims at facilitat- for the development of action plans reflecting the ing implementation of top transboundary prior- needs and priorities of all stakeholders. ity pollution reduction and habitat protection Regional guidelines were prepared by the project's measures for the recipient countries of the Medi- Implementing Agency (IA). These were provided terranean Sea basin. The investment fund--sup- to all Mediterranean countries through regional ported by the GEF with $60 to $70 million in workshops and training courses, and were ulti- grant financing over multiple tranches and open mately incorporated by the respective govern- to other donors' contributions--is proposed as a ments into their environmental guidelines. vehicle for catalyzing investments and accelerat- ing the urgent actions necessary for reducing pol- Policy Changes and Institutional Sustainability lution of the Mediterranean, and of the Adriatic "Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Sea in particular. Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Because neither project has yet been initiated, no Action Programme for the Mediterranean Sea" activities have thus far been planned or imple- brought the negative impacts of land-based sources mented in Syria. of pollutants on the coastal zone and marine envi- ronment to the attention of policy makers. Since Global Environmental Impacts the coastal area has been targeted by policy mak- As in the case of enabling activities in other focal ers for tourist development, top priority was given areas, the strategic action program produced for for adopting the necessary measures to limit the the Mediterranean Sea is not expected to produce input of pollutants discharged into the Mediter- direct impacts on the environment. However, as ranean Sea. As a result, when the National Action noted above, the project has already generated Plan for Reduction of Pollutants from Land-Based potential future funding for several related proj- Sources was prepared as part of this project, the ects to protect the global environment of the Syrian government adopted its measures in 2008. Mediterranean Sea through strategic partnerships These have also been incorporated into the coun- and investment funds. try's 10th five-year plan for social and economic development, and are reflected in national poli- Outcomes cies and ministerial decisions. Catalytic and Replication Effects Capacity Building and Awareness National action plans and preinvestment stud- The project produced numerous studies that ies financed by the project provided prefeasibil- can be the basis of future interventions. Specifi- ity studies that were used by development banks cally, a transboundary diagnostic analysis for 103 and international finance institutions to fund hotspots around the Mediterranean, including 4 projects in hotspots and sensitive areas in Syria. in Syria, was prepared. A priority list for actions These plans and studies encouraged the Syrian was developed, and preinvestment studies were government to give priority to cofinancing these conducted. The preinvestment study for Syria has projects and to allocate the necessary funds for already been used by the European Investment 56 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Bank to undertake further studies for financing z The GEF-4 replenishment was lower than interventions to limit pollutant discharges at the anticipated, so there was less funding for land Banias refinery, the number one­ranked hotspot degradation. on the Mediterranean along the Syrian coastline. z The GEF Council, following the guidelines The project also developed a national diagnostic from the Convention on Desertification and analysis and a baseline budget of pollutants dis- Deforestation, decided to prioritize Sub-Saha- charged from land-based sources and activities ran Africa in the land degradation focal area. along the Syrian coastline. These studies were z The GEF Council decided to develop a pro- used to develop sectoral and national action plans grammatic approach for land degradation in that will be used by the government for financing the Arab countries (the MENARID initiative interventions against land-based sources of pollu- implemented through IFAD), although Syria is tion along the coast. The project raised the aware- not part of this program in its present phase. ness of personnel in the Water Safety Directorate at the GCEA, particularly in relation to identify- According to the GEF, there will be opportunities ing pollutant sources, their risk, and impacts on for Syria to receive GEF funding for land degrada- the Mediterranean marine environment; and tion in GEF-5. afforded needed training for NGOs and other IFAD, a GEF Agency, is currently active in the land national stakeholders to participate in the devel- degradation focal area in Syria. It finances projects opment of national action plans. that enable rural poor people to reclaim lands, improve rain-fed agriculture, and manage natu- 5.4 Land Degradation ral resources more effectively. It also promotes The only results that can be reported in this focal off-farm income-generating activities. Since 1982, area come from the SGP, since the GEF has so far IFAD has supported seven projects in Syria (in the not supported any FSPs or MSPs combating land northeastern, Badia, southern, Jabal Al Hoss, and degradation in Syria. There was an attempt by the Idleb regions, in addition to the coastal midlands), investing a total of $126.2 million in loans, with Syrian government to request GEF support for an total cofinancing of $347.8 million. FSP in land degradation, but it was not approved. The project, "Integrated Sustainable Land Man- agement in the Eastern Region," was proposed by 5.5 POPs the GCEA with a GEF grant of $7.5 million and One national enabling activity has been under- Syrian government cofinancing of $10.575 mil- taken in the POPs focal area in Syria: "Enabling lion. PDF funding of $350,000 from the GEF with Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persis- $155,000 in cofinancing was spent to undertake tent Organic Pollutants: National Implementation the necessary preparatory work, including the Plan for Syria." A regional FSP, "Demonstration of collection of baseline information, detailed con- Sustainable Alternatives to DDT and Strength- sultation with key stakeholders, implementation ening of National Vector Control Capabilities in arrangements, and strengthening of the institu- Middle East and North Africa," to be implemented tional set-up at the provincial level. Ultimately, through UNEP, has been approved by the GEF however, the project was not submitted for GEF Council. In addition, a PIF has been approved Council approval for several reasons: for a national MSP, "Prevention and Disposal of 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria 57 POPs and Obsolete Pesticides in Syria"; this will helped create a data management system for haz- be implemented through FAO. The SGP has no ardous chemicals imported into Syria. The project POPs projects in its portfolio. helped Syrian government agencies strengthen national capacities to manage POPs and chemi- Global Environmental Impacts cals, particularly with regard to proper manage- It is too early to link the NIP for POPs directly to ment and disposal of solid hazardous wastes. the improvement of human health and the envi- ronment. It is anticipated that the impacts of this 5.6 Multifocal Projects enabling activity will only materialize in the future Only one multifocal national enabling activity when projects designed based on NIP recommen- has been completed, the "National Capacity Self- dations are completed. Assessment for Global Environment Manage- ment." The SGP has four multifocal projects in its Outcomes portfolio. Catalytic and Replication Effects The NIP has already enabled the initial collec- Global Environmental Impacts tion, verification, and analysis of POPs and the It is too early to link the outcomes of the NCSA POPs situation and options that can inform deci- directly to global impacts on biodiversity, cli- sions at all levels. As a result, the government has mate change, and land degradation. The aim of allocated funding for actions to eliminate POPs the NCSA process was to provide an opportunity (replacement of PCB transformers, management for national stakeholders to articulate a thorough of disposal and open burning of wastes that pro- and participatory self-assessment and analysis of duce dioxins, purchase of organo-chloride­free national capacity-building needs, priorities, and pesticides, and so on). constraints in order to deal with global environ- mental issues and the global conventions. It is Policy Changes and Institutional Sustainability expected that the project will enable the genera- The NIP was adopted by the relevant Syrian tion of future funding to protect the global envi- ministries, and its recommendations have been ronment within the broader perspective of sus- incorporated into their policies. Government tainable development. agencies that adopted the NIP include the MSEA and the MAAR, as well as the Ministries of Elec- Outcomes tricity, Petroleum and Minerals, Social Affairs and Labor, Health, Transport, and Housing and Catalytic and Replication Effects Construction. The NCSA enabled government institutions to develop new project concepts in biodiversity, Capacity Building and Awareness climate change, and land degradation to better The NIP helped build capacity and raised aware- coordinate the requirements of the three relevant ness among personnel of the Chemical Safety conventions. Accordingly, costs of projects were Directorate at the GCEA, particularly in relation estimated, and a prioritized integrated list was to identifying the sources of POPs, their risk, and developed for future funding by international safe management and disposal practices. It also financing institutions and the government. 58 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Policy Changes and Institutional Sustainability Capacity Building and Awareness The NCSA was presented to the relevant minis- The NCSA provided capacity building to govern- tries, which in turn adopted the conclusions and ment institutions and their staff and highlighted recommendations proposed in the report at rel- the gaps in existing capacities for determining evant administrative levels. needs and coordinating priorities in the three GEF thematic areas of biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation. 5. Results of GEF Support to Syria 59 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Syria This chapter addresses the following evaluation of these plans indicates that the 8th five-year plan questions: (1996­2000) addressed issues related to land deg- radation for agricultural areas, biodiversity pro- z Is GEF support relevant to Syria's five-year tection for forests, protection of marine biodiver- development plans and environmental priori- sity for fish stocks, and protection of water from ties, its development needs and difficulties, and contamination. The 9th five-year plan (2001­05) its action plans in the GEF focal areas? promoted incorporation of the environmental z Is Syria supporting the GEF mandate and focal dimension into development planning, land deg- area programs and strategies with its own radation, integrated water resource management, resources and/or support from other donors? improving agricultural productivity, protection of freshwater resources, biodiversity protection z Is GEF support relevant to the achievement of particularly for natural forests, energy efficiency the GEF mandate and strategic objectives? through the rehabilitation of power generation z Is GEF support relevant to GEF Agency strate- plants, and capacity building and awareness rais- gies? ing in the environmental field. The 10th five-year The relevance of the GEF portfolio in Syria in plan (2006­10) focuses on formulating overall terms of most of the questions above is evaluated national policies to alleviate the various forms of based on the project development process and pollution, combating desertification, enriching project results over all GEF phases. biodiversity, and introducing sustainable resource planning; implementing sustainable rural devel- 6.1 The GEF Portfolio and opment; creating interactive planning and admin- istrative partnership among the environment, Syria's Development Plans and production, and service sectors; and raising the Environmental Priorities level of environmental awareness. Support of Environmental Priorities in the Biodiversity protection is a common objective of Five-Year Development Plans the three plans. Energy efficiency and alleviating Chapter 3 presents details of Syria's last three various forms of pollution, both of which address five-year social and economic development plans climate change, constitute part of the 9th and 10th spanning the years from 1996 to 2010, the period five-year plans. These two focal areas account for during which the GEF has funded its projects in about 84 percent of GEF funding in Syria; thus, Syria. A brief summary of the strategic priorities GEF projects were directly relevant to these 60 national priorities. On the other hand, integrated deals directly with forest protection, as men- water resource management and protection, and tioned by both the 8th and 9th five-year plans. land degradation and combating desertification, z The enabling activity for "Assessment of which constituted part of all three development Capacity-Building Needs and Country-Specific plans, were not represented at the national level Priorities in Biodiversity" and the global proj- by GEF projects and activities. Many Syrian gov- ect "Promoting Best Practices for Conservation ernment officials rank water and land degradation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Global issues as higher national developmental priorities Significance in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones" than biodiversity protection and climate change, support biodiversity protection as required by which they view to be of global significance. They both the 8th and 9th five-year plans. argue that GEF projects did not give equal weight z The regional project "Determination of Priority to all national strategic priorities of Syria. This is Actions for the Further Elaboration and Imple- evident by the scope of projects financed over the mentation of the Strategic Action Programme first three GEF phases as explained below. for the Mediterranean Sea" indirectly supports The GEF-1 phase (1994­98) funded proj- government efforts for protection of its fish ects that focused mainly on climate change and stocks, as stated in the 8th five-year plan. biodiversity: The GEF-3 phase (2002­06) mainly included z The climate change national project "Supply- projects in biodiversity, with two enabling activi- Side Efficiency and Energy Conservation and ties in climate change and POPs: Planning" is directly related to the issue of z "Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area energy efficiency of power generation plants Management" aims to demonstrate practical raised in the 9th five-year plan. methods of protected area management. This z The biodiversity regional project "Conservation is covered in both the 9th and 10th five-year and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiver- plans. sity of the Fertile Crescent" indirectly addresses z The enabling activities to prepare biodiversity the issue of increased agricultural productivity country studies and carry out the 2010 biodi- by introducing endemic land species, as men- versity targets national assessments both sup- tioned in the 9th five-year plan. port the need for biodiversity protection, which z The enabling activity for preparing the National is explicitly stated in the 10th five-year plan. Strategy and Action Plan on Biodiversity pro- z The enabling activities for preparing Syria's motes forest conservation and protection, as INC for the UNFCCC and NIP for POPs required by both the 8th and 9th five-year plans. contribute to determining the sources and sinks of GHGs in Syria, and to preparing the The GEF-2 phase (1998­2002) funded proj- groundwork for implementation of the Stock- ects that focused mainly on biodiversity, with a holm Convention. Both projects support the regional project in the international waters focal need for creating an interactive planning and area: administrative partnership among the envi- z The biodiversity project "Conservation of Bio- ronment, production, and service sectors in diversity and Protected Areas Management" the 10th five-year plan. 