99357 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: ERITREA (1992–2012) December 2014 Final Evaluation Report Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 4 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 6 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Objectives, Scope and Methodology 7 1.3 Limitations 11 1.4 Conclusions 12 1.5 Recommendations 23 2. Evaluation Framework .............................................................................................................. 25 2.1 The Global Environment Facility 25 2.2 Background 25 2.3 Objectives 26 2.4 Scope 27 2.5 Methodology and Approach 27 2.6 Limitations 29 3. Context of the Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Eritrea: Country Context 30 3.2 Environmental Resources in Key GEF Support Areas 32 3.3 The Environmental Institutional, Policy and Legal Framework in Eritrea 40 4. The GEF Portfolio in Eritrea .................................................................................................... 52 4.1 Defining the GEF Portfolio 52 4.2 Activities in the GEF Portfolio 53 4.3 GEF Support by Implementing Agency 55 4.4 GEF Support by Focal Area 56 4.5 Small Grants Programme (SGP) 59 4.6 Regional and Global Projects 60 4.7 Roles and Responsibilities Among Different Stakeholders in Project Implementation 62 4.8 The GEF Focal Point Mechanism in Eritrea 62 5. Results, Effectiveness and Sustainability of GEF Support to Eritrea ...................................... 65 5.1 Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) 65 5.3 Catalytic Effects and Replication 79 5.4 Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Building 81 5.5 Knowledge Generation and Learning 81 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Eritrea ........................................................................................ 83 6.1 Relevance of GEF Support to the Country’s Sustainable Development Agenda and Environmental Priorities 83 6.2 Relevance of GEF Support to Eritrea’s Development Priorities and Challenges 85 6.3 Relevance of GEF Support to National Action Plans within GEF Focal Areas 86 2 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 6.4 Relevance of GEF Support to the Achievement of Global Environmental Benefits 88 6.5 Relevance of the GEF Portfolio to Other Global and National Institutions 89 7. Efficiency of GEF Support to Eritrea ....................................................................................... 91 7.1 Time, Effort and Financial Resources for Project Processing 91 7.2 Coordination and Synergies 98 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation for Project Adaptive Management 98 Annex A: Country Response........................................................................................................ 101 Annex B: Quality Assurance Statement ...................................................................................... 102 Annex C: Country-Specific Terms of Reference .......................................................................... 104 Annex D: Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................................ 116 Annex E: Interviewees and Focus Group Discussants ................................................................ 124 Annex F: Sites Visited .................................................................................................................. 126 Annex G: Final Workshop Participants ....................................................................................... 127 Annex H: GEF Portfolio in Eritrea ................................................................................................ 129 Annex I: References .................................................................................................................... 132 Annex J: Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 135 3 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Foreword The Eritrea Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE) is one of three country-level evaluations that examines Global Environment Facility (GEF) support in sub-Saharan Africa during the fifth replenishment period. GEF has been active in Eritrea almost since its inception although programming has not been continuous. Eritrea was selected primarily on the basis of its having a comparatively diverse portfolio for a Least Developing Country emerging from a post-conflict state. The Eritrea portfolio covers all the GEF focal areas with a pronounced focus on biodiversity. The portfolio also includes several completed and on-going projects as well as those that are on the verge of implementation. Eritrean stakeholders specifically asked the evaluation to investigate whether GEF support had contributed not only to environmental benefits but also sustainable livelihoods. The evaluation found strong links, particularly for reducing adverse impacts of land degradation and contribution to community benefits throughout the GEF portfolio, including projects classified as biodiversity and particularly through the fairly recent, but very popular Small Grants Programme. The degree of country ownership regarding the GEF portfolio demonstrated a higher than usually seen level of nationally driven projects, as the large majority of GEF projects developed in Eritrea originated from ideas of existing initiatives or Eritrean institutions. The GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) and the GEF Eritrean Operational Focal Point invited representatives from various stakeholder groups and institutions involved in GEF projects in the country to discuss the findings of the evaluation in September 2013, in Asmara. During the workshop, the context and methodology were presented, as well as the preliminary findings and emerging recommendations. A very fruitful open forum discussion followed. The preliminary findings of the Eritrea CPE were presented to the GEF Council in June 2014. These were included in the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2014, a report that synthesizes the main conclusions and recommendations from the country-level evaluation work conducted by the IEO in Sub Saharan Africa. Based on that ACPER report’s recommendations, the GEF Council requested the GEF Secretariat to explore and pursue, where appropriate the use of established SGP country programmes as service providers to implement community level activities for larger GEF full size and medium size projects. The Eritrean government response to the evaluation is included as Annex A and the statement from the national independent peer review panel is included in Annex B of this report. I would like to thank everyone who actively supported this evaluation. Through this report, the GEF Independent Evaluation Office intends to share the lessons from the evaluation with a wider audience. The evaluation was conducted and completed when Rob D. van den Berg was Director of the GEF Independent Evaluation Office. Final responsibility for this report remains firmly with the Office. Juha I. Uitto Director, GEF Independent Evaluation Office 4 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Acknowledgements This report is the result of a collective effort. Ms. Baljit Wadhwa, Senior Evaluation Officer at the Independent Evaluation Office of the Global Environment Facility and Task Manager for the Eritrea Country Portfolio Evaluations (GEF), provided overall leadership to the study. The Office was supported by a team of national evaluators from the Economic and Social Consultancy (ECOSOC) led by Tesfamariam Tekie and composed of Weldesellasie Okubazghi, Weldeselassie Tewelde and Mulubrham Yohannes Mehreteab. Simon Blower and Sara El Choufi served as research assistants. The evaluation was supported by a peer review panel of two reputable national independent panel experts: Ms. Astier Redaezghi, Director of Environmental Management and Regulation and Ms. Bissrat Ghebru, Director of Bureau of Standards and Evaluation, National Board for Higher Education. The GEF operational focal point in Eritrea, Mogos Woldeyohannes and his staff at the Ministry of Land, Water and the Environment, particularly Aman Saleh, provided full cooperation and ensured a smooth evaluation process. The Office is also thankful to staff of UNDP country office, particularly Ms. Christine Umutoni, Resident Representative, Mr. Yoseph Admekom, Solomon Gebreyohannes and Tedros Demoz for lending office support to the evaluation team at times of electricity weaknesses. 5 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Background 1. Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) are one of the main evaluation streams of work of the GEF Independent Evaluation Office 1. By capturing aggregate portfolio results and performance of the GEF at the country level they provide useful information for both the GEF Council and the beneficiary countries. 2. The overall purpose of CPEs is to provide the GEF Council and the concerned national governments with an assessment of the results and performance of GEF-supported activities at the country level, and of how these activities fit into national strategies and priorities as well as within the global environmental mandate of the GEF. 3. GEF eligible countries are chosen for portfolio evaluations, based on a selection process and a set of criteria including the size, diversity and maturity of their portfolio of projects2. Among several considerations, Eritrea was selected as it is a part of Sub-Saharan Africa and also a Least Developed Country emerging recently from a fragile and conflict situation. It has a comparatively large, diverse and mature portfolio with a “flexible” 3 allocation with emphasis on climate change and biodiversity and high levels of co-financing. Furthermore, Eritrea includes several completed and on-going projects as well as those that are on the verge of implementation. 4. Eritrea is situated in an arid and semi-arid region of Sub-Saharan Africa. After a war lasting approximately 30 years, it gained independence in 1991. It has a landmass area of about 125,700 km2 (45,406 sq mi), inclusive of approximately 390 islands; the prominent being the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands. The northeastern and eastern parts have an extensive coastline spanning some 1,900 kilometers along the Red Sea directly across Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It shares borders with Sudan in the north and west, Ethiopia in the south, Djibouti in the southeast and the Red Sea in the East. Asmara is the capital of the country. 5. Despite its small land area, Eritrea has diverse climate zones, mainly due to its high topographic variations. Geographically the country is divided into the Central Highlands (above 2000 m from sea level), the Midlands (1500-2000 mm above sea level) and the Lowlands (below 1500 m from sea). The rainfall pattern is affected by this topographic variation in the country; annual rainfall varying from about 100mm in the lowlands to about 700mm in the central highlands. Further, Eritrea is divided in six agro-ecological zones, namely, the Moist Highland, Arid 1 A complete list of countries having undergone CPEs can be found on Office’s website (www.gefeo.org). 2http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/CPE_final_country_selection_note-0910_0.pdf, Website access: 1st May 2013 3Sixty three countries with allocations of up to $7million have been granted flexibility in the use of their GEF-5 STAR allocations. This flexibility allows countries to combine allocations across focal areas – up to $7 million - as appropriate for achieving focal area objectives. 6 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Highland, Sub-Humid, Moist Lowland and the Semi-Desert. The variations in mean annual temperature range from 15°C in the moist and arid highlands to 32°C in the semi-desert 4. 6. Because Eritrea is situated at arid and semiarid areas, the advancement of the Saharan desert is affecting the country. There are several causes of desertification: low precipitation, high evaporation and transpiration, deforestation, mismanagement of natural resources, overgrazing, climate change etc. The low level of public knowledge concerning environmental management of the people is another factor. Still, the country is making great efforts to combat desertification as a major environmental problem. 1.2 Objectives, Scope and Methodology 7. The Eritrea CPE was conducted between February and September 2013 by an evaluation team comprised of staff from the GEF Independent Evaluation Office and a national team of consultants, led by Economic and Social Consultancy (ECOSOC). A peer review panel provided feedback to the team on quality aspects related to evaluation products. 8. The aim of the Eritrea CPE is to provide the GEF Council and the Government of Eritrea (GOE) with an assessment of results and performance of the GEF supported activities at country level, and how these activities fit with national strategies and priorities as well as within the mandate of the GEF. 9. The CPE will have the objectives to: • Assess the effectiveness and results 5 of GEF support in a country, with focus on the sustainability of achievements at the project level and progress toward impact on global environmental benefits; • Independently evaluate the relevance and efficiency of the GEF support in the country from the points of view of national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, the GEF mandate and the achievement of global environmental benefits and GEF policies and procedures; and • Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to: (a) the GEF Council in its decision making process, (b) Government of Eritrea on its collaboration/participation in the GEF, and (c) GEF partners (Agencies, civil society organizations) involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF support. 10. The focus of the CPE is the 12 national projects implemented in Eritrea since 1992 with $22.7 million in GEF grants. The evaluation team used GEF’s standardized tools and project review 4 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/eritrea/Eritrea.htm#3. CLIMATE AND AGRO ECOLOGICAL, Website access 2nd May 2013 5The following definitions are applied in the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2010: Effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF activity’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance; Results: in GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short- to medium-term outcomes, and progress toward longer term impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects, and other local effects; Sustainability: the likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion; projects need to be environmentally as well as financially and socially sustainable. 7 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 protocols for the CPEs and adapted these to the Eritrean context. Projects for field visits were selected based on whether they had been completed or were near completion. Annex J lists the field sites visited during the evaluation. 11. Triangulation was a key element of the evaluation during the analysis whereby the findings from the literature review, the Country Environmental Legal Framework (CELF) developed for Eritrea and the Global Environment Benefits Assessment (GEBA), Project review protocols and stakeholder consultations and interviews were assessed using the main evaluation indicators of effectiveness, results, sustainability, relevance and efficiency. 12. Two reviews of outcomes to impact (ROtI) 6 assessments were also conducted on: 1) the completed wind energy project located in the port city of Assab (GEF ID 1136) and 2) the Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity project (GEF ID 411). This was preceded by constructing a model ‘Theory of Change’ for each project. 13. Several sources of information from different levels, both inside and outside of Eritrea, were used. A total of 25 stakeholders and officials were interviewed and consulted during the evaluation (Annex E). These included the officials of the MOLWE, the MOA, MOMR, regional and sub- regional authorities and officials, the UNDP and FAO and the GEF OFP. Three focused group discussions (FGDs) were held with Small Grant Program (SGP) beneficiaries and local communities National Projects supported by the GEF in the period 1992-2012 14. Since 1992, the GEF has provided support for about $22.7 million in Eritrea and has mobilized about $41.6 million in co-financing. GEF supported 12 national projects – 4 in biodiversity (BD), 3 in climate change (CC), 2 in land degradation (LD), 2 in persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and 1 multifocal (MFA) Enabling Activity. The BD and LD focal areas account for the largest funding shares and account for about 50% and 27% of total GEF support, respectively. Table 1: GEF support to National projects in Eritrea by Focal Area Co- No. of GEF Grant % GEF % Co- Focal area financing Projects (USD) Grant financing (USD) Biodiversity 4 11,309,000 11,410,400 50.0 27.5 Climate Change 3 2,454,411 2,953,136 10.8 7.1 Land Degradation 2 6,170,000 23,928,000 27.3 57.6 Multifocal Area 1 198,000 20,000 0.9 0.0 POP 2 2,496,500 3,244,153 11.0 7.8 Total 12 22,627,911 41,555,689 100 100 6http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/CPE-ROtI_Practitioners_Handbook_4August2009.pdf 8 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Figure 1: GEF support to National projects in Eritrea by Focal Area Figure 2: GEF support to National projects in Eritrea by Project Status 1.2 1 0.8 US$ Millions 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Project Status 15. Of the total 12 national projects under evaluation for Eretria, 6 are enabling activities (EAs) all of which are completed, and 6 are full sized projects (FSPs). For the FSPs, 2 are completed, 3 are under implementation and 1 is in the pipeline. Half of Eritrea’s portfolio (6 projects) is implemented by UNDP, accounting for 49.3% of total financing (co-financing and grant contributions), while IFAD holds 40.5% of total financing with 1 project. 9 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 2: GEF support to National Projects by Implementing Agency Completed Under Implementation Pipeline Total Agency No. rant Cofinance No. Grant Cofinance No. Grant Cofinance No. Grant Cofinance UNDP 4 440,411 3,793,136 1 1,820,000 2,250,000 1 5,878,000 10,555,400 6 15,138,411 16,598,536 UNEP 1 98,000 20,000 - - - - - - 1 198,000 20,000 UNIDO 1 46,500 35,000 - - - - - - 1 346,500 35,000 FAO - - 1 2,150,000 3,209,153 - - - 1 2,150,000 3,209,153 WB 2 45,000 15,000 - - - - - - 2 445,000 15,000 IFAD - - 1 4,350,000 21,678,000 - - - 1 4,350,000 21,678,000 Total 8 429,911 3,863,136 3 8,320,000 27,137,153 1 6,028,000 10,555,400 12 22,777,911 41,555,689 Table 3: GEF Support to National Projects by Modality (in USD) Project Modality No. GEF Grant Cofinancing % of % of co-fin. Co-fin. (USD) (USD) GEF Grant ratio Enabling Activities 6 1,493,350 87,600 6.6 0.2 0.03 (EA) Full Size Projects 6 21,134,561 41,468,089 93.4 99.8 1.96 (FSP) Total 12 22,777,911 41,555,689 100 100 16. Since 2010 the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) in Eritrea has received financial support totaling US$ 1,034,998, covering the focal areas of Land Degradation, Climate Change Mitigation, and Biodiversity. It leveraged an intended US$ 433,883in cash co-financing and US$ 1,522,323in in-kind resources for a total of 22 projects executed by civil society and community-based organizations. The SGP program in Eritrea has predominantly supported Land Degradation projects, with US$607,316 amounting to 59% of the portfolio. 10 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Figure 3: SGP Country Portfolio by Focal Area Biodiversity, Multifocal Area, 59,479 , 6% Climate Change 171,186 , 16% Mitigation, 197,017 , 19% Land Degradation, 607,316 , 59% 1.3 Limitations 17. The evaluation experienced a number of limitations, some of which are generic to CPEs, while others were country-specific. Evaluation of overall GEF results has been primarily undertaken on the basis of project-specific evidence, triangulated with an assessment of aggregate achievements based on stakeholder inputs, new field data, and the evaluation team’s judgement. 18. While there are not many national and international stakeholders active in environmental management in Eritrea, caution must still be exercised in attributing any systemic changes to the interventions by the GEF; and assessments of contribution need to take realistic account of the number and scale of other synergistic national and international inputs. This is particularly the case for land degradation improvements. 19. GEF projects in Eritrea have been implemented over a twenty-year period, and the evaluation team experienced difficulty in obtaining readily available and accurate qualitative and quantitative data on some of GEF’s earlier support. Furthermore, the quality of evaluative evidence, particularly quantitative trends data, such as changes in forest cover, coastal lines, etc. over time, relevant to completed projects is variable. In all cases there is also a long time gap between information collected prior to 1960 and that collected since 1991. This created a major problem distinguishing between what has been recorded as historically present and what may actually be present today. This posed a significant challenge to building a comprehensive overview of results and contribution. 20. To address these limitations, several of the specific CPE methods and approaches are specific to the GEF Independent Evaluation Office, such as the Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI), systematic triangulation and country environmental legal framework and global environmental benefit analysis. These methods were used by the national evaluation team to arrive at findings 11 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 and conclusions based on a systematic review of changes in environmental stratus and stresses over the course of GEF activities and often in the absence of baseline data. 21. The small size of the portfolio in Eritrea, while mature and diversified, does mean for some limitations in the aggregate results possible in the portfolio. To date, half of the portfolio has been Enabling Activities, with different intended result and impact than FSP and MSP projects. 1.4 Conclusions EFFECTIVENESS, RESULTS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF GEF SUPPORT Conclusion 1: Overall, GEF supported projects have been effective in producing satisfactory results at the project and national levels. 22. Half of the GEF portfolio under review in Eritrea has been Enabling Activities (EAs). These activities across all focal areas have enabled for priorities to be defined and set to focus on commitments to the various Conventions. For example within the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – NBSAP (GEF ID137) for BD activities, with NAPA (GEF ID 1959) for CC adaptation activities and the NAP (GEF ID 1584) for land degradation activities. The EAs have also enhanced environmental knowledge, understanding and capabilities of personnel of all ranks of the executing ministries and communities. 23. At the project level, there are two completed projects within the Eritrea portfolio. The Conservation Management of Eritrean Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity Project (GEF ID 411) has a terminal evaluation report with a rating of Moderately Unsatisfactory. At the time of completion, the project was found to most likely have outcomes that would be sustainable; however, the project outcomes themselves and the quality of execution were found to be Moderately Unsatisfactory. The completed Wind Energy Applications project (GEF ID 1136) received an outcome rating of Satisfactory. 24. Two supervision missions have been conducted for the ongoing Catchments and Landscape Management Project (GEF ID 3362) and the SIP: Sustainable Land Management Pilot Project (GEF ID 3364). Both projects were rated recently as satisfactory and found to be achieving their global environmental objectives and developmental objectives. Conclusion 2: Eritrea has used integrated approaches to tackling global environmental issues, although they have not been classified as such. 25. Eritrea has had a very limited number of overt multi-focal projects, only two EAs: The National Capacity Self-Assessment exercise and a global project to facilitate national reporting to the Rio Convention (GEF ID 3707). The GEF portfolio, however, by its nature has inherently and consistently addressed more than one focal area. The Sustainable Land Management projects have an element of agro bio-diversity conservation as well as climate change mitigation, similarly the Coastal Marine and Island Biodiversity project had elements of preventing coastal land degradation. 12 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 26. While at the single project level results have been evidenced, the portfolio has been less effective at instigating systemic level and regional level environmental changes. The issue of land degradation is of particular importance and priority in Eritrea. The current allocation system does not allow for more resources dedicated specifically for LD. Hence, an integrated multi- focal approach to tackling land degradation and other global environmental issues could generate more overt synergies between the institutions that execute the projects, contributing to more focal area synergy and enhanced environmental status. Conclusion 3: GEF Projects have enhanced institutional and individual capacity at national and local levels. 27. A central part of GEF’s approach in any country is to enhance human and institutional capacities through its various projects and programs, which operate in synergy with government institutions. 28. GEF support has been effective in building capacity of individuals and institutions at national, regional and community levels in Eritrea. The EA activities and capacity building components of the FSPs had significant capacity building elements ranging from the training of stakeholders (extension workers to local administrators to policy makers), subject-matter workshops and seminars as well as environmental training of beneficiaries (farmers and pastoralists). 29. The National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) of 2002 for Eritrea (GEF ID 1584) highlighted the capacity gaps that remained to be filled in the four focus areas of BD, CC and LD and POPs, as well in regards to overall national environmental management including preparation, implementation and M&E of GEF programs and projects. 30. Against those capacity constraints, and over a decade later, this CPE did find evidence for institutional and individual capacity development tangible for each of the focal areas. These capacities are highlighted further in Chapter 5 under the results and effectiveness discussion for each focal area. Institutional and capacity enhancements include the knowledge gained through the Conservation Management of Eritrean Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity Project (GEF ID 411) being applied by the MOMR’s staff to monitor changes in the marine and coastal biota, particularly training given on diving has enabled the local staff to see deep water biota and track changes recently more threatened by the rapid, and largely uncontrolled, development of fisheries and tourism infrastructure. The Department of Energy has personnel and systems ready to review renewable energy entrants for provision of on-grid or off-grid electricity. Finally, the ability of local administrators, farmers and women headed house-holds to implement natural resource management methods has been encouraged after training delivered by the Sustainable Land Management projects. The POPs project (GEF ID 1331), too has been quoted by key informants, as vital to the national knowledge base of harmful substance storage and disposal. Conclusion 4: Several GEF-supported activities have contributed towards environmental benefits by fostering sustainable livelihood and community based approaches. 13 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 31. The Eritrea CPE finds tangible local and national environmental benefits from GEF supported projects such as the maintenance of endemic to the Red Sea species of coral, turtles, sea grasses, protection of unique marine and terrestrial ecosystems and restoring degraded lands while preventing further land degradation. These benefits are specific to focal areas and multi- focal in nature and would potentially lead to sustained improvements and replenishment of global environmental benefits. 32. The GEF supported projects in Eritrea have also been designed in a way that ensures the needs of communities through addressing the promotion of sustainable livelihoods. The primary target groups are communities who depend on natural resources for survival, and yet have limited access to such resources. Such groups are primarily affected from the adverse impacts of land degradation as they derive their livelihoods mainly from public forests and communal rangelands, and operate on lands which are prone to erosion. Biodiversity 33. The biodiversity resources of Eritrea are not yet exhaustively studied and documented. The conservation status of most species at the genetic, species, and ecosystem is not known in detail. After independence, the Department of Environment of the Ministry of Land, Water and Environment and other line ministries have taken considerable effort on the conservation of biological diversity resources, despite the existing large shortfall in the number of personnel, institutions and financial resources, which would be required to fill this information gap. Although there is incomplete national reporting of improvements on biodiversity, the evidence reviewed and gathered in this evaluation indicates that overall, these projects are likely to impact the sustainable use of biodiversity resources and hence improved livelihood systems for the local population. 34. The four GEF-supported projects (including EAs) in Eritrea have extended support to the country’s approach to mainstream biodiversity into productive landscapes, particularly important in Eritrea where food security remains a national priority. Despite the constraints in national reporting, there are examples of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources in several parts of the country. Biodiversity considerations are also integrated into agricultural and forest initiatives and these integrations extend into the GEF LD portfolio. 35. For example through the country’s SLM project (GEF ID 3364) and the SGP projects, area enclosures implemented by communities 7 have resulted in the natural regeneration of indigenous threatened species of fauna and flora, for example Olea africana (Awlei), Dodonea ungustifolia (Tahses), Juniperus procera (tshdi) and Rhus natalensis (tetale). Eritrea is also recognized as a centre of origin and centre of diversity for a number of crops, notably the cereals: sorghum, wheat and barley. There is a rich diversity of crop landraces still available in Eritrea. 36. From the research unit in the MOMR, established by the CMIB (GEF ID 411) project, research gathered is now exchanged with other institutions, including Universities abroad, providing 7 As observed in Serejeca, Mekereka, Una Lalia, Tearishe and Dara village areas 14 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 valuable information on among other things, sea and coastal migratory birds, several species of turtle nesting grounds, species of coral reefs, sea grass, and dugongs. The Red Sea, an almost enclosed, hot, saline body of water has over 1,100 fish species and 44 genera of hard corals being recorded” 8 rendering it with one of the highest levels of endemism and species diversity for a water body Around 18% of fish species and 20% of coral species are reported to be endemic to these waters 9. 37. Local communities are also well aware about the potential social and economic benefits that are generated from the various conservation activities. However, projects outcomes related to poverty reduction and improved livelihood are issues that were not monitored and would be realized only over a stretch of years to come. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 38. Eritrea has filed a 1st and 2nd National Communication to the UNFCCC. GEF support was provided for the preparation of the First Communication (GEF ID 278). From a review of these documents, it is seen that Eritrea heavily depends on biomass sources for energy. 39. The Eritrean population is an agrarian society where the large majority directly depends on land resources for their livelihoods. Greenhouse gas emissions are largely from agricultural activities, deforestation activities and methane emissions from livestock. Stakeholder consultations reported back on ecosystem that once consisted of thickly vegetated diversified species of trees. Heavy dependence on biomass to meet household energy requirements as well as removal for agriculture has had an adverse effect on the forest cover of the parts of the country under review. Moreover, due to drought conditions that have prevailed in the country over decades, the vegetation cover has dwindled drastically. In turn, this has resulted in climate change impacts but also desertification, land degradation, diminishing biodiversity, reduction in grain yields, and a reduction in livestock production. 40. The wind energy application project (GEF ID 1136) is the only full size CC project implemented in the country. The project served as a pilot to demonstrate the potential for wind-energy generation in Eritrea as a replacement of wood and biomass consumption. Although the project received a rating of Satisfactory at completion, the off-grid component was not successful in its operations. Concerning the on-grid component, of the three initially installed turbines generating power to 20% of the households in Assab; during the ROtI exercise, it was determined that only one was operational. Difficulties in transporting fuel from the capital, Asmara, to Assab were hampering the full operations of the turbines. Thus, there is obviously potential for scale-up, particularly in under-served rural areas of Eritrea that are still off the grid and have high energy access needs. 41. Vulnerability to climate change is addressed in Eritrea’s National Adaptation Plan for Action (NAPA) document (GEF ID: 1959), prepared with support from the GEF LDCF trust fund. The NAPA serves as a reference for those who are directly concerned with the planning and 8http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/11-25-13%20COUNICL%20DOCUMENT.pdf 9 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/11-25-13%20COUNICL%20DOCUMENT.pdf 15 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 implementation of all environmental programs and projects for adaptation to climate change. It is available in many libraries as a reference for climate change and adaptation and serving to, and facilitating the transfer of knowledge and understanding for climate change adaptation. 42. An integrated approach to adaptation is taken also through the SLM and SGP portfolio with activities directed at rehabilitation of degraded lands and enhancing land productivity also having GHG mitigation and adaptation benefits. 43. These benefits are expected to be enhanced through a recent project financed with support from the Adaptation Fund and to be implemented by UNDP, the “Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Water and Agriculture” will be focused in the Anseba region of Eritrea with the aim to increase availability of water through floodwater harvesting and groundwater recharge. Land Degradation 44. In Eritrea, land degradation is one of the overriding factors affecting biodiversity and climate change. GEF support has been effective in preparing draft, national action plans and legal frameworks relevant to land degradation (e.g., NAP, NAPA and the draft national land use plan to arrest land degradation and increase land use capabilities). Reduced stress and improved soil/land/water conditions are long-term impacts of arresting land degradation. 45. As observed and reported through stakeholders, as well as by communities engaged in the SLM subprojects, besides land degradation measures, the capacity of communities to use drip- irrigation in small farms, building bench terraces and managing nurseries has also been enhanced. GEF’s land degradation portfolio has also included a community component dedicated to improved energy saving stoves. These have been constructed by and largely benefited women and achieved significant scale up to amongst Eritrean households in village communities through the SGP program.Overall, the GEF supported projects to combat land degradation have demonstrated solid results through activities such as reforestation and enhancing farm productivity. Persistent Organic Pollutants 46. GEF support in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and FAO has enabled Eritrea to undertake a national inventory and identify its stores of POPs and initiate plans for priority safeguarding, including disposal. There were 21 contaminated sites identified, with a total area of 1,400 m2. Resultant actions have contributed to environmental protection and making the surrounding areas safer for human habitation and well-being. Small Grants Programme 47. The SGP was operationally introduced into Eritrea in 2010 to facilitate innovative approaches in community based environmental programs (SGP Supervision Report to UNDP, 2011). Interestingly, the programme has become a mechanism to scale up tested and known approaches to community environmental improvements, particularly those witnessed through 16 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 the Sustainable Land Management project portfolio. It is thus considered one of the most highly relevant initiatives within the country, due to its ability to enhance the technical capacity of local communities and to enable them to continue similar activities in adjacent areas of the Full Size projects. 48. The SGP portfolio has contributed to communities possessing a better understanding about climate change issues and the importance of sustainable management of natural resources for improvements in their livelihood and health status. As discussed earlier, among the results seen, women in beneficiary communities have been trained on how to construct energy saving stoves and as a result, it was common to observe nearby households making their own stoves without any outside support. The improved traditional stove projects also enabled local communities to integrate traditional knowledge in the construction of well-designed and appropriate technologies. These approaches are also a part of the community components of the GEF full size LD projects. According to the SGP annual report (2012), many completed projects have been handed over to the local communities. Conclusion 5: GEF completed projects have inadequately addressed post-completion sustainability strategies. 49. A challenge for the Government of Eritrea has been to continue supporting and scaling up GEF projects once GEF support has ended. Despite the government’s efforts to sustain the outcomes of full size completed projects, often much remains to be done to maintain these outcomes with time. For example, upkeep to the biodiversity stocktaking assessment, introduced through the NCSA (GEF ID: 1584), requires periodic field monitoring and research in terrestrial, marine and agro-biodiversity, which the Government can barely afford. 50. Overall, GEF exit strategies put in place have not adequately addressed the financial, technical and managerial sustainability of projects outcomes so that impact might later be achieved. Nonetheless, there has been a readiness on the part of all relevant Ministries to integrate responsibilities and necessary engagements into their work program, including engagement with communities, maintenance of equipment, capacity improvements, etc. to ensure results of the completed GEF project have longevity. RELEVANCE Conclusion 6: GEF supported projects were relevant to the Eritrea sustainable national development needs, environmental priorities and national focal area strategies and action plans. 51. GEF supported projects have contributed to the preparation of national plans in the environmental sector and overall, were relevant to the national environmental legal framework and sustainable development agenda of Eritrea. 