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Syria 61 The above analysis of projects, summarized in significance given the area's population explo- table 6.1, confirms the breadth of the GEF portfo- sion. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that lio in biodiversity protection and climate change, all GEF-funded projects in Syria included capac- and the low level of involvement in the land deg- ity-building and awareness-raising components radation and international waters focal areas. The which fulfill the requirements of the five-year significance of freshwater scarcity in the region-- national development plans. and the fact that Syria shares a number of impor- tant surface water bodies such as the Euphrates, Support of National Environmental Orontes, and Yarmouk Rivers with its neigh- Strategies bors--points to missed opportunities for GEF The Syrian NEAP targets a number of priority involvement in projects that directly affect the issues of relevance to the GEF focal areas includ- quality of life for the peoples of the region. Similar ing preventing the exploitation of land and water arguments may be made for missed opportunities resources; reducing the effects of pollution on regarding regional projects to combat desertifi- human health; protecting natural resources; and cation and degradation of agricultural lands, as environmental capacity building, education, and food scarcity is becoming a problem of regional awareness raising. Table 6.1 Completed Projects, Main Themes, and Their Relevance to National Development Plans Development plan Project Main theme 8th (1996­2000) 9th (2001­05) 10th (2006­10) Supply-Side efficiency Climate change not applicable Promoting energy effi- Formulating overall and energy Conserva- mitigation and ciency through projects national policies to tion and Planning adaptation such as the rehabilita- alleviate various forms of tion of the banias power pollution generation plant Conservation and Sus- Preservation of Protection of agricultural Improving agricultural enriching biodiversity, tainable Use of Dryland endemic land land productivity and introducing sustain- Agrobiodiversity of the species able resource planning; Fertile Crescent implementing sustain- able rural development Conservation of biodi- management of Protection of forests Preserving natural and enriching biodiversity versity and Protected protected areas environmental resources and introducing sustain- Areas management and establishing pro- able resource planning tected areas Determination of Protection of Protection of fish stocks Protecting water Formulating overall Priority Actions for the the mediter- resources national policies to Further elaboration ranean marine alleviate various forms of and Implementation environment pollution of the Strategic Action Programme for the mediterranean Sea biodiversity Conserva- management of Protection of forests Preserving natural and enriching biodiversity tion and Protected Area protected areas environmental resources and introducing sustain- management and establishing pro- able resource planning tected areas 62 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) The GEF biodiversity projects and enabling activi- Syria's identification of key enabling conditions ties address the national priority actions related to necessary to ensure effectiveness and sustainability protecting natural resources. The climate change of results. and POPs projects address the need for reduc- All GEF projects provided capacity building and ing the effects of pollution on human health; all awareness raising to the focal points of the inter- projects have a capacity-building and awareness- national conventions and their directorates. They raising component. However, as noted before, the also provided needed training for NGOs and GEF portfolio does not address the first priority other national executing agencies. Specifically, related to land degradation and water resources. GEF projects contributed to enhancing general awareness and knowledge of the GEF focal areas Support of Local and National in Syria, particularly in climate change and biodi- Development versity, as discussed in chapter 5. The Small Grants Programme is helping increase GEF visibility in Syria. The SGP provides access 6.2 Support of the GEF Mandate to GEF funds to local communities and NGOs, and can easily and effectively respond to their pri- and Focal Area Programs and orities and needs. The outcomes of SGP projects Strategies are more easily sustained by local groups because Country Ownership they benefit them more directly as compared to In examining the origins and outcomes of proj- medium- or full-size projects, which require gov- ects supported by the GEF in Syria, the evalua- ernment funding in order to sustain outcomes. tion found that all national projects have origi- The SGP initiative to support GEF-funded proj- nated within the country--that is, their concepts ects is proving to be an effective way to deal with were proposed by the GCEA in consultation with this shortcoming. For example, one SGP project the GEF Agencies (mainly UNDP) based on pre- is providing support to the local communities liv- viously identified national priorities (although ing in the Jebel Abdul Aziz Protected Area. This proposals were generally prepared by the Agen- area has been designated as one of three protected cies due to the complex nature of GEF pro- areas that constitute part of the national project posal documents). The projects are fully locally "Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area owned, and they address national priorities that Management." The aim of the SGP project is to align with GEF priorities. Consequently, when ensure that once GEF project implementation is these projects are completed and GEF funding completed, the local population has the means to has ended, the relevant governmental executing generate income from alternative livelihoods that agencies attempt to integrate their outcomes into preserve the protected area without depending their own mandate, and typically request addi- on government funding to sustain GEF project tional budget and human resource allocations outcomes. from the Ministry of Finance to sustain their out- The NCSA enabling activity helped the govern- comes (for example, budgeting for the National ment identify Syria's priorities and provided a Energy Research Centre in the Ministry of Elec- foundation for strategic decision making on capac- tricity, and budgeting for the MAAR to manage ity building in the GEF portfolio. It strengthened protected areas). 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Syria 63 Regional and global projects are typically initi- The GEF sets no specific requirements, but cofi- ated by the GEF Agencies, which communicate nancing is expected to be part of any GEF-sup- their ideas to the GCEA and the relevant con- ported project, although guidelines are used for vention focal point. The GCEA coordinates with each focal area. Cofinancing analysis was based relevant governmental agencies for approval to on information from project documents at the join the project. Although these projects may not time of approval and not verified for completed directly address national priorities (for example, projects. the "Mainstreaming Conservation of Migratory Soaring Birds into Key Productive Sectors along The GEF has funded about $12.7 million through the Rift Valley/Red Sea Flyway" project), gov- 10 national projects including the SGP. Cofinanc- ernment support is still generally forthcoming ing was about $32 million, of which $28 million to sustain project outcomes (as with the budget came from government agencies. This is a ratio allocated to the Genetics Resources Unit in the of about $2.50 for every $1 from the GEF, which MAAR, and investments for projects to reduce is less than the GEF Evaluation Office estimate land-based sources of pollutants to the Mediter- for global cofinancing ratios of $4 to every $1 ranean Sea). for completed projects. When the largest gov- ernment contribution of $25 million for a sin- Enabling activities are often developed to fulfill gle project ("Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy specific requirements of international conven- Conservation and Planning") is excluded, the tions (such as the report to the CBD, the NIP for overall ratio decreases to less than $1 for every POPs, and so on). These activities are prompted $1 from the GEF--a low contribution ratio that by the various conventions and developed by the at first glance signifies a very low government GCEA in close coordination with the relevant commitment to GEF projects. However, when GEF Agencies. Again, project outcomes are gen- considering the government contribution to the erally used in prioritizing national initiatives and supply-side efficiency project, in which cofi- are typically integrated in Syria's five-year national nancing was 5.5 times the GEF funding, and the development plans (such as the classification sys- government commitment to the land degrada- tem for forests included in the 9th five-year plan). tion project (which was not repipelined) in the In all cases, GEF projects have provided an oppor- amount of $10 million for a GEF grant of $7.5 tunity to implement new or build on existing ini- million, it becomes clear that substantial govern- tiatives originating in the country as national ideas ment cofinancing exists where direct economic and experiences evolve. Although GEF Agencies impacts are foreseen. In fact, the supply-side have helped improve certain operational aspects efficiency project offers direct cost savings in the and assisted in making adjustments whenever consumption of petroleum products for power necessary, project leadership has remained in generation, and the land degradation project local hands. offers increased income to farmers from the pro- tection of agricultural lands. Consequently, gov- Cofinancing ernment cofinancing can be expected to be more In GEF terms, cofinancing is funding that is addi- significant when project objectives are directly tional to the GEF grant and is needed to implement in line with national priorities for socioeconomic project activities and achieve project objectives. development. 64 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 6.3 Relevance to the GEF Mandate global environmental benefits that have not been and Strategic Objectives included in the GEF climate change portfolio. Biodiversity POPs As described in section 5.1, the GEF portfolio for The PIF for the "Prevention and Disposal of POPs biodiversity projects focused on conservation and and Obsolete Pesticides in Syria" project was protected area management, in addition to con- recently approved, based on the development of servation and sustainable use of dryland agrobio- the required strategies and action plans through diversity. The impacts of these interventions have the enabling activities for the Stockholm Conven- enabled the biodiversity portfolio to maximize tion on POPs. This project will enable assessment the achievement of global benefits, which are in of potential global environmental benefits, as well line with Syria's priority for biodiversity conserva- as the urgency of national level action in this area. tion, particularly for forests and natural reserves. The protected area management projects cata- 6.4 Relevance to GEF Agency lyzed the sustainability of protected area systems Strategies and Frameworks (a GEF-4 objective). The agrobiodiversity project addressed genetic resources, hence mainstream- The principal GEF Agency implementing GEF- ing biodiversity in production landscapes and sec- funded national projects in Syria is UNDP, whose tors (a GEF-4 objective). Therefore, the selection GEF portfolio in Syria accounts for over two- of biodiversity projects in Syria is relevant to and thirds of GEF funding, and 6 out of 8 national proj- aligned with the GEF mandate. ects and enabling activities completed or under implementation since 1994. Other GEF Agencies, Climate Change including the World Bank and UNEP, do not have offices in Syria or national frameworks. The "Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Conserva- tion and Planning" project is relevant to maximiz- UNDP began operating in Syria in 1962, provid- ing potential global benefits in terms of improving ing a range of technical assistance programs to the the efficiency and performance of existing power government. In the mid-1990s, UNDP identified plants (a GEF-4 objective). This is confirmed by intended outcomes in three areas--the environ- data analysis presented in chapter 3 which shows ment, governance, and poverty--as the focus of that the energy sector is by far the greatest source its strategic development interventions in Syria. of GHG emissions in Syria (accounting for over With respect to the environment, for which the one-third of the country's GHG emissions). How- GEF and other donor resources were mobilized, ever, other sectors could also potentially achieve this particular focus was in response to global pri- significant global benefits, such as the transport ority shifts following the 1992 Earth Summit and and industrial sectors. Potential improvements in to emerging national development concerns in the efficiency and performance of industrial and Syria. manufacturing processes and facilitating market transformation for sustainable mobility in urban After 2000, UNDP reacted to the changing politi- areas (GEF-4 objectives) involve over one-third cal context in Syria by continuing, and in some of GHG emissions in Syria. These sectors thus respects increasing, its focus on poverty and gov- represent a potentially significant impact on ernance, the two thematic areas perceived to be 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Syria 65 of strategic importance to emerging political and focal areas, and were the basis of other environ- development trends in Syria. UNDP also con- mental projects carried out by UNDP once the tinued its focus on the environment, which was GEF became active in Syria (for example, the deemed the least controversial politically, and for NEAP, which was financed by the World Bank; which development of pertinent strategies was the National Action Plan for Combating Desertifi- generally unproblematic. cation, which was financed by the Desertification Development Centre; and planning for integrated At the present time, and based on UNDP's 2008 water resource management, which was financed country strategy for Syria, work in the environ- directly by UNDP). mental field (detailed in Outcome 4 of the strat- egy) aims to improve the environment at the UNDP environmental activities in Syria were national and regional levels by reviewed in the Agency's country evaluation undertaken in 2005. The evaluation report states z strengthening national capacity to meet obliga- that the focus in the environmental field was tions toward ratified environment conventions aligned with mobilized resources from donors (biodiversity, climate change, and desertifica- and trust funds such as the GEF; however, UNDP tion), did not have a leading strategic position in the z improving the environmental situation with environmental field given development interven- the involvement of local communities and the tions by other donors. The report further states private sector. that UNDP is credited as being instrumental in supporting the development of a NEAP, and is These activities are directly relevant to the GEF associated "to a great extent" with activities in the portfolio in the biodiversity and climate change environmental field. 66 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria This chapter addresses the following questions: on the investment made by the project propo- nents or implementers on the preparation pro- z How much time, effort, and money are needed cess; also, milestone dates for the project cycle are to develop and implement projects, by GEF not always available. support modality? z What are the roles, types of engagement, and Preparation Costs coordination mechanisms among different Because project proponents do not fully disclose stakeholders in project implementation? In information on their preparation costs, calculat- particular, what is the national mechanism for ing the cost of preparing a GEF project is difficult. GEF implementation? The cost of any associated PDF may be used as an indicator of a particular project's preparation cost, z How successful is the dissemination of GEF but PDFs are granted up to certain maximum project lessons and results? amount by project modality (a PDF for the prepa- z How efficient is the GEF focal point mechanism? ration of an MSP can be a maximum of $50,000), and independent determination of costs may not 7.1 Resources Required for Project necessarily be possible. Processing Of the six national MSPs and FSPs funded by the This section reviews the efficiency of GEF-sup- GEF in Syria, two have requested PDFs for proj- ported activities in Syria, as measured by the time ect preparation in the amounts of $194,000 and and money needed for project preparation and $350,000, respectively. The larger PDF, which was implementation under the GEF Activity Cycle.1 for a land degradation project, was cofinanced by The limited number of projects in Syria, and the UNDP in the amount of $187,000, but the invest- limited information available about them, means ment did not lead to a project. Additionally, prepara- that any conclusions drawn contain a degree of tion of the PIF-approved POPs project was financed uncertainty. For a significant number of projects, by FAO for $60,000 without GEF PDF support. the GEF database does not have full information Average Time Taken to Achieve Project 1 This discussion refers to the GEF Activity Cycle Cycle Milestones that was in place at the time when the projects in the Figure 7.1 presents the GEF Activity Cycle before Syria portfolio were approved and does not address the new project cycle approved by the GEF Council in June its recent reformulation in 2007. Table 7.1 shows 2007. the duration of the cycle for GEF-supported FSPs 67 Figure 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle B D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Predesign/ Approval by Design/ Council/work Approval by IAs/ concept executing Implementation Completion development preparation program inclusion agencies A C E Entry into GEF GEF CEO Project start-up pipeline endorsement Table 7.1 Duration of the Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported FSPs and MSPs in Syria Duration between phases (days) Project name Modality AB BC CD DE BE AE Supply-Side efficiency and energy Conservation and Planning FSP 101 684 13 65 762 863 biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area management FSP 1,323 518 19 97 634 1,957 Conservation of biodiversity and Protected Areas management mSP n.a n.a 178 168 349 421 Increasing the efficiency of the Hydrocarbon Sector by Using mSP n.a. n.a. 98 n.a. n.a. n.a. Waste Gas Notes: n.a. = not applicable. Data are based on the received date in the GeF database, not the pipeline entry date. See figure 7.1 for stages of GeF Activity Cycle (A­e). and MSPs in Syria. Regional and global projects ­ The time from Council approval to GEF are not included in this discussion because they CEO endorsement varied between 1.4 and have different requirements, such as extensive 1.8 years. international consultations. ­ The time between CEO endorsement and UNDP approval was about two to three Based on an examination of the data in table 7.1, weeks. and taking into account the limited number of projects, the following conclusions can be reached. ­ The time needed for approval by UNDP to project start-up was between two and three z For the two FSPs: months. ­ The time from project entry into the GEF ­ The time needed for the entire process (entry pipeline to GEF Council approval varied into the GEF pipeline to start-up) varied from about 3 months for the supply-side from 2.4 years for the supply-side efficiency efficiency project to 44 months (a little less than 4 years) for the biodiversity conserva- tion project.2 the project preparation consultant, the GEF Agency, and the GCEA on the PDF, with feedback periods extending up to six months. Moreover, during this The excessive length of time required for the lat- 2 long time period, there were changes in key personnel, ter project was the result of ongoing discussions among resulting in a lack of continuity in follow-up. 68 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) project to 5.4 years for the biodiversity con- Expected and Actual Completion Dates servation project. Table 7.2 compares the start-up and actual closing dates for FSPs, MSPs, enabling activities, and SGP z The two MSPs were prepared by the World activities, noting projects' planned durations and Bank, but little information was available for required extensions. the hydrocarbon project: ­ The time from CEO endorsement to World z Only one of the two FSPs implemented through Bank approval varied between three and six UNDP has been completed. Planned dura- months. tion for the supply-side efficiency project was 60 months; the time extension needed to com- ­ The time between approval by the World plete the project was 37 months. This translates Bank to project effectiveness/start-up was to an increase of about 60 percent over planned about six months. duration. ­ The time required for the entire process (entry into the GEF pipeline to project start- z Only one MSP has been completed (imple- up) was 14 months. mented through the World Bank). The planned duration was 36 months; the time extension These findings on the GEF Activity Cycle are in needed for completion was 44 months. This line with those from other evaluations conducted translates to an increase of about 120 percent by the GEF Evaluation Office. over planned duration. Four completed enabling activities were consid- Project Management Costs ered. Three are in the biodiversity focal area and The evaluation did not have sufficient informa- were implemented through UNDP; the fourth tion to assess the cost of managing GEF projects is in the POPs focal area and was implemented accurately. The cost of managing project imple- through UNEP. mentation comes from different sources, includ- ing the Agency fee provided by the GEF, Agencies' z The planned duration for "Biodiversity Strat- own resources, and the project budget itself. In egy and Action Plan and Report to the CBD" 2000, the GEF started providing a flat Agency fee was 13 months; an extension of an additional of 9 percent of the GEF grant; this was raised to 9 months was needed, representing an increase 10 percent in GEF-4. over planned duration of about 70 percent. In Syria, GEF Agencies have received fees for z The planned duration for "Additional Enabling four projects. UNDP received a total of $465,000 Activity Support for Participation in the as its fee for the implementation of two projects: Clearing-House Mechanism of the CBD" was "Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area 12 months; an additional 12-month exten- Management" and the NCSA. FAO received sion was needed, representing a 100 percent $98,000 for the "Prevention and Disposal of increase over the planned duration. POPs and Obsolete Pesticides in Syria" enabling z The planned duration of the "NCSA for Global activity; UNEP received $54,000 for "Enabling Environment Management" was 20 months; it Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Per- required an extension of 9 months, translating sistent Organic Pollutants: National Implemen- into a 45 percent increase over planned dura- tation Plan for Syria." tion. 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria 69 Table 7.2 Planned and Actual Durations of FSPs, MSPs, and Enabling Activities in Syria Project Target Actual Planned duration Extension Modality completion date completion date (months) (months) Supply-Side efficiency and energy FSP 10/01/03 10/01/06 60 37 Conservation and Planning Conservation of biodiversity and mSP 09/30/02 05/01/06 36 44 Protected Areas management biodiversity Conservation and FSP 02/08/12 ongoing 85 n.a. Protected Area management biodiversity Strategy and Action enabling 9/30/99 6/30/00 13 9 Plan and report to the CbD activity Additional enabling Activity Sup- enabling 4/30/02 5/1/03 12 12 port for Participation in the Clear- activity ing House mechanism of the CbD enabling Activities for the Stock- enabling 11/3/07 4/1/09 61 17 holm Convention on Persistent activity organic Pollutants: national Imple- mentation Plan for Syria national Capacity Self-Assess- enabling 2/28/07 11/25/07 20 9 ment for Global environment activity management Note: n.a. = not applicable (project still under implementation). z The planned duration for the POPs enabling 7.2 Roles and Relationships activity was 61 months; the project needed a 17-month extension, translating into a 27 per- Who Initiates, Designs, and Implements cent increase over planned duration. GEF Projects in Syria? Project design in Syria is mainly undertaken by The foregoing suggests that unrealistic end dates the GEF Agencies, as they have the resources and were set for project completion during the prepa- knowledge to prepare a GEF project according ration phase that did not take into account con- to GEF rules and procedures. The Agencies typi- tingencies--some of which might be specific to cally take input from the convention focal points the Syrian context--that might arise during proj- in the GCEA and translate this into a "GEF-able" ect implementation. Project extensions for MSPs proposal. This division of labor is likely inevitable, and FSPs varied from 60 to 120 percent increases unless the complex nature of GEF requirements over planned project durations. Extensions for can be simplified or are made clearer, more trans- enabling activities varied from 27 to 100 percent. parent, and more consistent. In addition, capacity The project requiring the shortest extension was within the GCEA needs to be developed for effec- implemented through UNEP. tive project design and documentation. Long extensions make for managerial and organi- zational problems; in addition, national executing The national executing agencies that have man- agencies lose the advantage of a firm timetable for aged GEF project implementation are govern- incorporating findings and conclusions into their ment entities. The MSEA has been responsible institutional structures. for almost all enabling activities and has played 70 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) a coordinating role for all FSPs and MSPs (both cancellation after a few years of implementation. national and regional). The MAAR was involved The problems in this case were specific to the in the full- and medium-size biodiversity projects, project and were addressed in the follow-on "Bio- and the Ministry of Electricity was active in Syria's diversity Conservation and Protected Area Man- climate change project (on supply-side efficiency). agement" project. How Clear Are Roles and Responsibilities? 7.3 Learning GEF Agencies A close examination of the documents related At the national level, UNDP has been the main IA to GEF-funded projects in Syria indicates that for GEF projects in Syria. Its portfolio consists of projects have been designed to promote learning six completed or ongoing projects and activities, (capacity building, public awareness) as a funda- compared to one national project for UNEP and mental component of their activities. For exam- two national projects for the World Bank. UNDP ple, the two biodiversity projects dealing with pro- has played an instrumental role in coordinating tected area management and the agrobiodiversity efforts among the GEF focal point, the convention project all have significant learning components focal points in the GCEA, and representatives of embedded in their project design, which has led national executing agencies during the project to the spread of knowledge and know-how dur- preparation phase. UNDP's large share of GEF ing and after implementation (for example, the projects in Syria is primarily attributable to its introduction of alternative livelihoods, dissemina- physical presence in the country and the resource base the country office can provide during proj- tion of new plant species, and so on). Similarly, the ect implementation. It is expected that FAO and supply-side efficiency project created efficiency IFAD will play a crucial role in Syria as GEF Agen- management and maintenance management sys- cies in the future. FAO is the GEF Agency for a tems, both of which were learning tools that were PIF-approved POPs project. IFAD identifies GEF disseminated by the executing agency (the Min- involvement based on country needs, potential istry of Electricity) to other power generation relevant linkages with IFAD operations, and the plants. potential of projects to yield global environmental The experience of existing GEF projects has been benefits. As indicated earlier, Syria is not a mem- used to enrich new project design and implemen- ber of any of the GEF regional banks. tation. This was evident in "Biodiversity Conser- Executing Agencies vation and Protected Area Management," which According to the convention focal points at the was designed based on lessons learned in "Con- GCEA, the executing agencies' roles and respon- servation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas sibilities as set forth in project documents were Management," such as coordination among exe- generally clear, with one exception. The "Conser- cuting agencies and the effectiveness of alternative