52. At present, there is no formal environmental legislation for Eritrea. However, an Environment Proclamation is being prepared by the Department of Environment. The absence of formal environmental legislation also does not mean that the environment has no legal status. The National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP 1995) has served as a blue print for 17 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 subsequent action in the environmental sector and lays out a strategy of action for conservation activities. Its guiding principles include recognition of the strategic importance of conserving natural resources and maintaining environmental quality as a part of national economic growth and development processes, to develop integrated and multiple uses of natural resource use strategies at the same time ensuring local involvement and equity in environmental resources. It also set the course for subsequent GEF-supported projects to have the same overarching goal of safeguarding the environment and aimed at enabling Eritrea to meet its national and global environmental obligations through the implementation of the various conventions, particularly the CBD, CCD, UNFCCC, and Stockholm Convention. 53. Projects in the CC focal area were relevant, first with the preparation of Eritrea’s National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (GEF ID 278), which included the development of a national GHG emissions inventory and the identification of national programs and projects for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The First and Second National Communications are also the basis for the calculation of the country’s GHG emissions targets. 54. While the Wind Energy Applications (GEF ID 1136) project did not result in the expected GHG reduction outcomes, the project was relevant for the country’s piloting of renewable energy sources. Alternate source of energy contribute to improved health by lowering indoor and outdoor air pollution; reduces the burden on women and young children many of whom spend hours collecting and carrying firewood; and frees up time for income generation. Energy is also a critical input for providing a host of social services, from education and health care to communications. The wind energy project also helped to put in place the policy framework that will allow a renewable energy market to develop. The promotion of the development of alternative and renewable energy production to reduce use of biomass as an energy source, particularly in areas with no access to pre-existing grids, both for the household and industrial unit level, still remains relevant. 55. The two full size Sustainable Land Management (SLM) projects in the LD focal area (GEF 3362 and GEF 2009) were developed in 2002 when Eritrea launched its National Action Program (NAP) to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought. These projects address the interlinked problems of poverty, food insecurity, land degradation and BD losses through the development and promotion of innovative SLM technologies and land use planning approaches. The small number of projects in this focal area does not reflect the relevant contributions made in the national land degradation agenda by these two GEF support initiatives, along with other projects classified under SGP or biodiversity. While these activities have been relevant, promulgation of the Land Law No.58 of 1994, empowering communities in land use and land management aspects, has yet to be approved. 56. As discussed earlier, Eritrea has received GEF funds to put in place its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP–GEF ID 137), which was adopted in July 2000. The goals of the NBSAP are to restore, conserve and manage the overall Eritrean BD so that it contributes to sustainable national economic development (MOLWE-DOE, NBSAP, 2000). This plan enlists a comprehensive set of actions to be undertaken in the area of biodiversity. It recognizes three- 18 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 core areas: Terrestrial, Marine and Agricultural Biodiversity. It was formulated through the active participation of stakeholders, and it covered four major components: • Eritrea Biodiversity Stocktaking Assessment Report; • Eritrea BD Economic Assessment; • Assessment of the National Policies, Legislative and Institutional Frameworks; and • Preparation of the First National Report to the CBD. 57. Examples of activities in the Stocktaking Assessment Framework included: plans for expansion of improved biomass saving stoves, initiating the establishment of the baseline data of the CMIB and developing ICAMP, and an Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity. 58. Eritrea is particularly vulnerable to climate change and while adaptation and climate resilience have been integrated in GEF projects focusing on land rehabilitation to reverse the adverse impacts of land degradation, particularly in the Catchment and Landscape Management and the SLM pilot projects discussed earlier, the country has not developed an LDCF portfolio, save for one project, the development of the NAPA (GEF ID 1959), and only recently was a project funded through the Adaptation Fund to be implemented by UNDP 10. 59. Going forward, several changes in the portfolio mix could be envisioned. For example, through the national communications to the UNFCCC in 2001 and 2012, The Government of Eritrea had identified a number of renewable energy sources. The prospect of wind and solar energy has been initiated and should be continued and expanded to cover other areas of Eritrea that have already been mapped out for potential wind power. Eritrea’s position along the rift valley also makes it an excellent candidate for geothermal energy exploration as has been explored recently by the Ministry of Energy and Mines 11. Even though land degradation pressures are still intense, fuel costs are rising and there is generally a lack of access to energy, both in urban and rural areas, the government has yet to substantially develop those alternate energy sources. Conclusion 7: The Government of Eritrea exhibits a high level of country ownership and commitment to GEF supported projects; however, governance aspects need to be considered when aiming at improving implementation of environmental legislation. 60. GEF interventions have been strategically prioritized by the OFP taking into account the existing opportunities and constraints, relevance to national agenda and a projects’ objective. National institutions design projects that are consistent with country objectives as well as the operational strategies of focal areas and efforts are made to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts between focal areas. 10 The “Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Water and Agriculture” will be focused in the Anseba region of Eritrea 11 Geothermal Exploration in Eritrea – Status Report. Presented at Short Course on Exploration for Geothermal Resources organized by UNU-GTP, KenGen and GDC, at Lake Naivasha, Kenya, November 1-22, 2009. Ermias Yohannes. Ministry of Energy and Mines. 19 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 61. As an indicator of ownership, co-financing can signal the strength of the commitment of beneficiaries, implementing agencies and executing agencies to projects. Furthermore, it helps to ensure the success and local acceptance of projects by linking them to sustainable development. This CPE observed that Eritrea has been successful in mobilizing its own resources as well as co-financing from other organizations. Furthermore GEF Projects in Eritrea originate within national agencies, such as the Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Energy and Mines and other national agencies 62. The amount of co-financing for GEF projects can also be considered satisfactory, although it is expectedly lower when compared to larger recipient countries. For example, GEF projects in Eritrea have leveraged 64.9% in co-financing, while co-financing has averaged 85% in South Africa, and 84% in India (CPE National Reports). The LD focal area showed the greatest capacity to leverage funding, followed by POPs. As the largest Agency, It should also be no surprise that the GEF supported projects in Eritrea received the major share of their Agency co-financing through the UNDP. 63. Country ownership for SGP-Supported projects is also strong for the explicit effectiveness they have demonstrated in a short time in enhancing interest in environmental issues among rural communities. As a result, community groups tend to show their readiness to make a worthwhile contribution in the future. This confidence has paved the way for many of the groups that have received funding from the SGP to submit proposals for larger funds to other funding agencies. Of the total investment of USD 652,940 that was expended, 46% was co- financed by the UNDP, followed by the contribution from communities at approximately 36%. In terms of interventions, the improved traditional stove and solar powered IT system for schools accounted for one third of the total funds expended (33%). The current level of contribution from local community beneficiaries is a clear indication of increasing local and national interest and ownership in GEF SGP projects. 64. At present, several key environmental related items of legislation remain in “draft” form and have not been promulgated into legally binding acts. While environmental protection has not been majorly hampered by the lack of a full policy framework, the evaluation notes that key enforcement tools are not in place to abate environmental degradation or allow for further evolutions in sustainable land management, which would result from, for example, secure land tenure laws. 65. There is also growing consensus emphasizing that governance aspects have a strong effect on environmental actions and outcomes. Measures that strengthen the rule of law, transparency and public participation may be equally or more important than specific official endorsement of environmental policies or projects to improve environmental outcomes. Thus in addition to the all elements of an environmental legal framework and developing capacities of environmental authorities and sector ministries, good governance is acknowledged as an important factor to assist with better environmental management in the country leading to conservation of globally significant flora and fauna. EFFICIENCY 20 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Conclusion 8: Project design factors, particularly over-ambitious objectives, have often caused implementation over-runs. 66. In Eritrea, all 6 FSPs have taken more than 18 months from work-program entry stage to CEO approval. For FSPs, a 22 months standard has been proclaimed for time elapsed between work program approval in the Council and CEO endorsement for GEF-4 projects and an 18 months standard for GEF-5. The Conservation management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine, and Island Biodiversity (GEF ID 411) was supposed to close in 2003, but it closed 5 years later, in 2008. The Wind Energy Applications Project (GEF ID 1136) was supposed to close in 2007, but it closed two years later, in 2009. The Enabling Activities have also been running over their allocated times: 3 out of the 5 projects we delayed, the first by 1 years, and the other two by 2 years. 67. One factor that may influence sustainability is a project’s initial design, which in the case of Eritrea was often over-ambitious. For example, the Coastal and Marine Island Biodiversity project (GEF ID 411) originally attempted to cover the whole of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea and its islands. While the scope was later revised to focus on more limited coverage, precious time and resources were initially exhausted. According to stakeholder, the revised project could have given more consideration to post-completion action plans, however the inclusion of a strong community-based component within the project has been a positive factor in maintenance of project outcomes. 68. The concept and definition of co-financing as difficult to understand was cited by stakeholders as a barrier that cannot be met by some institutions and which contributes to delays. Project formulation processes for preparation of GEF projects were also perceived as complex and time consuming. Conclusion 9: Synergies and coordination in programming and implementation among GEF Agencies and Eritrean institutions, as well as among Eritrean institutions themselves are limited. 69. The Eritrean Focal Point Office has on several occasions chaired a Steering Committee to guide discussions on GEF portfolio formulation, SGP initiatives, etc. All GEF supported projects have had national steering committees that were formed to guide the project management units (PMUs) as well as to set priorities for project activities. 70. While mechanisms for networking among GEF Agencies, national institutions, GEF projects and other donor-supported projects and activities exist, they have not been fully effective for better synergies in GEF project programming and implementation. The potential for increased synergy and collaborative efforts among the agencies and national institutions involved in programming and implementation could be further realized. 71. Roles and areas of cooperation between the Government and the UNDP, the most predominant Agency in the portfolio, are clearly specified for interactions even beyond the GEF portfolio. In practice, the mechanisms are functioning adequately however Eritrean national institutions could be better informed of one another’s related activities and there are few forums to 21 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 discuss the challenges of sustainable livelihoods, land degradation and biodiversity loss amongst all interested parties. 72. For example, the coordination to steer the implementation of the country’s two SLM projects appears to have weaknesses at the national level. More synergies were visible at the regional level (i.e. between the line ministries and local administrations), but it appears to be less transparent when it comes to coordination between the various executing agencies and the Operational Focal Point (OFP) at the national level. There is a tendency for institutions to move forward with their own agendas with no definite schedule for meetings and contacts between themselves. Improvements were noted with coordination moving steadily in the right direction with greater awareness and willingness among all those concerned, although cases of ambiguity still remain. 73. Efforts have been underway to achieve a more synergistic approach across the various national executing institutions for GEF supported activities. Conclusion 10: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems of a number of projects are weak and thus M&E is not significantly contributing to the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF support in Eritrea. 74. The evaluation exercise showed that most GEF projects have monitoring and evaluation protocols in the form of Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) and Terminal Evaluations (TEs). However, these were not always available within the GEF PMIS system. Once they were compiled, a review concluded that monitoring information was not adequately employed to make on the timely corrections of problematic issues especially those related to outcome sustainability. A case in point would be the CMIB (GEF ID 411), where its supervision (or lack thereof) allowed the over-ambitious project to carry on until close to original project completion date before its parameters were redefined. For the wind energy project, supervision reports simply did not record the inappropriate procurement of technical services and equipment and supplies, not only causing delays but ultimately affecting the establishment of the off-grid wind energy component of the project. All supervision reports and even the terminal evaluation conclude satisfactory results, even for M&E. 75. The executing institutions for GEF-supported programs have made progress by way of establishing mechanisms for M&E; unfortunately, these institutions infrequently come together internally and discuss procedural as well as operational matters related to GEF projects. Within the context of the above, more remains to be desired in terms of putting things into practice as the record of results are not adequately shared and reported on regular basis. Furthermore, interviews with concerned government officials reveal that a lack of sufficient funds, shortage in transport facilities, and limited human capacity have been reported as formidable constraints to put M&E into practice. 22 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 1.5 Recommendations Recommendations to the GEF Recommendation 1: The GEF should encourage efforts to build the GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP) and National Executing Agency capacity in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) related activities. 76. Capacity building is a continuous process and, as such, GEF should continue to support capacity building through training, institutional strengthening, awareness raising and particularly knowledge sharing mechanisms, management and sharing of experiences across the different ecological regions of Eritrea. 77. In particular, M&E of the GEF portfolio in Eritrea is largely fragmented among a few Agencies and project management offices in the national institutions. The disparate data and systems do not allow for a holistic perspective of the overall status and results of the GEF portfolio in Eritrea. Combined with an overall dearth of quantitative environmental data, accurate monitoring and evaluation of global environmental benefits is difficult. 78. Greater knowledge of M&E activities in the national portfolio would ensure timely quality assurance of technical assistance and the timely release of funds to the executing agency to increase implementation success and likelihood of sustainability of the project benefits where difficulties are reported regarding baseline information and the wording of indicators and outcomes; and where often, adaptive decisions are not made until the midterm review is carried out, resulting in unjustifiable delays and faulty procurement. Support and institutionalization of M&E system to correct faulty implementation procedure or practices in a timely manner would enable the Eritrean government to more effectively mainstream results into national strategy and decision making with other government offices (Energy, Finance, Agriculture, etc.) for planning and managing global environmental resources. 79. Concomitantly, the mandates and responsibilities of GEF implementing along with the executing agencies and the OFP as a project draws closer to close, need to be reviewed in order to ensure the smooth transition of the end of GEF support and sustainability of project outcomes. 80. Future updates to the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy should consider GEF-5 experiences, as gathered in this Eritrea and other Country Portfolio Evaluations, in the application of Minimum Requirement 4, concerning the engagement of the Operational Focal Point in M&E-related activities. Recommendation 2: The GEF should continue to support the SGP in Eritrea and explore the systemic use of the national SGP programme to function as a service provider to deliver community level support activities for future FSPs and MSPs. 81. Even though its duration has not been long, the SGP has a high profile in Eritrea for its successful work in linking communities to environmental management and sustainable livelihoods, 23 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 particularly through Income Generating Activities. Partly, the program has been so effective because many SGP projects are replicating the community based component of the SLM FSP projects. The systemic use of the SGP as an institutionalized delivery mechanism for community based component of larger GEF projects, would enable use of accumulated SGP expertise and experience to effectively deliver local level activities for GEF projects/programs while optimizing the use of GEF resources (cost saving due to the pre-existence of SGP structures, staffs and work procedures. Recommendations to the Government of Eritrea Recommendation 3: The OFP should re-instigate regular meetings of the national steering committee and undertake a National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) for GEF-6. 82. The Eritrean National GEF Coordinating/Steering Committee should meet regularly with the aim of reviewing results from the existing portfolio and begin planning for the GEF-6 portfolio. Such interactions would also serve to enhance synergies amongst all stakeholders including, national institutions and development partners. This would be a big step forward for achieving the desired results and enhancing efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. 83. Development of future GEF portfolios in Eritrea should also give due consideration to involvement from the public including women and youth in the design and execution of national projects, including small grants. Intended and unintended impacts on the public, including women, youth, and other civil society actors, should also be overtly discussed during the NPFE 24 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 2. Evaluation Framework 84. This chapter presents the background information, objectives, scope and methodology relevant to and used in the GEF Eritrea Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE) process. 2.1 The Global Environment Facility 85. The GEF provides funding to achieve global environmental benefits. GEF support modalities include the following:  Full-Size Projects (FSP), which have funding of more than $1 million  Medium-size projects (MSP), which have funding of$1 million or less  Enabling activities (EA), which are intended to help countries meet their reporting obligations under the various conventions for which the GEF serves as a financial mechanism.  Project preparation grants (PPGs), formerly known as project development facility (PDF) grants, which provide funding for the preparation and development of projects  Small Grants Programme (SGP), which provides funding of less than $50,000, directed at NGOs and local organizations; small GEF grants are structured into the SGP which is administered by UNDP 86. The GEF officially began with a two-year pilot phase from 1992 to 1994. This was followed by four regular four-year replenishment periods: GEF-1 (1995–98), GEF-2 (1999–2002), and GEF-3 (2003–06), GEF-4 (2007-10). GEF-5 was initiated in 2011 and continues through 2014. Until and including GEF‑3, there were no country allocations and eligible GEF member countries submitted their requests through the different GEF Agencies on a demand basis. An allocation system was introduced for GEF-4 and revised for GEF-5. As of this writing, negotiations have concluded for the GEF-6 replenishment. 2.2 Background 87. The Eritrea CPE aims to provide the GEF Council and the Government of Eritrea (GOE) with an assessment of results and performance of GEF supported activities in the country, and to examine how GEF supported activities fit into the national strategies and priorities as well as within the global environmental mandate of the GEF. 88. From among 163 GEF-eligible countries, countries are grouped into four (4) categories based on their STAR allocation. A country is proposed for portfolio evaluation based on criteria that include size, maturity, diversity and coverage through past work of the GEF Evaluation Office Eritrea was thus selected on the basis of its comparatively large and diverse portfolio (completed, on-going and in-pipeline projects) in STAR group C (medium/low STAR allocation), ranking 2nd out of 10 countries in the SSA region. Its status as a least developing country and a fragile one emerging from recent conflict are 25 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 also contributing factors for evaluation coverage. Finally, Eritrea had not been adequately covered by the Evaluation Office through its past work. 89. The GEF Evaluation Office proposed the Country Portfolio Evaluation for Eritrea to the Government of Eritrea. The GEF Operational Focal Point, on behalf of the Government of Eritrea, accepted this proposal. A team from the GEF Evaluation Office visited Eritrea on a pre-evaluation mission in February 2013 to discuss the modalities for the evaluation and meet with other national stakeholders. Based on these discussions, the Evaluation Office determined the general structure of the evaluation team. 90. Thereafter, based on an open and transparent multi-stage selection process, the group, Economic and Social Consultancy (ECOSOC) was selected as the national institution for execution of the evaluation. Considering the suggestions received from the national stakeholders, the Evaluation Office also appointed two experts as members of a peer review panel. 91. In April 2013, the first consultation meetings with the stakeholders were organized in Asmara to scope the evaluation. Based on the inputs received during this consultation, the standard terms of reference for CPE was revised to make them specific to Eritrea (see Annex C). Thereafter, the evaluative phase of the Eritrea CPE ran from May- September 2013 and finished in October 2013. 92. The preliminary emerging findings of the evaluation were shared with the national stakeholders in a workshop held in Asmara in September 2013. This draft report incorporates the feedback received during the workshop and also inputs from the Peer Review Panel. 2.3 Objectives 93. The purpose of the Eritrea CPE is to provide the GEF Council and the GOE with an assessment of results and performance of the GEF supported activities at country level, and how the GEF supported activities fit into the national strategies and priorities as well as within the global environmental mandate of the GEF. Based on this overall purpose, the Eritrea CPE will have the following specific objectives:  Evaluate the effectiveness and results of GEF support in the country, with attention to the sustainability of achievements at the project level and progress toward impact on global environmental benefits.  Evaluate the relevance and efficiency of GEF support in Eritrea from several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, the GEF mandate of achieving of global environmental benefits, and GEF policies and procedures.  Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) the GEF Council in its decision making process, (2) Eritrea on its collaboration/participation in the GEF, and (3) the 26 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF support. 94. The Eritrea CPE aims to bring to the attention of Council different experiences and lessons on how the GEF support is implemented in Eritrea. It seeks to analyse the performance of individual projects as part of the overall GEF portfolio. The CPE is not aimed at evaluating or rating the performance of GEF Agencies, Eritrean entities (national agencies or civil society organizations that are involved), or individual projects, including the SGP portfolio. 2.4 Scope 95. The Eritrea CPE is aimed at covering all types of GEF-supported activities in the country at different stages of the project cycle (completed, under implementation and pre- implementation) and implemented by all the GEF Agencies in all the focal areas. The GEF portfolio assessed in this evaluation is focused on national projects and the SGP but also considers a portfolio review of the global and regional projects. Project proposals under consideration were not explicitly part of the evaluation, although those that have gained the GEF Council approval are listed and discussed, as appropriate. The cut-off date for analysis was June 30, 2012. 2.5 Methodology and Approach 96. The Eritrea CPE was conducted between March 2013 and October 2013 by an evaluation team comprised of staff from the GEF Evaluation Office and the national consultants, ECOSOC. The key evaluation questions are contained in the terms of reference (Annex C) and the associated evaluation matrix (Annex D). 97. In the evaluation matrix, each of these key questions is complemented with a list of relevant indicators, potential sources of data and the methodology – tools and methods – used to answer the key questions. The key questions of the evaluation were to be answered based on the analysis of the data collected during the evaluative phase of evaluation. 98. The Eritrea CPE has been able to answer the key questions, with some reservations concerning information available on: 1) progress to impact, given that impact level information is not routinely collected as part of the M&E systems of GEF Agencies and requires the use of specific impact evaluation methods. In-country M&E systems for environmental data are also undeveloped, yielding less than desired amounts of data on global environmental trends. With half of the portfolio dedicated to initial Enabling Activities, and only two full size completed projects, there were limitations of data on portfolio and information available for analysis; and difficulties regarding baseline information and the wording of indicators and outcomes. 99. The evaluation team used GEF’s standardized tools and project review protocols for the CPEs and adapted these to the Eritrean context. Several sources of information from 27 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 different levels, both in and outside Eritrea, were used. Stakeholders and officials were interviewed and consulted during the evaluation. These included officials of the Ministry Of Land Water and Environment (MOLWE), the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Ministry of Marine Resources (MOMR), regional and sub-regional authorities and officials, the UNDP, UNEP, FAO and the GEF OFP, i.e. MOLWE. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with Small Grant Programme (SGP) beneficiaries, civil society organizations such as the National Union of Eritrean Women (NUEW), the National Union of Eritrean Youth and Students (NUEYS) and local communities (see Annex E). 100. During the research phase of the evaluation, the team conducted a literature review to extract existing reliable evaluative evidence, and produce the GEF portfolio database, the Country Environmental Legal Framework (CELF), the Global Environment Benefits Assessment (GEBA) and the analysis of project protocols. 101. Projects for field visits were selected based on several criteria, including: i) whether they had been completed and had a technical evaluation or were nearing completion; ii) representation within the portfolio by focal area, agency, modality and status; iii) accessibility to project activities and sites; and iv) resources and time to conduct the evaluation. 102. Two review of outcomes to impact (ROtI) 12 assessment were conducted 13; one in the biodiversity focal area for the Conservation Management of the Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity project (GEF ID 411) and one in climate change on the completed Wind Energy Applications project (GEF ID 1136). In addition, two GEF Small Grants Projects (SGPs) were visited (Annex E). 103. The ROtI work was preceded by constructing a model ‘Theory of Change’ for each project. The ROtI exercise assisted the consultants to overcome the challenges of measuring impacts of the projects, by identifying the sequence of conditions and factors deemed necessary to convert project outcomes into the ultimate intended impacts. The assumption underlying the ‘ROtI Theory of Change’ is that ‘an assessment of the logical process linking outcomes to impact is realistic to achieve during relatively short evaluation missions, and provides a potentially robust indirect measure of the ultimate impact’. 104. Triangulation of the results was conducted during an internal workshop between the team on July 23, 24, 2013 Triangulation refers to the review, in parallel, of the combination of several research methodologies and/or data sources in the study of the same phenomenon. The purpose of triangulation in this evaluation was to increase the credibility and validity of the results. Results reported below come from triangulation of various sources drawn from: the literature review, Country Environmental Legal Framework (CELF), Global Environmental Benefits Assessment (GEBA), Project review 12 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/CPE-ROtI_Practitioners_Handbook_4August2009.pdf 13 Projects included in field visits are described in Annex F. 28 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 protocols (PRPs), ROtI exercise, field visits and stakeholder consultations and interviews were assessed using the main evaluation indicators of effectiveness, results, sustainability, relevance and efficiency. 2.6 Limitations 105. The section outlines some of the limitations that were taken into account and addressed wherever possible while conducting the evaluation. First, attribution is an area of complexity and a limitation for all CPEs. This evaluation does not attempt to provide a direct attribution of development and environmental results to the GEF activities. The Evaluation Office recognizes there are other development actors and national institutions contributing to overall results. For example, Eritrea has been conducting nationwide land degradation prevention projects (terracing, check-dams, forestation, etc.) well before the GEF’s support began. Indeed, land degradation programs and projects in Eritrea are set in a multi-actor and multi-factor context. Nonetheless, an assessment of the GEF contribution towards overall achievements is attempted in this report. 106. Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded full size projects was also not a straightforward task due to a lack of reliable monitoring information of key indicators on, for example, flora and fauna diversity, GHG emissions, and climate change outcomes and impacts. The CPE tried to overcome these difficulties by undertaking two field ROtIs. While, some projects have an in-built M&E mechanism, much more remains for them to become functional. As such, these “left-over” mechanisms are rarely used to inform decision making or to review project performance and outcomes, either in mid-term reports or after project completion. Therefore, there was not much M&E data available and that which was, has not provided the evaluation with a useful source of information. 29 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 3. Context of the Evaluation 3.1 Eritrea: Country Context 107. Eritrea is located in the Horn of Africa, serving as a bridge between the rest of Africa and the Middle East and the Gulf States. It is bordered by Sudan in the West, Ethiopia in the South, Djibouti in the Southeast and by the Red Sea in the East. Eritrea has a total land area of 124,300 km2 with mainland coastline of around 1,900 km, which runs along the important Red Sea oil and shipping route, connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. In the Eritrean territorial waters, there are 390 islands the largest one being the Dahlak Archipelago. Table 4: General Profile of Eritrea Indicator Value Year Total Population 6.131 2012 million GDP (current US$) $3.092 2012 billion GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) $450 2012 Income Level Low Income School enrollment, primary (% gross) 47% 2011 Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty 69.0 1993 line (% of population) Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 62 2011 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.1 2010 % of rural population with access to water 57% 2008 Source: WorldBank.org, Accessed 13th Dec 2013 Socio-economic status and development context 108. Eritrea declared its independence and gained international recognition in 1993. The predominant languages are Tigrinya and Arabic, while English is used in the government's international communication and is the language of instruction in all formal education beyond the fifth grade. 109. The country’s total population is estimated to be just over 6 million, which would put the population density at 45 persons per km2 (Population Reference Bureau, 2012). The population is young, with the larger proportion living in the countryside. The country comprises of nine ethnic groups, of which the Tigrigna and Tigre are the largest, constituting 50 and 31% of the total population, respectively (UNICEF, 1994). The rest of the population is made of up Afar, Bilen, Kunama, Saho, Naro, and Rashaida, found 30 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 scattered in the eastern and western lowland regions. These ethnic groups differ in language, customs, and dress. 110. Women in Eritrea consist of about 50% of the estimated one million person potential labor force. In addition to their primary responsibly for family care, food processing and preparation, and community activities, they contribute significantly to crop production and subsistence farming. Understanding the fact that gender equity and equality are closely linked to socio-economic development of the country, the GOE has formulated a policy to improve the status of women. Over the past years, significant achievements have been recorded with regards to, among other things, women’s health, education and participation in civil, cultural, economic, political and social life. However, many women related development programs are hampered due to economic constraints facing the country. As a consequence, women still constitute the majority of the poor 14. 111. The predominant economic activity for more than two thirds of the population is rain-fed agriculture. Considering the recurrent drought conditions, it is a risky enterprise, and food security remains one of the government’s main concerns. Favorable rains and rehabilitation of rural infrastructure have led to improved agricultural performance and food security in the last three years. However, almost two thirds of all households are reported to face shortages. In years with adequate rainfall, approximately half of the food that the country requires has to be imported. According to the IFAD’s Rural Poverty Profile (2010), rural households are the most severely affected by poverty because of the low productivity of their crops and livestock. 112. As a consequence, the level of malnutrition is high and 40% of children under five are underweight for their age. Life expectancy at birth is 59.2 years, and 40% of the population did not have access to an improved water source. Nevertheless, Eritrea is on track with regards to MDG targets of 2015 for gender parity in primary education, child health, maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases, albeit that the goals of eradication of extreme poverty and achievement of universal primary education remain a national challenge (IFAD, April 2006). 113. Large fiscal and trade deficits are managed through price, exchange rate and interest rate controls, which have led to a shortage of foreign exchange and a fall in private sector activity. The size of the public debt in proportion to GDP is a concern. The official annual inflation rate rose to 13.3% in 2011, from 11.6% in 2010, which has much improved compared to 29.5% in 2009.In the longer term, sustained real economic growth of 7% or more will be required for Eritrea to reach the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 (WB, 2013). 14 National Union of Eritrean Women, 2004. 31 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Climate and Topography 114. Eritrea is located in the arid and semi-arid regions of the African Sahel. It occupies a geopolitically significant location because of its coastline along the strategic Red Sea. However, because of its location, the country is continuously faced with challenges of recurrent droughts and environmental degradation. Eritrea is divided into six administrative regions (zobas). Altitudes range from Amba-Soira in the central highlands (3,018m above sea level) to the lowest depression in Danakil (120m below sea level). Characterized by black lava formations, smoking volcanic cones, and hot springs, Danakil is one of the hottest places on earth, with temperatures typically reaching 50oC. 115. The climate ranges from hot and arid adjacent to the Red Sea, to temperate in the highlands and sub-humid in isolated micro-catchment areas of the eastern escarpment. About 70% of the country is classified as hot to very hot with mean annual temperature of more than 27oC; about 25% as warm to mild with a mean temperature of about 22o C, and the remaining parts 5% as cool with a mean annual temperature of less than 19o C (FAO, 1994). 