vation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Man- livelihood methods, capacity-building methods, agement" project documentation lacked sufficient institutional arrangements, awareness-raising clarity in outlining the roles and responsibilities programs, project implementation timetable, and for the MAAR and the GCEA, which resulted so on. Evidence of learning in GEF projects is in significant delays and culminated in project demonstrated in plans to disseminate learning by 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria 71 developing training; writing guides, handbooks, and action plans, taking into account GEF priori- and pamphlets; and delivering presentations. ties in the areas of biodiversity conservation and climate change, after consultation with the con- The SGP is proving to be a rich ground for lessons vention focal points and relevant government learned. Such lessons include the development of organizations. The process did not include suf- a country strategy, capacity-building methods for ficient checks and balances to ensure that all rel- developing project proposals by CBOs, and effec- evant priorities were evaluated and that all perti- tive use of steering committees in the coordina- nent stakeholders were being consulted. tion and management of the Syria SGP. When the RAF allocations were created in the 7.4 GEF Focal Point Mechanism biodiversity and climate change focal areas, the GEF focal point--supported by the GEF Coun- As noted, both the political and operational roles try Support Programme--organized a national of the GEF focal point are assigned to the dep- dialogue workshop to identify priorities for the uty minister in the MSEA, who also handles all GEF-4 RAF allocations. Over 40 people attended other official development assistance and man- the workshop, which was held February 20­21, ages several bilateral agreements. The ministry 2008.3 Projects considered in the workshop were is the primary executing agency for GEF proj- in the biodiversity and climate change focal areas ects in Syria. The international convention focal only, thus limiting the GEF focal point's ability to points are represented within the ministry which address other national priorities in the context of currently oversees the tasks undertaken by the GEF project selection criteria. At the conclusion GCEA. of the workshop, a priority list was developed, To date, a national GEF committee has not been which formed the basis for project endorsement by the GEF focal point. formed in Syria, as has been the case in other countries. Consequently, the GEF focal point, Two issues can be highlighted concerning the after consultation with the convention focal focal point mechanism in Syria: points, SGP steering committee, and/or other national executing agencies, recommends how z A transparent representation and consultation to allocate GEF resources. The GEF requires the process in the GEF project selection phase is endorsement of all its projects by the GEF opera- lacking. tional focal point. Given the additional responsi- z Necessary capacities for the preparation of GEF bilities of the GEF focal point in Syria, concerns projects are lacking. In principle, the GCEA about the efficiency and effectiveness of the focal has only a limited capability to generate project point mechanism were raised by some convention focal points and IA representatives; they claimed 3 Government agencies attending the workshop that they are not being consulted in a satisfactory included representatives from the State Planning Com- manner on the nature of GEF projects and about mission, the GCEA, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Petroleum and projects in their respective areas (particularly in Minerals, the Ministry of Housing and Construction, the international waters focal area). the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Health, the Public Authority for Agricultural Scientific Research, Prior to the initiation of the RAF, projects were and the National Energy Research Centre affiliated proposed based on existing national strategies with the Ministry of Electricity. 72 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) proposals that would be acceptable to the GEF, data and completes the GEF PIF. This form is given the complexity of the GEF proposal-writ- then submitted to the designated GEF Agency, ing process and continual changes to the pro- which follows up on the proposal preparation posal format. Currently, the GEF focal point, process until GEF Council approval is obtained. in coordination with the relevant convention The GCEA is kept informed about the project's focal point, generates the necessary project preparation progress and approvals. 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Syria 73 Annex A. Terms of Reference A.1 Background and Introduction level, an interministerial body, the Council for the Protection of the Environment and Sustainable The GEF Council has requested that the GEF Development, is responsible for setting national Evaluation Office conduct evaluations of the GEF policy and coordinating environmental manage- portfolio at the country level: GEF country port- ment activities.1 The council is headed by the folio evaluations. The overall purpose of these prime minister. On the second level, the Ministry evaluations, as requested by the Council, is two- of State for Environmental Affairs plays regula- fold: (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activi- tory, coordination, and research function roles in ties fit into national strategies and priorities as collaboration with other related ministries. On the well as within the global environmental mandate third level, local directorates in the governorates of the GEF, and (2) to provide the Council with enforce environmental regulations. In 2002, the additional information on the results of GEF- environment law was ratified by Parliament. The supported activities and how these activities are law sets the responsibilities and authorities for the implemented. General Commission for Environmental Affairs. Since then, the Council for the Protection of the Countries are selected for portfolio evaluation Environment and Sustainable Development has from among 160 GEF-eligible countries, based on issued a number of directives for pollution control a stratified randomized selection and a set of stra- in different environmental media. Other legisla- tegic criteria. Documents for the completed eval- tion was also enacted in the fields of agriculture, uations are available on the GEF Evaluation Office water and irrigation, and waste management to Web site. The evaluations, findings, and recom- support the implementation of the environmen- mendations from the Cameroon, Egypt, and tal law, including the forest protection law (1994), Syria CPEs will be synthesized in a single report and presented in June 2009 to the GEF Council to assess and report on experiences and common issues across different types of countries. 1 The council's membership is drawn from vari- ous ministries--environmental affairs, irrigation, agri- Syria was the first Arab country to establish an culture, transport, industry, petroleum and minerals, independent environment ministry (in 1992) housing, interior, health, finance, electricity, tourism, education, and social affairs--as well as from the State and to incorporate environmental aspects into Planning Commission, several public organizations, development planning. Nationally, environmental the chambers of industry and commerce, and voca- issues are dealt with on three levels. On the first tional syndicates. 75 the protected areas law (1992), and the water law to conducting awareness-raising campaigns (2005). for the local population, public participation in protection activities, development of new legis- Despite these efforts, the high population growth lation, and related research activities. rate Syria is experiencing has resulted in the over- exploitation of natural resources. This caused an z Climate change. Syria acceded to the Vienna imbalance in the overall environmental equilib- Convention for the Protection of the Ozone rium. As a result, the demographic aspect of the Layer and its Montreal Protocol in 1989, and problem evolved into an environmental issue with in 1999 joined those countries that ratified the developmental and cultural dimensions that man- London, Copenhagen, and Montreal amend- ifested in the ever-increasing gaps between the ments. Syria does not produce any controlled needs of the inhabitants in terms of food supplies substances under the Montreal Protocol; how- and infrastructural services, such as education ever, its energy sector is the main generator of and health, vis-ŕ-vis the outputs of social and eco- carbon dioxide emissions. Syria has evolved to nomic development programs. In its most recent converting power generation processes from State of the Environment Report (MSEA 2006), fuel oil to gas, since its ratification of the climate the Syrian government presented strategies and change convention in 1996, thereby reducing priority actions for implementation in the fields of its CO2 emissions. On the other hand, Syria water resource management, land resources, pro- is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate tection of grazing lands and forests, biodiversity change. Changes in precipitation will probably protection, protection of the coastal and marine cause the main impacts regarding water supply environment, air quality, and solid waste manage- and demand. ment. The following paragraphs are based on this z International waters. Due to its arid climate, document. water resources in Syria are considered of fun- damental importance for providing sustain- z Biodiversity. Due to its moderate climatic able drinking water supplies and for ensur- conditions, Syria is considered one of the most ing irrigated agriculture which contributes to biologically diverse countries in the world, with one-fourth of Syria's GDP. Syria shares six of over 3,150 flora species and over 3,000 fauna its seven hydrologic basins with its neighbors species. All of these important species, many including several surface water bodies such as of them endemic to Syria, are under anthro- the Euphrates and Orontes Rivers. Due to its pogenic pressure, particularly as a result of growing population and increased economic the habitat destruction that has accompanied activities, water resources in Syria are over- population growth, urban development, and an exploited and suffer from pollution and other absence of strict enforcement of laws and regu- human-induced pressures. lations. A National Strategy and Action Plan on Biodiversity has been developed and was z Persistent organic pollutants. The release of ratified by the Council for the Protection of the POPs, including some pesticides and industrial Environment and Sustainable Development in chemicals, is a serious problem in Syria. Cur- 2002. The strategy encompasses the establish- rently, Syria does not allow the importation ment of protected areas, genetic banks, ani- of pesticides containing the nine persistent mal zoos, and botanical gardens, in addition organic halogens. However, it is anticipated that 76 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) unknown quantities of previously used pesti- This portfolio of projects will be the main focus cides are currently leaching into the ground, of the evaluation. In biodiversity, GEF support has which poses a serious threat to groundwa- concentrated on conservation and management of ter quality and a significant hazard to human protected areas; in climate change, it has focused health. on increasing efficiency of the hydrocarbon sector by using natural gas. For POPs, the focus is on the z Land degradation. Land degradation in Syria prevention and disposal of POPs and obsolete pes- is manifested through desertification, soil salin- ticides in Syria. UNDP has been the main channel ity, and soil contamination. The main causes of for GEF support to Syria. Syria has also received land degradation are population growth, over- GEF support through the SGP. This program has exploitation of grazing lands, expansion of agri- been in existence in the country since 2005. GEF culture into marginal areas, lack of wastewater support also includes a series of enabling activities treatment, and unregulated and excessive water for all the focal areas as requested and required by demand and abstraction. Soil salinity is most the international conventions for which the GEF visible in the Euphrates Valley due to unregu- serves as financial mechanism. Financing for the lated irrigation, whereas soil contamination is enabling activities supported by the GEF is about common near industrial areas and in the prox- $1 million. In addition, Syria has participated in imity of human settlements. Currently, about 11 initiatives financially supported by the GEF 17 percent of Syria's agricultural lands are clas- with a regional or global scope. Table A.2 breaks sified as severely degraded due to excessive use down these projects. of pesticides, poor agricultural practices, or use of untreated wastewater in irrigation. Table A.2 The GEF has invested about $12.7 million (with Number of GEF Regional and Global Projects in about $32 million in cofinancing) through 10 Which Syria Participates by Focal Area and Agency national projects (5 biodiversity, 2 climate change, Focal area UNDP UNEP WB Total 2 POPs, 1 multifocal) and the Small Grants Pro- biodiversity 3 4 0 7 gramme. Table A.1 breaks down GEF support Climate change 1 0 0 1 according to focal area and GEF Agency. International waters 0 1 1 2 Land degradation 0 0 0 0 PoPs 0 1 0 1 Table A.1 multifocal 0 1 1 2 GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Total 4 7 2 13 Agency Note: Wb = World bank. million $ Focal area UNDP UNEP WB FAO SGP biodiversity 3.814 0 0.750 0 0 A.2 Objectives of the Evaluation Climate change 4.610 0 0.750a 0 0 Based on the overall purpose (above) of the GEF PoPs 0 0.469 0 0.975 0 CPEs, the evaluation for Syria will have the follow- multifocal 0.200 0 0 0 0 ing specific objectives: Total 8.624 0.469 1.500 a 0.975 1.099 Note: Wb = World bank. z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- a. one project worth $0.750 was canceled. ciency of GEF support in a country from several Annex A. Terms of Reference 77 points of view:2 national environmental frame- do not have an objective of evaluating or rating works and decision-making processes, the GEF the performance of the GEF Agencies, partners, mandate and achievement of global environ- or national governments. The evaluation will ana- mental benefits, and GEF policies and proce- lyze the performance of individual projects as part dures. of the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating such projects.4 z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant focal area.3 A.3 Key Evaluation Questions z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other The GEF CPE will be guided by the following key evaluations conducted or sponsored by the questions: GEF Evaluation Office. z Relevance of GEF support z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to ­ Is GEF support relevant to Syrian five-year (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making development plans and environmental pri- process to allocate resources and to develop orities, its development needs and difficulties, policies and strategies, (2) the country on its and its action plans in the GEF focal areas? participation in the GEF, and (3) the differ- ­ Is Syria supporting the GEF mandate and ent agencies and organizations involved in the focal area programs and strategies with its preparation and implementation of GEF sup- own resources and/or support from other port. donors? The CPE will also be used to provide information ­ Is GEF support relevant to the achievement and evidence to other evaluations conducted by of the GEF mandate and strategic objectives? the GEF Evaluation Office, evaluation of the cata- ­ Is GEF support relevant to GEF Agency lytic role of the GEF, and the Fourth Overall Per- strategies? formance Study. The evaluation will address the z Efficiency of GEF support performance of the GEF portfolio in terms of rele- vance, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as con- ­ How much time, effort, and money are tributing factors to this performance. The CPEs needed to develop and implement projects, by GEF support modality? ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and 2 Relevance: the extent to which the objectives coordination mechanisms among different of the GEF activity are consistent with beneficia- ries' requirements, country needs, global priorities, In the first evaluation mission conducted from 4 and partner and donor policies, including changes October 8­16, 2008, the GEF was briefed on a number with time; efficiency: the extent to which results have of issues related to project efficiency, such as the length been delivered with the least costly resources possible of time needed for project preparation, money spent (funds, expertise, time, and so on). Efficiency is also on consultants, lengthy GEF approval procedures, and called cost-effectiveness or efficacy. even cancellation of some projects. Project sustainabil- 3 Effectiveness: the output, outcome, or impact ity after completion was also an issue raised by national (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a focal points, particularly for those that required the GEF activity; results: the extent to which the GEF activ- implementation of strategies and action plans. Spe- ity's objectives were achieved or are expected to be cial consideration will be given to these issues in this achieved, taking into account their relative importance. evaluation. 78 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) stakeholders in project implementation? In and may pose challenges to the assessment. Not particular, what is the national mechanism all the information is quantitative. for GEF implementation? ­ How successful is dissemination of GEF A.4 Scope and Limitations project lessons and results? The Syria CPE will cover all types of GEF-sup- ­ How efficient is the GEF focal point ported activities in Syria implemented by all the mechanism? GEF Agencies in all focal areas, including appli- cable GEF corporate activities, such as the Small z Results and effectiveness of GEF support Grants Programme. In addition, all regional and ­ What are the results (impacts and outcomes) global projects in which Syria participated will be of completed (and if appropriate, ongoing) reviewed. The objective of this part of the evalu- projects, according to focal area frameworks ation will be to present overall GEF support to and cross-cutting issues (that is, catalytic Syria through these types of projects, reported effects, institutional sustainability, capacity results within Syria, and a description of the ways building, and awareness)? in which Syria participated in them. There will be ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal no attempt at conducting a full assessment of their area and country levels? aggregate relevance, results, and efficiency. In ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will principle, the stage of the project will determine be achieved for those projects that are still the expected focus as indicated in table A.3. under implementation? ­ What is the sustainability of GEF support?5 Table A.3 Focus of Evaluation by Project Status Each question is supported by the preliminary Project Rele- Effective- evaluation matrix in annex B. The matrix contains status vance Efficiency ness Results a tentative list of indicators or basic data, potential Completed Full Full Full Full sources of information, and methodology compo- ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood nents and will be validated or further developed In pipeline expected Processes n.a. n.a. by the evaluation team once the evaluation work SGP expected Processes Likelihood Likelihood starts. The evaluation will use as a basis the indi- Note: n.a. = not applicable. The main focus of the evaluation will be relevance and efficiency; it will explore possible methodologies on cators in the GEF project documents, indicators how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. of each of the focal areas and the RAF, as well as any appropriate national sustainable development GEF support is provided through partnerships and environmental indicators. Past evaluations with many institutions, so it is challenging to con- have mentioned weaknesses in monitoring and sider GEF support separately. The CPE will not evaluation at the project and GEF program levels attempt to provide a direct attribution of devel- opment results to the GEF, but address the con- tribution of GEF support to the overall achieve- Sustainability: the likely ability of an intervention 5 ments, that is, to establish a credible link between to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period what the GEF supported and its implications. of time after completion. The CPE will address three The evaluation will address how GEF support has dimensions of sustainability: economic, institutional, and environmental. functioned in partnership with others through Annex A. Terms of Reference 79 questions on roles and coordination, synergies Self-Assessment, and global and national envi- and complementarities, and knowledge sharing. ronmental indicators Of the five national projects approved by the z At the Agency level, country assistance strate- Council for Syria, only one full-size project has gies and frameworks and their evaluations and been completed, one medium-size project was reviews, specifically from the World Bank, canceled with disbursement, another was can- UNDP, FAO, and UNEP celed without disbursement and the other two z Evaluative evidence at the country level from are either under implementation or are in the GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, such as the approval process. Three enabling activities gen- Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and erating reports to the CBD have been completed, Modalities and the overall performance stud- and one resulted in a national implementation ies, or from national evaluation organizations plan for the Stockholm Convention. The SGP is also active in Syria. z Statistics and scientific sources, especially for national environmental indicators In addition, the context in which these projects were developed and approved and are being imple- z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, in addi- mented constitutes a focus of the evaluation. The tion to all other relevant government depart- context will include a historical assessment of the ments (for example, agriculture, environmen- environmental policies, strategies, and priorities; tal affairs), other bilaterals and multilaterals, the legal environment in which these policies are NGOs in Syria, the GEF Agencies, the SGP, and implemented and enforced; GEF Agency country all national convention focal points strategies and programs; and GEF policies, prin- z Interviews with GEF beneficiaries and sup- ciples, programs, and strategies. It would include ported institutions, municipal governments consideration of baselines, absorptive capacity, and associations, and local communities and and institutional development. authorities z Field visits to project sites A.5 Methodology z Information from national consultation work- The evaluation methodology includes a series of shops components using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and tools. The qualita- The quantitative analysis will use indicators to tive aspects of the evaluation include a desk review assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support of existing documentation. The expected sources using projects as the unit of analysis (that is, link- of information include the following: ages with national priorities, time and cost of pre- paring and implementing projects, and so forth) z At the project level, project documents, project and to measure GEF results (that is, progress implementation reports, terminal evaluations, toward achieving global environmental impacts) reports from monitoring visits, and documents and performance of projects (such as implemen- produced by projects tation and completion ratings). z At the country level, national development programs, environmental priorities and strate- The evaluation team will use standard tools and gies, GEF-wide focal area strategies and action protocols for the CPEs and adapt these to the Syr- plans, the GEF-supported National Capacity ian context. These tools include a project review 80 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) protocol to conduct the desk and field reviews prepared by GEF Agencies or national gov- of GEF projects and questionnaires to conduct ernments); this document will be based on interviews with different stakeholders. Two proj- information on environmental legislation, ect review protocols will be developed: one for environmental policies of each govern- nationally implemented projects and another for ment administration (plans, strategies, and regional/global projects. so on), and the international agreements signed by the country presented and ana- A selection of projects will be visited. The crite- lyzed through time so as to be able to con- ria for selecting them will be finalized during the nect with particular GEF support implementation of the evaluation, but emphasis z Global environmental benefits assessment, will be placed on completed projects and those which provides an assessment of the coun- clustered within a particular geographic area, try's contribution to the GEF mandate and given time and financial resource limitations. The its focal areas based on appropriate indica- evaluation team will decide on specific sites to tors, such as those used in the RAF (for cli- visit, based on the initial review of documentation mate change and biodiversity) and others and balancing the needs of representation and in project documents cost-effectiveness in conducting the field visits. 3. The evaluation team conducts the evaluation, A.6 Process and Outputs including at least one visit by GEF Evaluation Office representatives. Based on an initial GEF Evaluation Office visit to Syria in October 2008, these country-specific 4. The GEF Evaluation Office conducts a visit terms of reference have been prepared. The evalu- to present the draft report at a consultation ation team will complete the following tasks: workshop with major stakeholders. 5. Prepare the final report, incorporate com- 1. Collect information and conduct a literature ments, and present to the GEF Council and review to extract existing reliable evaluative the recipient government. evidence. 2. Prepare specific inputs to the evaluation: As indicated above, the GEF focal point will be an intrinsic and essential partner in this evaluation. z GEF portfolio database, which describes all The GCEA has been requested to provide support GEF-supported activities within the coun- to the evaluation, such as identifying key people to try, basic information (GEF Agencies, focal be interviewed; communicating with relevant gov- areas), implementation status, project cycle ernment departments; supporting organization of information, GEF and cofinancing financial interviews, field visits, and meetings; and identify- information, major objectives and expected ing main documents. The GEF Agencies will be (or actual) results, key partners per project, requested to provide support to the evaluation on and so on their specific projects or activities supported by z Country environmental framework, which the GEF, including identification of key project and provides the context in which GEF projects Agency staff to be interviewed, participation in have been developed and implemented interviews, arrangement of field visits to projects, (this framework may already be available, and provision of project documentation and data. Annex A. Terms of Reference 81 The main output of the evaluation will be an evalu- including project staff, donors, and GEF Agencies, ation report to be finalized by April 2009. The GEF on March 4, 2009. Evaluation Office will bear full responsibility for the content of the report. The draft report will be The evaluation will be conducted between Octo- presented in a stakeholder workshop in Syria for ber 2008 and April 2009. Table A.4 presents the government officials and national stakeholders, key milestones of the evaluation. Table A.4 Evaluation's Key Milestones Milestone Deadline 1. GeF evaluation office first visit to Syria to launch evaluation and discuss draft terms of reference october 12­18, 2008 with key GeF stakeholders 2. Contract consultants based in Syria november 30, 2008 3. Country-specific terms of reference December 12, 2008 4. Project review protocol and questionnaires January 31, 2009 5. Desk review of national, regional, and global projects January 31, 2009 6. Global environmental benefits assessments and environmental framework for Syria January 31, 2009 7. Field visits January 4­31, 2009 8. Interviews with stakeholders January 4­31, 2009 9. Second GeF evaluation office visit to complete interviews, conduct additional field visits, and January 4­8, 2009 begin drafting report 10. Draft report to key stakeholders February 25, 2009 11. national consultation workshop to present draft march 4, 2009 12. Final CPe Syria June 2009 82 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Annex B. Evaluation Matrix Item/key question Information/ indicator/basic data Sources Methodology 1. Context of the evaluation 1.1 General description y Human development profile y Central bureau for y Social and economic context of Statistics 2008 environmental issues y UnDP 2005b y Status of each focal area in Syria y mSeA 2006 y 10th five-year plan (2006­10) 1.2 brief description of Potential global benefits: y Frameworks and action environmental resources y biodiversity potential and actual plans: mSeA 1998a and in key GeF support areas status b, mSeA 2006, mSeA y Climate potential and actual status 2008 y Land degradation and y reports: Syrian Society desertification for Conservation of Wildlife 2008; eSrC y PoPs potential and actual status 2000; IeA 2009; Kraidy y International waters potential and 2007; meslmani 2009a actual status and b; mAAr 2006; GTZ, KfW, and bGr 2004 1.3 The environmental y outline legal and policy framework y neAP 2001 legal and policy frame- and ratification of protocols y 8th five-year plan work in Syria y Adequacy, ownership, and (1996­2000) alignment y 9th five-year plan y Development and environment (2001­05) strategy, plans including targets y 10th five-year plan and budgets, and future trajectory: (2006­10) sustainability, commitment, and coherence 1.4 The GeF: general y brief