116. The total annual rainfall increases from the north to south and varies from less than 200 mm in the north-western lowlands to more than 700 mm in the south-western lowlands. Besides, the amount of rainfall also increases with altitude. While the coastal lowlands are very dry, some areas on the eastern escarpment get more than 1000 mm of rain. About 50% of the country receives less than 300 mm, 40% between 300 and 600 mm and about 10% more than 600 mm of rain per annum (FAO 1994, Haile et al. 1998). 117. Eritrea is divided into six agro-ecological zones: (i) the Moist Highlands, (ii) Arid Highlands, (iii) Sub-Humid Highlands, (vi) Moist Lowlands, (v) Arid Lowlands and (vi) and the Semi- Desert. The ecological diversities if managed well offer several opportunities for agricultural and livestock development. Owing to its long coastal area, Eritrea is endowed with huge marine resources. 3.2 Environmental Resources in Key GEF Support Areas Environmental Threats and Challenges 118. By virtue of its geographical location and because of its low adaptive capacities, Eritrea is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the vagaries of weather and climate. The main hazards are increased climatic variability, recurring drought, flash flooding, and sea level rise. Rainfall is also expected to be seriously affected by climate change, varying by a ratio ranging from 0.1 to 0.15 mm. Such long term changes in climate will have serious adverse impacts on agriculture, water resources, forestry, coastal environments, and human health at the national level affecting regional and 32 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 global conditions. In fact, impacts are already being observed in each of these sectors, as briefly outlined below: Agriculture: Rains in the usual April/May are fast disappearing, the main rainy season starts later and finishes earlier, some crops and native cultivars are disappearing from production, common failure of rain-fed crops, appearance of new crops pests, depletion and drying of water wells for irrigation, unusually heavy flooding. These circumstances are taking a heavy toll on subsistence farmers. Forestry: Reduced soil moisture adversely affects the growth of shrubs and trees, shortages of biomass for energy and house construction, declines in other biomass products (e.g. frankincense, fodder). Water Resources: Water is a scarce commodity in Eritrea, with no perennial water source; all rivers and their tributaries are mostly seasonal and intermittent except the Setit. Ground water is the major source of water, and drinking water standards have yet to be formulated. Recurrent drought, warmer temperatures and high evaporation rates are resulting in smaller stream flows, lower groundwater levels, deterioration in water quality, and disappearance of base flows, which are the source of water supply for urban, rural, livestock and industry. Coastal villages’ water supplies are very sensitive to salt-water intrusion and flooding. Coastal and Marine Environment: Sea temperature rise has already had a negative effect on coral reefs and on the fisheries that they support. Temperature changes impact on food and nutrients supply, growth, survival, reproduction, prey-predator dynamics and habitat. There are increased instances of toxic algal blooms (e.g. red tide) and mangroves and sea grasses are being impacted through altered sediment budgets. Public Health: Malaria has now been observed at altitudes close to 2,000 meters in Eritrea; food insecurity has increased along with malnutrition, diarrhea is becoming more common as a result of contamination caused by flooding, droughts are creating difficulties for maintaining hygiene. Sanitation and solid waste management are other environmentally issues with public health related consequences that need to be addressed. Biodiversity 119. Eritrea is part of the Eastern African Highlands and Horn of Africa global biodiversity hotspot 15. In the Highlands, the foothills support woodland vegetation, while forests at slightly higher elevations are dominated by conifers. Above 3,000 meters, the Afro- alpine ecosystem consists of grassland and moorland, with an abundant herb layer, while the heath land scrub above this is dominated by heathers 16.The nation benefits from a highly diverse range of globally unique and significant terrestrial ecosystems. These include: East Sudanian savannah, Ethiopian/Eritrean highland forests, Ethiopian/Eritrean highland grasslands and woodlands, Ethiopian/Eritrean xeric 15 http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/africa/Pages/africa.aspx 16http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/africa/Eastern-Afromontane/Pages/default.aspx 33 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 grasslands and shrub, Somali Acacia-Commiphora bush and thickets, and Sahelian Acacia savannah. 120. Eritrea is also endowed with vast marine biodiversity resources with many considering the region one of the earth’s most important repositories of marine life. The country has nearly 2,000 km of relatively pristine Red Sea coastline (1,000 km mainland and 1,000 km of island) The warm temperatures of the Red Sea give it perhaps the world’s highest-level of endemism and the highest species diversity of any oceanic water body west of Indonesia. There are over 1,100 fish species and 44 genera of hard corals being recorded” 17. Around 18% of fish species and 20% of coral species are reported to be endemic to these waters 18. Eritrea’s thousands of kilometers of undeveloped and under-exploited coastal areas are defined by diverse mangrove, coral reef, sea grass and inter-tidal habitats. 121. It has been recognized that there are a total of 126 mammal species found in Eritrea. Of the 577 species of birds, around 320 are resident, where about 50% have historical breeding records, 195 are migrants and around 50 are recorded as breeding in Eritrea. Eritrea shares up to 13 species of endemic bird species with Ethiopia alone. There are a total of 90 reptiles and 19 amphibian species recorded, of which there are two possible endemic reptiles and one possible endemic amphibian. However, there is no comprehensive national checklist of species 19. Estimates suggest that there are threats to number of species: 19 fish, 10 mammal, 14 birds and 4 higher plant species 20. 122. Genetic erosion of potentially global significant agro-biodiversity is also occurring, as the species such as sorghum, barley and teff, which are most genetically diverse in the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands (DOE, NBSAP 2000), are being replaced by High Yielding Varieties as farmers attempt to compensate for the diminished productivity of an unhealthy ecosystem. 123. Many crops domesticated elsewhere have been introduced to Eritrea and now constitute staple food of the population. This means that Eritrea has given and received genetic materials. This calls for the orderly genetic materials sharing by following the legal national laws and policies, and international conventions and protocols. As millions of farmers in dry areas around the world depend on sorghum, barley and teff, the importance of maintaining the genetic bank of these crops for potentially useful characteristics should be very clear. Climate Change 17http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/11-25-13%20COUNICL%20DOCUMENT.pdf 18 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/11-25-13%20COUNICL%20DOCUMENT.pdf 19http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/erinc2.pdf 20 NBSAP 34 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 124. The Eritrean population is an agrarian society where the large majority directly depends on land resources for their livelihoods. Climate change and their vulnerability to it, present challenges to crop and vegetable farming and cultivation, livestock rearing, forestry conservation, water resource management, coastal and marine environmental protection and the safeguarding of public health. 125. Anthropogenic factors, both occurring at local and global levels are the main driving forces of the climate change in Eritrea. At the national level, greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities, forest activities, manure management, and methane emissions from livestock are contributory factors to climate change. Heavy dependence on biomass to meet household energy requirements has had an adverse effect on the forest cover of the country. In turn, this has resulted in desertification, degradation, diminishing biodiversity, reduction in grain yields, and a reduction in livestock production. 126. Eritrea's inventory of greenhouse gases (GHG), takes 1994 as the base year, and addresses emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Non-Methane Volatile Compounds, across six sectors: energy, transport, industry, agriculture, land use change and forestry, and municipal solid waste with the remainder coming from imported oil products (MOEM, 2012). The Second National Communication to the UNFCCC only reports emissions figures from the year 2000 and so figures from the World Resource Institute’s (WRI) ‘climate data explorer’ website have also been used (see Table 5 and Table 6). From the Second National Communication we know the dominant mode of transport in Eritrea is by road and in terms of energy consumption; road transport is the highest consumer of fossil fuel products. Of the total 1994 GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion, the transport sector accounted for 41%, energy sector 35 %, public and commercial sector 10 %; manufacturing and the residential sectors each accounted for 7% 21. 127. The 2nd National Communication also gives the values of CO2 emissions by sectors, with land use cover and forestry (LUCF) activities contributing highest to emissions. Eritrea heavily depends on biomass sources of energy and this has created a number of problems, including the following: • Fuel wood collection and illegal charcoal making which in turn aggravates deforestation and associated problems like soil erosion and land degradation; • Diversion of animal and crop residues for energy use deprive the soil of its organic nutrients sources and, hence reduces its productivity; 21 First National Communication to UNFCCC, 2001 35 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 • Greenhouse gas emission from smoke and other toxic materials from biomass burning in poorly ventilated houses which causes health hazards to women and children; and • Much time and effort is spent on collection of dwindling fuel wood. 128. There are approximately 1500 solar PV systems in the country, installed mainly for water pumping, power health centers, schools, communications, but this remains a minor factor in the larger energy balance. The total energy demand in 2000 was 628.6 ktoe, of which nearly 73.2% was consumed by the household sector, 11.7% by the public and commercial sectors, 12.1% for transportation and 2.8% by industry. Overall, 32% of the Eritrean population has access to electricity; 78% in urban areas compared to 3% in rural areas) (EDHS, 2004) 22. Rural households continue to get 95% of their energy from biomass sources, contributing to deforestation and desertification 23. Table 5: Emissions in Aggregated Values in CO2 Equivalent in Gt, 2000 GHG Source CO2 Equivalent Emissions % CO2 CH4 N2O Aggregated Fuel 586 168 0 754 6.2 Combustion Industrial 35 0 0 35 0.3 Processes Agriculture - 2793 310 3103 25.4 LUCF 8205 84 0 8289 67.8 Waste 0 42 0 42 0.3 TOTAL 8826 3087 310 12223 100 % 72.2 25.3 2.5 100 Source: Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, Note: units are million tons Table 6: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in Eritrea by Sector Year Energy Industria Agriculture Waste Land Use & Total Total GHG l Forestry GHG Emissions Processes (LUCF) Emission Exc. LUCF s Inc. LUCF 22 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/erinc2.pdf, p57 23 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/erinc2.pdf, p66 36 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 1990 - 0.00 2.81 0.35 - 5.15 5.15 1992 2.50 0.00 2.64 0.37 - 5.53 5.53 1994 2.83 0.02 2.48 0.39 0.97 6.68 5.71 1996 2.88 0.02 2.64 0.42 0.97 6.94 5.97 1998 2.34 0.02 3.13 0.47 0.97 6.95 5.97 2000 2.11 0.02 3.62 0.53 0.97 7.24 6.27 2002 2.13 0.02 3.48 0.57 0.95 7.06 6.11 2004 2.07 0.02 3.33 0.60 0.95 7.07 6.12 2006 1.84 0.02 3.28 0.64 0.95 6.76 5.81 2008 1.66 0.02 3.33 0.67 0.95 6.59 5.64 2009 1.63 0.02 3.35 0.69 0.95 6.67 5.72 2010 - - - - - 6.65 5.70 Source: CAIT 2.0, WRI’s climate data explorer (accessed Dec 15th 2013) Note: Units are in MtCO2e – Megatons of CO2 equivalent Figure 3: GHG Emissions by Sector (MtCO2e) 8 Energy 7 Industrial Processes 6 5 Agriculture 4 Waste 3 Land Use and Forestry 2 (LUCF) 1 Total GHG Emissions 0 Including LUCF Total GHG Emissions 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Excluding LUCF Source: CAIT 2.0, WRI’s climate data explorer (accessed Dec 15th 2013) Note: MtCO2e – Megatons of CO2 equivalent Land Degradation 129. It is estimated that over 80% of the country’s rural population depends on land resources for its livelihood. Land degradation, however, has become a severe problem. At present, the degraded area covers 2.4 million hectares, constituting 19% of the total area of the country. Soil loss in the Central Highland Agricultural Ecological Zone is between 2 and 2.5 tons of soil per hectare annually. Productivity levels are declining 37 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 drastically, including crop and livestock yields, and water is becoming increasingly scarce (UNDP, 2009). 130. The root causes of land degradation in Eritrea are related to, among others: (i) unsustainable agriculture, overgrazing and unsustainable use of forest resources; (ii) inappropriate resource management practices; (iii) inherently poor and infertile soils coupled with relatively limited rainfall and limited productivity; (iv) poor knowledge of alternative farming practices and over utilization of essential natural resources; (v) poorly established incentive measures for SLM that prohibits improved and sustainable use of land; (vi) A Land Proclamation and related regulations that are not fully and readily enforceable; (vi) land use planning that is not complete and uncoordinated; and (vii) inadequate information and knowledge management that acts as a barrier for a successful implementation of SLM programs in Eritrea. 131. According to the FAO, less than 2.1 million hectares (17%) in Eritrea has been assessed as having potential for rain fed and irrigated crop production (FAO, 1997). Much of the land surface of the country is better suited for pasture than farming. Next to the pastureland is land covered by woody vegetation which accounts for about 60.0% of the total landmass. The advent of Italian Colonialism resulted in significant deforestation. More recent significant effects of land use include urban spread, construction of roads and highways that result in accelerated soil erosion, soil degradation, salinity of soil – all contributing to the rapid spread of desertification. Table 7: Land Use in Eritrea Land Use Area (1,000 ha) Arable Cropland – Irrigated 22 Arable Cropland – Rain fed 417 Pasture 7,000 Forest and Woodland 737 Other (urban & barren land) 4,256 Source: Third National Report to UNCCD 132. Deforestation is another cause of concern, with forest cover falling to less than 1% as compared to 30% a century ago. Factors like agricultural expansion, increased firewood consumption, heavy livestock grazing, war and conflict and construction of traditional houses known as ‘Hidmo’ in rural areas are all associated with the loss of forest cover. 133. The major constraint facing soil conservation and water management have been the traditional land tenure system known as ‘Dessa’ System (village ownership). The Dessa system, while ensuring fair allocation of farm land to all members of the community, discourages longer term investment (either in farm structure or planting long-term 38 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 crops) because usufruct right is not more for seven years. The loss of productive land, in particular, is exacerbated by recurrent drought which has lasted for more than half century. Nonetheless, significant strides towards sustainability and environmental recovery have been made by the GOE, with support from the GEF, including reforestation programs and discouraging wood from being used as a fuel source. Persistent Organic Pollutants 134. POPs are chemical substances that are toxic, persist in the environment for long periods, and bio-accumulate as they move up the food chain. POPs pose risks to both human health and the environment. Evidence of long-range transportation of these substances to regions where they have never been used or produced, as well as the threats they pose to the environment of the Earth as a whole, have spurred the international community to call for urgent global actions to reduce and eliminate releases of these chemicals. FAO with funding from the Government of Japan and Netherlands as well as in kind contributions from FAO and the Government of Eritrea prepared a national inventory of POPs in Eritrea which was undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture. The registration status of the POPs was established in 2007 24 and is summarized in Table 8. Table 8: Summary of Pesticide Inventory in Eritrea Pesticides Tons Obsolete 335.4 Usable 56.0 Requires Testing 163.4 Total 554.8 Contaminated sites 21 Area of contaminated soil 1,400 m2 Contaminated materials 16 tons Sprayers 5,411 Empty containers 12,251 Source: National Implementation Plan (NIP) and Country Environnent and Social Assessment 135. The study showed that the major users of pesticides tend to be the parastatal farms, vector control authorities and migratory pest control operations. There is a general lack of awareness about pesticides and subsistence farmers will use any pesticide (frequently the wrong types) to tackle pest problems, and store empty containers inappropriately. The GEF supported inventory project gathered data on pesticides, veterinary pesticides, empty pesticide containers, contaminated materials (e.g. seeds and fertilizers), contaminated equipment (e.g. sprayers) and contaminated soils. The 24 POPs Inventory and CESA, 2007 and NIP, 2012 39 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 comparative risk analysis has identified 27 stores in total and 10 that should be prioritized for safeguarding. There are 21 contaminated locations, with a total area of 1,400 m2. The majority of the 5,411 sprayers recorded were in poor condition; less than 30% are usable. There are over 10,000 containers, which are also in generally poor condition. The condition and suitability of storage buildings are generally poor; 96% are located near to human settlement and 51% close to water sources. Table 9: Status of POPs in Eritrea, 2012 Status Inventory Results Main Source Trends Recommendations 335.4 T (obsolète) Contaminated soil Promotion of POPs management POP Not produced 56.0 T (usable) and materials; substitutes and guidelines; awareness Pesticides or used sprayers; containers alternatives (IPM) programs 163.4 T (for testing) 376 electrical Not transformers; Transformers and Poor storage; Environmental produced; capacitors prior to legislation; PCB PCBs 240 capacitors; 1998 electricity Potential for soil management plan for No law or system upgrade EEC contamination regulation 45+ tons of oil Composting; PCD 121 potential sources; Uncontrolled Knowledge gap on recycling; sanitary Dioxins& Illegal 352gmTEQ/annum domestic waste industrial processes; landfill; alternative Furans released burning (99%) low public awareness energy promotion 15 T/annum; Restricted Control of mosquitos, No risk assessment; Alternatives; DDT use; Imported 13,321 Kg (Active); bedbugs and head Reduced efficacy on improved monitoring since 1970 lice by MOH malaria; poor storage and storage 38,801 Kg (Obsolete) Source: National Implementation Plan (NIP), Eritrea, 2012 3.3 The Environmental Institutional, Policy and Legal Framework in Eritrea 136. The principles underlying the environmental legal and policy framework in Eritrea stem from the National Charter of the Popular Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and subsequently promulgated laws, proclamations, directives and legal notices, as well as international conventions and protocols that the country has acceded to. Following the attainment of its independence in 1993, Eritrea has been actively engaged in preparing and establishing environmental laws and regulations and promoting policies and strategies. 137. Eritrea is a signatory to a number of international conventions and protocols, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention for Combating Desertification (UNCCD). The participation of Eritrea in the implementation of national and regional environmental programs and projects reflects the extent to which the country views itself vulnerable to the vagaries of climate change and biodiversity 40 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 depletion, and other environmental hazards. The international conventions and protocols provide the forum for the country to express issues and grievances, as well as access to technical and financial resources to support the implementation of programs and projects. 138. Table 10 lays out the country’s major environmental frameworks and policy documents. At this juncture, it is important to note that several Eritrean environmental laws and by-laws are still in their draft form, albeit that they still serve as the basic framework from which action plans and strategies for environmental programs emanate. Table 10: Selected National Laws and Regulations on the Environment Law, Regulation or Policy Date of enactment/ amendment National Policy Documents Macro Policy, GOE 1994 National Constitution, GOE 1997 National Economic Policy Framework and Program (NEPFP), GOE 1998-2000 Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP), GOE 2003 The Five Year Indicative Development Plan (FYIDP), GOE 2009 Ten Year Long-Term Indicative Perspective Development Plan (TYIPDP), GOE 2009 Multi Focal Area / Cross-cutting National Environnemental Management Plan (NEMP), MOLWE 1995 National Environmental Assessment Procedures & Guidelines (NEAPG), MOLWE 1999 Environmental Law (Draft), MOLWE 2002 National Agricultural Development Strategy and Policy, MOA 1994/2005(draft) Forest and Wildlife Policy (Draft), MOA 2005 Agriculture Sector Policy (Draft), MOA 2006 Land Use Policy (Draft), MOLWE 2007 Water Policy, MOLWE 2010 Biodiversity National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (CBD), MOLWE 1996 Proclamation on Conservation of Biodiversity (draft) 1998 Forest and Wildlife Conservation and Development Proclamation No. 155, MOA 2006 Biosafety Policy Framework, MOLWE 2007 Climate Change and Energy Renewable Energy Sub-Sector Policy, MOME 1997 National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA), MOLWE (DOE) 2007 Land Degradation Land and Forest Tenure Proclamation No.58, MOLWE 1994 41 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Law, Regulation or Policy Date of enactment/ amendment Legal Notice No. 31, MOLWE 1997 Land Use Planning Regulatory Framework, MOLWE 1999 National Action Program (NAP) (UNCCD), MOA 2002 Integrated Water Resource Management, MOLWE (WRD) 2003 Water Law, Proclamation No. 162, MOLWE 2010 Five Year Action Plan for The Great Green Wall Initiative (Draft), MLWE 2011-2015 Ozone Depleting Substances ODS Terminal Phase-out Management Plan 2008 Regulation on Ozone Depleting Substances, MOLWE (DOE) 2010 Persistent Organic Pollutants Regs. for Importation, Handling, Use, Storage and Handling of Pesticides, MOA 2006 Draft Pesticides Proclamation 2008 National Implementation Plan on POPs (NIP) 2012 International Waters National Coastal Policy (draft), MOMR 2006 Note: MOMR - Ministry of Marine Resource, MOA – Ministry of Agriculture, MOLWE – Ministry of Land, Water and Environment, DOE – Department of Environment (MOLWE), WRD – Water Resources Department, GOE – Government of Eritrea Source: Eritrea CPE Country Environmental Legal Framework (CELF), Technical Document, Volume 2 The Institutional Framework: 139. The Ministry of Land, Water and Environment (MOLWE), established in 1992 is the primary GOE custodian of the country‘s natural resources entrusted with the developing the institutional framework for sustainable use of natural resources. Within the ministry, the Department of Environment (DOE), which shifted from the Ministry of Agriculture to MOLEW in 1997, is responsible for coordinating environmental actions in Eritrea. This is stated, in the concise mission statement of the NEMP, as “The Eritrean agency for the Environment is responsible for coordinating the protection and enhancement of Eritrea’s environment so that rapid social and economic development can be achieved in consonance with the rational and sustainable use of resources for current as well as future generations.” However the DOE has limited institutional, legal and technical capacity to tackle the huge task of dealing with the nation’s complex environmental problems and its management. 140. The Department of Environment has evolved over the past 15 years. It was once called the Eritrean Environment Agency. It had considerable statutory authority but virtually no enforcement power to influence other actors due in part to its newness and also to its 42 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 initial placement under the Ministry of Local Government. However the DOE’s new placement within the Ministry of Land, Water and Environment gives it a relatively better position from competing priorities. Because the MOLWE itself requires much needed institutional strengthening and capacity building, its full potential has also yet to be realized. The Policy Framework 141. The Government of Eritrea has developed several policy documents aimed at stimulating economic growth and the conservation of environment and natural resources having regional, national and global significance. Institutional structures are also changing constantly to cope with new challenges and demands. 142. The Macro-Policy Document (GOE, 1994) outlines the background for Eritrea's national economic growth strategy and pursues the guiding principles of human-centered, efficient, sustainable and equitable development. In apparent recognition of the importance of environment in national development, it has devoted a separate chapter on minimizing the potential environmental consequences of development decisions. Further, in 1997, the Eritrean Constitution (Article8, Sub-Article3) affirmed the need to pursue a sustainable use of natural resources. 143. The National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) for Eritrea (DOE, 1995) provides the basic policy document for action in the environmental sector and lays out a strategy for action for conservation activities. The plan comprises four parts: environmental and developmental prospects for Eritrea, the major environmental and development issues confronting Eritrea, the major steps and responses involved in an integrated environmental and development planning process, requirements for implementation of the plan and its associated project activities, institutional prerequisites, and financial/human resources. 144. The Ministry of Land, Water and Environment in collaboration with other relevant government agencies has put considerable effort in developing a system of National Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures and Guidelines (NEAPG) (DOE, 1999) suitable to the Eritrean conditions. However complete enforcement of EIA is outstanding, since the Environmental Law has not yet been promulgated, except in the mining and petroleum sectors. 145. The GOE has developed an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) (GOE, 2003) which lays out a macroeconomic framework and steps to create the conditions for resuming rapid economic growth, and policies and programs for poverty reduction. Among others, this document recognizes the negative impact of forest/habitat destruction. In order to prevent further deforestation, the paper identifies improved forest and wildlife legal and policy frameworks, enhancing conservation measures, undertaking a forest resources inventory, accelerating participatory afforestation programs. 43 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 146. The Ministry of National Development of the GOE produced the National Development Planning Framework in February 2009. In reference to environmental policy, it clearly stipulates that environmental issues should be mainstreamed in all development policies, plans, programs and projects and ensure adherence to strict environmental standards protecting, restoring and enhancing the country‘s environment (land, water and air). 147. The Five Year Indicative Development Plan (FYIDP) (2009-2013), which was prepared immediately after the Planning Framework, has devoted an entire chapter for environmental issues and management. It states that “economic development, should be environmentally sustainable, and that economic growth and development must be achieved without damaging the overall ecosystem on which posterity depends”. 148. During the five year period (2009-2013) of the FYIDP, it is stipulated that concerted national efforts shall be made to protect, restore and enhance Eritrea‘s environmental, natural and cultural assets in all sectors, including: (i) prevention of further land degradation through erosion and to maintain the fertility and productive capacity of land resources, such as afforestation, terracing, and land retirement, avoidance of overgrazing, adoption of improved agricultural practices, etc.; (ii) adapting and implementing the draft MCP and ICAM in order to protect marine and coastal resources; (iii) protecting, properly managing and further enhancing the flora and fauna of the Gash-Barka grasslands and the Semenawi Bahri National Park; and, last but not least (iv) protecting and restoring Eritrea’s historical, religious and art-deco heritage. 149. Toward achieving Eritrea‘s environmental goals, the FYIDP stipulates the following measures to undertaken during the plan period and beyond: (i) comprehensive national baseline data on the environment shall be prepared; (ii) legal provisions reviewed to determine their adequacy and supplemented if needed; (iii) land use classification and land use maps developed to promote sound land use management; (iv) alternative renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, shall be harnessed and developed; (v) non-wood construction materials developed to prevent further depletion of forest resources; (vi) establishment of appropriate vehicle emission standards, inspection procedures, and enforcement capacities; and (vii) environmental protection, restoration and enhancement measures shall be mainstreamed in all investments and development programs by requiring appropriate environmental impact assessments, provision of mitigation measures and effective enforcement mechanisms for compliance with established national standards. The Legal Framework 150. The legal framework for environmental management has yet to be formalized meaning an overall environmental law has not yet been promulgated. This has been identified repeatedly over the years as a serious impediment to the effective functioning of the 44 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 DOE, yet the process of drafting and redrafting the environmental legal framework continues. While the immediate causes for the delay may not be apparent, it is clear that the lack of consensus on what should be included and the level of detail regarding regulatory procedures have hindered finalization. Inconsistency with existing legislation may also pose problems, particularly with regards to the roles and responsibilities of different ministries and departments. The lack of approved national and sectoral environmental laws and the slow implementation of the Land Proclamation of 1994 are still regarded as serious constraints to the implementation of environmental policies and reinforcement of regulations. This sub-section outlines some of the focal area policies, plans, strategies and regulations. 151. Biodiversity: The overall goal of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (1996, MOLWE) is to “restore, conserve and manage Eritrea’s bio-diversity so that it provides environmental services and natural resources that contribute to sustainable and socially fair national economic development”. It lists a comprehensive set of actions to be taken in the area of biodiversity. The Wildlife Conservation and Development Proclamation (2006, MOA), stipulates the establishment of a system of Protected Areas to protect and conserve wildlife and forest cover through a program of reforestation and the identification of endangered and indigenous trees and wildlife. The Biosafety Policy Framework (2007, MOLWE) aims to promote biotechnology research and development for the conservation and sustainable use of biotechnology, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of biological diversity. 152. Climate Change: The objectives of the Renewable Energy Sub-Sector Policy (1997, MOME) include the promotion of sustainable biomass fuels and appropriate alternatives, and to exploit renewable energy potential. Eritrea’s National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) (2007) identified 102 climate change adaptation projects to be prioritized. 153. Land Degradation: The GOE began developing a system of legislation addressing land degradation in 1994 with the Land and Forrest Tenure Proclamation, which established the land tenures system in Eritrea. Legal Notice no. 31 of 1997 followed by providing the legal basis for methods of land allocation and administration. It is particular pertinent for areas which are to be set aside as protected areas, national parks, or for forestation programs. The Land Use Planning Regulatory Framework, in 1999, prescribed land-use planning on the basis on the 8 classifications of land-use laid out within it. The Integrated Water Resources Management (2003) and Water Law Proclamation (2010) aimed to lay the foundations for the sustainable use of water resources through conservation, studies and documentation, and sensitization. Finally, Eritrea’s Five Year Action Plan (2011-2015) for the multinational Great Green Wall Initiative (Draft) is aimed at fighting the advancement of the Sahara Desert through mitigation and desertification of land degradation and desertification. 45 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 154. Other: In 2006, considering the significant environmental, natural and cultural assets contained along the coastal areas, the Government completed the preparation of a draft National Coastal Policy (NCP). The primary purpose of the NCP is to protect the environment and to promote sound use of these assets. 155. The Pesticide Regulations (2006) attempts to reduce the negative environmental and human health impact of pesticides by putting in place measures, such as a pesticide registration system and regulations for packaging, labeling, advertising, transport, use and disposal. 156. Regarding ODS, Eritrea is supported by the Multilateral Fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which is outside the GEF trust fund. The National Ozone Unit (NOU) under the Division of Environmental Resource Assessment and Information coordinates the enforcement of the ozone depleting substances (ODS) regulation and is responsible for the implementation of projects to phase out the use of ODS in Eritrea, as well as for raising awareness to general public on ozone and climate change issues. 157. The ODS licensing system for Eritrea was agreed in August 2010 after the Regulation for the issuance of quotas for importation/exportation of ODS as well as products containing ODS was published in the national gazette. Regulations on Ozone Depleting Substances (2010) made provisions for the tracking and limiting of imports and exports, a permit system, promotion of ozone friendly products, and the phase-out of ODSs. 158. In 2012, on behalf of the Government of Eritrea UNEP, as the lead implementing agency, submitted to the Multilateral Fund stage I of an hydrochlorfluorocarbons (HCFC) phase- out management plan 159. In addition, the Government has taken practical measures to protect the environment by designating a number of national parks, regulating forest off-take, banning the use of plastic bags, distributing the improved traditional energy saving baking and cooking stove (Adhanet mogogo). International Environmental Conventions and Agreements 160. Eritrean environmental laws and national and sectoral policies and strategies are in harmony with the international treaties and conventions. Eritrea has ratified the conventions listed in Table 11, whose international principles have been translated into national laws and regulations. 46 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 11: International Conventions and Agreements Ratified or Signed by Eritrea Date of Signed by Responsible Convention Signature Authority Multi Focal / Cross-Cutting Biodiversity United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) – 12/09/1995 1996 MOLWE Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the UNCBD 2005 MOLWE Conservation on Migratory Species (CMS) of Wild Animal 2005 MOA International Plant Protection Convention 2001 World Heritage Convention on Nature and Culture Sites under UNESCO 2001 MOEM International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2002 MOA MOU on conservation of marine Turtle in IOSEA 2006 MOMR MOU conservation and management of sea cow (Dugongs), in the Indian 2007 MOMR Ocean, the Red sea and western pacific. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora MOA 1995 MOLWE and Fauna (CITES) Climate Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1995 MOLWE Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC 2005 MOLWE Land Degradation United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), 1996 MOA 14/10/1995 Ozone Depleting Substances Vienna Convention for the protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) 2005 MOLWE Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) 2005 MOLWE Persistent Organic Pollutants Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movement of 2005 MOLWE Hazardous Waste and their Disposal Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) for Certain 2005 MOLWE Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 2005 MOLWE FAO Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides 2008 MOA The Role of GEF Support in the Development of the Legal and Policy Framework 161. As early as 1993, in the National Charter, macro-policy documents and in the national constitution (1997), the Government clearly articulated its development vision, environmental agenda, and policy of cooperation with development partners and 47 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 donors. These three documents, in particular, have enabled the GOE to be ‘in the driver’s seat’ and, as such, it is playing a proactive role in national environmental management endeavors. Under this backdrop, the following paragraphs will review the extent of the GEF’s influence on Eritrea’s environmental legal and policy environment. Biodiversity 162. Eritrea became a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 21 March 1996. The development of a biodiversity strategy was identified as a priority in the National Environmental Management Plan for Eritrea (NEMP-E) of 1995. Therefore, the GEF provided enabling activity (GEF ID 137) support to help Eritrea in developing its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), which was endorsed in March 2000 and approved by the Government in June 2000. The development of the NBSAP was in compliance with Articles 6 and 8 of the CBD, and acts as a means of identifying priority actions for biodiversity conservation and management. In addition, the project provided resources to the Government to prepare its First National Report (FNR) to the COP, and so enhanced the capacity of numerous stakeholders in various fields related to biodiversity for the identification of priority areas for conservation and management. The report was finalized in December 1997 and submitted to the CBD in early 1998. 