overview of GeF-1 to GeF-4 y other CPe documents description and IA involvement y IA interviews with y GeF-4 and rAF and allocations for UnDP and SGP Syria y Interviews with the y Syria focal point mechanism national GeF focal point 83 Item/key question Information/ indicator/basic data Sources Methodology 2. Activities funded by the GEF 2.1 Activities considered Agreed national and regional projects in the evaluation 2.2 Activities over time Activities over time and by IA and y evaluation office data- by modality; activities by focal area base and completed breakdown by number and bud- project protocols get and modality; activities by GeF y IA records executing Agencies; activities by GeF phase; SGP 2.3 evolution of GeF y For different GeF phases by IA, focal y evaluation office data- funding to the country area, and modality base and completed y Cofinancing Syria's contribution to project protocols replenishment fund for each GeF y IA records phase y IA interviews 3. Results of GEF support 3.1 What are the aggre- Global environmental impacts for y Project data in pro- y Analysis of project data and gated results by focal each of the focal areas are identified tocols and project portfolio in terms of project area on the national, documents protocol regional, and global y GeF midterm and final y Project documents levels? evaluation documents y Document review 3.2 What are the cross- Potential catalytic and replication y IA evaluation y Interviews in person and by cutting results in terms effects of projects identified in project documents phone if necessary of catalytic and replica- design are realized y IA personnel involved y Global environmental ben- tion effects? in project develop- efits assessment 3.3 What are the Set of required enabling factors, ment, monitoring, and y Field visits cross-cutting results including institutional set-ups, poli- follow-up (UnDP) in terms of policy cies, strategies, and monitoring and y GeF executing Agen- change and institutional evaluation frameworks, assessed and cies, government offi- sustainability? addressed in project design and in cials, project staff, and results other key stakeholders 3.4 What are the Capacity needs assessment con- where necessary cross-cutting results in ducted with institution(s) with the terms of individual and mandate and addressed in project organizational capacity design and results building? 3.5 What are the cross- y evidence of improved awareness as cutting results in terms a result of project activities of increased awareness? y evidence of changed behavior attributable to project activities 3.6 What is the likeli- Assessment of ongoing projects hood that objectives will in terms of their ability to achieve be achieved for those objectives projects that are still under implementation? 84 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Item/key question Information/ indicator/basic data Sources Methodology 4. Relevance of GEF support 4.1 Is GeF support rel- y GeF support in all its phases is Documents: y Document review and analy- evant to Syria's five-year within the country's priorities and y 8th five-year plan sis of national development development plans? identified interventions in the five- (1996­2000) five-year plans year national development plans y 9th five-year plan y Analysis of projects and y beneficiaries and benefits identified (2001­05) portfolio y GeF support has Syrian ownership, y 10th five-year plan evident in project origin, design, (2006­10) and implementation y Analysis of project y relative weight of different focal design information and areas and alignment with Syria's results using project strategies and environmental poli- protocols cies and plans 4.2 Is GeF support rel- y Alignment with the neAP and Documents: y Document review and evant to national envi- relevant policies y neAP analysis of country-level ronmental priorities? y Alignment with specific action y national action plans information plans: in each focal area y Desk review of country ­ national Strategy and Action Plan and GeF-supported strategies and plans on biodiversity enabling activities y review IA country strategies ­ nIP (PoPs) y Analysis of project y Portfolio analysis ­ national Action Programme (land objectives and results y Interviews degradation) based on project protocol y Government officials, nGos, and Agencies y Project reviews 4.3 Is GeF support y Priority development needs are y SGP country strategy y Document review and analy- relevant to local and supported (capacity building and y Analysis of SGP projects sis of relevant country-level national development income generation) and challenges portfolio information needs and challenges? reduced y nCSA y review on national and y Different types of GeF modalities y Interviews with regional project documents and components (enabling activi- government officials, y review of IA documents ties, mSPs, FSPs, SGP, PDF, GeF Agen- local communities, y Interviews cies, or technical support) align with and authorities and y Portfolio analysis the country's needs and challenges beneficiaries y Analysis of project objectives and results for capacity-building and awareness-raising components 4.4 Is the country Amount and percentage of cofinanc- y Project protocol and y Document review of supporting the GeF ing by source and focal area analysis of cofinancing relevant country-level mandate and focal area y Database of projects information programs and strategies y Analysis of project infor- with its own resources mation and database on and/or support from cofinancing other donors? y Interviews Annex B. Evaluation Matrix 85 Item/key question Information/ indicator/basic data Sources Methodology 4.5 Is GeF support evidence that GeF support is y Project documents, GeF portfolio analysis with relevant to the GeF maximizing potential global ben- analysis of project protocols mandate and strategic efits based on analysis of alignment objectives and results objectives? between aggregated project out- in each focal area comes and impacts in each focal area y GeF focal area strate- gies, GeF-1 to GeF-4 documents on programs and moni- toring and evaluation frameworks 4.6 Is GeF support relevance to strategies and frame- y Analysis of project y Analysis of portfolio relevant to GeF works of GeF Agencies (UnDP) objectives and results y Desk review of GeF Agency- Agency strategies and y GeF Agency strategies level information frameworks? y Key staff of IAs (UnDP) y Interviews 5. Efficiency of GEF support 5.1 How much time, y Preparation costs (any PDF or proj- y Analysis of information y Collation and analysis of effort, and financial ect preparation grants?) in project protocols, data in project protocols resources does it take to y GeF Agency project fee including project bud- y review of project evalua- develop and implement y How much of project budget is for gets and staff, moni- tions and GeF project cycle projects, by GeF support management and implementation toring and evaluation documents modality? cost? budgets, and activities y Interviews and rAF pipeline y Is economy and efficiency evident y Project field visits from comparing inputs to outputs y external evaluation and rate? documents of closed projects y To what extent has the project iden- tified and operationalized "win-win" y Interviews with GeF outcomes? Secretariat, Agencies, and government y To what extent has the project assessed and incorporated the y Joint evaluation of the trade-offs between environment GeF Activity Cycle and development issues? y Field visits y What is the average time taken to achieve each milestone in the proj- ect cycle by modality and focus area and by GeF phase and IA? y Projects not progressing past PDF, cancellations 5.2 What are the roles, y Level of participation of actors and y Analysis of information y Collation and analysis of types of engagement, stakeholders in key phases of the in project protocols data in project protocols and coordination among project cycle y external evaluation y review of project different stakeholders in y beneficiaries identified and ana- documents of closed evaluations project implementation? lyzed, and appropriate engagement projects y Field visits and interviews strategy implemented y Interviews with project y Interviews y Actors' roles and responsibilities and staff, beneficiaries, and their clarity other actors y Coordination among projects y Interviews with GeF planned and implemented Agencies 86 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Item/key question Information/ indicator/basic data Sources Methodology 5.3 How good is the y Deliberate and effective anticipa- y Analysis of information y Collation and analysis of dissemination of GeF tion at project design to ensure in project protocols data in project protocols project lessons and reliable learning and a sound basis y external evaluations of y Document review results? for assessing replicability, as well projects y Interviews as provision for dissemination of y Interviews with project y Field visits learning staff y Lessons from previous projects y Interviews with GeF within and outside the GeF incorpo- Agencies rated in project design, preparation, and implementation 5.4 What is the national y Development of country strategy, y Interviews with the GeF y Document review mechanism for GeF approach, or priorities national focal point in y Interviews implementation (such y Quality and adequacy of informa- the mSeA and other key y Analysis of GeF portfolio and as the GeF focal point tion on projects available and used GeF stakeholders project documents mechanism in the y role in ensuring alignment and y Project protocols and country)? coordination evaluations y Contribution to dissemination of learning y Achievement of commitments and responsibilities related to focal point role y Clear communication with national stakeholders on GeF policies and procedures y Clear communication to GeF and its Agencies Annex B. Evaluation Matrix 87 Annex C. Objectives and Outcomes of GEF Projects Table C.1 Objectives and Outcomes of National Projects Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Conservation and Planning (GEF ID 264) Project (1) remove perceived risks associated with the installation and operation of efficiency and maintenance manage- objective ment systems in power generation facilities by demonstrating the effectiveness of technology and training plant staff in its operation and use; and (2) remove barriers to energy efficiency in industrial and commercial facilities by providing highly skilled energy audit and engineering services, project financing, and training and information to plant managers and operators promoting best practices for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of global significance in arid and semi-arid zones Project y Institutionalizing the provision of a broad range of energy efficiency services to all sectors of the Syrian economy outcomes y Implementation of a national energy efficiency program y The efficiency and maintenance management systems for units 1­4 of the banias power station are operational, and the institutional basis for maintaining the efficiency levels of these units at the specified target level after project completion has been created y replication of the efficiency and maintenance management systems in other Syrian power plants, facilitated by the establishment of an efficiency and maintenance management support team (central team) at the public establishment of electricity generation and transmission Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management (GEF ID 497) Project (1) Strengthen Syria's ability to protect and manage biodiversity of global and national importance; and (2) protect objective and manage a priority demonstration site encompassing biodiversity of global importance Project y maintenance and enhancement of the ecological value of the forest ecosystem in the pilot site outcomes y Avoidance of loss of important regional and global biodiversity y enhancement of the importance of Syria's location on the Palearctic migratory flyways Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Management (GEF ID 1169) Project Demonstrate practical methods of protected area management that effectively conserve biodiversity and protect objective the interest of local communities while supporting the consolidation of an enabling environment that will facili- tate replication and effective protected area management throughout the country Project y Policies, legislation, and institutional systems are in place that allow for the wise selection and effective operation outcomes of protected areas that conserve globally significant biodiversity y effective techniques for protected area management and biodiversity conservation have been demonstrated at three sites totaling approximately 37,000 hectares and are available for replication y Sustainable use of natural resources in and around protected areas has been demonstrated through the development and implementation of a program for alternative sustainable livelihoods and community resource management 88 Table C.2 Objectives and Outcomes of Regional and Global Projects Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones (GEF ID 23) Project Promote best practices for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of global significance in arid and semi- objective arid zones Project y Increased availability of and access to information on best practices outcomes y Increased awareness by local populations of lessons and best practices y Increased awareness of the values of biodiversity of global significance in arid and semi-arid ecosystems y Increased coordination between institutions resulting in more effective programming of scarce resources y Increased partnership of institutions of excellence in the south working on similar issues resulting in increased capacity Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity of the Fertile Crescent (GEF ID 400) Project Promotion and sustainable conservation and utilization of agrobiodiversity in the near east through farmer-based objective in-situ conservation of significant endemic wild relatives and land races Project y Survey and monitoring data to understand the causes of biodiversity degradation at project sites outcomes y Promote modified and alternative land use practices, through on-farm habitat and species management, for the sustainable use and conservation of the agrobiodiversity of the wild relatives and land races of project target crops, through awareness and capacity-building measures y Increase national capacity to deliver project training needs for conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity y Agricultural and related legislative proposals, where appropriate and in the national interest, considered and adopted Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Mediterranean Sea (GEF ID 461) Project Support the activities of the mediterranean Action Plan that are related to the implementation of the strategic objective action program to address pollution of the mediterranean Sea from land-based activities, which was adopted by the contracting parties to the barcelona Convention in 1997 Project y Complete an analysis of the transboundary importance of the 103 hotspots identified in the transboundary outcomes diagnostic analysis of the mediterranean Sea and the strategic action program for the mediterranean Sea and finalize the priority list for intervention and investments (investments