163. The GEF provided enabling activity support to create an enabling environment for the Government to implement the NBSAP (GEF ID 1506). The objectives of the project were: to assess the country's capacity building needs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources; to establish a clearing house mechanism for better management of biodiversity information; and to organize national consultations for the preparation of a second national report to the CBD, which was finalized in March 2003. 164. Looking forward, a Biodiversity Full Size Project (Enabling Activity (GEF ID 5389) for a GEF grant of $US220, 000 has been CEO approved and has the overarching goal of integrating CBD obligations into national planning processes. The objectives of the project are to enable Eritrea to revise and update its National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and to develop the Fifth National Report to the CBD. 165. Furthermore, Eritrea also deposited its instrument of accession to the Cartagena Protocol on 10 March 2005, which then entered into force on 8 June 2005. The GEF has received CEO approval to provide support to the preparation of the Second National Biosafety Reports to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. According to Biosafetyscanner.org, the report was published in December 2012. The GEF has also recently approved another Enabling Activity for Eritrea: Support to Eritrean for the Revision of the NBSAP and Development of the Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (GEF ID 5389) with UNEP. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 48 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 166. On 24 April 1995, Eritrea acceded to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which then entered into force on 23 July 1995. Under one project (GEF ID 278), the GEF provided enabling activity support for Eritrea to prepare its First National Communication (FNC) in response to its commitments under the convention. The communication provided GHG emissions estimates, climate change vulnerabilities, as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies, and was submitted on 16 September 2002. 167. The GEF also provided support (GEF ID 1959) towards the development of Eritrea’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). The primary goal of the NAPA process is to broadly communicate to the international community priority activities that address Eritrea’s urgent needs for adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change. The NAPA was finalized and submitted to the UNFCCC in May 2007. 168. After submitting its Second National Communication (SNC) on 10 August 2012, the GEF FSP (ID 5119) received CEO endorsement in 2013 and is aimed at supporting Eritrea to formulate and prepare its Third National Communication. The project will seek to strengthen the information base and institutional capacity of the national institutions involved in the development of national communications in order to integrate climate change priorities into development strategies and relevant sector programs. The programme will also support the organization of nationally and sub-regionally funded workshops to train country teams on key components of the national reporting and on mainstreaming climate change into national and sectoral planning frameworks. Land Degradation 169. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was adopted in June 1994 and Eritrea became the 39th country to ratify the convention on 14 August 1996. Through the regional MSP (ID 2469), the GEF supported capacity building in Eritrea for the development of its National Report and Country Profile submitted to the UNCCD. Under Global MSP (ID 5136), the GEF will provide support to Eritrea for the alignment of the National Action Program (NAP) and reporting process under the UNCCD. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 170. On 10 March 2005, Eritrea acceded to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). However as yet, it has not submitted a National Report in pursuance to Article 15 of the Convention. The GEF provided enabling activity support to Eritrea, to facilitate early action on the implementation of the Stockholm Convention. The overall objective of the project was to strengthen the national capacity and capability of Eritrea to prepare a National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the management of POPs. This plan will provide a basic and essential level of information to enable policy and strategic decisions to be made. The NIP was finalized in June 2012. 49 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 171. In 2005, Eritrea also ratified the two sibling conventions of the Stockholm Convention. The ‘Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal’ was adopted by the parties on 22 March 1989. The text of the ‘Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade’ was adopted by the COP on 10 September 1998. The synchronicity of Eritrea’s signature of the three conventions highlighted the issue of hazardous chemicals as a growing priority on the country’s environmental agenda. Eritrea Environmental Legal and Policy Framework: Gaps and Challenges 172. Notwithstanding the broad reach of Eritrea’s environmental policy and legal framework in terms of the issues covered and the lessons to be factored when preparing future plans, there are several implementation challenges which the country faces. These are briefly highlighted in the following section. • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): The major weakness are the legal provisions for EIA, the adequacy of human and environmental data information, the centrality of EIA in decision making, and formal provision of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of programs, plans and policies. • The draft nature of legal and policy instruments: Some are in their draft form for almost a decade - for example the Environmental Law. • Laws and regulations are poorly implemented / enforced: Major reasons, include lack of detailed implementation procedures and guidelines, i.e., any legal instrument will require well prepared and binding instruments that guide not only implementation but also non- compliance. • Inadequate sensitization and awareness raising campaigns: Sensitization to the public and awareness raising to key stakeholders are two key elements that are needed for the effective and efficient implementation of any legal framework • Exchange of experience and information sharing: Information sharing and exchange of experiences play a critical role in the preparation of an effective and efficient legal instrument. • Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): There is a need for simple and clear M&E instruments with simple and achievable indicators and parameters. • Capacity Limitations: In most governmental institution there are few experts with the requisite capacity to prepare legal documents and guides, particularly in the area of environment. The condition is exacerbated when local and/or international consultants, with limited capacity are recruited to do the job. 50 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Figure 4: Timeline illustrating linkage between timing of national Legislation and Policies, international environmental agreements, and GEF projects in Eritrea 51 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 4. The GEF Portfolio in Eritrea 173. This chapter presents an overview of GEF support to Eritrea in terms of financial resources and number of projects, according to project modality, GEF focal area, GEF implementing agency and/or national executing agency, and GEF phase. It also highlights the GEF support provided to the Small Grants Programme (SGP) and regional and global projects that Eritrea is involved with. Finally, it examines the roles and responsibilities among different stakeholders in project formulation and implementation and the GEF’s national focal point mechanism. 4.1 Defining the GEF Portfolio 174. The GEF portfolio for the Eritrea CPE takes into account all national projects that had been submitted to the GEF up to June 30, 2012. This includes proposals that are at a pre-approval stage, projects that have been approved but with implementation yet to start, projects under implementation and projects that have been completed and closed. In addition, it also includes activities supported through the GEF’s Small Grants Programme (SGP), administered by the UNDP. 175. To identify these activities, data on GEF projects was downloaded from the GEF PMIS. Data on SGP grants in Eritrea was requested from the Eritrea National Coordinator of the SGP. The project list generated through the PMIS was then shared with the GEF Operational Focal Point in Eritrea and the various GEF Agencies for vetting. Additionally, the portfolio was also vetted through triangulation with other information sources available including documents available through PMIS. 176. Through this iterative process, the data sets were updated, missing projects were identified and a final list of 12 national projects and 22 SGP grants relevant to the Eritrea CPE was prepared. It is estimated that GEF has allocated US$ 22.8 million for the national projects. These activities involved aggregate co-financing commitments of US$ 41.5 million from other partner organizations. Table 12 presents an overview of the GEF Portfolio in Eritrea in terms of the number of projects by focal area, the GEF support and co-financing. The analysis of the GEF portfolio in Eritrea includes 12 national projects with various operational statuses. 8 have been completed or closed, 3 are under implementation, and 1 is in the process of approval. There have been projects in each of the 5 GEF replenishment cycles so far; 3 projects came under GEF-1, 1 under GEF-2, 3 under GEF-3, 4 under GEF-4, and 1 under GEF-5 to date. The number of regional projects supported by the GEF in the Eritrea portfolio is 7, while the number of relevant global projects is 3. 52 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 4.2 Activities in the GEF Portfolio Table 12: GEF-Supported National Projects in Eritrea GEF Name Focal Type Agency GEF GEF Grant Cofinancing ID Area Phase (US$) (US$) Complete 137 National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan BD EA WB GEF - 1 275,000 0 and First National Report 278 Enabling Eritrea to Prepare its First CC EA UNDP GEF - 1 303,850 - National Communication in Response to its Commitments to UNFCCC 411 Conservation Management of Eritrea's BD FSP UNDP GEF - 1 4,986,000 840,000 Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity 1136 Wind Energy Applications CC FSP UNDP GEF - 3 1,950,561 2,935,536 1506 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for BD EA WB GEF - 2 170,000 15,000 Biodiversity, Participation in Clearing House Mechanism and Preparation of Second National Report (add on) 1584 National Capacity Self - Assessment (NCSA) MFA EA UNEP GEF - 3 198,000 20,000 for Global Environmental Management 1959 Development of a National Adaptation CC EA UNDP GEF - 3 200,000 17,600 Program of Action (NAPA) 3139 Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early POPs EA UNIDO GEF - 4 346,500 35,000 Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs Under Implementation 3362 SIP-Catchments and Landscape LD FSP IFAD GEF – 4 4,350,000 21,678,000 Management 3364 SIP-Sustainable Land Management Pilot LD FSP UNDP GEF – 4 1,820,000 2,250,000 Project 3987 Eritrea: Prevention and Disposal of POPs POP FSP FAO GEF – 4 2,150,000 3,209,153 and Obsolete Pesticides Pipeline 4559 Operationalization of Protected Areas BD FSP UNDP GEF - 5 5,878,000 10,555,400 Management Systems of Eritrea 5389 Support to Eritrea for the Revision of the BD EA UNEP GEF-5 220,000 216,000 25 NBSAPs and Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD TOTAL 22,777,91 41,555,689 1 Note: BD = biodiversity, CC = climate change, LD = land degradation, MFA = multi focal area, POPs = persistent organic pollutants, EA = enabling activity, MSP = medium size projects, FSP = full size project. 25 This project entered the pipeline after cut-off for the evaluation portfolio. It is thus mentioned but not considered in the analysis. 53 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 GEF Support by Modality 177. Table 13: GEF Support to National Projects by Modality (in USD) and Figure 5 show financing for national projects by modality. There are 6 Enabling Activities (EAs), having GEF contributions of $1.49 million, and 6 Full Size Projects (FSPs) having GEF contributions of $21.13 million; 93.4% of the total GEF contribution. The Eritrea portfolio has no Medium Size Projects. This suggests a unique and key role that GEF support has played in helping Eritrea to develop an enabling environment in support of other activities. Table 13: GEF Support to National Projects by Modality (in USD) Project Modality No. of GEF Grant Cofinancing % of GEF % of Cofinancing Projects (USD) (USD) Grant Cofinancin Ratio g Enabling Activities (EA) 6 1,493,350 87,600 6.6 0.2 0.03 Full Size Projects (FSP) 6 21,134,561 41,468,089 93.4 99.8 1.96 Total 12 22,777,911 41,555,689 100 100 Figure 5: GEF Support to National Projects by Modality GEF Support by Project Cycle Status and GEF Phase 178. Table 14 summarizes the GEF grants allocated to projects according to their current status – completed/closed, under implementation and in pipeline. All projects belong to GEF phases from GEF-1 to GEF-5, with no projects from the initial pilot phase. There is currently 1 project is in the pipeline, 8 projects have been completed, and 3 projects from GEF-4 are under implementation. In GEF-5 there were 2 projects initiated: Support to Eritrea for the Revision of the NBSAPs and Development of Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity 54 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 (CBD) GEF ID (5389) a GEF Enabling Activity with a grant of $USD 220,000. The remainder of the Eritrean $USD 7 million is allocated to Operationalization of Protected Areas Management Systems of Eritrea (GEF ID 4559). Table 14: GEF Support by Project Status Under Completed Pipeline Total Implementation GEF Phase Grant Grant Grant Grant No. No. No. No. (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) Pilot Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GEF 1 3 5,564,850 0 0 0 0 3 5,564,850 GEF 2 1 170,000 0 0 0 0 1 170,000 GEF 3 3 2,348,561 0 0 0 0 3 2,348,561 GEF 4 1 346,500 3 8,320,000 1 2,150,000 4 8,666,500 GEF 5 0 0 0 0 2 6,028,000 1 6,028,000 Total 8 8,429,911 3 8,320,000 1 8,178,000 12 22,777,911 4.3 GEF Support by Implementing Agency 179. GEF projects in Eritrea have been implemented by a combination of 6 of the 10 GEF Agencies operating globally. A detailed distribution of project coverage by implementing agency is presented in Table 15. In terms of the number of projects, UNDP is the leading implementing agency with 6 projects (50%), followed by the World Bank with 2 projects (17%). The other four Agencies – UNEP, UNIDO, FAO and IFAD – have 1 project each. However, in terms of GEF grants, the picture is slightly different. UNDP manages approximately 66% of funds, whereas FAO and IFAD manage around 10% and 19% of GEF grants respectively. This highlights the differences in scale of the projects that Agencies are implementing. Table 15: GEF support to National Projects by Implementing Agency and Project Status Completed Under Implementation Pipeline Total Agenc y No Grant Cofinance No Grant Cofinance No Grant Cofinance No Grant Cofinance UNDP 4 7,440,411 3,793,136 1 1,820,000 2,250,000 1 5,878,000 10,555,400 6 15,138,411 16,598,536 UNEP 1 198,000 20,000 - - - 1 220,000 216,000 2 418,000 236,000 UNIDO 1 346,500 35,000 - - - - - - 1 346,500 35,000 FAO - - - 1 2,150,000 3,209,153 - - - 1 2,150,000 3,209,153 WB 2 445,000 15,000 - - - - - - 2 445,000 15,000 IFAD - - - 1 4,350,000 21,678,000 - - - 1 4,350,000 21,678,000 Total 8 8,429,91 3,863,13 3 8,320,00 27,137,15 1 6,028,00 10,555,40 12 22,777,91 41,555,68 55 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 9 Note: All Grant and Cofinancing figures are in USD 180. Table 16 below, shows GEF support by Agency in the various focal areas. The UNDP has largely been involved in biodiversity and climate change, whereas the World Bank focused solely on biodiversity. UNIDO and the FAO have been involved with one POPs project each, and UNEP and IFAD have managed one project each; multi focal and land degradation, respectively. Table 16: Number of Projects by Focal Area managed by each Implementing Agency Agency BD CC LD POPs MFA UNDP 2 3 1 UNEP 1 UNIDO 1 FAO 1 WB 2 IFAD 1 Total 4 3 2 2 1 4.4 GEF Support by Focal Area 181. Table 17presents an overview of the number of GEF projects, the value of GEF grants, and the amount of co-financing by focal area in Eritrea. Together, the projects from Biodiversity (33%, 4 projects) and Climate Change (25%, 3 projects) focal areas comprise 58.3% of the total GEF national projects. These are followed by Land Degradation and POPs (17%, 2 projects each), and Multi Focal Area (8%, 1 project). 182. In terms of GEF grants, biodiversity accounts for 50% of the total portfolio, making it the largest focal area in the Eritrean portfolio. This is followed by land degradation with 27%, climate change with 11%, Persistent Organic Pollutants with 11% and a finally, multi focal area project with around 1%. Regarding co-financing, land degradation has been able to generate almost $4 for each $1 of GEF grants available as a result of bundling with an IFAD loan. 56 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 17: GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area Focal area No. of GEF Grant Co-financing % GEF % Co- Projects (USD) (USD) Grant financing Biodiversity 4 11,309,000 11,410,400 50.0 27.5 Climate Change 3 2,454,411 2,953,136 10.8 7.1 Land Degradation 2 6,170,000 23,928,000 27.3 57.6 Multi Focal Area 1 198,000 20,000 0.9 0.0 POP 2 2,496,500 3,244,153 11.0 7.8 Total 12 22,777,911 41,555,689 100 100 Figure 6: GEF Support and Co-financing to National Projects in Eritrea by Focal Area 183. Table 18 and Figure 7 illustrate GEF support towards each focal area by project status. To date, the completed projects are 3 under biodiversity, 3 under climate change, 1 multi focal area and 1 under POPs. Those currently under implementation are 2 land degradation and 1 POPs, whilst there is a further 1 biodiversity project currently in the pipeline. Table 18: GEF Support by Focal Area and Project Status Under Completed Pipeline Total Implementation Focal Area GEF Co- GEF Co- GEF Co- GEF No No. No. No. Co-finance Grant finance Grant finance Grant finance Grant Biodiversity 3 5.43 0. 85 - - - 2 5.88 10.55 4 11.31 11.41 Climate Change 3 2.45 2.95 - - - - - - 3 2.45 2.95 Land Degradation - - - 2 6.17 23.93 - - - 2 6.18 23.93 Multifocal Area 1 0. 20 0.02 - - - - - - 1 0.19 0.02 POP 1 0.35 0.035 1 2.15 3.21 - - - 2 2.49 3.24 Total 8 8.23 3.855 3 8.32 27.14 1 5.88 10.55 12 22.62 41.555 57 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Note: Values are in millions USD Figure 7: Focal Area and Implementation Status wise distribution of GEF Projects 184. Table 19 and Figure 8 illustrate the levels of GEF support towards each focal area according to the 5 GEF replenishment phases. Initially, during GEF-1 and GEF-2, biodiversity and climate change were the only two focal areas to receive GEF support. However, as the GEF and national agendas evolved, GEF-3 saw the start of support towards multi focal projects, and GEF-4 brought in 2 projects each under land degradation and POPs. As Table 19 shows, most GEF support has gone to the Biodiversity focal area ($11.3m), followed by land degradation ($6.2m). It is also of note that funding has tended to increase across the 5 GEF phases, although there was very little funding during GEF-2 ($0.17m). 185. During GEF-5, the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR), which replaced the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF), determines the amount of resources that a given country can access in a replenishment period. Under the new system, Eritrea, having access to less than US$ 7 million, is able to allocate all of the available funds to one focal area. That being the case, it was decided that all funds would be directed towards a single biodiversity project which explains the lack of diversity in the GEF-5 portfolio. 58 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 19: GEF Support by Focal Area across each GEF Phase Climate Land Multi Focal Biodiversity POPs Total GEF Change Degradation Area Phase GEF No GEF Grant No GEF Grant No GEF Grant No No GEF Grant No GEF Grant Grant Pilot - - - - - - - - - - - - GEF 1 2 5,261,000 1 303,850 - - - - - - 3 5,564,850 GEF 2 1 170,000 - - - - - - - - 1 170,000 GEF 3 - - 2 2,150,561 - - 1 198,000 - - 3 2,348,561 GEF 4 - - - - 2 6,170,000 - - 2 2,496,500 4 8,666,500 GEF 5 1 6,028,000 - - - - - - - - 1 6,028,000 Total 4 11,309,000 3 2,454,411 2 6,170,000 1 198,000 2 2,496,500 12 22,777,911 Figure 8: GEF Funding to Focal Areas by GEF Phase 4.5 Small Grants Programme (SGP) 186. Since beginning operations in 2009, the Small Grants Programme has provided support to 22 community based activities. The GEF SGP in Eritrea has received financial support totaling US$ 1,034,998, covering the focal areas of Land Degradation, Climate Change Mitigation, and Biodiversity. It leveraged an intended US$ 433,883 in cash co-financing and US$ 1,522,323 in in-kind resources for a total of 22 projects executed by civil society and community-based organizations. The SGP program in Eritrea has predominantly supported Land Degradation projects, with US$607,316 amounting to 59% of the portfolio. In terms of focal area, of the 22 59 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 projects, 14 are focused on land degradation, 2 on climate change mitigation, 2 on biodiversity, and 4 are multi-focal area 26. Figure 9: SGP Portfolio by Focal Area SGP Country Portfolio by Focal Area Multifocal Biodiversity, Climate Area, 59,479 , 6% Change 171,186 , Mitigation, 16% 197,017 , 19% Land Degradation, 607,316 , 59% Source: UNDP-SGP Website, Eritrea, Accessed Dec 11th 2013 4.6 Regional and Global Projects 187. Eritrea has so far had a significant involvement in GEF-supported regional and global activities, with 12 projects having components relevant to Eritrea; 10 regional and 2 global. In the case of regional projects, it is often impossible to determine how much funding benefitted any individual country. While a country may participate substantially in some of these projects (for example, where it has a pilot project or operational project office), in others it may be very lightly involved. The figures for regional projects therefore simply show that the country has had some level of participation in a range of more or less major international projects. 188. Table 20 summarizes these projects by project status, along with details on focal area, implementing agency, GEF phase and financing amounts. In terms of focal area, there have been 3 projects under climate change, 3 under land degradation, 2 under biodiversity, 2 under POPs, 1 under international waters, and one 1 project was multi-focal area. The total GEF grant provided along with co-financing to Eritrea cannot be accurately calculated as the exact dollar figure benefitting Eritrea are not available for all global regional projects. Moreover, the global/regional projects also take count of grants already considered under the national portfolio, e.g. regional project “SIP PROGRAM: Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub- Saharan Africa (SIP” ) GEF ID 2757 translates to the two SLM projects (UNDP and IFAD) in the Eritrea national portfolio. 26 https://sgp.undp.org/index.php?option=com_sgpprojects&view=allprojects&Itemid=211&paging=1 60 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 20: Regional and Global GEF Projects relevant to Eritrea GEF ID Title Focal Type Agency Regional Phase GEF Grants Cofinancing Area /Global Complete 1094 Nile Transboundary IW FSP WB/ Regional GEF-2 16,800,000 93,700,000 Environmental Action Project, UNDP Tranche 1 1513 Building Sustainable Commercial CC MSP UNEP Regional GEF-3 693,600 539,630 Dissemination Networks for Household PV Systems in Eastern Africa 2469 Supporting Capacity Building for LD MSP WB Regional GEF-3 900,000 900,000 the Elaboration of National Reports and Country Profiles by African Parties to the UNCCD Under Implementation 1028 Mainstreaming Conservation of BD FSP UNDP Regional GEF-3 6,243,243 4,887,232 Migratory Soaring Birds into Key Productive Sectors along the Rift Valley/Red Sea Flyway (Tranches 1 and 2) 1331 Demonstrating Cost-effectiveness POP FSP UNEP Regional GEF-3 3,460,296 2,966,950 and Sustainability of Environmentally-sound and Locally Appropriate Alternatives to DDT for Malaria Control in Africa 3707 Piloting Integrated Processes and MFA MSP UNEP Global GEF-4 840,000 800,880 Approaches to Facilitate National Reporting to Rio Conventions Pipeline 2757 SIP PROGRAM: Strategic LD FSP WB/ Regional GEF-4 122,998,091 978,426,000 Investment Program for SLM in UNDP Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) +more 4523 Support to Preparation of the BD MSP UNEP Regional GEF-5 993,950 840,000 Second National Biosafety Reports to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety-Africa 5119 Umbrella Programme for National CC FP UNEP Global GEF-5 6,180,000 1,098,000 Communication to the UNFCCC 5136 Support to 20 GEF Eligible Parties LD MSP UNEP Global GEF-5 1,000,000 1,000,000 for Alignment of National Action Programs and Reporting Process under UNCCD, Add-on Umbrella 2 Dropped, Cancelled or Rejected 2119 African Rift Geothermal CC FSP UNEP/W Regional GEF-3 4,750,000 74,261,652 Development Facility (ARGeo) B 3988 ASP2 Program: Africa Stockpiles POP FSP WB/FAO Regional GEF-4 - - Programme - Phase 2 61 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 4.7 Roles and Responsibilities Among Different Stakeholders in Project Implementation 189. There are GEF Steering Committees and Technical Committees established at the national and regional levels. The GEF steering committee at the national level mainly deals with policy guidance and endorsement of programs and projects, and its members include ministers and DGs from main stakeholders, i.e., MOLWE, MOA, MOE, MOEM and MOMR. They should meet once a year but meetings can also be held whenever urgent issues arise. The technical committee, on the other hand, is scheduled to meet regularly every three months, although as told to Evaluators, in practice this has not always been the case. 190. The number and composition of the technical committee at the national level differs from one focal area to another as depicted in Table 21. Technical committee at the regional level are also composed of Directors of line ministries in the region. Table 21: Technical Committee Members by Focal Area No. Focal Area National level 1. BD MOA, MOLWE, MOMR, MOEM, MOTI, NBHE, MOTC, NUEW 2. CC MOLWE, MOA, MOEM, MOTI, MOTC, NBHE 3. LD MOA, MOLWE, MOMR, MOC, MOTC, NUEW 4. POPs MOA, MOLWE, MOIT, MOTC, MOME, MOH, Private sector (service garages, industries, etc.) Source: Interview with the DG for Environment 191. National level technical committees coordinate project preparation, and resolve misunderstandings and potential conflict among members of stakeholders that may arise during planning, resource allocation and project preparation. They forward projects to the national level steering committee where they are endorsed. Technical committees also conduct visits to project sites and make on the spot decision whenever the need arises. 192. At the Zoba level, technical committees assume full responsibility for the coordination of GEF supported projects during implementation and follow-up. They meet every month and conduct regular field visits to project sites for adaptive management. 4.8 The GEF Focal Point Mechanism in Eritrea 193. GEF guidelines prescribe that there should be two focal points: one operational and one political. In Eritrea, both the political point (PFP) and operational focal point (OFP) are held by the Director General (DG) of the Department of Environment (DOE), which is under the Ministry of Land, Water and Environment. The DG has held this position since 2003. As a PFP, he is responsible, among other things, for GEF governance issues and policies and communications with national stakeholders and as well as implementing agencies. More specifically, as an OFP he carries out project-related consultations with: (i) convention focal points; (ii) steering and technical committee for GEF focal areas and the SGP; (iii) relevant national executing agencies; 62 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 and (iv) GEF Agencies. This consultation process leads to recommendations regarding where GEF resources should be allocated. 194. Within the DOE, there are four conventions Focal Points (CFP) - one each for BD, CC, chemicals and LD - who are directly responsible to the DG for environment. The duties of these focal points include, to: (i) follow-up latest developments of Conventions and attend meetings and conferences; (ii) conduct meetings of concerned stakeholders and disseminate new knowledge and practices; (iii) collect, store and disseminate data and information on the focal area; (iv) prepare concept paper for national action plans and have it endorsed by the Technical and Steering Committees; and, last but not least (iv) actively participate in the preparation and implementation of projects in his/her respective focal area. Preparation and approval procedure of GEF supported projects 195. In Eritrea, the Government in general, and the DOE in particular, are in the ‘driver’s seat’ when it comes to GEF supported project preparation, implementation and monitoring. The procedures followed for the flow of GEF resources are in fact, directly controlled by the Government. Agencies simply releases the funds upon the request of the DOE, and when a project preparation is finalized the Agency would submit to the GEF for endorsement any further release of allocated GEF funds for the project. This means that implementing stakeholders, including the regions (who are the implementers) are more visible than the GEF Agencies in the country. This is the case for all projects including the SGP. 196. Because all GEF projects have their inception and are planned and implemented by the Government, for example, in LD (SIP 3364 and SIP-3362) the concerted efforts by the MOA, MOLWE, DOE, FP and CFPs, regional administrations and beneficiary communities have resulted in degrees of cooperation and coordination of resources and efforts to attain a desired level of synergy. At its best, synergy between implementing partners (the GEF Agencies) should be sought during project preparation and monitoring for projects with coordination for the same focal area and in the same and/or neighboring geographic areas as this can indeed reinforce and/or sustain project outcomes. These synergies could be strengthened especially between agencies, for example all those involved in the sustainable land management programs, particularly Agencies that do not have an office presence in Eritrea. To date, regional cooperation or coordination with national institutions in neighboring or other countries have not taken place due to the prevailing geo-political situation in the Horn of Africa. Challenges faced by the Focal Point 197. According to interviews with key informants and the FP and CFPs, Eritrea faces several challenges for implementing multilateral environmental agreements. Most prominent of these include: (i) shortage of motivated and skilled manpower both at the national and region levels; (ii) lack of fuel and transport facilities to monitor programs and projects; (iii) inadequate baseline data for monitoring progress and (iii) inadequate subsistence allowance that does not invite government staff to make field visits. 63 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 198. Eritrea’s allocation as per the STAR was also noted as a challenge onto itself. While there is no objection on the criteria used to determine the allocation of fund based on the existing procedure, the area of contention is that GEF applies the same criteria for all countries. In Eritrea soil and water conservation activities (constructing of terraces, check-dams, soil bunds, planting of trees, establishing enclosures and protected areas, etc.), are age old government supported practices of the traditional/subsistence farming communities. Nonetheless, GEF’s STAR precludes consideration of such national efforts as having large GEB result and thereby allowing for a larger STAR allocation. 64 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 5. Results, Effectiveness and Sustainability of GEF Support to Eritrea 199. This chapter examines key questions on the results of GEF support to Eritrea in terms of effectiveness, results and sustainability. Evidence on progress toward impact of GEF support comes from the ROtI studies conducted on two projects in the Eritrea portfolio. Information on results achieved on other ongoing and enabling activities comes from triangulation of data from various sources, including desk reviews, interviews, and field visits. These assessments were completed where possible by meta-evaluation analysis of existing evaluative evidence and reports. For the ongoing activities, the two SLM projects, and the Prevention and Disposal of POPs and Pesticides Project (GEF IDs: 3362, 3364, 3987), the evaluation assessed the likelihood for achievement of results based on the review of project documents and on informed comments offered by key stakeholders regarding ongoing processes and activities. 200. The analysis does not attempt to directly attribute results to GEF activities. Rather, it assesses the contribution of GEF projects, along with other factors, to the achievement of expected results. 5.1 Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) 201. GEF investments are predicated on the delivery of global environmental benefits (GEBs) in the focal areas of biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, ozone depletion, and persistent organic pollutants. In Eritrea, the GEF supported projects have able to contribute to GEBs in maintenance of endemic species of coral, protection of unique ecosystems and prevention of land degradation. The benefits are specific to each focal area, and are elaborated below. Biodiversity 202. At the time of review, GEF has supported 3 completed Projects on biodiversity in Eritrea: 2 EAs, and 1 FSP. There is currently one more BD project in the pipeline. The two completed EAs are the ‘NBSAP and First National Report’(GEF ID 137) and the ‘Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity, Participation in Clearing House Mechanism and Preparation of Second National Report’ (GEF ID 1506). The completed FSP is the ‘Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity’ (CMIB) (GEF ID 411). The ‘Operationalization of Protected Areas Management Systems’ (GEF ID 4559) project is currently in the pipeline. During the course of the CPE, another BD project also entered into the pipeline, “Support to Eritrea for the Revision of the NBSAPs and Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD” (GEF ID 5389). Because it came into pipeline entry after the cut-off date for the evaluation portfolio, it is mentioned but not considered in the evaluation analysis. 65 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 203. The various projects within the biodiversity focal area are enabling Eritrea to extend support to the country’s approach to mainstream biodiversity into productive landscapes, particularly important in Eritrea where food security remains a national priority. Despite the constraints in national reporting, there are examples of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources in several parts of the country. Biodiversity considerations are also integrated into agricultural and forest initiatives and these integrations extend into the GEF LD portfolio. 204. The long-term impact for biodiversity in the country will largely depend on the extent to which institutional and human capacity for sustaining these gains is maintained and improved. Certainly, local communities are also more aware about the potential social and economic benefits that could be generated from the various conservation activities. However, concrete projects outcomes related to poverty reduction and improved livelihood are issues that will only be realized only over a stretch of years to come. 205. Consistent with global and national priorities, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and First National Report project (GEF ID 137) was based on the recommendation of the NEMP and was supported by GEF and prepared in 1996. More specifically the project supported activities related to: (i) stocktaking inventory of existing information with regards to Eritrea’s BD and the identification; (ii) analysis of options for conserving Eritrea’s BD based on a participatory community-based local workshops and seminars designed to engage communities and conservation planning; and (iii) consolidation of findings from these workshops and from a series of regional and national workshops into strategic plan leading to the conservation of BD, and incorporation of these plans in the national development plans. 206. The outcomes generated from the NBSAP 27 included: (i) Eritrea’s capacity building needs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources were assessed; (ii) a better clearing house mechanism for the management of biodiversity information was established; and (iii) the second national report to UNCBD was prepared using national consultation and discussions. The NBSAP also gradually led to the formulation of the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management. 207. The NBSAP availed resources to the government to prepare the First National Report to the Conference of the Parties (CBD) in December 1997. With these in mind, the series of workshops and seminars held enabled Eritrea to strengthen its capacity and be better prepared for the Conference of the Parties. The Conference recommended that the first national report to the parties should focus on general measures “for the conservation and sustainable use of BD as well as for studies on biological diversity such as the stocktaking inventory”. Accordingly, the NBSAP identified the following five priority areas: (i) Assess the capacity needs, identify priorities and build consensus on the overall implementation of general measures for in situ and ex-situ programs and projects; (ii) Make initial capacity needs assessment in BD monitoring 27 (The First BD report to the UNCBD was part of the same project as that of the NBSAP. The Second Report appears to have resulted as a result of this project), 66 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 program, including taxonomy; (iii) Assess the capacity needs, identify priorities and build consensus on the overall conservation and sustainable use of BD resources for agriculture; (iv) Assessment of methodologies to evaluate and mitigate specific threats to components of BD; (v) Assessment of capacity needs for the implementation of country driven project for participation in the CHM. The capacity gaps identified were: inadequate legal authority and institutional structure of the relevant stakeholders involved in BD conservation; and management and low capacity in biosystematics to study the status and trends of biodiversity resources. 208. Activities under the Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity, Participation in Clearing House Mechanism and Preparation of Second National Report (GEF ID 1506) included: (i) Assessment of Eritrea’s capacity building needs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources; (ii) Establishment of a better clearing house mechanism for the management of biodiversity information; and (iii) the second national report to COP/CBD was prepared using national consultation and discussions. The outcomes also contributed to the formulation of the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management. 209. The Red Sea, an almost enclosed hot, saline body of water has over 1,100 fish species and 44 genera of hard corals being recorded”1 rendering it with one of the highest levels of endemism and species diversity for a water body Around 18% of fish species and 20% of coral species are reported to be endemic to the waters1. While other parts of the Red Sea have been subject to considerable disturbance, around Eritrea’s coastline, due to restricted access in the coastal zone during the war, these ecosystems appear to be still pristine in most areas. With time, they too could be under increasing threat from increases in fishing activities, tourism, and prospecting and exploration oil and gas. 210. The Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity (CMCMIB) project (GEF ID 411) responded to the 1995 Jakarta Mandate of the Conference of the Parties on (COP-11) by promoting the sustainable use of the components of globally significant BD and specifically addressed the conservation of marine and terrestrial biodiversity, focusing on marine biodiversity such as coral reefs, fish, crustaceans, and marine birds. The project set out to enable: (a) the development of an appropriate participatory management framework; (b) the establishment of conservation management areas and programs for the conservation of habitats and species of special concern outside these areas; (c) the establishment of information system on coastal, marine and island biodiversity; and, (d) raising public awareness on the needs for and benefits of biodiversity and its sustainable use. The objective was to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the globally important biodiversity of Eritrea’s coastal, marine and island ecosystems. 211. The CMIB was executed by the MOMR and implemented by the UNDP. The project received a rating of “moderately unsatisfactory” at completion in its terminal evaluation due to shortcomings in the outcomes achieved and lengthy delays in implementation. The evaluation does note that the project supported Eritrea to accede into a number of international 67 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 conventions, for instance the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention. 212. The impact of the comprehensive participatory approach promoted by CMIB to the management of sectoral activities, such as combating the causes of degradation to coastal and marine resources, as well as integrated management of shared and trans-boundary water bodies such as the Red Sea coastal zone and small islands (e.g. Dehlak Archipelago) was still in evidence at the time of evaluation through capacity that has been sustained and replicated within the MOMR – individuals with ability to continue to monitor key coastal indicator species, an institutional set up to be able to manage coastal resources, scaling up of initiatives begun by the project to adjacent areas (examples of planting of mangroves, grasses, enclosures, etc.). 213. From the ROtI exercise, the following outcomes/impacts of the project could be cited, albeit systemic issues with data availability made it difficult to decipher and quantify all the results: (i) Baselines available on biodiversity and socioeconomic information used in priority CMI areas, followed by an extensive awareness raising campaign targeting all stakeholders including the population along the coast; (ii) the multi-sectoral steering committee that was established to deal with policy issues and guidelines for a common program of action is actively overseeing the implementation of a multi-sectoral coastal management framework; and (iii) exotic and threatened species identified and zoning plans prepared and published have been utilized for the planning of establishment of protected areas for endangered species such as sea turtles, sea grass, wild ass, rare coral species, mangrove forests, and other coastal marine resources. 214. The awareness raising by the project on the management of conservation areas and species program, trained stakeholders and involved local community groups (e.g. fishing co-operatives, women's groups and traditional leaders (Baitos) policy developers, etc. contributed to new sectoral studies, policy actions (such as the National Coastal Policy) and conservation management plans for new areas, species and habitats. Moreover, it established a consensual and collaborative institutional framework to interact with several interest and relevant Ministries. The MOMR is still exploring innovative economic incentives for the conservation of BD and its sustainable use, including measures to assist Eritrea to find ways of compensating local communities for lost opportunity costs (e.g. loss of short-term fisheries in exchange for longer term diversified rewards). 215. The ROtI found that the project also specifically allowed Eritrea to develop and implement legislation appropriate to MARPOL and, where relevant, both legislation and act related to the CITES and RAMSAR Conventions and enabled Eritrea to contribute to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and the International Coral Reef Initiative. At a regional level, it extends Eritrea's cooperation under the GEF Red Sea Strategic Action Programme and a more coordinated and holistic approach to the management of the Red Sea, its ecosystems and species, and the threats they face. 216. From the unit in the Ministry of Marine Resources, established with support from the project, research gathered is now exchanged and mainstreamed with other institutions, including 68 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Universities abroad, providing valuable information on among other things, sea and coastal migratory birds, several species of turtle nesting grounds, species of coral reefs, sea grass, and dugongs. Based on these conditions the ROtI concludes that the project is making moderate progress to impact. The project leaves behind a heightened awareness and sensitivity, at various levels, of the values and vulnerabilities of Eritrea’s Red Sea coastal resources. Among the challenges that remain, as mentioned by stakeholders and beneficiaries interviewed, was the need to keep communities engaged in the promotion of mangrove plantations. Mangrove plants are the breeding ground of marine life. They are also the main green feed for camels and goats, which love to feed upon the budding mangrove leaves. The communities were sensitized and encouraged to come with a solution, which reportedly was solved by establishing limited no-go areas for livestock. 217. The GEF5 project ‘Operationalization of Protected Areas Management Systems of Eritrea’ (GEF ID 4559), which was originally called the ‘Integrated Semenawi and Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori- Hawakil Protected Area System for Conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation Project’, will be implemented by UNDP and the Eritrean DOE and focus on the development of protected areas to support biodiversity of island and coastal areas as well as the mountains and riverine ecosystems. The coastal zone, in particular, is a biodiversity store house for the country and over-extraction of marine resources could threaten the long-term conservation of the rare species and fauna. More specifically, the decision to establish protected areas along the coast will go a long way in the protection of, among others, the rare African Wild Ass where the Buri Peninsula is the only known habitat to contain a viable population of this species. The Evaluation Team notes that the change in name of the project seems to move away from an “integrated” approach to protected areas to a singular operationalization approach. As per recommendation 1, multi-focal integrated approaches would be in keeping with the ecosystem needs and challenges in Eritrea, i.e. addressing multiple stressors for land degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, and also allow Eritrea to avail additional funding, such as through the SFM program. Climate Change 218. The GEF has so far supported three Climate Change projects in Eritrea, all of which have been completed. They key contribution of these climate change projects is to support removal of market barriers for renewable energy and influence the establishment of a more enabling environment for climate change action. 219. The projects on climate changes have stemmed from the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The following summarizes the outcomes of the CC projects: 69 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 220. The National Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan has helped identify immediate action necessary to reduce the vulnerability of fragile ecosystems and populations to the harmful effects of climate change 221. In Eritrea, GEF has provided support to develop Eritrea’s First National Communications to the UNFCCC (GEF ID 278), which included the development of a national GHG emissions inventory and the identification of national programs and projects for climate change mitigation, study of agriculture production vulnerability and adaptation. 222. Eritrea has no country specific emission factors and emission ratios, thus the GHGs calculation is done based on international constants from IPCC guidelines. Nevertheless, some work has been accomplished in this regard. The results of the two National Communications are the establishment of baseline studies, including the GHG inventories and calculations of the country’s GHG emissions targets. This has begun the foundation for effective negotiations and strategic decisions/action. 223. The Eritrea National Adaptation Program for Action (NAPA) (GEF-1959) addressed the priorities identified by the stakeholders, who had already realized that the climatic shocks resulted in serious negative impacts on rural and urban livelihoods in Eritrea; and unless addressed would make Eritrea to be even more susceptible to impacts from climate variability and change. It ought to be emphasized that the Eritrean NAPA was designed to be consistent with ongoing national strategies and plans and to establish the linkage between national priorities and objectives in food security, poverty reduction and sustainable development. 224. In Eritrea, the groups that are most vulnerable to climate risks are those that directly depend upon natural resources for their livelihood. Women, children and the elderly people are the most affected of all groups. Other affected group also include: subsistence farmers due to variable weather patterns; rural dwellers that depend on climate sensitive forest and woodland products; pastoralists, whose livestock is affected by drought; urban poor affected by fuel wood shortages, price increases etc.; and, coastal and island inhabitants vulnerable to saltwater intrusion. 225. Eritrea faces numerous challenges and barriers when it comes to the implementation of urgent and immediate activities identified by the NAPA process. The barriers include: lack of institutional and personnel capacities; policy gaps and lack of regulatory mechanisms and laws, such as the environmental law, and maritime code; and last but not least, inadequate funding both at the national and international levels may also limit the level of implementation of all measures identified in the NAPA. 226. An integrated approach to adaptation is taken also through the SLM and SGP portfolio with activities directed at rehabilitation of degraded lands and enhancing land productivity also having GHG mitigation and adaptation benefits. 227. Finally, the Adaptation Fund is currently supporting a project in Eritrea. The ‘Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Water and Agriculture in Anseba Region is being implemented by the 70 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 UNDP with a total grant fund of USD 6,520,850. The overall goal of the Programme is to promote increased food security in Eritrea through ecologically sustainable and climate- resilient improvements in agricultural production. The objective of the programme is to increase community resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change through an integrated water management and agricultural development approach in the sub-zobas of Hamelmalo and Habero. Specifically, the project aims to increase the availability of water through floodwater harvesting and groundwater recharge; promote a range of climate-resilient technologies for enhanced agricultural and livestock production; improve the dissemination of climate risk information among community, civil society and government stakeholders through a community-based early warning system; and capture and disseminate lessons learned through program activities, and to influence policy through advocacy activities. 28, 228. The Wind Energy Applications project (GEF ID 1136) is the only full size project in CC that has been implemented in the country. The project, in the port city of Assab consists of a standalone wind turbine with generating capacity of 750KW annually. In addition, the project also planned to establish an off grid wind system in seven sites in villages along the coast. The project aimed at transforming the market for wind energy applications through the promotion of both on-grid and off-grid wind energy systems as a substitute for fossil fuel based energy consumption, and thus contribute to the reduction of the country’s CO2 emissions. At the same time the project aimed at promoting socio-economic development and improving people's livelihood by facilitating access to clean energy 29. 229. The project has served as a pilot to demonstrate the potential for wind- energy generation in Eritrea as a replacement fossil fuel, wood and other biomass consumption.. The concept was an innovative solution to protect against forest destruction. By producing cleaner and cheaper energy, it could be used in the installation of water pumps for public and school uses and electrification of health center in remote areas facilitating access to school, clean water and health services. Beyond direct economic benefits, the renewable energy project was also a strategic intervention, catalyzing the realization of multiple Millennium Development Goals. 230. As an alternate form for rural electrification, this pilot aimed to demonstrate an alternative to the trend of either grid extension or independent units of diesel generation sets. The Government of Eritrea also committed significant cash resources, US$ 1.5 million. 231. Renewable sources of energy, such as wind, contribute to improved health by lowering indoor and outdoor air pollution associated with biomass use; reduces the burden on women and young children many of whom spend considerable time collecting and carrying firewood; and frees up time for income generation. Renewable energy is also a critical input for providing a host of social services, from education and health care to communications. Project activities focused 28 https://www.adaptation-fund.org/project/1329-climate-change-adaptation-programme-water-and-agriculture- anseba-region-eritrea 29 GEF ID 1136, Concept Review 71 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 on capacity development; strengthening of institutions; raising of awareness; demonstrating the technical, financial and institutional viability of a grid connected wind-park and piloting in off-grid rural areas, wind-diesel hybrid and wind stand-alone systems to demonstrate that wind is a viable option within the rural electrification program as well as an alternative for productive use applications. 232. The decision to support both on-and off-grid wind energy within the same project was mainly due to the fact that Eritrea’s exploitable wind resources are found in the coastal areas and adjacent mountains as the country’s wind map show. The on-grid component of the project tried to tap into these resources thus reducing the consumption of diesel. Approximately 60% of the envisioned training and capacity building at the institutional and personnel level was relevant to both on- and off-grid systems. The remaining 40% was specific to either on or off-grid systems. Therefore, combining on and off-grid was a cost-effective way of building local capacities in planning, operating and maintaining wind energy. 233. The systems intended to eventually meet the end user’s energy needs by offering a viable replacement, e.g. electric light instead to using Kerosene lamps or cooking food without using wood-fuel). Moreover, both at the national and global level, there would be reduction in the level of emission from fire-wood, kerosene smoke, soot, etc., and this was intended to have positive effect on the health and living conditions of all the beneficiaries, especially women and children. 234. Although the project received a rating of Satisfactory at completion, the off-grid component of the project was not successful in its operations, and concerning the on-grid component; of the three initially installed turbines, which were contributing to displacing GHGs, by generating power to 20% of the households in Assab; during the ROtI exercise, it was determined that only one was operation. Difficulties in transporting fuel from the capital, Asmara, to Assab were hampering the full operations of the turbines. The planned reduction of around 1,700 tons of CO2 emission per year from the on-grid project was not largely realized due to the interruption of production, reportedly due to poor repair and maintenance. 235. While the project did not result in he expected GHG reduction outcomes (1,700 tons of CO2 per year), the project was relevant for the country’s piloting of renewable energy sources. According to the beneficiary communities with which the evaluators conducted extensive discussions, the results could be assessed also in terms of the awareness created with regards to alternative and renewable energy sources. This is true despite the fact that most of the members of the community have not even seen what and how a wind turbine operates. 236. Discussion with local authorities and residents confirmed that the local ecosystem at the projects sites once consisted of thickly vegetated with diversified species of woods and trees. An increase in population size and over exploitation of forest products for fuel, agriculture and for other uses has drastically reduced the forest cover in their area, Moreover, due to the drought conditions that have prevailed in the country over decades; the vegetation cover has dwindled drastically. 72 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 237. This situation was exacerbated by the fact that Asseb being a main sea-port, serving especially Ethiopia, hundreds of truck drivers were transporting charcoal and fuel wood from the hinterland to hotels and households in the port city. Hence, the biomass consumption in the project areas (both at the on-grid and off-grid sites) was very high. 238. 239. The installation of wind turbine is believed to have had little or no effect on the overall extent of wood and biomasss consumption in the target sites for two reasons: (i) the number of wind turbines installed was far less than expected and thus did little to overcome the adverse effects from areas already degraded by large scale biomass destruction; and (ii) most of the off grid turbines installed were not operational for long, due to technical failures and lack of appropriate procurement to have impacted significantly on bio-mass consumption. 240. During the first three years of its operation, the project was streamlined into the Eritrean Electricity Authority (EEA) to ensure its sustainability. Prior to this, required technical skill and capability was given to the staff of the EEA. The wind energy project also helped to push forward the policy framework that will allow a renewable energy market to develop. The promotion of the development of alternative and renewable energy production to reduce use of biomass as an energy source, particularly in areas with no access to pre-existing grids, both for the household and industrial unit level, still remains relevant. Support for renewable energy in Eritrea has also come from the European Union’s Development Fund, especially solar sources. Land Degradation 241. In the past two decades The GOE has considered sustainable land management (SLM) as a strategic intervention contributing directly to the reduction of poverty and hunger. However, land degradation projects are a relatively recent addition to the GEF country portfolio, beginning in GEF-4. There are two land degradation projects: the SIP-Catchments and Landscape Management (GEF ID 3362, 2009) implemented by IFAD and executed by the MOA, and the SIP-Sustainable Land Management Pilot Project (GEF ID 3364, 2009) Implemented by UNDP and executed by the MOLWE. 242. The two projects were developed when Eritrea launched its National Action Program (NAP) to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought (MOA, 2002). These projects address the interlinked problems of poverty, food insecurity, land degradation and BD losses through the development and promotion of innovative SLM technologies and land use planning approaches. In all cases, the goal is to restore, sustain and enhance the productive functions of the eco-system (UNDP - PIR, 2011 PIR; IFAD - PIR, 2011). Despite the implementation of only two projects in this focal area, it should be mentioned that the projects classified under other focal areas (e.g. biodiversity) have made relevant contributions to the country’s land degradation agenda. 243. The Catchments and Landscape Management Project (GEF ID 3362) and the Sustainable Land Management Pilot Project (GEF ID 3364) also provide specific examples of linking local 73 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 livelihood benefits and sustainability. As observed and reported through stakeholders, as well as by communities engaged in the two projects, besides land degradation measures, the capacity of communities to use drip-irrigation in small farms, building bench terraces and managing nurseries has also been enhanced. 244. Between 1994 and 2013, more than 300,000 students, have been involved in tree planting and catchment treatment during the summer vacation. The Report of the MOE Summer Work Program Office for the year 2013 indicated that more 20 million tree seedlings have been planted, around 10 million km of hillside terraces and over 800,000 check dams and micro- basins built. A large track of land hitherto unproductive has been reclaimed and turned into productive arable land. The result has been increased crop productivity from the national average of 7 Q/ha to 15 Q/ha (World Bank, 1994; SLM Report, 2011). Area closure in Serejeka pilot project and SGP projects among local communities of Wara and Deki-Gebruhave also resulted in similar outputs through reforestation, land reclamation and soil and water conservation verified similar results. 245. The project has also included a community component dedicated to improved energy saving stoves. These have been constructed by and largely benefited women and achieved significant replication to amongst Eritrean households in village communities through the SGP program. The widespread dissemination of improved stoves by the SGP gained such broader adoption to the extent, training in the building and use of the stoves became an income generating activity for women along the way, many of whom are single-heads of households. The constant power interruption in all areas of the country connected to the national grid has forced many urban and rural households to build these stoves. Parallel to that, the SGP has provided good opportunities for a number of communities and NGO groups to learn from each other’s experiences and to replicate the results of GEF support. 246. The evaluators found no quantitative information on the scale of mitigation measures as a result of implementing SLM and SGP projects in collaboration. However, as ascertained from the field visits and focused group discussion in areas of SLM and SGP projects scaled up by the communities. Such efforts are believed to have replicative effects on the mitigation of land degradation being undertaken throughout the country. It should also be reminded that of the 22 GEF supported projects, 16 are focused on land degradation, 2 on climate change mitigation, 2 on biodiversity, and 3 are multi-focal in area. 247. Several communities in and around the project sites are engaged in nature-based conservation activities. Field trips by the evaluation team to some of the project sites helped confirm that tree planting and other soil and water conservation activities are still in operation in the various sites. The SLM pilot projects in general have shown a high level of success particularly in activities such as reforestation, terracing, strengthening existing nurseries and building of the energy saving traditional stoves. 248. Field visits by the evaluation team verified that tree planting in these localities, with reported survival rates of 60 % to 70%, has had a positive impact, providing people with improved 74 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 livelihood activities (2013). Despite such significant achievements, little progress has been made in terms of enhancing land tenure security - an issue which has been a major stumbling block for more success. It appears that the overall objective of SLM for communities may be difficult to achieve unless the usufruct or user rights of the land tenure system are fully addressed. 249. Overall, the SLM program in Eritrea has achieved significant results including the development of: (i) replicable models of SLM, which representatives of beneficiary communities are using to manage land use; (ii) a system of knowledge management for SLM and mainstreaming of its principles into the regional and national development strategies, programs and projects; and (iii) capacity building programs and adaptive management systems for enabling grass root communities to implement improved SLM. Persistent Organic Pollutants 250. There are two projects conducted in Eritrea in the POPs focal area; one Enabling Activity and one Full Size Project (FSP). Both projects supported capacity strengthening for compliance with the country’s obligations under the Stockholm Convention. GEF enabling support aimed at building capacity on obsolete pesticides and provided further support toward completing Eritrea’s inventory of POP polluted sites. The country was also successful in attracting GEF funding for a full size project, providing for the environmentally safe management and disposal of obsolete POPs. 251. At the time of this evaluation, only the enabling activity related to implementation of the Stockholm Convention had been completed. Given the nature of the enabling activity project, it is difficult to relate project outcomes to global environmental benefits and far-reaching impacts. Nonetheless, the main benefit of this project has been to foster adoption of a policy framework that provides an enabling environment within which to address POPs issues in Eritrea. The POPs enabling activities supported the country in preparing a report for the Stockholm Convention in 2005 in line with UNEP–World Bank guidance. In addition, a baseline assessment conducted on the potential damage to the public health and to the environment served to further enhance institutional and capacity building. Further, these activities helped strengthen ownership within the country, mainly as a result of the participatory approach used throughout the project. 252. The national objective of the POPs prevention and disposal project is to protect the environment and human health by safely managing and disposing of stockpiles of POP-contaminated pesticides. It also aims at strengthening the regulatory and institutional arrangements for the long-term control of POPs and other toxic substances in line with the requirements of the Stockholm Convention and other related conventions. 253. The project has identified a total of 294 stores of obsolete pesticides located at 145 sites. The evaluation determined that the targets set by the project for the destruction of POP- contaminated stocks of obsolete pesticides were largely achieved. During project preparation, the total quantity of obsolete pesticides in Eritrea was estimated at 400 tons and few of these 75 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 obsolete pesticides were stored under suitable conditions. The safer stores demonstrate that Eritrea is making a significant step in meeting its obligations under the Stockholm Convention and is contributing— though in a limited way—to the reduction of the global POPs burden. 254. As a result of the intensive sensitization and awareness raising workshops and activities, national end users like famers, civil society and the like have enhanced their knowledge and understanding, and are believed to have developed improved practices and behaviors. The evaluators observed this in the way end users transport, store, handle and use these substances. The projects have also contributed to the popularization of measures that have been put to prevent recurrence of obsolete pesticides accumulation and importation or use of POPs. In addition, improved knowledge and commitment of skilled personnel and experts on the hazards and adverse effects of POPs, have contributed to decreasing the risks associated with the environment and human health. Overall the reduction on global POPs burden is contributing to GEB and improvements in human health due to minimization of the adverse environmental effects. Multi Focal Area 255. The National Capacity Needs Assessment (NCSA) (GEF ID 1584) is thus far the only “declared” multi focal area project and has now been completed. The objective of the GEF3 was to determine, through a country-driven consultative process, the priority needs and a plan of action for developing Eritrea’s capacity to meet its commitments to global environmental management. The project focused on capacity related issues that are common across all three of the key international conventions related to GEF support. It specifically contributed towards the following key elements: • The capacities needed across these thematic areas in a synergistic fashion were assessed; • Using stakeholder analysis, the roles of stakeholders in the NCSA process was determined; • The existing institutional mechanisms and developing networks were strengthened; • The dialogue, information exchange and co-operation amongst all stakeholders involved in UNCBD, UNCCD and UNFCC was strengthened; • Development of a framework/mechanism for targeted and coordinated action, including requests for external funding assistance was developed; • Linkage of country action with respect to capacity building to a broader national environmental management and action plan was developed; and • A national implementation plan that described how Eritrea will address the priorities identified in the capacity assessment was developed. Results from the Small Grants Programme 256. The SGP was operationally introduced into Eritrea in 2010 to facilitate innovative approaches in community based environmental programs. The Programme has provided support to 22 76 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 community based activities. The total GEF grants amount so far is US$ 1,034,998. The co- financing for the projects had reached US$ 1,956,206. Of the 22 projects, 16 are focused on land degradation, 2 on climate change mitigation, 2 on biodiversity, and 3 are multi-focal area 30. 257. What is most interesting about the Programme is that it has become a mechanism to scale up tested and known approaches to community environmental improvements, particularly those witnessed through the full-size Sustainable Land Management (SLM) portfolio, and thus is considered one of the most highly relevant within the country, due to its ability to enhance the technical capacity of local communities and to enable them to continue similar activities adjacent to existing projects.. 258. All projects that are supported by the SGP in Eritrea have the dual purpose of improving livelihoods and addressing the focal areas of GEF. In the SGP projects, Eritrean communities confirm defining and prioritizing their needs in a participatory manner and this is transcribed into a project proposal submitted to SGP coordinator which is finally validated and approved by the SGP Steering Committee. The community-based approach, through the SGP, has had a direct contribution to the overall operational goals of the GEF focal areas, especially on land degradation and climate change as well as associated community benefits. 259. The SGP in Eritrea has brought 40 Hectares of land under afforestation programmes, protecting it from animal grazing. Three km of sea coast land has been protected, rehabilitated and sustainably managed under a mangrove rehabilitation project. In terms of the programme’s policy influence at the local level, local authorities have shown their support to protecting areas where SGP projects under land degradation and biodiversity have been implemented. This attitude and approach is going beyond the local communities to regional and national levels as well. At the national level, the only significant green belt area on the eastern escarpment of Eritrea, known as Semienawi Bahri, has been at risk of severe degradation from intensive farming and animal grazing during the last 20 years. The government recently declared the enclosure of the area against agricultural activities in order to protect it from further degradation and to nurture biodiversity. This shows the resolve of the Government and the willingness of local communities to protect areas from overgrazing and other human activities. 260. As a result, the SGP portfolio has already contributed to communities possessing a better understanding about climate change issues and the importance of sustainable management of natural resources for improvements in their livelihood and health status. As discussed earlier, among the results seen, women in beneficiary communities have been trained on how to construct energy saving stoves and as a result, it was common to observe nearby households making their own stoves without any outside support. The improved traditional stove projects 30 https://sgp.undp.org/index.php?option=com_sgpprojects&view=allprojects&Itemid=211&paging=1 77 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 also enabled local communities to integrate traditional knowledge in the construction of well- designed and appropriate technologies. 261. According to the UNDP-SGP program officers, the SGP interventions are clustered in limited geographic locations in order to show the effectiveness community based small projects. The field observation by the evaluation team verified that the concentration of projects in the Adi- tekelezan area have contributed to the enhancement of the visibility and impact of the overall portfolio in the country. Table 22: Projects in the Eritrean SGP Portfolio Project title Focal Start Amount Phase Area Date (USD) 1 Azien - Quazien Community Based Afforestation Programme LD 2013 50,000 5 2 Community Based Gullie micro watershed Management in Galanefhi LD 2013 50,000 5 Subregion 3 Community Based Rehabilitation of Degraded Land through fruit LD 2013 50,000 5 trees 4 Community based Watershed Management in Debarwa Subregion LD 2013 50,000 5 5 Community Based Watershed Management in Laelaygash subregion LD 2013 50,000 5 6 Demonstration of low carbon solar home systems and afforestation CCM 2013 149,998 5 in Qnafna 7 Gerger Integrated Watershed Management in Geleb Subregion LD 2013 50,000 5 8 Rehabilitation of Land Degradation through Afforestation and LD 2013 50,000 5 Introduction of Compost in Serejeka Subregion 9 Weki-Zagir Community Based Afforestation Programme LD 2013 50,000 5 10 Community based Soil and Water Conservation practices in LD 2012 45,000 5 Subregion of Ghindae 11 Optimizing tillage and rain water conservation in the soils of LD 2012 40,000 5 Hamelmalo region of Eritrea for arresting soil degradation and achieving sustainable high crop yields 12 Rehabilitation of Degraded Catchments in Elabered sub region LD 2012 50,000 5 13 Rehabilitation of Degraded Sub catchments in Galanefhi subregion LD 2012 50,000 5 14 Bio-Gas as alternative source of energy for Environmental protection BD/LD 2010 31,128 4 and improving livelihood at household level CCM 15 Community Based turtle conservation at Dissei Island BD 2010 33,101 4 16 Promotion of community afforestation and land reclamation in Sub LD 2010 25,568 4 zoba Aditekelezan 17 Promotion of Community Based Afforestation and Soil & Water LD 2010 33,018 4 Conservation at Sub Zoba Aditekelezan 18 Training of Trainers to communities on Forest management, LD 2010 13,730 4 Improved Traditional Stove and Nutrition 19 Improved Traditional Stove in three villages of Aditekelezan MFA 2009 49,260 4 subregion 78 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 20 Improvement of livelihood in rural community through provision of MFA 2009 40,798 4 solar lanterns and environmental rehabilitation 21 Rehabilitation of Hirgigo Mangrove Forests and Improving BD 2009 26,378 4 Communities' Livelihood 22 Solar powered IT system for the schools of Adibeza and Adigultti in CCM 2009 47,019 4 sub region Areza Total 1,034,998 Source: SGP Website: https://sgp.undp.org/index.php [Accessed: Jan 6th 2014] 262. Under the ‘Rehabilitation of Hirgigo Mangrove forests’ project, the main activities included seed collection from established forests, mangrove planting and fertilizing, the provision of 60 small ruminants, demonstration of mangrove utilization as fodder crop, and awareness raising seminars. As a result, 22.5 ha of sea coast were covered with 30,000 mangrove seedlings. 263. Under the ‘Improved Traditional Stoves in three villages of Adi-tekelezan Sub-region’ the goal was the reduction of GHG emissions by using improved traditional stoves. Activities included the collection of gravel and selected soils for stove making, the training of women masons to construct the stoves, and the planting trees in homesteads. A key result was that 400 improved traditional stoves were constructed and are now under efficient use, reducing tree cutting for fire wood and improving the health of women. 264. The goal of the ‘Promotion of afforestation and land reclamation in Sub region Adi-tekelezan’ project was to combat soil erosion and conserve water resources through reforestation. The main activities included protecting areas from animal grazing and other human activities, land terracing, tree planting, and awareness raising on the importance of vegetation cover in conserving water and soil from erosion. As a result, 30 Ha of land were protected from grazing and 59,990 seedlings were planted. The project site is now covered with vegetation 31. 5.3 Catalytic Effects and Replication 265. Impact may occur immediately as a result of project activities, but more often than not, the social or ecological system that the project aims to influence may manifest change years or even decades after the project is completed, especially if large-scale impact is the aim. Broader adoption has been found to take place mainly through five processes: Sustaining, Mainstreaming, Replication, Scaling-Up and Market Change. Sustaining: A GEF intervention continues to be implemented without GEF support through clear budget allocations, implementing structures and institutional frameworks defined by the government and/or other project stakeholders. The sustained flow of benefits of the intervention is important to demonstrate the benefits and to provide incentives for adoption by other stakeholders. 31 SGP Presentation, GEF Extended Constituency Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 25-27 October, 2011 79 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Mainstreaming: Information, lessons, or specific aspects of a GEF initiative are incorporated into a broader stakeholder initiative. This may occur not only through governments but also in development organizations and other sectors. Replication: A GEF intervention is reproduced at a comparable administrative or ecological scale, often in different geographical areas or regions. Scaling-Up: GEF-supported initiatives are implemented at a larger geographical scale, often expanded to include new aspects or concerns that may be political, administrative, economic or ecological in nature. This allows concerns that cannot be resolved at lower scales to be addressed, and promotes the spread of GEF contributions to areas contiguous to the original project site. Market Change: GEF-supported initiatives catalyzing market transformation by influencing the supply of and/or demand for goods and services that contribute to global environmental benefits. This may encompass technological changes, policy and regulatory reforms, and financial instruments. 266. Though national projects have been executed to a significant extent by the by GEF agencies and bilateral donors, it is the government that is taking the lead, acting as the real driver in the environment sector. Many of those interviewed during the evaluation expressed the view that strong involvement from the government in environmental programs has established a strong sense of country ownership and sustainability regarding GEF projects. 