portfolio) (preinvestment studies will be conducted only in GeF-eligible countries) y Formulate and adopt principles, approaches, measures, timetables, and priority actions that address each major land-based source of pollution and assist countries in the implementation of such actions y Conduct preinvestment analysis of expected baseline and additional actions needed to address the selected hotspots, and secure recipient country agreement to baseline investment y Prepare and adopt at the regional level detailed operational guidelines for the formulation of national action plans for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities y Help countries prepare, adopt at the highest level, and implement country-specific national action plans based on the regionally prepared and adopted guidelines y Identify roles for, and ensure effective participation of, nGos in the implementation of components of the stra- tegic action program, and, where appropriate, incorporate these into the national action plans and to address other transboundary issues Annex C. Objectives and Outcomes of GEF Projects 89 Table C.3 Objectives and Outcomes of National Enabling Activities Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and Report to the CBD (GEF ID 419) Project Help the national government meet its obligations under the CbD objective Project y national Strategy and Action Plan on biodiversity prepared outcomes y environmental awareness among policy makers and stakeholders raised Additional Enabling Activity Support for Participation in the Clearing-House Mechanism of the CBD (GEF ID 813) Project Help the national government meet its obligations under the CbD objective Project y Purchase information technology equipment for implementation of the CbD outcomes y Training course on development of databases Assessment of Capacity-Building Needs and Country-Specific Priorities in Biodiversity (GEF ID 987) Project Help the national government meet its obligations under the CbD objective Project y Assist the government of Syria in further assessing capacity-building needs, identifying Syria-specific priorities, outcomes analyzing institutional and functional capabilities, and determining mechanisms necessary to protect national biodiversity y enable the mSeA to undertake the necessary consultative process required to prepare/adopt and submit the Second national report on biodiversity Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: National Implementation Plan for Syria (GEF ID 1832) Project Within the overall objective of the Stockholm Convention, which is to protect human health and the environment objective from PoPs, the project will y prepare the ground for implementation of the convention in Syria, y help Syria meet its reporting and other obligations under the convention, y strengthen Syria's national capacity to manage PoPs and chemicals generally. Project y nIP for the Stockholm Convention as required by Article 7 of the convention, including specific action plans and outcomes strategies required under Articles 5 and 6 y reporting to the convention National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management (GEF ID 2230) Project Provide an opportunity for the national stakeholders in Syria to articulate a thorough and participatory self- objective assessment and analysis of national capacity-building needs, priorities, and constraints for global environmental management Project y Identification of priority needs for action within and across the GeF thematic areas of biodiversity, climate outcomes change, and land degradation, catalyzing targeted and coordinated actions y Future funding to protect the global environment within the broader perspective of sustainable development 90 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Table C.4 Objectives and Outcomes of Regional and Global Enabling Activities Biodiversity Country Studies - Phase I (GEF ID 172) Project Prepare a biodiversity country study for Syria objective Project y ensure the protection and conservation of the broadest possible range of global biodiversity and its sustainable use outcomes y enhance Syria's capacity to review the status of biodiversity and identify the basic needs for effective conserva- tion and sustainable use of national biodiversity at the country level in light of social, economic, environmental, and other objectives y Identify the necessary supportive measures and costs to meet the needs as well as the benefits associated with implementation of these measures y Lay the foundation for the preparation and implementation of a national Strategy and Action Plan on biodiversity National Communications Programme for Climate Change (National Component - Enabling Activities for Preparation of Syria's Initial National Communication for UNFCCC) (GEF ID 2387) Project Strengthen Syria's institutional and technical capacity to deal with climate change issues and mainstream climate objective change concerns into sectoral and national development priorities Project y enable Syria to prepare and submit its InC to the UnFCCC and meet its obligations under the convention outcomes y Contribute to the ongoing global effort to better understand the sources and sinks of GHGs, potential impacts of climate change, and effective response measures to achieve the ultimate objective of the UnFCCC, which is "to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interfer- ence with the climate system" y Help in identifying and developing projects related to climate change and mitigation of GHGs, which may be eligible also for further funding or cofunding by the GeF or other multilateral or bilateral organizations y Contribute to enhance general awareness and knowledge on climate change­related issues in Syria and strengthen the dialogue, information exchange, and cooperation among all the relevant stakeholders including the governmental, nongovernmental, academic, and private sectors in accordance with Article 6 of the UnFCCC and implementation of the buenos Aires Plan of Action Support to GEF-Eligible CBD Parties for Carrying Out 2010 Biodiversity Targets National Assessments - Phase I (National Component - 2010 Biodiversity Targets National Assessments) (GEF ID 3414) Project enable Syria to gather the necessary data for assessing 2010 indicators at the national level and to carry out a wide objective consultation process Project y Disseminating the importance of 2010 targets for the progressive implementation of the CbD at the country outcomes level y Linking, where relevant, reporting on progress toward the 2010 targets with progress in achieving other related global goals such as the millennium Development Goals Development of the National Biosafety Framework for the Syrian Arab Republic (GEF ID 2582) Project Preparation of a national biosafety Framework in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Cartagena Proto- objective col on biosafety Project y Strengthen national capacity to develop a regulatory biosafety framework for notifications and requests related outcomes to living modified organisms y Strengthen national capacity for the establishment of administrative systems to assist with screening notifica- tions and requests for completeness, risk assessment, decision making within the time limits specified in the regulatory framework, and a mechanism for feedback y Framework with mechanisms for public participation and information Annex C. Objectives and Outcomes of GEF Projects 91 Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House (GEF ID 2128) Project Facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental, and legal information on, and experience with, liv- objective ing modified organisms, and assist parties in having access to information relevant to the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and other international biosafety information exchange mechanisms Project y Strengthen capacity in the GCeA through training of key stakeholders outcomes y Create an enabling environment to meet Syria's obligations for implementation of the Cartagena Protocol by providing the GCeA with computer hardware and software for data storage and exchange with the Clearing- House over the Internet y Support further capacity building through the development and dissemination of an interactive computer- based training package 92 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Annex D. Interviewees Yaser Al-ahmad, Ecotourism, Abou Qubies Protected Nuha Deeb, Social Economist, Abou Qubies Protected Area Area Zena Ali Ahmad, Deputy Resident Representative, Sabah Al Deen, Site Manager, Cedar and Fir Protected UNDP Area Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, Resident Representative, Youssef Deleicy, Deputy Manger for Operations, UNDP Banias Thermal Power Generation Plant Ahmed Hassan Ali, Planning Manager, Banias Ther- Shadi Jameel Abu Derehmen, farmer, SGP Pilot Proj- mal Power Generation Plant ect for the Installation of Domestic Family-Size Biogas Units in Rural Sweida Waheeb Aljari, Founder, Environmental Protection Society in Era Malek Doek, Fire Office, MAAR Fadi Almahmoud, Site Manager, Abou Qubies Pro- Nazar Elfaki, Emergency Coordinator, World Health tected Area Organization Mazen Almhanad, President, Society for Protection of Ali Esmaiel, Resident Office Coordinator, Agha Khan Nature Development Network Maher Arnouk, Council Member, Society for Protec- Mounir Fahd, Project Accountant and NGO member, tion of Nature Environmental Protection Society in Era Nadia Attar, SGP Program Assistant Tarek Gahloul, Forestry Directorate Firas Baddour, Site Manager, Fronloq Protected Area Rafee Al Hallak, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, National Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Hsan Baddour, Agriculture Director, MAAR Electricity Ibrahim Betelmal, World Health Organization Jameel Ismail Al Harfoush; farmer, SGP Pilot Project Representative for the Installation of Domestic Family-Size Biogas Jamie Cavelier, Senior Biodiversity Specialist, GEF Units in Rural Sweida Secretariat Samira El Harfoush, Environmental Protection Society Akram Issa Darwish, Director for the Biodiversity in Era and Protected Areas Directorate, GCEA, MSEA, and Mahmoud Hasan, Flora Researcher, Abou Qubies Biodiversity National Focal Point Protected Area George Daoud, Bird Researcher, Abou Qubies Pro- Imad Hassoun, Deputy Minister, MSEA, and GEF tected Area Focal Point Housam Dayoub, Council Member, Society for Pro- Saleh Hatem, Forest Department, MAAR tection of Nature Belal Al Hayek, Coordinator, Biosafety, Biodiversity, Diana Deeb, Environmental Education, Abou Qubies and Protected Areas Directorate, GCEA; Biosafety Protected Area National Focal Point 93 Oliver Jennes, Senior Manager, Power Generation Martina Quick, First Secretary and Deputy Head of Division, Banias Thermal Power Generation Plant Mission, Embassy of Sweden Mohamoud Karim, Director of Environmental, Com- Reem Abd Rabboh, Director, Water Safety Director- municable and Chronic Diseases, Ministry of Health ate, GCEA, and Mediterranean Action Programme National Focal Point Ghassan Katthoum, Training and Scientific Coop- eration Director, National Energy Research Centre, Adnad Saad, National Project Director, Biodiversity Ministry of Electricity Conservation and Protected Area Management, Naman Khadra, Head, Information Technology, UNDP Banias Thermal Power Generation Plant Mohammed Seifo, Resident Representative, Agha Rams Khunisah, Head, Power Generation Division, Khan Development Network Banias Thermal Power Generation Plant Khaled Al Shara'a, Director, Land Degradation Direc- Mohamad Kordab, former Renewable Energy Expert, torate, GCEA, and UNCCD Focal Point ESCWA, Environmental Protection Society in Era Mohamad Al Sheikh, Head, Maintenance, Banias Ashraf Kraidy, Head, Energy Regulation Depart- Thermal Power Generation Plant ment, National Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Mohammed Khalil Sheki, Deputy General Direc- Electricity tor, National Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Andrea Kutter, Senior Natural Resources Specialist, Electricity GEF Secretariat Yassin Shukhur, Technical Officer, World Health Ousama Lazini, Environmental Sector Cooperation Organization Program Manager, Japanese International Coopera- tion Agency Firas Shuman, National Coordinator, Syria SGP Nabil R. Mahaini, Proxy Field Representative, IFAD Raid Tarkho, Site Manager, Jebel Abdul Aziz Pro- tected Area Adib Al Masri, Project Management Unit (POPs), GCEA Akiko Tomito, Japanese International Cooperation Agency Resident Representative Magdy Menshawy, Country Director, Syria and Lebanon Ahmad Al Tubji, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, National Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Yousef Meslmani, National Project Director, INC for Electricity UNFCCC (National Component), UNDP Ghada Muhjazi, Technical Officer, World Health Ahmad Al Umari, Regional Director, Conservation Organization and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity of the Fertile Crescent, International Center for Agricul- Mayumi Murakami, Assistant Resident Representa- tural Research in the Dry Areas tive, Japanese International Cooperation Agency Muhammad Wardeh, former Director, NCSA project Haitham Nashawati, Director, Climate Change Direc- torate, GCEA; Climate Change National Focal Point Samy Yacoub, Council Member, Society for Protection of Nature Yasser Nassour, Fauna Researcher, GIS, Abou Qubies Protected Area Abdulla Tahir Bin Yehia, Representative, FAO Osama Al Nouri, Syrian Society for Conservation of Abir Zeno, Energy and Environment Team Leader, Wildlife UNDP 94 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Annex E. Sites Visited Fronloq Protected Area, October 2008 Banias Thermal Power Generation Plant, January 2009 Cedar and Fir Protected Area, October 2008 Rural Sweida, for installation of two domestic family- size biogas units, January 2009 Abou Qubies Protected Area, January 2009 95 Annex F. Workshop Participants The following people participated in the consulta- Osama Al Nouri, Syrian Society for Protection of tion workshop held March 4, 2009, at the Univer- Wildlife sity of Damascus Rida Saiid Conference Centre. Reem Abd Rabboh, Director, Water Safety Director- ate, GCEA, and MAP National Focal Point Akram Issa Darwish, Director, Biodiversity and Adnad Saad, National Project Director, Biodiversity Protected Areas Directorate, GCEA, and Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Management, National Focal Point UNDP Surour Nasser Al Deen, Journalist, Esyria.sy Anissah Seidawi, Syrian Society for the Environment Tarek Genena, Consultant, EcoConServ Environmen- Rana Shanawani, CEO, Bidaya (NGO) tal Solutions Khaled Al Shara'a, Director, Land Degradation Direc- Rafee Hallak, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, National torate, GCEA, and UNCCD Focal Point Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Electricity Firas Shuman, National Coordinator, Syria SGP Imad Hassoun, Deputy Minister, MSEA, and GEF Nazieh Tanous, National Energy Research Centre, Focal Point Ministry of Electricity Belal Al Hayek, Coordinator, Biosafety, Biodiversity, and Protected Areas Directorate, GCEA; Biosafety Ahmad Al Tubji, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, National Focal Point National Energy Research Centre, Ministry of Electricity Mohamad Kayyal, Evaluation Team Anna Viggh, Evaluation Team Ousama Lazini, Environmental Sector