267. From 1992 to the present day, the government of Eritrea has regularly made its own financial contributions to the various GEF-supported projects. However, it also needs external assistance for financing for its environmental projects. The GEF cooperates with other development partners in providing financial support, as illustrated by the Community-Based Sustainable Land Management Projects. The various developmental partners, such as the World Bank, IFAD, FAO, NGO (such as NORAD), etc. have financed a number of land degradation and biodiversity projects aimed at the national level and based on national priorities. 268. The ROtI and the field review by the evaluation team clearly highlighted the progress of the portfolio regarding progress to impact. This is particularly apparent in the focal areas in Eritrea: land degradation and biodiversity. It is clear that the GEF and its partners in the country have generally managed to build successes out of the projects and influenced other development partners to support global environmental objectives. The innovative approaches for participatory management of natural resources and reclamation of degraded lands in rural areas are particularly noteworthy. Lessons learned from a number of GEF-funded projects in Eritrea have advanced the development of new GEF initiatives as well as those of other development assistance programs. 269. There exists a high sense of ownership for GEF-supported projects, which have served as a catalyst for launching subsequent environmental programs. GEF enabling activities have played a key catalytic role in securing funding and other support for national projects to such a degree that some GEF-supported activities have been mainstreamed and are now supported by other 80 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 donors and government programs. Despite the failures of the wind energy projects as discussed in the previous sections a good example in this regard could be the 15 to 20 million euro solar powered projects that are being supported under the EDF 10 and the large EDF 11 allocation to the country to be devoted to alternative and renewable power generation. 270. The SGP, in particular, has provided good opportunities for a number of communities and NGO groups to learn from each other’s experiences and to replicate the results of GEF-funded projects. As described several communities in and around the project sites are engaged in nature-based conservation projects with support from the GEF and the Government. These projects have enormous potential for collaboration and information sharing, thereby increasing the likelihood of achieving positive and timely results. 5.4 Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Building 271. This evaluation of institutional sustainability of all GEF support projects in Eritrea has a number of key findings:  The major challenge related to the sustainability of results remains the limited capacity at both individual and institutional levels which strengthening has been targeted through the numerous Enabling Activities (6 out of 12 national projects) as well as dedicated training components of FSPs targeting government staffs and institutions. Another challenge for Eritrea has been to continue supporting and scaling up once funding has ended, despite the government’s efforts to sustain the outcomes achieved. The exit strategies put in place have not adequately addressed the financial, technical and managerial sustainability of projects outcomes.  Currently, the potential for institutional sustainability appears somewhat limited, given the capacity constraints that limit the scale of interventions implemented in Eritrea, particularly under climate change and POPs.  The absence of replacement financing from other national or international development partners could also pose challenges for the country’s effort to build results that are both replicable and sustainable.  The portfolio has performed well overall in terms of developing and strengthening the local structures involved in co-managing natural resources and their benefits. These structures have played an essential role in producing sustainable results in several projects. 5.5 Knowledge Generation and Learning 272. An analysis of the GEF portfolio in Eritrea clearly reveals a number of development initiatives based on lessons learned across projects. Stakeholders have played a significant role in the country’s environmental programs, and the UNDP has served as a key actor and information clearing house, which, among other things, has facilitated exchange and informal networking. Nonetheless, there is still a need for systematic coordination and exchange of lessons and 81 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 experience across projects, particularly when different agencies and government organizations implement projects. 273. During the initial phase of the GEF in Eritrea, lessons learned from other projects were not regularly applied to the design of new projects. There was no formal mechanism that allowed for the exchange of lessons learned across the GEF portfolio and sharing of lessons from GEF projects at national levels has had limited trial. Projects were designed and applied across GEF Agencies and as a result, opportunities for replication and scaling-up of best practices have been limited. This situation has gradually improved as government institutions and GEF agencies have expressed their readiness for a more collaborative approach. As a result, GEF supported projects have increasingly, been able to build on projects funded and supported by other partners. 274. Eritrea’s experiences have also been incorporated into project design, particularly with regard to the establishment of priorities. The following highlight some of the key lessons learned: a decentralized and programme-approach is more successful than a centralized project approach; cross-sectoral involvement supports a spirit of “sharing-the-load and the benefits” and results in a more rapid implementation of planned activities; community involvement is critical in order to incorporate the concerns of main user groups; and a strong emphasis on training and implementation at all levels enhances sustainability. 82 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Eritrea 6.1 Relevance of GEF Support to the Country’s Sustainable Development Agenda and Environmental Priorities 275. Concerning guiding documents, The Eritrea NEMP (1995) is the blue print for “coordinating the protection and enhancement of Eritrea’s natural resources, so that social and economic development endeavors are optimized in consonance with the national and sustainable use of these resources for current and future generations”. The NEMP calls for the establishment of a program for greater environmental awareness at all levels and addressing the shortage of trained environmental planners and managers. It also calls for:  The Environmental Management Development Program;  The establishment of parks, botanical gardens and animal orphanages; and  The development of coastal and marine protection systems  Conservation Education and Training;  Survey of elephants and wild ass populations; and  Baseline on coral reefs. 276. The Eritrean constitution (1997) stipulates that for sustainable development to take place, fair and equitable share of resources among citizens through their participation should take place; and the right of equal access to publicly funded social services must be assured. In view of this, the GEF portfolio has addressed a number of environmental laws, policies regulations and priorities to enable the government manage its resources sustainably. Equally, the Macro Policy document, adopted in 1994 to spearhead Eritrea’s comprehensive development, emphasizes the need for the protection and restoration of the environment. Its guiding principle adheres to a development orientation that is environmentally sustainable. In line with this guiding principle, the Government is striving to redress environmental imbalances by mobilizing communities to arresting further deterioration. 277. At the macro level, the Government of Eritrea (GOE) produced its most recent National Development Planning Framework in February 2009, to chart out the Ten Year long-term Indicative Perspective Development Plan (TYIPDP) and the medium-term, five-year indicative development plan (FYIDP). These documents are useful tools for managing Eritrea’s socio- economic development efforts. Among others, the documents set out a broad vision on the macroeconomic and sector policy framework, as well as the potential prospects for development. In an attempt to achieve the country‘s environmental goals, the Government has stipulated the following measures during the plan period and beyond: 83 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014  Comprehensive national base line data on the environment, including soil loss, gaseous emissions and water quality, shall be prepared;  existing legal provisions pertaining to the restoration, protection and management of natural resources and the environment shall be reviewed to determine their adequacy;  land use classifications be undertaken and land use maps be developed to promote sustainable land use management, including afforestation, intensification of agriculture, and retirement of marginal lands;  alternative renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, shall be harnessed and developed to substitute for the use of fuel wood and petroleum products for food preparation and general heating;  non-wood construction materials and farm implements shall be continuously developed to prevent further depletion of the country‘s forest resources;  measures shall be taken to establish appropriate vehicle emission standards, inspection procedures, and to develop adequate capacities to enforce them; and  Environmental protection, restoration and enhancement measures shall be mainstreamed in all investments and development programmes by requiring appropriate environmental impact assessments, provision of mitigation measures and effective enforcement mechanisms for compliance with established national standards. 278. The Government has taken practical measures to implement these actions and protect the environment by designating a number of national parks, banning the use of plastic bags, developing and distributing a more energy efficient cooking stove (Adhanet mogogo)and protecting the forest and wildlife resources. It is believed that a combination of these measures have resulted in a marked restoration of the flora and fauna of the country, albeit that more needs to be done to protect, restore and enhance the general environment. Among other things, there exists urgent need for ratifying the Eritrean Environmental Law. Such practical measures will certainly help people sustainably use resources and increase the chances for improved living standards while building the necessary institutions that influence environmental policies and decisions. 279. The GEF and its agencies have supported the establishment of priorities for sustainable development and environmental protection mainly through enabling activities in Eritrea. These activities were helping the country fulfill its obligations under the international conventions. The outcomes of enabling activities have often been used for setting priorities in the national policies and strategic documents. However, in certain cases, outcomes from such projects have not been endorsed officially mainly due to lack of capacity for establishing and disseminating data and information. The GEF supported portfolios, by and large, have addressed these national priorities particularly with regards to sustainable land management as witnessed by the large Land Degradation projects with IFAD and UNDP. 84 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 280. The Government of Eritrea recently established a multi-agency steering committee for the GEF supported ‘Operationalization of Protected Areas’ project. The project was selected on the basis of the critical role that biodiversity can play in the sustainable development of the country; and the country decision that this potential is under-utilized due to the current absence of a national framework for protected areas. The decision was also in recognition of the fact that although the coastal zone is a biodiversity store house for the country, over- extraction of resources is threatening long-term conservation, particularly the only known habitat of the African wild ass, in the Buri Peninsula. This country-driven project is one vivid example of the relevance of GEF support to Eritrea’s sustainable development agenda and environmental priorities. 281. In general, GEF support in CC projects, both enabling and FS as well as through the SGP, have been relevant to the country’s development and growth strategies and environmental priorities, particularly in assisting in the fulfillment of the country’s international conventions. As far as fulfilling GEF mandate is concerned, the projects have targeted social and economic development issues and have addressed the Government’s long term and medium term indicative development plans and priorities (2009-2015). For example, direct benefits to the communities include initiatives that promote energy efficiency in the use of biomass, while also looking for alternative sources of renewable energy including solar, wind, and biogas. 282. An opportunity to further enhance the overall relevance of GEF support exists in the Eritrean renewable energy sector. The main source of electricity in Eritrea is thermal generation (98 %), whereas renewable energy mainly solar and wind electricity accounted for only 2 % as of 2008. the overall access to modern electricity services continues to be among the lowest in the world. At the national level, only 32 % of the population has access to electricity (78 % in urban areas compared to 3 % in rural areas) (EDHS, 2004). Electricity contributes less than 3 % in the final energy supply of the country. 283. Through the national communications to the UNFCCC in 2001 and 2012, Eritrea had identified a number of renewable energy sources such as geothermal, wind and solar energy. With fuel costs rising and a lack of access to energy, the government has yet to fully develop those alternate energy sources. Except for the Wind Energy Applications Project (GEF ID 1136) there have been no further GEF interventions in this area. The promotion of the development of alternative and renewable energy production in areas with no access to pre-existing grids, both for the household and industrial unit level, would be strongly relevant to the country’s needs, and should be pursued in GEF-6. 6.2 Relevance of GEF Support to Eritrea’s Development Priorities and Challenges 284. Poverty is oft quoted as the first enemy of the environment. To address the root cause of poverty and development challenges, the Eritrean government has taken important measures towards improving socio-economic conditions since independence in 1991. Development priorities, in part, are laid out in a number of policy documents, including: the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP), The Food Security Strategy, Education Sector Development Program, 85 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 The National Water Supply Emergency Acton Plan, the National Policy on Gender (2004), the (2012-2016) National Gender Action Plan and the National Health Policy. 285. The Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) in particular, established the national priorities: enhancing the competitiveness of the national economy, human resource development, and promoting social inclusion, and regional development. The National Macro Policy for Sustainable Development of Eritrea (2009) was the first policy document based on sustainable development principles. The document clearly indicated the necessity for a development targeted at the improvement of life quality; and a wider dimension covering economic, social and environmental aspects. 286. In support of the government’s strategy, various agencies, the most visible of which is the UNDP, have shown commitment to assist in reaching these goals in accordance with the development outcomes adopted in the country’s first, second and most recent United Nations Strategic Partnership Cooperation Framework for the period 2013-2016. Environmental Sustainability is one of the GOE expressed priorities in the Framework along with Basic Social Services, National Capacity Development, Food Security and Sustainable Livelihoods and Gender Equity and Advancement of Women. 287. The GEF portfolio in Eritrea aims to support these goals by maintaining the integrity of the environment vis a vis protecting the future economic potential of biodiversity conservation, rehabilitation of degraded lands, mitigating the impacts of climate change, resilience to effects of climate change, safeguarding against POPs, or by securing ecological services. GEF projects have addressed local communities’ development efforts through the promotion of environmentally friendly agricultural practices, and natural resources management practices. 6.3 Relevance of GEF Support to National Action Plans within GEF Focal Areas 288. The evaluation exercise revealed that GEF projects have been relevant to Eritrea’s National Action Plans, by both supporting the activities laid out within them and, in some cases, by helping to develop the plans themselves. The GEF has provided support towards the preparation of:  National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the Stockholm convention on POPs (GEF ID 3139), which helped in identifying approaches and methods for inventories of pesticides and thereby reducing the volume of wastes.  National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) for climate change (GEF ID 1959)  National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for the UNCBD (GEF ID 137) 289. The National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) of 2007 aligned itself to focus to the adaptation needs and projects that were identified in the priority vulnerable sectors. That is to say, the project to develop NAPA was relevant in that it put national focus on reviewing country’s adaptation needs and priority projects in vulnerable sectors. Subsequent projects and their proposed action are developing as expected. All this said, the project assists in the conservation of natural resources as it includes proposed actions and expected results, such as 86 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 the development and implementation of a management plan on protected areas through public participation, and as well as policies on community-based PAs management. 290. Eritrea has received GEF funds to put in place its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), which was adopted in July 2000. There are three other GEF supported projects under biodiversity. The goal of the NBSAP is to restore, conserve and manage Eritrean biodiversity so that it provides environmental services and natural resources that contribute to sustainable and socially fair national economic development (MOLWE-DOE, NBSAP, 2000). This plan enlists a comprehensive set of actions and recognizes three-core areas: Terrestrial, Marine and Agricultural Biodiversity. The plan covered four major components: (i) the Eritrea Biodiversity Stocktaking Assessment Report; (ii) the Eritrea Biodiversity Economic Assessment; (iii) the Assessment of the National Policies, Legislative and Institutional Frameworks; and (iv) the preparation of the First National Report. 291. Relevant to these components, GEF support followed on from the NBSAP to enable Eritrea to prepare its first (GEF ID 137) and second (GEF ID 1506) national reports to the UNCBD. The pipeline project, ‘Operationalization of Protected Areas Management Systems of Eritrea’, is directly relevant to the NBSAP’s programmatic element of ‘in-situ conservation’. 292. The two land degradation projects, which are relatively recent in the GEF portfolio, consist of SIP- Catchments and Landscape Management (GEF ID 3362) and SIP-Sustainable Land Management Pilot Project (GEF ID 3364). These projects address the interlinked problems of poverty, food insecurity, land degradation and biodiversity losses through the development and promotion of innovative SLM technologies and land use planning approaches. Both projects are explicitly linked to the Eritrean National Action Plan to Combat Desertification & Mitigate the Effects of Drought (2002). 293. They both identify a key outcome as addressing the priorities laid out in the NAP, including the following recommendations: to introduce community land use planning in pilot areas; to assist farmers for in situ conservation of indigenous crops; to establish protected areas conservation activities; develop agro-forestry in farm forestry; strengthening traditional coping mechanisms; strengthening the capacity of local communities to combat desertification; establishment of local land degradation committees; undertake community awareness raising and to distribute improved traditional stoves. Projects classified under other focal areas (e.g. biodiversity, climate change) have also made relevant contributions to the country’s land degradation agenda. 294. The GEF projects in Eritrea have been designed in a way that ensures the needs of communities addressing the problems of poverty, reduced land productivity, and biodiversity loss, through the development and promotion of sustainable land management technologies. The primary target groups are those who depend on natural resources for survival, and yet have limited access to such resources. Such groups suffer greatly from the adverse impacts of land degradation as they derive their livelihoods mainly from public forests and communal rangelands, and operate on lands which are prone to erosion. For example, all SGP projects in 87 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 and around Aditekelezan have elements of environmental conservation and sustainable livelihood creation. 6.4 Relevance of GEF Support to the Achievement of Global Environmental Benefits 295. The main purpose of the Global Environmental Benefits Assessment (GEBA) for GEF projects in Eritrea is to appraise the country’s contribution to the GEF mandate and its focal areas based on appropriate environmental indicators. 296. Eritrea, to a large extent, depends on its environmental resources including land, pasture, forestry, and fisheries. Agriculture accounts for the major portion of the country’s GDP. Environmental resources have profound significance serving as a principal form of income for the rural communities and providing opportunities for poverty reduction. Environmental resources are a source of food, shelter, domestic energy, and traditional medicines, which are essential to the vast majority of the rural population. 297. The Global Environmental Benefits Assessment for Eritrea presents an overview of each focal area in the country, a situational analysis and a trend analysis for each focal area. It also refers to the status of the environmental resources by GEF focal area in the country and in respect to the global environment. 298. The six enabling activities have inherently helped to create the enabling framework necessary to underpin the creation of environmental policy and legislative development in Eritrea to underpin the generation of GEB. GEF supported the development of several national environmental plans and strategies necessary for implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. 299. In the course of assessing the relevance of GEF-funded projects one notes there has been no GEF support addressing International Waters. International Waters may be a notable omission in the GEF portfolio as Eritrea shares the Red Sea along with its tremendous and endemic marine biodiversity and fish stocks with at least five other countries. It also sits on one of the most trafficked international shipping routes in the world. 300. Eritrea also has had a very limited number of overt multi-focal projects, only two: The National Capacity Self-Assessment exercise and a global project to facilitate national reporting to the Rio Conventions (GEF ID 3707). The GEF portfolio, however, by its nature has consistently addressed more than one focal area, i.e. has been multi-focal in project implementation. The Sustainable Land Management projects have an element of agro bio-diversity conservation as well as climate change mitigation; similarly the Coastal Marine and Island Biodiversity project had elements of preventing coastal land degradation. While at the single project level results have been evidenced, the portfolio has been less effective at instigating systemic level and global level environmental changes. GEF 5 dedicated funds focus principally on biodiversity and natural resource management by local communities, again this project has elements of sustainable land management and climate change adaptation benefits. 88 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 301. The issue of land degradation is of particular importance and a priority in Eritrea. The current allocation system does not allow for more resources dedicated specifically for LD. Hence, an integrated multi-focal approach to tackling land degradation and other global environmental issues could generate more overt synergies between focal areas and the institutions that execute the projects. 302. Finally, Eritrea did not avail expanded support for forests in GEF5. Using the flexibility of a multi- focal area program GEF-5 established a separate funding window of $250 million for sustainable forest management (SFM) operated as an incentive mechanism for countries to enhance financing of their forests. To access a dollar from the SFM set aside a beneficiary country is required to allocate three dollars from its STAR allocations to a project that addresses SFM related concerns. This could have translated to millions more for Eritrea with a SFM project rather than a BD project. Increased promotion of the SFM program by the GEF and its Agencies would help to increase overall utilization of SFM resources in Eritrea. 6.5 Relevance of the GEF Portfolio to Other Global and National Institutions 303. The GEF Agencies working in Eritrea (UNDP, UNEP, FAO, UNIDO, IFAD) also seek to strengthen the capacity of the national institutions to manage the environment and natural resources; integrate environmental dimensions into poverty reduction strategies and national development frameworks; and strengthen the role of communities and of women in promoting sustainable development. These UN Agencies indicated priority areas for the State of Eritrea (2013–2016) and which are also are anchored on the GOE-UN Strategic Partnership Cooperation Framework (SPCF) (2013-2016), which itself is aligned with the national development priorities articulated in sector plans, strategies and policies. The GEF is aligned to the three UN agency priority areas described in the SPCF, mostly to the priority area of Environmental Sustainability. UN Strategic Priorities for Eritrea (UN SPCF-2013-2016) National Capacity Development: Strengthening human and institutional capacities in support of national policies and strategies. This includes engaging in advocacy and policy dialogue in areas related to sustainable livelihoods and agriculture, and integrated water resources management. Sustainable Livelihoods: Developing long-term empowerment of local communities through area-based development and integrated approaches. The major area of intervention will be strengthening communities’ productive capacity in PA management. It will also support building local leadership capacity over a wide range of areas including planning, programming, management and efficient utilization of resources as well as raising awareness of legal frameworks which benefit the poor. Environmental Sustainability: Contributing to the implementation of GOE’s overall strategy on integrated land, water and environmental resources management. The specific areas of support will be: i) Integrated water resource management ii) Conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, and biodiversity through the establishment of new protected areas (PAs) and application of sustainable land management system (SLM) iii) Increasing community resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change through 89 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 implementation of appropriate mitigation and adaptation programs aimed at reducing climate change risks and communities’ vulnerability iv) Support in advocacy and awareness raising on the effects of climate change and building adaptive capacity of national institutions to undertake adaptive and mitigation assessments to generate information for decision making. 304. The UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is also intended to represent “collaboration and coherence in the UN’s assistance programs”, an endeavor which includes a range of climate change adaptation and adaptation relevant activities. In achieving its overarching goal of contribution to the reduction in absolute poverty in Eritrea, UNDAF pursues activities in six major areas including the highly relevant areas of food security and sustainable agricultural development. 305. During the past several years, UNDP, being the lead UN agencies representative in-country, has assisted Eritrea to implement several important environment and energy-related international conventions and agreements. The UNDP-Eritrea Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) for 2007-2011 was geared towards the promotion of sustainable management of natural resources, renewable energy and the environment. UNDP specifically supported the Government efforts to (a) promote and use renewable and other energy sources; (b) ensure sustainable management of Eritrea’s coastal, marine and island biodiversity; and (c) implement selected elements of the National Action Programme on Desertification. Good lessons were drawn from that Plan for the development of the current Country Programme Document (CPD) 2013-2016, and Strategic Partnership Cooperation Framework (SPCF), 2013-2016. 306. The GEF portfolio is particularly of relevance to the outlined Outcome 7 for Environmental Sustainability which focuses mainly on strengthening the capacity of national institutions to establish the management systems of protected areas, forest trees restoration, mangrove and biodiversity species protection systems, sustainable land management systems, and reduction of forest deterioration. It calls for support of studies and assessments on natural resource and environmental management issues. 307. GEF projects in Eritrea have been strategically prioritized by the GE Operational Focal Point (OFP), taking into account the existing opportunities and constraints, relevance to national agenda and a projects’ objective. Ownership is further demonstrated by the fact that GEF projects in Eritrea originate within national institutions, including the Department of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Energy and Mines and other national bodies. 90 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 7. Efficiency of GEF Support to Eritrea 7.1 Time, Effort and Financial Resources for Project Processing 308. This section presents a review of the efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Eritrea, as measured by the time and financial resources it requires to process a project through the GEF activity cycle. The analysis refers to the project preparation and implementation stages in the GEF project cycle approved by the GEF Council in June 2007. 309. The GEF project cycle has evolved over the years. Following the GEF Evaluation Office’s 2006 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities, the GEF project cycle underwent a revision in 2007 (at the beginning of GEF-4), and processing time frame limits were adjusted. For example, a limit of 22 months for project development was imposed during GEF-4. This limit has been further reduced to 18 months for GEF-5. This section reviews the efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Eritrea, measured through the time and money it takes to process a project through the GEF Activity Cycle. 310. The evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and several CPEs originated reforms going in the direction of simplification and streamlining of the project cycle, which was renewed in 2007. This CPE refers to this new GEF project cycle and assigns dates of previous projects, enabling activities, medium-size and full-size projects to the 5 major steps (A to E) in a way to allow comparison over time (Figures 10 and 11 describe the various steps in the project cycles for FSPs and MSPs). Estimating these figures raises several problems, mostly related to the lack of full and reliable information, which resides in different places (GEF Secretariat, Agencies, and focal point mechanisms). Figure 10: The GEF FSP Project Cycle since 2007 Source: http://www.thegef.org/gef/project_cycle 91 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Figure 11: The GEF MSP Project Cycle since 2007 Source: http://www.thegef.org/gef/project_cycle 311. The Project Management Information System (PMIS) provided, in a few cases, inconsistent information, which had to be cross-checked with information collected from GEF Agencies and national executing agencies. However, in general terms information up to the approval and disbursement of GEF funds to GEF agencies is accurate. Information on the full costs supported by project components or implementers in the formulation phase, particularly government and civil society organizations, are not always available. In some cases, information on dates is incomplete. Project Preparation Costs 312. The cost of preparing a GEF project has been derived from the PMIS dataset. It includes the cost of a PDF or PPG (for projects approved after 2007). Table 23 presents more details on project preparation support provided by the GEF in national projects in Eritrea. Of the 12 national projects in GEF’s Eritrea portfolio, 8 are completed, 3 are under implementation and 1 project is in the pipeline. Of these, 6 projects have received the PDF or PPG grants and one biodiversity project (GEF ID 411) has received PIF 1. One Enabling Activity and all six FSPs have received GEF project preparation support. In terms of focal areas, all land degradation and MFA projects have received PDF/PPG as compared to 50% of the biodiversity and POPs project. In the climate change focal area 1 project out of 3 received PDF/PPG. 313. Of the seven projects to which GEF has provided PDF/PPG/PRIF grants, the preparation grants amounted to US$ 1.05 million, which is 19.9% of the total funding. Considering the entire portfolio of 12 national projects in Eritrea, the PDF/PPG/PRIF grants for GEF- supported FSPs in Eritrea account for 4.3% and EA account for 0.1% of the total GEF funding. 92 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 23: Project Preparation Costs as a percentage of GEF Grant GEF ID Project Title Type Agency Focal GEF Grant GEF PDF/ Total GEF PDF/PPG GEF Area (USD) PPG (USD) Grant as % of Phase (USD) total GEF Grant Complete 137 National Biodiversity EA World BD 275,000 - 275,000 0.00 GEF -1 Strategy, Action Plan and Bank First National Report 278 Enabling Eritrea to EA UNDP CC 303,850 - 303,850 0.00 GEF -1 Prepare its First National Communication in Response to its Commitments to UNFCCC 411 Conservation FSP UNDP BD 4,986,000 311,800 5,297,800 5.89 GEF -1 Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity 1136 Wind Energy Applications FSP UNDP CC 1,950,561 315,000 2,265,561 13.90 GEF-3 1506 Assessment of Capacity EA World BD 170,000 - 170,000 0.00 GEF -2 Building Needs for Bank Biodiversity, Participation in Clearing House Mechanism and Preparation of Second National Report (add on) 1584 National Capacity Self - EA UNEP MFA 198,000 25,000 223,000 11.21 GEF -3 Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management 1959 Development of a EA UNDP CC 200,000 - 200,000 0.00 GEF -3 National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) 3139 Enabling Activities to EA UNIDO POPs 346,500 - 346,500 0.00 GEF -4 Facilitate Early Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Conv. on POPs Under Implementation 3362 SIP-Catchments and FSP IFAD LD 4,350,000 150,000 4,500,000 3.33 GEF -4 Landscape Management 3364 SIP-Sustainable Land FSP UNDP LD 1,820,000 50,000 1,870,000 2.67 GEF -4 Management Pilot Project 93 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 GEF ID Project Title Type Agency Focal GEF Grant GEF PDF/ Total GEF PDF/PPG GEF Area (USD) PPG (USD) Grant as % of Phase (USD) total GEF Grant 3987 Eritrea: Prevention and FSP FAO POPs 2,150,000 50,000 2,200,000 2.27 GEF -4 Disposal of POPs and Obsolete Pesticides Pipeline 4559 Operationalization of FSP UNDP BD 5,878,000 150,000 6,028,000 2.49 GEF -5 Protected Areas Management Systems of Eritrea Total 1,051,800 23,679,711 4.44 Note: CC: Climate Change, BD: Biodiversity, MF: Multi focal, LD: Land degradation, POPs: Persistent Organic Pollutants, FSP: Full size projects, EA: Enabling Activities The GEF Project Cycle 314. Table 24, Table 25, and Figure 10 present the distribution of time taken by proposals to move from entry into the GEF pipeline to project start-up for the FSPs, and EAs, respectively. GEF FSPs could take anywhere between 7 to 30 months to start implementation from day of entry into the GEF pipeline. There is no standard for the overall project time-lapse from pipeline to start date, but there are measures of effectiveness long the way. In Eritrea, all the 6 FSPs have taken more than 18 months from work-program entry stage to CEO approval. Stakeholder views suggested that project formulation processes for preparation of GEF projects are perceived as complex and time consuming. 94 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table 24: Duration of the Activity Cycle for FSPs in Eritrea Duration between stages (Months) GEF_ID Title AtoB BtoC CtoD DtoE AtoC BtoD BtoE CtoE Integrated Semenawi and Debubawi Bahri- Buri-Irrori- Hawakil Protected Area System 4559 5 26 N/A N/A 31 N/A N/A N/A for Conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation 1136 Wind Energy Applications N/A 6 1 N/A N/A 7 7 1 Conservation Management of Eritrea's 411 N/A 7 12 N/A N/A 19 19 12 Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity SIP: Catchments and Landscape 3362 5 22 N/A N/A 17 N/A 33 12 Management SIP: Sustainable Land Management Pilot 3364 5 26 1 1 21 27 27 1 Project Eritrea: Prevention and Disposal of POPs and 3987 2 22 1 3 24 23 40 18 Obsolete Pesticides Average time (Months) 4 18 3 2 23 19 25 9 Note: A: Entry into GEF pipeline, B: Approval by Council / Work Program Inclusion, C: GEF CEO Endorsement / Approval, D: Approval by IAs/EAs, E: Project start-up Figure 12: Time taken (months) for FSPs proposals from entry into the GEF pipeline to project start 4 3.5 3 <6 2.5 7 to 12 Months 2 13 to 18 1.5 19 to 24 1 >24 0.5 0 A to B B to C C to E A to C A to E 315. The Enabling Activities have also been running over their allocated times: 3 out of the 5 projects were delayed, the first by 1 years, and the other two by 2 years. In the case of Enabling Activities, the lack of access to some dates presented challenges in determining and assessing the durations of each stage of the activity cycle. Moreover, EAs are set up in a way that allows for a swift approval process, but no specific time standard has been set. The duration for the 95 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 projects to travel from stage C (GEF CEO Approval) to stage D (Approval by IAs/EAs) varies from 8 days to 7 months. The available data have been presented in Table 25. Table 25: Duration of the Project Cycle for EAs in Eritrea Duration between stages (Months) GEF_ID Title AtoC CtoD DtoE AtoD AtoE National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan and First 137 N/A 0.27 N/A N/A N/A National Report Enabling Eritrea to Prepare its First National 278 Communication in Response to its Commitments to N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A UNFCCC Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity, Participation in Clearing House 1506 3 2 N/A 5 N/A Mechanism and Preparation of Second National Report (add on) National Capacity Self - Assessment (NCSA) for 1584 3 2 N/A 5 5 Global Environmental Management Development of a National Adaptation Program of 1959 0 7 N/A 7 7 Action (NAPA) Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early Action on the 3139 Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on 11 1 N/A 12 POPs Average time (Months) 4 2 - 5 6 Note: A: Entry into GEF pipeline, B: Approval by Council / Work Program Inclusion, C: GEF CEO Endorsement / Approval, D: Approval by IAs/EAs, E: Project start-up Trends in Dropped or Cancelled Projects 316. A total of 15 projects or proposals have been listed in the PMIS for Eritrea. Of these, 12 projects are active or completed and 3 (1 from GEF-3, 2 from GEF-4) have been dropped or cancelled, representing 20% of the total projects entering the GEF pipeline. During GEF-3, 1 project was dropped as compared to 3 completed projects. Similarly in GEF 4, 2 projects were dropped/cancelled vis-à-vis 2 projects being under implementation and 2 in pipeline. There have been no dropped or cancelled projects from GEF-1 or GEF-2, which together have 4 completed projects. More attention to portfolio planning by Eritrea, in order to reduce the rate of dropped or cancelled projects and associated waste of resources, could be considered. Co-finance 317. Co-financing is considered to be an indicator of a project’s sustainability, country ownership, and mainstreaming of GEF activities; and a way to mobilize additional resources for achieving global environment benefits by the GEF. 318. The GEF projects in Eritrea are reported to have generated almost twice the amount of co- financing as compared to GEF grants, which is often made available in a timely manner. In most 96 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 cases, there is also alignment between proposed and actual co-financing. The GEF portfolio in Eritrea generated co-financing of US$ 41.55 million as compared to GEF grants of US$ 22.63 million for 12 national projects. 319. The analysis of the co-financing data shows that among the various modalities, the FSPs and among focal areas, land degradation have generated more co-financing as compared to others. However, for the ‘SIP-Catchments and Landscape Management’ project (GEF ID 3362) the amount of co-financing generated so far is much less than the initial figures. Cost Effectiveness 320. The review of the TEs and TERs for 2 completed projects out of the total five Biodiversity projects showed that the delays in project start-up resulted in more usage of administrative budget as compared to enabling activities. For instance, in the project ‘Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity’ (GEF ID 411) the TER reported that the project was highly inefficient during the first five years of implementation. During this period it spent about 20% of the project budget with little accomplishment. The restructuring after five years of implementation did help the project in cutting the losses. The project was expected to close after a four year delay, implying a significant sum being diverted from the programmatic activities to administrative costs. 321. For the Wind Applications Project, the TE states that the procurement process solicited 22 expressions of interest and subsequently three bids were received from the nine invited pre- qualified suppliers. Two of the bidders pulled out during the process, resulting in only one fully responsive bid at 80% higher than the budgeted amount. Unfortunately, the PMU had no option but to accept the bid, due to limited interest by suppliers. The period from pre- qualification to commissioning in November 2008 was 38 weeks, compared to 16 weeks in the project document. 322. The Project’s original budget was directed to the procurement of equipment and executing civil works, capacity building, and barrier removal programmes. Given the financial constraints faced by GoE, GEF agreed to finance on a grant basis half of the equipment of the decentralized systems component and the grid reinforcement in addition to the training and technical assistance components. Thus, bulk of the equipment procurement was left to GoE financing. UNDP stepped in to provide additional funding to meet the additional costs associated with price escalation. In hindsight, the original cost estimates for the turbines and equipment were not realistic, in light of the small number of units ordered and the impact this has on pricing. Implementation Delays 323. Implementation delays have been reported in 2 projects, GEF ID 411 and 1136, owing to capacity constraints. In project 1136, the project start-up was timely and efficient, however, implementation started to drag after the first 6-8 months. This was due to less experience of the PMU staff in the wind energy related ICB process and requirements, the failure of the TA to provide sufficient technical support to the PMU, and seriously delays in the preparations of bid documents. According to the TE the procurement process for the wind farm project delayed 97 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 the project milestones significantly due to the non-performance of the TA, delays in civil works in the Assab wind farm component, failed contract negotiations and cost increases, which necessitated topping-up financing by UNDP. All The Enabling Activities have also been running over their allocated times: 3 out of the 5 projects we delayed, the first by 1 years, and the other two by 2 years. 7.2 Coordination and Synergies 324. While mechanisms for networking among GEF Agencies, national institutions, GEF projects and other donor-supported projects and activities exist, they have not been fully effective for better synergies in GEF project programming and implementation. 325. The Eritrean Focal Point Office has on several occasions chaired a Steering Committee to guide discussions on portfolio formulation, SGP initiatives, etc. All GEF supported projects had national steering committees that were formed to guide the project management units (PMUs) as well as to set priorities for project activities. 326. However, the potential for increased synergy and collaborative efforts among the agencies and national institutions involved in programming and implementation could be further realized. 327. Roles and areas of cooperation between the Government and the UNDP, the most predominant Agency in the portfolio, are clearly specified for interactions even beyond the GEF portfolio. In practice, the mechanisms are functioning adequately however Eritrean national institutions could be better informed of one another’s related activities and there are few forums to discuss the challenges of sustainable livelihoods, land degradation and biodiversity loss amongst all interested parties. 328. For example, the coordination to steer the implementation of the country’s two SLM projects appears to have weaknesses at the national level. More synergies were visible at the regional level (i.e. between the line ministries and local administrations), but it appears to be less transparent when it comes to coordination between the various executing agencies and the Operational Focal Point (OFP) at the national level. There is a tendency for institutions to move forward with their own agendas with no definite schedule for meetings and contacts between themselves. Improvements were noted with coordination moving steadily in the right direction with greater awareness and willingness among all those concerned, although cases of ambiguity still remain. 329. Efforts have been underway to achieve a more synergistic approach across the various Eritrean departments involved in delivery of the GEF projects. Less evidence is available to assess meaningful synergistic approaches amongst Eritrea national institutions for GEF supported activities. 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation for Project Adaptive Management 330. At the project level, there are two completed projects within the Eritrea portfolio: the Conservation Management of Eritrean Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity Project has a 98 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 terminal evaluation report with a rating of Moderately Unsatisfactory. At the time of completion, the project was found to most likely have outcomes that would be sustainable; however, the project outcomes themselves and the quality of execution was found to be Moderately Unsatisfactory. The completed Wind Energy Applications project received an outcome rating of Satisfactory. Both projects were studied further as part of ROtI analysis for their progress to impact. 331. Two supervision missions have been conducted for the ongoing Catchments and Landscape Management Project (GEF ID 3362) and the SIP: Sustainable Land Management Pilot Project (GEF ID 3364). Both projects were rated recently as satisfactory and found to be achieving their global environmental objectives and developmental objectives. 332. The evaluation exercise showed that most GEF projects have monitoring and evaluation protocols in the form of Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) and Terminal Evaluations (TEs). However, these were not always available within the GEF PMIS system. Once they were compiled, a review concluded that monitoring information was not adequately employed to make on the timely corrections of problematic issues especially those related to outcome sustainability. A case in point would be the CMIB (GEF ID 411), where its supervision (or lack thereof) allowed the over-ambitious project to carry on until close to original project completion date before its parameters were redefined. For the wind energy project, supervision reports simply did not appropriate record the inappropriate procurement of technical services and equipment and supplies not only causing delays but affecting the sustainability of the off-grid wind energy component of the project. All supervision reports and even the final terminal evaluation itself conclude satisfactory results, even for M&E. 333. The executing institutions for GEF-supported programs have made progress by way of establishing mechanisms for M&E. Unfortunately, these institutions infrequently come together internally and discuss procedural as well as operational matters related to GEF projects. Within the context of the above, more remains to be desired in terms of putting things into practice as the record of results are not adequately shared and reported on regular basis. Furthermore, interviews with concerned government officials reveal that a lack of sufficient funds, shortage in transport facilities, and limited human capacity have been reported as formidable constraints to put M&E into practice. 334. M&E appears to be well established and mainstreamed when it comes to the SGP projects. The community-led program has national and local steering committees to oversee program design, implementation and M&E. Members are composed of representatives from local NGOs, government, academia, UNDP, co-funding donors, beneficiary communities, the private sector and the media. Among its other responsibilities, it undertakes periodic field visits and by reviewing M&E reports makes important decisions concerning the activities of on-going projects. 335. SGP beneficiary communities also hold regular quarterly meeting to discuss project performance. Stakeholders for FS projects are also reported to meet, though not on a regular basis. However, 99 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 there is no evidence that the practices have been used as feedback for informed decision and adaptive management by decision makers and project management. 100 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex A: Country Response 101 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex B: Quality Assurance Statement 102 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 103 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex C: Country-Specific Terms of Reference Terms of Reference GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea (1992-2012) Background and Introduction 1. Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) are one of the main evaluation streams of work of the GEF Evaluation Office 32. By capturing aggregate portfolio results and performance of the GEF at the country level they provide useful information for both the GEF Council and the countries. CPEs’ relevance and utility will increase in GEF-5 with the increased emphasis on country ownership and country driven portfolio development. 2. GEF eligible countries are chosen for portfolio evaluations, based on a selection process and a set of criteria including the size, diversity and maturity of their portfolio of projects 33. Among several considerations, Eritrea was selected as it is a part of Sub-Saharan Africa and also a ‘Least Developed Country’. Eritrea has a comparatively large, diverse and mature portfolio with emphasis on climate change and biodiversity and has high co-financing amounts. Furthermore, Eritrea includes several on-going projects as well as those that are on the verge of implementation. 3. Eritrea is situated in an arid and semi-arid region of Sub-Saharan Africa. After a war lasting approximately 30 years, it gained independence in 1991. It is bordered by Sudan in the west, Ethiopia in the south, and Djibouti in the southeast with Asmara as the capital of the country. The northeastern and eastern parts have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea, directly across from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The nation has a total area of approximately 120,000 km2 (45,406 sq. mi), including approximately 390 islands, the prominent being the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands 34. 4. Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country, with nine recognized ethnic groups namely the Afar, Bilen, Hidarb, Kunama, Nara, Rashaida, Saho, Tigre, and Tigryna. The estimated population is around six million. Most residents speak Afro-Asiatic languages, either of the Semitic or Cushitic branches. Among these communities, the Tigrinya make up about 55% of the population and 32 A complete list of countries having undergone CPEs can be found on Office’s website (www.gefeo.org). 33 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/CPE_final_country_selection_note-0910_0.pdf, Website access: 1st May 2013 34 Eritrea’s Initial National Communication, UNFCC, Pub: The State of Eritrea Ministry of Land, Water and Environment, December 2001. 104 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 the Tigre constitute around 30%. In addition, there is a number of Nilo-Saharan speaking Nilotic ethnic minorities 35. 5. Despite its small land area, Eritrea has diverse climate zones, mainly due to its high topographic variations. Physiographically the country is divided into the Central Highlands (above 2000 m from sea level), the Midlands (1500-2000 m from sea level) and the Lowlands (below 1500 m from sea). The rainfall pattern is affected by this topographic variation in the country; annual rainfall varying from about 100mm in the lowlands to about 700mm in the central highlands. Further, Eritrea is divided in six agro-ecological zones, namely, the Moist Highland, Arid Highland, Sub-Humid, Moist Lowland and the Semi-Desert. The variations in mean annual temperature range from 15°C in the moist and arid highlands to 32°C in the semi-desert 36. 6. The Human Development Index (HDI) is 0.351, giving country a rank of 181 out of 187 countries. The HDI of Sub-Saharan Africa as a region increased from 0.366 in 1980 to 0.475 today, thus placing Eritrea below the regional average 37. Since independence from Ethiopia in 1991, Eritrea has economic problems similar to other small, developing country states, accentuated by the recent implementation of restrictive economic policies 38. However, According to the World Bank’s June 2012 Global Economic Prospects, Eritrea became one of the fastest growing African economies in 2011, with growth in gross domestic product (GDP) projected at 14%, up from an estimated 2.2% in 2010, The growth was mainly stimulated by favorable harvest and the mining sector (mainly gold), which has attracted substantial foreign direct investment 39. However, growth in absolute terms is small. Eritrea is one of the least developed countries in the world, with an average annual per capita income of US$403 in 2010. 7. The predominant economic activity for more than two thirds of the population is the rain-fed agriculture. It is a risky enterprise, and food security remains one of the government’s main concerns. Favorable rains and rehabilitation of rural infrastructure have led to improved agricultural performance and food security in the last three years. Large fiscal and trade deficits are managed through price, exchange rate and interest rate controls, which have led to a shortage of foreign exchange and a fall in private sector activity. The size of the public debt in proportion to GDP is a concern. The official annual inflation rate rose to 13.3% in 2011, from 11.6% in 2010, but much improved compared to 29.5% in 2009.In the longer term, sustained real economic growth of 7% or more will be required for to reach the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. 8. Major environmental issues faced by Eritrea are continued deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, overgrazing, and significant land loss as a result of the presence still of hundreds of 35 Eritrea’s Initial National Communication, UNFCC, Pub: The State of Eritrea Ministry of Land, Water and Environment, December 2001. 36 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/eritrea/Eritrea.htm#3. CLIMATE AND AGRO ECOLOGICAL, Website access 2nd May 2013 37 http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ERI.html, Website access 1st May 2013 38 http://www.indexmundi.com/eritrea/economy_profile.html, Website access 1st May 2013 39 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/eritrea/overview, Website access 2nd May 2013 105 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 thousands of land mines. Significant strides towards sustainability and environmental recovery have been made by the Government of Eritrea. It has embarked on a program to reforest (which in 1900 was 30% forested land, despite heavy logging) and prevent wood from being used as a fuel source. Land Degradation is a central issue causing serious concern. Lack of proper land use practices is the primary cause of degradation. In the central and the northern highlands, the land degradation is mainly due to water erosion. 9. As the main form of land use in Eritrea is agriculture and pastorals, land management is the prime concern to protect the arable land from land degradation. The major constraint facing soil conservation and water management have been the traditional land tenure system known as ‘Dessa’ System (village ownership). The heavy dependence on biomass fuel has led to aggravated deforestation, soil erosion and flooding. 10. Deforestation is another cause of concern, with a fall of forest cover to less than 1% as compared to 30% in the last century. Factors like agriculture expansion, increased firewood consumption, heavy livestock grazing, internal strife and construction of traditional houses known as ‘Hidmo’ 40 in rural are associated with the loos of forest cover. 11. Water is also a scarce commodity in Eritrea, with no perennial water source, all rivers and their tributaries being mostly seasonal and intermittent. Ground water is the major source of water. But no drinking water standards have been formulated which resulted in increase in water pollution affecting the quality of ground water. There is high amount of fluoride which is also a chemical detrimental to human health. Sanitation and solid waste management are other issues that need to be addressed. Industrialization in Eritrea started quite early which resulted in industrial pollution as the machinery and technology can be outdated. The total quantity of hazardous liquid waste generated from the industries is to the tune of 3,640 metric/year 41. 12. GEF has been active in Eritrea since 1 9 9 2 with 12 national projects. The portfolio includes 3 climate change projects, 4 projects in biodiversity, 1 multifocal area project, 2 in POPs and 2 in land degradation (Table1). The total GEF grant is approximately $22.62 million with $41.55 million of co-financing. The Eritrean projects are evenly spread within the GEF project cycle with 4 projects completed, 2 projects under implementation and 6 pending (these include CEO, Council and Agency approved). 13. The portfolio in Eritrea is split as follows: UNDP has been a main channel for support with 6 projects totaling over $15.13 million in GEF budget; World Bank has implemented $0.44 million in GEF support through 2 projects; IFAD has 1 project with a total GEF budget of $4.35 million and UNEP, UNDP, FAO also with 1 project each having GEF budget of $0.19 million, $0.34 million and $2.15 million respectively. Respective co-financing amounts by focal area are indicated in Table 1. 40 It is estimated that 100 trees have to be felled to be felled to construct one such traditional house (Environment Eritrea, 1995) 41 Srikanth, R. Challenges of Environmental Management in Eritrea – A case study, Department of Environment, Asmara, Eritrea. 106 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Table1: GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and GEF Agency Focal Area Agency GEF Amount($) Co-financing Total Amount of Amount ($) ($) Projects UNDP 2,454,411 2,953,136 5,407,547 3 Climate Change Subtotal 2,454,411 2,953,136 5,407,547 3 World 445,000 15,000 460,000 2 Bank Biodiversity UNDP 10,864,000 11,395,400 22,259,400 2 Subtotal 11,309,000 11,410,400 22,719,400 4 UNEP 198,000 20,000 218,000 1 Multi Focal Area Subtotal 198,000 20,000 218,000 1 POPs FAO 2,150,000 3,209,153 5,359,153 1 UNIDO 346,500 35,000 381,500 1 Subtotal 2,496,500 3,244,153 5,740,653 2 UNDP 1,820,000 2,250,000 4,070,000 1 Land IFAD 4,350,000 21,678,000 26,028,000 1 Degradation Subtotal 6,170,000 23,928,000 30,098,000 2 TOTAL 22,627,911 41,555,689 64,183,600 12 Objectives of the evaluation 14. The purpose of the Eritrea CPE is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of results and performance of the GEF supported activities in the country, and of how the GEF supported activities fit into the national strategies and priorities as well as within the global environmental mandate of the GEF. Based on this overall purpose, the Eritrea CPE will have the following specific objectives: • Evaluate the effectiveness and results 42 of GEF support in a country, with attention to the sustainability of achievements at the project level and progress toward impact on global environmental benefits. • Evaluate the relevance and efficiency 43 of GEF support in Eritrea from several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, the GEF mandate of 42 From the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2010: Effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF activity’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance; Results: in GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short to medium-term outcomes, and progress toward longer term impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects, and other local effects; Sustainability: the likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion; projects need to be environmentally as well as financially and socially sustainable. 43 Relevance: the extent to which the activity is suited to local and national environmental priorities and policies and to global environmental benefits to which the GEF is dedicated; Efficiency; the extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible. 107 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 achieving of global environmental benefits, and GEF policies and procedures. • Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) the GEF Council in its decision making process, (2) Eritrea on its collaboration / participation in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF support. 15. The Eritrea CPE will also be used to provide information and evidence to other evaluations being conducted by the Office; for example the Small Grants Programme evaluation and the Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS5) to the GEF Replenishment Committee. 16. The Eritrea CPE will analyze the performance of individual projects as part of the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating such projects. CPEs are conducted to bring to the attention of Council different experiences and lessons on how the GEF is implemented at the national level from a wide variety of countries. CPEs do not aim at evaluating the performance of GEF agencies, national entities (agencies / departments, national governments or involved civil society organizations), or individual projects. Key Evaluation Questions 17. GEF CPEs are guided by a set of key questions that should be answered based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the evaluative information and perceptions collected during the evaluation exercise. The Eritrea CPE will be guided by the following key questions: Effectiveness, results and sustainability a) Is GEF support effective in producing results at the project level, b) the aggregate level (portfolio and program) by focal area? country level? c) Is GEF support effective in producing results that build on previous lessons learned and good practices from GEF projects and partners? d) Is GEF support effective in producing results that are making progress to impact after project completion? e) Is GEF support effective in replicating / up-scaling the successful results it has demonstrated in its projects? f) Is the GEF support effective in linking environmental conservation measures with compatible sustainable livelihood and development activities for achieving global environmental benefits? g) Is GEF support effective at developing institutional and individual capacity within Eritrea? h) Has the GEF support to Eritrea facilitated the channeling of additional resources for preventing land degradation efforts for achieving global environmental benefits? Relevance a) Is GEF support relevant to the Eritrea sustainable development agenda and environmental priorities, to the country’s development needs and challenges, and to national GEF focal area action plans? b) Is GEF support relevant to the objectives linked to the different global environmental benefits in the climate change, biodiversity, international waters, land degradation, and chemicals focal areas? c) Are GEF and its Agencies supporting environmental and sustainable development prioritization, country ownership and decision-making process in Eritrea, and if so, how has 108 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 this evolved overtime? d) To what extent have GEF-supported activities also received support from the country and/or from other donors? Efficiency a) How much time, effort and financial resources (including co-financing) does it take to formulate and implement projects, by type of GEF support modality (including SGP)? b) What are the roles, types of engagement and coordination among different stakeholders in project implementation? c) What are the synergies among GEF agencies, Eritrea national institutions and other donors in support of GEF programming and implementation? d) What role does Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) play in project adaptive management and overall efficiency? 18. Each of these questions is complemented by indicators, potential sources of information and methods in an evaluation matrix, which is presented in Annex 1. Scope and Limitations 19. The Eritrea CPEs will cover all types of GEF supported activities in the country at all stages of the project cycle (pipeline, on-going and completed) and implemented by all active GEF Agencies in all active focal areas, including applicable GEF corporate activities such as the Small Grants Programme (SGP) and as election of regional and global programs that are of special relevance to these countries. However, the main focus of the evaluation will be the projects implemented within the country boundaries, i.e. the national projects, be these full-size, medium- size or enabling activities. 44 The stage of the project will determine the expected CPE focus (see Table2). Table2.Focus of evaluation according to stage of project Project Focus On a exploratory basis Status Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Results/Benefits Completed Full Full Full Full On-going Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood Pipeline Expected Processes Not applicable Not applicable 20. The GEF does not establish country programs that specify expected achievements through programmatic objectives, indicators, and targets. However, since 2010 the GEF has started supporting countries in undertaking national portfolio formulation exercises on a voluntary basis. These exercises serve as a priority setting tool for countries and as a guide for GEF Agencies as they assist recipient countries. These country programming efforts are rather recent, which limits their usefulness in country portfolio evaluations that look back up to the start of GEF operations, 44 The review of selected regional projects will feed in the aggregate assessment of the national GEF portfolio described above 109 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 i.e. sometimes 20 years back. This is why generally CPEs entail some degree of retrofitting of frameworks to be able to judge the relevance of the aggregated results of a diverse portfolio of projects. Accordingly, the CPE evaluation framework described here will be adapted along with the other relevant national and GEF Agencies’ strategies, country programs and/or planning frameworks as a basis for assessing the aggregate results, efficiency and relevance of the GEF portfolio in Eritrea. 21. GEF support is provided through partnerships with many institutions operating at many levels, from local to national and international level. It is therefore challenging to consider GEF support separately. The Eritrea CPE will not attempt to provide a direct attribution of development results to the GEF, but address the contribution of the GEF support to the overall achievements, i.e. to establish a credible link between what GEF supported activities and its implications. The evaluation will address how GEF support has contributed to overall achievements in partnership with others, through analysis on roles and coordination, synergies and complementarities and knowledge sharing. 22. The assessment of results will be focused, where possible, at the level of outcomes and impacts rather than outputs. Project-level results will be measured against the overall expected impact and outcomes from each project. Special attention will be paid to the identification of factors affecting the level of outcome achievements and progress to impact, as well as to the risks that may prevent further progress to long term impacts. Outcomes at the focal area level will be primarily assessed in relation to catalytic and replication effects, institutional sustainability and capacity building, and awareness. 23. Progress towards impact of a representative sample of mature enough projects 45 (i.e. completed at least since 2 years) will be looked at through field Reviews of Outcome to Impact (ROtI) studies. Expected impacts at the focal area level will be assessed in the context of GEF objectives and indicators of global environmental benefits. 24. The inclusion of regional and global projects increases the complexity of this type of evaluations since these projects are developed and approved under different context (i.e. regional or global policies and strategies) than national countries. 25. Within the national portfolio, 4 full size project are completed, 2 full size projects are under implementation and 6 pending (includes CEO, Council and Agency approved – 4 full-size and 2 enabling activity). The context in which these projects were developed, approved and are being implemented constitutes another focus of the evaluation. This includes a historic assessment of the national sustainable development and environmental policies, strategies and priorities, legal environment in which these policies are implemented and enforced, GEF Agencies country strategies and programs and the GEF policies, principles, programs and strategies. Methodology 45 It is expected that at least two ROtIs would be conducted. 110 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 26. The Eritrea country portfolio evaluation will be conducted by staff of the GEF Evaluation Office and staff and consultants from ECOSOC. The team includes technical expertise on the national environmental and sustainable development strategies, evaluation methodologies, and GEF. 46 27. ECOSOC staff qualifies under the GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines, and have signed a declaration of interest to indicate no recent (last 3-5 years) relationship with GEF support in the country. The Operational Focal Point in the country will act as resource person in facilitating the CPE process by identifying interviewees and source documents, organizing interviews, meetings and field visits. 28. The methodology includes a series of components using a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and tools. The expected sources of information include: • Project level: project documents, project implementation reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation reviews, reports from monitoring visits, and any other technical documents produced by projects; • Country level: national sustainable development agendas, environmental priorities and strategies, GEF-wide, focal area strategies and action plans, global and national environmental indicators; • Agency levels: country assistance strategies and frameworks and their evaluations and reviews; • Evaluative evidence at country level from other evaluations implemented either by the Office, by the independent evaluation offices of GEF Agencies, or by other national or international evaluation departments; • Interviews with GEF stakeholders, including the GEF Operational Focal Point and all other relevant government departments, bilateral and multilateral donors, civil society organizations and academia (including both local and international NGOs with a presence in the country), GEF Agencies, SGP and the national UN conventions’ Focal Points; • Interviews with GEF beneficiaries and supported institutions, municipal governments and associations, and local communities and authorities; • Surveys with GEF stakeholders in the country; • Field visits to selected project sites, using methods and tools developed by the Office such as outlined in the Review of Outcomes to Impact (ROtI) Handbook; • Information from national consultation workshops. 46The team from ECOSOC headed by Mr. Tessfa Mariam Tekie (Team Leader and Socio-Economist) and composed of Mr. Weldetensea Tewelde (Senior researcher and Associate Professor in Geography in the College of Social Science), Mr. Weldeselassie Okubazghi (Senior researcher and Associate Professor in Plant Production Ecology and Resources Conservation in the College of Agriculture) and Mulubrhan G/yohannes Mehreteab. 111 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 29. The quantitative analysis will use indicators to assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support using projects as the unit of analysis (that is, linkages with national priorities, time and cost of preparing and implementing projects, etc.) and to measure GEF results (that is, progress towards achieving global environmental impacts) and performance of projects (such as implementation and completion ratings). Available statistics and scientific sources, especially for national environmental indicators, will also be used. 30. The Evaluation Team will use standard tools and protocols for the CPEs and adapt these to the national and regional context. These tools include a project review protocol to conduct the desk and field reviews of GEF projects and interview guides to conduct interviews with different stakeholders. 31. The Eritrea CPE will include visits to project sites. The criteria for selecting the sites will be finalized during the implementation of the evaluation, with emphasis placed on both ongoing and completed projects. The evaluation team will decide on specific sites to visit based on the initial review of documentation and balancing needs of representation as well as cost- effectiveness of conducting the field visits. 32. Quality assurance will be performed on the final report by a Quality Assurance Panel composed of two national independent national experts. The expertise provided covers the relevant scientific and technical aspects of the peer review function related to the GEF focal areas as well as to evaluation. Process and Outputs 33. These country-specific TOR have been prepared based on two GEF Evaluation Office visits to Eritrea in February and April 201. The first mission was conducted with the purpose of assessing institutional and human capacity for joint management, quality assurance and national conduct of the evaluation. The 2nd mission was for scoping the evaluation and identifying key issues to be included in the analysis. The scoping mission was also an opportunity to officially launch the evaluation and introduce the selected consultants to GEF national stakeholders. These TOR conclude the preparatory phase, and set the scene for the evaluation phase, during which the Evaluation Team will collect information and review literature to extract existing reliable evaluative evidence and prepare specific inputs to the CPE, including: - the GEF Portfolio Database which describes all GEF support activities within the country, basic information (GEF Agency, focal area, implementation status), their implementation status, project cycle information, GEF and co-financing financial information, major objectives and expected (or actual) results, key partners per project, etc. - Country Environmental Legal Framework which provides an historical perspective of the context in which the GEF projects have been developed and implemented in Eritrea. This document will be based on information on national environmental legislation, environmental policies of the government administration (plans, strategies and similar), and the international agreements signed by Eritrea presented and analyzed through time so to be able to connect with particular GEF support. 112 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 - Global Environmental Benefits Assessment which provides an assessment of the country’s contribution to the GEF mandate and its focal areas based on appropriate indicators, such as those used in the System for the Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) (biodiversity, climate change and land degradation) and others used in projects documents. - Review of Outcomes to Impact (ROtI) Field studies of three projects completed since at least 2 years, selected in consultation with the Evaluation Office staff, which will contribute to strengthen the information gathering and analysis on results. - The Evaluation Team will also conduct additional field visits of other (3-5) ongoing and/or completed national projects, including those from the Small Grants Programme (SGP) Portfolio of projects 47, selected in consultation with the Evaluation Office staff, which will contribute to strengthen the information gathering and analysis on results. - Conduct the evaluation analysis and triangulation of collected information and evidence from various sources, tools and methods. This will be done during a mission to Eritrea by the Office’s Task Manager working with the ECOSOC team. The aim will be to consolidate evidence gathered thus far, identify missing information and analysis gaps and arrive at preliminary findings. These will be summarized in a concise Aide Mémoire, which will be distributed to stakeholders one week prior to the final consultation workshop. 