Cooperation Program Manager, Japanese International Coopera- Claudio Volonté, GEF Evaluation Office tion Agency Muhammad Fadel Wardeh, former Director, NCSA Adib Al Masri, Director, Chemical Safety Directorate, project GCEA Abd Al Raouf Yehya, former Director, Supply-Side Bassimah Medour, Syrian Society for the Environment Efficiency and Energy Conservation and Planning project Magdi Al Menchawi, Regional Director, GTZ Abir Zeno, Energy and Environment Team Leader, Youssef Meselmani, Director, UNFCCC INC UNDP Haitham Nashawati, Director, Climate Change Direc- Omar Yassen Zuriek, Director, Protected Areas, torate, GCEA; Climate Change National Focal Point MAAR 96 Annex G. Small Grants Programme Projects Approval No. Project name Grant recipient Grant ($) date 1 Community-based rehabilitation and Conservation of Fishers Association in Dalha 44,570 9/19/2005 Dalha Lake in raqa 2 Pilot Project for the Installation of Domestic Family Size Wafa for People with Special 27,102 9/19/2005 biogas Units in rural Swida needs 3 national Strategy for Sustainable Development in Syria Fund for Integrated rural Devel- 10,000 9/19/2005 opment of Syria 4 establishing environmental Awareness Center in Deir volunteers for the environment 35,587 9/19/2005 ezour in Deir ezour 5 Introducing Water Saving Techniques Using Solar Damascus Friends Association 43,982 9/19/2005 energy in an environmental Garden in Dummar 6 Sustaining Livelihoods and Land resources in the olive Sustainable Land management 49,418 4/4/2006 mountains of northwest Syria Committee at Khaltan village 7 Using Solar energy for Pumping Irrigation Water in Farmers Association in Abed 49,650 4/4/2006 Abed village village 8 environment Program in Hajar al-Aswad: Place-based Zahret Al mada'en 28,126 4/4/2006 education and Creation of a botanic Garden 9 rehabilitation of Land and Planting medicinal Herbs in Committee for Land rehabilita- 49,400 4/4/2006 Agez village tion and Planting medicinal Herbs in Agez village 10 Implementation of an ecotourist Center in Wadi Deir Deir mar musa 50,000 4/4/2006 mar musa Protected Area 11 Community-based range rehabilitation Jub Ali el-Ahmed range and 50,000 12/11/2006 Livestock Community 12 environment-Friendly Workshop for Traditional Hand- Women's Unit in Palmyra 50,000 7/3/2006 crafts in Sahl el Daw 13 establishing an environmental Camp in Kasab Committee for Protection of 50,000 12/11/2006 Kasab Forests 14 Farm Animal Genetic resources Survey and Fixing Syrian Society for Intellectual 50,000 12/11/2006 Property rights in Syria Property 15 nursery establishment for biodiversity in nabek region nabek Friends Association 50,000 12/11/2006 16 Developing Alternative Agriculture in bustan ein Deir mar Yaacoub 50,000 4/3/2007 Al-Tibeh-Qara 17 Atmospheric Purification in Damascus through Utiliza- Syrian Society for Preventing 42,000 4/3/2007 tion of Catalyzers road Accidents 97 Approval No. Project name Grant recipient Grant ($) date 18 Pro-environment Club for Children environmental Protection 50,000 4/3/2007 Society in era 19 revival of Silkworm raising and Silk Production in Deir Farmers Association of Deir 50,000 4/3/2007 mama mama 20 revival of Silkworm raising and Silk Production in Women's Unit in Dreikich 50,000 4/3/2007 Dreikich 21 environmental village in Deir ezzour* expatriates Club in Deir ezzour 50,000 4/3/2007 22 Promoting Uses of Information and Communication Syrian Computer Society 50,000 4/3/2007 Technologies That Deliver environmental, Social, and economic benefits 23 Pilot Project for Conservation of biodiversity and Lim- Development Committee in 50,000 12/3/08 ited natural resources in Four villages in Jabal Abdul Four villages of Jabal Abdul Aziz Aziz reserve reserve 24 Land and Water management, Diversification, and Land management and Diversi- 50,000 9/24/08 microcredits to Combat Land Degradation and Improve fication Committee of maghara Livelihoods in the mountains of Afrin 25 Improving the Conservation Status of Globally Threat- Syrian Society for Conservation 50,000 7/30/08 ened birds at Jaboul Wetland of Wildlife 26 national Competition for environmental Inventions for Syrian environment Association 50,000 7/30/08 Climate Change mitigation and Adaptation 27 Promoting Corporate Social responsibility by Spread- Junior Chamber International 19,410 7/30/08 ing Awareness on minimizing the Consumption of natural resources Note: * = Project was canceled. 98 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) Annex H. Country Response Syrian Arab Republic Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs Damascus, 26 May 2009 Monique Barbut Chief Executive Officer Global Environment Facility 1818 H-Street NW Washington D.C. 20433, USA Email: secretariat@thegef.org Subject: GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation-Syria (1994-2008) Dear Ms. Barbut Reference to the Country Portfolio Evaluation for Syria which was conducted between September 2008 and April 2009, we would like to extend our sincere appreciation for the time and effort exerted by the GEF evaluation office for undertaking this evaluation, particularly with reference to assessing results, impacts, relevance and projects' efficiency. The results of the Country Portfolio Evaluation which included 10 national projects with an estimated GEF investment of $12.7 million have provided us with significant information on the results and outcomes of these projects and will assist us in developing future proposals in the GEF focal areas. We are pleased of the conclusion reached by the GEF evaluation team that country ownership of the GEF portfolio is strong for national projects; concur that GEF support did not address the national priorities relevant to in-land international waters and land degradation; and strongly agree with the recommendation that GEF should increase its funding for land degradation and water management issues. We also support the GEF evaluation team conclusion that Syria has limited access to GEF investment agencies and the recommendation that GEF should focus attention on countries in exceptional situations concerning limited access to GEF investment agencies. Finally, we agree about the need to strengthen the national focal point mechanism and to establish a permanent GEF national coordination committee. We also support the need to adopt a proactive role in creating appropriate financial instruments, and in setting-up necessary legislative and institutional frameworks to ensure the sustainability of GEF projects results. 99 In summary, the Syrian Government concurs with the GEF evaluation team conclusions and recommendations. The Syrian Government will further undertake the necessary measures to implement these recommendations, and looks forward to a fruitful cooperation that addresses its national priorities priorities relevant to in-land international waters and land degradation; and strongly agree with the recommendation that GEF should increase its funding for land degradation and water management issues. We also support the GEF evaluation team conclusion that Syria has limited access to GEF investment agencies and the recommendation that GEF should focus attention on countries in exceptional situations concerning limited access to GEF investment agencies. Finally, we agree about the need to strengthen the national focal point mechanism and to establish a permanent GEF national coordination committee. We also support the need to adopt a proactive role in creating appropriate financial instruments, and in setting-up necessary legislative and institutional frameworks to ensure the sustainability of GEF projects results. In summary, the Syrian Government concurs with the GEF evaluation team conclusions and recommendations. The Syrian Government will further undertake the necessary measures to implement these recommendations, and looks forward to a fruitful cooperation that addresses its national priorities with the Global Environmental Facility in the upcoming GEF phases. Yours truly; Imad Hassoun Deputy Minister of State for Environmental Affairs GEF National Focal Point for Syria Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, 17 April Street, P.O. Box: 3773, Damascus, Syria. Tel: +963-11-213 6071 100 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) References Following is a list of the publications and docu- GTZ, KfW, and BGR (German Agency for Technical mentation cited in the body of this report. Publi- Cooperation, KfW Entwicklungsbank, and Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources). cations of the GEF are available at this link: www. 2004. "Water Sector Assessment Report." Bonn. thegef.org/gef/gef_Documents_Publications. Ibrahim, A. 2003. "National Diagnostic Analysis of Publications cited for the GEF Evaluation Office Syria." Athens: United Nations Environment Pro- are available at www.thegef.org/ under Evalu- gramme/Mediterranean Action Plan. ations & Studies and in the online documents IEA (International Energy Agency). 2009. "Energy Sta- database ASK ME. All Web links cited here were tistic Homepage, Statistics by Country/Region." accessed March 2009, unless otherwise indicated. www.iea.org. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2008. "Red List of Threatened Plants." Gland. BMZ (German Federal Ministry of International Coop- www.iucnredlist.org/documents/2008RL_ eration and Development). 2004. "Initial Assess- stats_table_6a_v1223294385.pdf. ment Study of Water Sector Management in the Syrian Arab Republic." Bonn. Japanese International Cooperation Agency. 1997. "The Study on Water Resources Development in Central Bureau for Statistics 2008. "Statistical Abstract." the North-western and Central Basins in the Syr- Syria. ian Arab Republic (Phase I). Final report, Vol. I­IV. ESRC (Environmental and Scientific Research Center). Study prepared by Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Sanyu 2000. "Country Study on Climate Changes in the Consultants Inc. Tokyo. Syrian Arab Republic." Study carried out by ESRC Kayyal, M. 2002. "Revision of Pollution Hot Spots- in collaboration with the German Agency for Country Report for Syria." Athens: United Nations Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2001. "Initial Plan. Guidelines for Enabling Activities for the Stock- Kraidy, A. 2007. "Mediterranean and National Strate- holm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollut- gies for Sustainable Development; Priority Field ants, GEF Assistance for Enabling Activities in the of Action 2: Energy and Climate Change. Energy Context of the Convention." Efficiency and Renewable Energy Syria: National GEF EO (Global Environment Facility Evaluation Study." Plan Bleu Regional Activity Center. www. Office). 2008. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small planbleu.org/publications/atelier_energie/SY_ Grants Programme. Evaluation Report No. 39. national_study_final.pdf. Washington, DC. MAAR (Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform). --. 2009b. GEF Annual Impact Report 2008. Evalu- 2006. "Agricultural Statistical Abstract." Syria. ation Office Report No. 48. Meslmani, Y. 2006. "Review of Air Quality in Syria (1999­2006)." AECS-PR/RSS 697. 101 --. 2009a. "Syria's Initial National Communica- --. 2006. "State of the Environment Draft Report." tion (INC) to the UNFCCC." www.inc-sy.org. Syria. --. 2009b. "Vulnerability Assessment and Adap- --. 2008. "National Implementation Plan: Stock- tation Measures." Subreport to Syria's Initial holm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollut- National Communication to the United Nations ants." Syria. Framework Convention for Climate Change. SPC (State Planning Commission). 1996. "The 8th Meslmani, Y., and A. Hainoun 2009. "Vulnerability Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Develop- Assessment and Possible Adaptation Measures of ment 1996­2000." Syria. Energy Sectors: Syria's Initial National Communi- cation to the UNFCCC." www.inc-sy.org. --. 2001. "The 9th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development 2001­2005." Syria. Ministry of Housing and Construction 2005. "Current Drinking Water and Wastewater Sectors Analysis." --. 2005. "Current Irrigation Water Sector Analy- Damascus: Syria. sis." Syria. MSEA (Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs). --. 2006. "The 10th Five-Year Plan for Economic 1998a. "National Strategy and Action Plan on Bio- and Social Development 2006­2010." Syria. http:// diversity." Syria. planning.gov.sy/index.php?page_id=24. --. 1998b. "National Biodiversity Country Study." Syrian Society for Conservation of Wildlife 2008. "Syr- Syria. ian Birds Field Guide Book." --. 1999. "Provisional reports for the Complemen- UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). tary Activities of the Strategy and Action Plan of 2005b. "Poverty in Syria: 1996­2004 Diagnosis and Biodiversity." Syria. Pro-Poor Policy Considerations." --. 2000. "Maintenance of Biodiversity and Pro- --. 2007. "Country Programme Action Plan tected Areas Management Project." Syria. between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and United Nations Development Pro- --. 2001. "Biodiversity Atlas." Syria. gramme (2007­2011)." --. 2002. "The Syrian National Strategy Report --. 2008. "Country Evaluation: Assessment of for Sustainable Development for the Johannes- Development Results--Syria." UNDP Evaluation burg World Summit on Sustainable Development." Office. Syria. --. 2003. "Categories of Protected Areas in Syria." Syria. 102 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Syria (1994­2008) GEF Evaluation Office Publications Number Title Year Evaluation Reports 51 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: egypt (1991­2008) 2009 50 GeF Annual Country Portfolio evaluation report 2009 2009 49 GeF Annual Performance report 2008 2009 48 GeF Annual Impact report 2008 2009 47 midterm review of the resource Allocation Framework 2009 46 GeF Annual report on Impact 2007 2009 45 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 2009 44 GeF Annual Country Portfolio evaluation report 2008 2008 43 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 2008 42 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: madagascar (1994­2007) 2008 41 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: benin (1991­2007) 2008 40 GeF Annual Performance report 2007 2008 39 Joint evaluation of the GeF Small Grants Programme 2008 38 GeF Annual Performance report 2006 2008 37 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 2008 36 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 2008 35 evaluation of the experience of executing Agencies under expanded opportunities in the GeF 2007 34 evaluation of Incremental Cost Assessment 2007 33 Joint evaluation of the GeF Activity Cycle and modalities 2007 32 GeF Country Portfolio evaluation: Costa rica (1992­2005) 2007 31 GeF Annual Performance report 2005 2006 30 The role of Local benefits in Global environmental Programs 2006 29 GeF Annual Performance report 2004 2005 28 evaluation of GeF Support for biosafety 2006 Third overall Performance Study 2005 GeF Integrated ecosystem management Program Study 2005 biodiversity Program Study 2004 Climate Change Program Study 2004 International Waters Program Study 2004 Evaluation Documents eD-3 Guidelines for GeF Agencies in Conducting Terminal evaluations 2008 eD-2 GeF evaluation office ethical Guidelines 2008 eD-1 The GeF evaluation and monitoring Policy 2006 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.gefeo.org