48 During this mission, additional analysis, meetings, document reviews and/or field work might be undertaken as needed. - Conduct a Stakeholder Consultation Workshop for the Government and national stakeholders, including project staff, donors and GEF Agencies, to present and gather stakeholders’ feedback on the GEF Eritrea CPE key preliminary findings, contained in the Aid- Mémoire and circulated prior to the workshop. The workshop will be an opportunity to verify eventual errors of facts or analysis in case these are supported by adequate additional evidence brought to the attention of the Evaluation Team. The workshop will also aim at identifying potential areas of recommendations and verify their concreteness and feasibility; - Prepare a Draft GEF Eritrea CPE Report, which incorporates comments received at the final consultation workshop. The draft report will be sent out for factual error checking as well as errors of analysis to stakeholders; Consider the eventual incorporation of comments received to the draft report and prepare - the Final Eritrea CPE Report. The GEF Evaluation Office will bear full responsibility for the content of the report. Evaluation Key Milestones 33. The evaluation will be conducted between February and September 2013.The key milestones of the evaluation are presented here below: Preparation Status Preparatory work, preliminary data gathering Completed in January 201 Pre-evaluation mission Completed in February 2013 Evaluation Work plan Completed in March 2013 Evaluation matrix Completed in March 2013 47 Field visits to SGP projects will be undertake when opportunistic in relation to other field work. 48 The Aide Mémoire will be circulated to GEF stakeholders with an invitation to the final consultation workshop. 113 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Quality control/peer review, finalization and disclosure of Eritrea- June 2013 specific CPE TOR Milestone Deadline Launching evaluation phase, literature review, data gathering March 2013 Country Environmental Legal Framework July 2013 Global Environmental Benefits Assessment July, 2013 Data collection/interviews, GEF portfolio database and project March-August, 2013 review protocols Finalization of the GEF country portfolio database August 2013 Two ROtI field studies August 2013 Consolidation and triangulation of evaluative evidence, additional Week of July 22, 2013 analysis/gap-filling Preparation of a Aid Mémoire (Report of Preliminary Findings) August 31, 2013 Presentation of Preliminary Findings in a Consultation workshop Week of September 16, 2013 Draft CPE report for circulation October 1, 2013 Delivery of final CPE report October 15, 2013 Eritrea CPE Report Outline 34. The CPE report will be a concise, stand-alone document organized along the following general table of contents: CHAPTER 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations Background Objectives, Scope and Methodology Conclusions • Results and effectiveness • Relevance • Efficiency Lessons Recommendations CHAPTER 2. Evaluation Framework Background Objectives and Scope Methodology Limitations CHAPTER 3. Context The under analysis: General description The Global Environmental Facility: General description Environmental resources in key GEF support areas The Environmental Legal Framework in Eritrea The Environmental Policy Framework in Eritrea CHAPTER 4. The GEF portfolio in Eritrea Defining the GEF Portfolio Activities in the GEF Portfolio 114 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Evolution of GEF Support by Focal Area and by GEF Agency Corporate, Regional and Global Programs Roles and Responsibilities among Different Stakeholders in Project Implementation The GEF Focal Point Mechanism in Eritrea CHAPTER 5. Results of GEF support to the Eritrea Global Environmental Benefits/Impacts Catalytic and Replication Effects Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Building Results by Focal Area Knowledge Generation and Learning CHAPTER 6. Relevance of the GEF support in The Republic of Eritrea Relevance of GEF Support to the Country’s Sustainable Development Agenda and Environmental Priorities Relevance of GEF Support to Country’s Development Priorities and Challenges Relevance of GEF Support to National Action Plans within GEF Focal Areas Relevance of GEF Support to the achievement of Global Environmental Benefits Relevance of the GEF Portfolio to Other Global and National Institutions CHAPTER 5. Efficiency of GEF supported activities in The Republic of Eritrea Time, Effort, and Financial Resources Required for Project formulation Coordination and synergies Monitoring and Evaluation for Project Adaptive Management ANNEXES A. Country Response B. Quality Assurance statement C. Country-specific Terms of Reference D. Evaluation Matrix E. Interviewees F. Sites Visited G. Workshop Participants H. GEF Portfolio in Eritrea I. Bibliography J. Acronyms 115 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex D: Evaluation Matrix Questions Indicators Sources of information Method EFFECTIVENESS, RESULTS AND SUSTAINABILITY Project staff and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual Overall project outcomes and impacts of GEF government representatives, NGOs interviews support ROtI studies ROtI methodology Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Existing ratings for project outcomes (self- Desk review, project review terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation ratings and independent ratings) protocols reviews, etc) Literature review, meta analysis Changes in global benefit indexes and other Evaluative evidence from projects and donors, of evaluation reports, national global environmental indicators global environmental benefits assessment and global state of environment reports Overall project outcomes and impacts of GEF Project staff and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual a) Is GEF support effective in support government representatives, NGOS interviews producing results (outcomes and impacts) at the project ROtI studies ROtI methodology level, aggregate (portfolio and Project-related reviews (implementation reports, program) level and country Sustainability ratings for projects that are still terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation GEF Portfolio aggregate analysis level? Are these results (project under implementation re likelihood that reviews, etc) level) sustainable? objectives will be achieved Data from overall projects and other donors, , Catalytic and replication effect on national Desk review including evaluation studies by other donors and regional programs ROtI studies ROtI methodology Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual government representatives interviews Data from overall projects and other donors, Desk review including evaluation studies by other donors Use of tracking tools and M&E data? ROtI studies ROtI methodology Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual government representatives, NGOs interviews Existing ratings for project outcomes (self- Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Desk review, project review ratings and independent ratings) terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation protocols 116 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method reviews, etc) Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Existing ratings for project outcomes (self- Desk review, project review terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation ratings and independent ratings) protocols reviews, etc) b) Is GEF support effective in producing results related to the Dissemination of positive impacts of GEF project staff and beneficiaries, national and local dissemination of lessons projects and best practices into national Focus groups and individual government representatives civil society staffs learned in GEF projects and development plans and other channels to interviews (NGOs and academia), with partners? If so, how are mainstream lessons from GEF projects such lessons shared in- Project-related reviews (implementation reports, country? Lessons learned are shared nationally and terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation Desk review, ROtI methodology, regionally and models/interventions are in reviews, and so on), ROtI studies, project staffs GEF portfolio and pipeline use and beneficiaries, national and local government analysis Representatives, NGOs and academia Continued existence of the intended change/activity beyond the GEF support Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Desk review, focus groups and c) Has GEF support led to progress terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation individual interviews, project toward impact over an Availability of financial and technical reviews, etc.); Project staffs and beneficiaries, review protocols, ROtI extended period of time after resources to carry out the interventions national and local government representatives; methodology, GEF portfolio completion? beyond GEF funding ROtI studies analysis Ownership of projects by local institutions or by beneficiary groups who continue to engage with the interventions d ∗) Is the GEF support effective in Project related reviews; project staffs and Project Review Protocols, focus creating individual capacity at Evidence of individual capacity improvement beneficiaries, national and local government groups and individual interviews, national, regional and local by credentials and performance representatives; NGOs and academia, ROtI ROtI methodology levels? studies, evaluation studies by other donors e*) Is the GEF support effective in Evidence of institutional capacity Project related reviews; project staffs and Project Review Protocols, focus strengthening institutional strengthening by institutional creation, beneficiaries, national and local government groups and individual interviews, capacity at national, regional performance measures, staffing or budget representatives; ROtI studies, NGO reps ROtI methodology and local levels? ∗ For the purposes of analysis, the review of the key question concerning individual capacity and institutional strengthening has been split. 117 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Incorporation of livelihood needs into project terminal evaluations (TE), TE reviews, Desk Project Review Protocols, design etc.);project staffs and beneficiaries, national and stakeholder consultations (focus f) Is the GEF support effective in local government representatives, NGOs, groups and individual interviews) linking environmental conservation academia measures with compatible Evidence of environmental stress reduction; sustainable livelihood and status improvement Project-related reviews, ROtI studies, project staff Project Review Protocols, ROtI development activities for achieving and beneficiaries, national and local government methodology, GEF portfolio global environmental benefits? representatives and civil society representatives Evidence of livelihood improvements among analysis, stakeholder (NGO and academia), evaluation studies by other communities who are dependent on natural consultation donors resources Project related reviews; project staff and % allocated for livelihood support from the Project review protocols, focus beneficiaries, national and local government total support? groups and individual interviews representatives, NGOs and academia Institutions continue the projects or use g) Is GEF support effective in lessonsto provide services and interventions Project staff and beneficiaries, national and local replicating/up-scaling the government representatives; Desk review; Project Review successful results it has Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Protocols, Meta-analysis, ROtI demonstrated in its projects? Evidence of an increase in the use of similar terminal evaluations (TE), TE reviews, etc.); Data methodology, Focus groups and interventions. from overall projects and other donors; ROtI individual interviews Catalytic up-scaling & replication effects studies Evidence of land degradation prevention projects/activities as supported by the Govt/other donors Project staff and beneficiaries, national and local h) Has GEF support facilitated the government representatives; channelling of additional Desk Review, Project Review resources for preventing land National/regional policies (agriculture, Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Protocols, individual interviews, degradation as a means to forestry, envmt, etc) to slow the rates of land terminal evaluations (TE), TE reviews, etc.); Data RotI, Meta-evaluation achieve global environmental benefits? degradation from overall projects and other donors, including evaluation studies; ROtI studies Active monitoring of land degradation by government/non-government entities RELEVANCE a) Is the GEF support relevant to the GEF support for environmental protection is Eritrean relevant sustainable development and Desk review, GEF portfolio national sustainability development within Eritrea’s development vision and environment policies, strategies and action plans analysis by focal area, Agency, 118 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method agenda and environmental national strategies, including strategies for Project-related documentation (project modality, and project status priorities, the national development progress towards the Millennium document and log frame, implementation (National), selected key person needs and challenges and national Development Goals? reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation interviews GEF focal area action plans? reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies’ project databases, evaluation studies by other donors Desk review, GEF portfolio Level of GEF support compared to other analysis by focal area, Agency, GEE focal point and its agencies, government development partners in activities prioritized modality and project status authorities and others) in national sustainable development and (national) environmental policies and legislations Stakeholder consultation (focus Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and groups, individual interviews) civil society representatives GEF support has country ownership and is Eritrea based (i.e. project origin, design and Literature review, timelines, etc. Country Legal Environmental Framework implementation) Meta-evaluation GEF supports development needs (i.e., Relevant country level sustainable development income generating, capacity building) and and environment policies, strategies and action Desk review, GEF portfolio reduces challenges plans analysis by focal area, Agency, Project-related documentation (project modality and project status document and log frame, implementation (national) reports, terminal evaluations, terminal The GEF’s various types of modalities, projects evaluations reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies' project and instruments are in coherence with databases country’s needs and challenges Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and Stakeholder consultation (focus civil society representatives groups, individual interviews) Country Legal Environmental Framework Literature review, timelines etc. GEF-supported enabling activities and products (NCSA, NEAP, NAPA, national communications to Desk review GEF support linked to the national UN Conventions, etc.) environmental action plan (NEAP); national communications to UNFCCC; national POPs; Small Grant Programme country strategy National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA); adaptation to climate change (NAPA), etc. Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and Stakeholder consultation (focus civil society representatives groups, individual interviews) 119 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method Level of GEF funding compared to other development assistance in the environmental Desk reviews and meta-analysis sector and development activities Available databases (global such as World Bank, for evaluating financing ADB, etc, and national, such as Ministry of information to assess Finance. planning and economy, Ministries contributions of government, b) Are GEF and its Agencies responsible for Environment etc) donors, private and civil society supporting environmental and Co-financing rate (from Government, private organizations sustainable development sector and/or civil society) prioritization, country ownership and decision- GEF support has Eritrean ownership and is Project design and implementation documents, Desk review, stakeholder making process in Eritrea? And country based (i.e. project design and evaluation studies from other donors, consultation (focus group if so, how has this evolved over implementation by in-country national Government officials, agencies’ staff, donors, and discussions, individual time? institutions) civil society representatives interviews) Relevant national policies and strategic STAR/RAF documents, Project-related documents include set of priorities that reflect documentation Literature review, timelines, the results and outcomes of relevant GEF historical causality, etc. support Country environmental legal framework GEF Project outcomes and impacts are in line National Conventions action plans and Desk review, project field visits, with the Global Benefit Index (for biodiversity reference/links in the RAF, STAR documents. project review protocols and climate change) and with other global indicators for greenhouse gases, POPs, land Global environmental benefits c) Is the GEF support in Eritrea degradation, and international waters Literature review relevant to the objectives linked to the different Global Assessment Environmental Benefits in the Project-related documentation (project climate change, biodiversity, international waters, land GEF portfolio analysis by focal document and log frame, implementation area, Agency, modality, and degradation, and chemicals GEF support linked to meeting national reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation project status (national) focal areas? commitments to conventions reviews, and so on), PMIS, Agencies’ project databases, Government officials, Agencies’ staff, Stakeholder consultation (focus groups, individual donors and civil society representatives (including interviews) NGOs and academia) 120 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method Global environmental benefits Literature review Assessment GEF Instrument, Council decisions, focal area Desk review; GEF portfolio GEF activities, country commitment and programs and strategies, analysis by focal area, Agency, project counterparts support GEF mandate modality, and project status and focal area programs and strategies Project-related documentation(project document (national) (catalytic and replication, etc.) and log frame, implementation reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation reviews, etc.), Meta evaluation d) To what extent have GEF- PMIS, Agencies’ project databases, evaluation supported activities also studies from other donors Co-financing amounts received support from the GEF Secretariat staff and technical staff from GEF National and regional budgets for Individual interviews country and/or from other Agencies environmental protection activities donors? Donor support to non-GEF supported environmental activities Global environmental benefits assessment Literature review Literature review, timelines, Country environmental legal framework historical causality, etc. National allocations for related projects (Ministry Level of funding from Eritrean Government Government documents and of Finance and economy, Ministry responsible for for GEF projects and its trajectory over time interviews with officials environment) Alignment of Global Environmental Benefits Comparison of country context/national (GEBs) to national sustainable development development strategies and GEB(through country Desk review priorities context and GEB assessment) (i.e. encouraging economic Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and e) Are there tradeoffs between the civil society representatives Stakeholder consultation (focus development/poverty reduction in a relevance of GEF support to groups, individual interviews, sustainable manner) Eritrea's national priorities national workshop) versus the relevance to Global Environmental Benefits? Contribution of GEF projects to support or Project-related documentation, STAR/RAF GEF portfolio analysis integrate environment objectives into the strategy documents larger development agendas. Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and Stakeholder consultation (focus civil society representatives groups, individual interviews, national workshop) 121 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method Literature review, timelines, Country Environmental Legal Framework historical causality, etc. Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and Alignment of international projects to civil society representatives Stakeholder consultation (focus meeting local/regional sustainable groups, individual interviews, development priorities and needs national workshop) EFFICIENCY Process indicators: processing timing (according to project cycle steps), preparation and implementation cost by type of Project-related documentation (project modalities etc. documents and log frames, implementation Desk review, GEF portfolio reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation a) How much time, effort and analysis, timelines reviews, etc.), PMIS and Agencies project financial resources does it take Financial spending timeline intact with plans databases. to formulate and implement Plans are adapted as necessary projects, by type of GEF Financial allocations are used as scheduled support modality in Eritrea? GEF Secretariat and Agencies’ staff and Projects drop-outs from PDF and cancellations government officials, GEF focal point Individual interviews, field visits, National and local government officials, project review protocols GEF vs co-financing donors, NGOs, beneficiaries Use of M&E inputs to guide the project towards achieving results Project-related documentation especially Desk reviews, GEF portfolio progress reports, terminals and terminal analysis, interviews with GEF b) What role does Monitoring and Consideration of lessons learned? evaluation reviews. agencies, focal point Evaluation (M&E) play in Tracking tools used, correctly filled in project adaptive management and overall efficiency? Project learning provides information for Project termination reports, policy Desk review, interviews with GEF decisions for future projects, programs, makers/government officials, GEF secretariat and agencies, focal point. policies and portfolios. agencies staff, project reports 122 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Questions Indicators Sources of information Method Types of actors involved and levels of participation Project-related documentation (implementation reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation Working relationships between partners/ reviews, etc) stakeholders Meta evaluation (review of other c) What are the roles, types of Roles and responsibilities of GEF actors donor reports) Desk review and engagement and coordination defined Portfolio Analysis, stakeholder among different stakeholders Project-related documentation analysis in project implementation? Capacity gapbs defined (implementation/progress reports) Project staff, Coordination and exchange of government officials, beneficiaries information/knowledge/lessons between GEF projects Existence of a national coordination GEF Secretariat staff and technical staff from GEF Interviews, field visits, mechanism for GEF support Agencies, and GEF operational focal point staff institutional analysis Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Acknowledgments among GEF agencies and terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation reviews, institutions of each other’s projects etc.), evaluations from other donors Desk review, interviews, and field d) Are there synergies for GEF Effective communication and technical visits project programming and GEF Agency staff, national executing agencies support between GEF project agencies and implementation among: GEF (NGOs, other) Project staff, national and local organizations and between national Agencies, national institutions, government officials, beneficiaries institutions GEF projects, and other donor- supported projects and Budget allocations and alignment of GEF Government documents and data and Document review, Interviews activities? projects to carry out these activities information from officials. Effective communication and technical GEF Agency staff, national executing agencies support between GEF project agencies and (NGOs, other) Project staff, national and local organizations and between national government officials, beneficiaries institutions 123 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex E: Interviewees and Focus Group Discussants List of Interviewees No. Name Institution Position 1. Tewelde Kelati MOMRF Minister 2. Moges Woldeyahannes MOLWE D/G -Department of Environment and GEF Focal Office 3. Solomon Haile Ministry of D/G - Planning and Research Agriculture 4. Tesfay Zekarias MOME D/G - Renewable Energy 5. Andom Gebretnsae MOMR D/G Weldemicael Berhe EEC Head, Generation and Transmission 6. Aman Salih MOLWE GEF Coordinator 7. Tewolde G/yessus MOLWE Stockholm Convention Focal point and DOE, Environmental Assessment and information Dissemination Director 8. Abraham Daniel Head-MOA/Zoba SLM National Coordinator Maekel 9. Saeid Salih MOMRF Director:Office of the Minister 10. Sami Mahmmoud MOMRF Former Director of Research, andCoordinator of the CMIB coordinator 11. Basilios MOA, Anseba Head of administration and Finance, Branch Office, Keren (Horticulture Expert) 12. Yosief Admekom UNDP Specialist Program Officer/ARR, Sustainable Environment Unit(GEF focal person) 13. Teodros Demoz UNDP SGP-Coordinator 14. Freweini Negash UNDP SGP-Assistant Coordinator 15. Mibrak National Union for Sub-Zoba Aditekelezan Eritrean Women 16. Tsion Ogbaselassie, NUEW, Anseba Head of Social Services, NUEW, Anseba Chapter 17. Tirhas Nrayo NUEW, Anseba SGP project coordinator, NUEW, Anseba Chapter 18. Luigi NUEYS Anseba, Branch, NUEW, Anseba Chapter 19. Hagos Kiflom NUEYS Aditekelezan, NUEW, Anseba Chapter 20. Micael Berhane MOA Catechment and Land scape Mangement Program - CLMP National Coordinator List of Focus Group Discussants No. Name Sex Community 1. SabaTaffere Female Wara-Community Home Economics Agent (MOA) 2. Hiruy Idris Male Wara Community- NUEW 3. Seida Omer Female Wara Village -Beneficiary 4. Elsa Afewroki Female Wara-Adi-Tekelezan - NUEW 124 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 5. Zaid Salih Female Wara Community - Beneficiary - - - - 1 Saba Taffere Female Deki Gebru - MoA, Home Economics 2 Elsa Afewroki- Female Adi-Tekelezan - NUEW 3 Nigisti Haile Female Deki Gebru - NUEW - 4 Lekan Yohannes Male Deki Gebru - Beneficiary - 5 Elsa Weldehaimanot Female Deki Gebru - Beneficiary 125 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex F: Sites Visited Land Degradation: • Serejeca Village - SLM project in Zoba Maekel, • Wara, Dekie Gebru, Aditekelezan and Dekizeru village communities - SGP project in Anseba Zoba, Biodiversity: • Coastal Management Island Biodiversity Project: - Massawa, Hirigo, and Disee Islands in Zoba Northern Red Sea Climate Change: • Aseb –wind turbine, TIO, IDI, Berasole in Zoba Southern Red Sea. 126 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex G: Final Workshop Participants No Full Name Organization 1. Bisrat Gebru NBHE 2. Aster Redazghi DOE/MOLWE 3. Tesfai Zekarias MOEM 4. Daniel Yohannes GEO Science 5. Abraham Daniel MOA-Maekel 6. Estifanos Bein FWA/MOA 7. Tesfai Ghebrehiwet MOEM 8. Ephrem Kifelmariam MOLWE/DOE 9. Teodros Demoz UNDP/SGP 10. Tekie Tesfamicael MOLWE/DOE 11. Sammy Mahmud MOMR 12. Mahta Goitom MOMR 13. Tekle Mengistu MOMR/NRS 14. Yohannes Tekelmariam MOMR/NRS/Research 15. Zere Woldetensae MOLWE-Anseba 16. Abraha Gebreamlak MOLWE-Gash Barka 17. Teklit Andom Molwe-SRS 18. Haileab Berhane Molwe-NRS 19. Muluberhan Gebreyohannes MOLWE-Maekel 20. Fanus Aregay Anseba - Administration 21. Amanuel Negassi MOA 22. Eyob Ghebrekal MOA 23. Micael Berhane MOA 24. Osman Abdulahi MOLWE-LANDDEPART 25. Yonas Tekleab FWA/MOA 26. Fessahaye Bairu MOLWE/CADASTRAL 27. Minas Leake NUEYS 28. Afeworki Tesfai MOND 29. Teodros Kibrom MOLWE 30. Fikreyesus Ghilai FWA 127 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 31. Mihreteab Micael Yemane MOLWE 32. Yosief admekom UNDP 33. Filmon Yosief Araya MOLWE 34. Weldeselassie Okubazghi HAC 35. Roza Kiflemariam NUEW 36. Weldetensae Tewelde CASS 37. Tewelde Gebreyesus MOLWE/DOE 39. Andom Gebretensae MMR 40. Okubamicael Wahad MOT 41. Aman Salih MOLWE/DOE 42. Freweini Negash UNDP/SGP 43. Tadesse Mehari NBHE 44. Mogos Weldeyohannes MOLWE/DE 45. Mulugeta Asmelash MOLWE/LAND DEPARTMENT 46. Asegedesh Estifanos NCEW NBHE=National Board for Higher Education; FWA=Forestry and wildlife; HAC=Hamelmalo Agricultural College; CASS=College of Arts and Social Sciences; MMR=Ministry of Marine Resources; MOT=Ministry of Tourism; NCEW=National Confederation of Eritrean Workers 128 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex H: GEF Portfolio in Eritrea National Projects GEF Co- Focal No. GEFID Agency Scope Type Name Status Phase Grant financing Area (US$) (US$) National Biodiversity Strategy, Action 1 137 WB National BD EA Project Closure GEF - 1 275,000 Plan and First National Report Enabling Eritrea to Prepare its First 2 278 UNDP National CC EA National Communication in Response Project Closure GEF - 1 303,850 to its Commitments to UNFCCC Conservation Management of Eritrea's 3 411 UNDP National BD FSP Project Completion GEF - 1 4,986,000 840,000 Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity 4 1136 UNDP National CC FSP Wind Energy Applications Project Completion GEF - 3 1,950,561 2,935,536 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity, Participation in 5 1506 WB National BD EA Clearing House Mechanism and Project Closure GEF - 2 170,000 15,000 Preparation of Second National Report (add on) National Capacity Self - Assessment 6 1584 UNEP National MFA EA (NCSA) for Global Environmental Project Closure GEF - 3 198,000 20,000 Management Development of a National Adaptation (LDCF) 7 1959 UNDP National CC EA Project Closure GEF - 3 17,600 Program of Action (NAPA) 200,000 Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early 8 3139 UNIDO National POPs EA Action on the Implementation of the Project Closure GEF - 4 346,500 35,000 Stockholm Convention on POPs SIP-Catchments and Landscape Under 9 3362 IFAD National LD FSP GEF - 4 4,350,000 21,678,000 Management Implementation SIP-Sustainable Land Management Pilot Under 10 3364 UNDP National LD FSP GEF - 4 1,820,000 2,250,000 Project Implementation 129 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Eritrea: Prevention and Disposal of Under 11 3987 FAO National POPs FSP GEF - 4 2,150,000 3,209,153 POPs and Obsolete Pesticides Implementation Operationalization of Protected Areas 12 4559 UNDP National BD FSP Council Approved GEF - 5 5,878,000 10,555,400 Management Systems of Eritrea Regional and Global Projects GEF Focal Co-financing GEFID Agency Scope Type Name Status Phase Grant Area (US$) (US$) Mainstreaming Conservation of Migratory Soaring Birds into Key Productive Sectors Under 1028 UNDP Regional BD FSP GEF - 3 along the Rift Valley/Red Sea Flyway Implementation (Tranches 1 and 2) Nile Transboundary Environmental Action 1094 WB/UNDP Regional IW FSP Project Completion GEF - 2 Project, Tranche 1 Demonstrating Cost-effectiveness and Sustainability of Environmentally-sound Under 1331 UNEP Regional POPs FSP GEF - 3 and Locally Appropriate Alternatives to Implementation DDT for Malaria Control in Africa Building Sustainable Commercial 1513 UNEP Regional CC MSP Dissemination Networks for Household PV Project Closure GEF - 3 Systems in Eastern Africa UNEP/ African Rift Geothermal Development 2119 World Regional CC FSP CEO Endorsed GEF - 3 Facility (ARGeo) Bank Supporting Capacity Building for the World Elaboration of National Reports and 2469 Regional LD MSP Project Closure GEF - 3 Bank Country Profiles by African Parties to the UNCCD WB/UNDP SIP PROGRAM: Strategic Investment /UNEP/Af 2757 Regional LD FSP Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa Council Approved GEF - 4 DB/IFAD/F (SIP) AO 130 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Support to Preparation of the Second 4523 UNEP Regional BD MSP National Biosafety Reports to the CEO Approved GEF - 5 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety-Africa Piloting Integrated Processes and 3707 UNEP Global MFA MSP Approaches to Facilitate National IA Approved GEF - 4 Reporting to Rio Conventions Umbrella Programme for National 5119 UNEP Global CC FSP Council Approved GEF - 5 Communication to the UNFCCC Support to 20 GEF Eligible Parties for Alignment of National Action Programs 5136 UNEP Global LD MSP CEO Approved GEF - 5 and Reporting Process under UNCCD (Add- on Umbrella 2) 131 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex I: References Government of Eritrea & IFAD (2006) Post-Crisis Livestock Rehabilitation and Development Program: Formulation Report, Main Report. Government of Eritrea, National Statistical Office (2010) Eritrean Population Survey, Asmara: NSO. Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Health (2012) Health Facility Report, Asmara. Government of Eritrea (2004) National Policy on Gender: A Framework, Asmara. Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Marine Resources (2007) State of the Coast, 2006-2007, Online, Available: http://www.eritreaembassy-japan.org/data/State_of_the_Coast_2006-2007_FULL.pdf (Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Eritrean Environment Agency (1995) National Environment Management Plan (NEMP). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (2002) National Report on the Implementation of the UNCCD, Online, Available: http://www.unccd-prais.com/Uploads/GetReportPdf/d7cc0234-822d- 4dc4-90c1-a0fa014a4a69 (Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea (2008), Country Social and Environmental Assessment (document prepared by the GOE) This provides an assessment of the Environmental and social impacts of the stock piles of Obsolete pesticides in Erirea. It also recommends a strategy their safeguarding and disposal. The assessment was undertaken as part of FAO project GCE/ERI/011/JPN “Obsolete, Banned and Unwanted Pesticides Stock Piles in Eritrea-Phase I. Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2001) Eritrea’s Initial National Communication under the UNFCCC, Online, Available: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/erinc1.pdf (Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2012) Eritrea’s Second National Communication under the UNFCCC, Online, Available: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/erinc2.pdf (Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (1994) National Agricultural Development Strategy and Policy. Government of Eritrea, Department of Energy (1997) Renewable Energy Sub-Sector Policy. Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (2006) Pesticide Regulation: Regulatory Services Department. Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (2006) Wildlife Conservation and Development Proclamation, No. 155/2006. 132 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Marine Resources (2006) National Coastal Policy (Draft). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (2005) Forest and Wildlife Policy (Draft). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Land, Water and Environment (1999) Land Use Planning Regulatory Framework. Government of Eritrea, Water Resources Department (2003) Integrated Water Resource Management. Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2006) National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management in Eritrea: Final Report, Online: Available: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/document/354.pdf (Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2012) Eritrea`s Five Years Action Plan for the Great Green Wall Initiative (GGWI) Draft (2011-2015), Online, Available: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/great_green_wall/docs/Eritrea_Five_Years_Action_Plan.p df (Accessed December 2013). GEF (2009) Wind Energy Applications in Eritrea, Terminal Review: Final Report, Online, Available: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/gef_prj_docs/GEFProjectDocuments/MandE/TE/F Y2009/UNDP/G001136/EritreaWindEnergyTerminal%20Evaulation%20Final%20Report.doc(Accesse d December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of Agriculture (2002) The National Action Programme for Eritrea to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought (NAP), Online, Available: http://www.unccd.int/ActionProgrammes/eritrea-eng2002.pdf(Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2000) Eritrea Biodiversity Stocktaking Assessment Report. Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (2000) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Eritrea, Online, Available: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/er/er-nbsap-01-p1-en.pdf(Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea, Department of Environment (1997) National Report on the Implementation of Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), First Report, Online, Available: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/er/er-nr-01-en.pdf(Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea (XXXX) The Indicative Five Year Development Plan (XXXX). Government of Eritrea, Ministry of National Development (2004) Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP), Online, Available: http://www.itacasmara.esteri.it/itacasmara/english/side_menu/documenti/I- PRSP%20Eritrea.pdf(Accessed December 2013). Government of Eritrea (2008) National Economic Policy Framework and Program (1998-2000), Asmara. Government of Eritrea, Ministry of National Development (2009) National Development Planning Framework. 133 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Government of Eritrea (1994) Macro-Policy Document. New Eritrean Union of Women (NUEW) (2004) Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and The Outcome of the 23rd Special Session of the General Assembly, Online, Available: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/Review/responses/ERITREA-ENGLISH.pdf IFAD (2010) Rural Poverty Profile, Other Resources available: http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/resources/tags/eritrea FAO (1997) Support to Forestry and Wildlife sub-sector: Pre-investment study, TCP/ERI/6721, FAO: Rome. Population Reference Bureau (2012) UNDP (2011) Supervision Report, Eritrea. UNICEF (1994)Children and women in Eritrea, UNICEF: New York. Edmond Barraw (XXXX) The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity. FAO (1994) Agricultural Sector Review: Project Identification. Haile, A., Gebretatios, I., Ogbazghi, W., Omer, M. K., Araia, W., Gebremariam, T., & Gebreselassie, G. (1998) Rehabilitation of degraded lands in Eritrea. World Bank (2013) Eritrea Overview, Website, Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/eritrea/overview (Accessed December 2013) Waithaka. M., Nelson, G.C, Thomas, T.S and Kyotalimye, M. 2013, East African Agriculture and Climate Change: A Comprehensive Analysis, IFPRI, Washington D.C. Page 121 – 148. UNDP (2009). Sustainable Land Management, Asmara, Eritrea FAO (2000). Food Supply Situation and Crop Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome 134 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 Annex J: Acronyms BD Biodiversity MF/MFA Multi-focal Projects CC Climate Change MOA Ministry of Agriculture CITES Convention on International Trade MOC Ministry of Construction of Endangered Species MOE Ministry of Education CELF Country Environmental Legal MOH Ministry of Health Framework MOLWE Ministry of Land Water and CESA Country Environmental and Social Environment Assessment MOND Ministry of National CFP Convention Focal Points Development CMIB Coastal Marine and Island MOEM Ministry of Energy and Mines Biodiversity MOMR Ministry of Marine Resources CMCMIB Conservation Management of and Fisheries Eritrea’s Coastal Marine Islands MOTC Ministry of Transport and Biodiversity Project Communication COP Conference of the Parties MOTI Ministry of Trade and Industry CPE Country Portfolio Evaluation MOU Memorandum of DOE Department of Environment Understanding DHS Demographic and Health Survey NAP National Action Program DOL Department of Land NAPA National Adaptation Program EA Enabling Activity of Action EINC Eritrea: Initial National NARI National Agricultural Research Communication Institute EEA Eritrean Electric Authority NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy CESIA Country Environmental and Social and Action Plan Impact Assessment NBHE National Board for Higher D/G General Director of Department Education FAO Food and Agriculture Organization NCP National Coastal Policy FGD Focus Group Discussions NCSA National Capacity Self- FYIDP Five Year Indicative Development Assessment Plan NEAPG National Environmental FNC First National Communication on Assessment Procedures and Climate Change Guidelines FSP Full Size Projects NEMP National Environmental GEF Global Environment Facility Management Plan GHG Green House Gas NEPFP National Economic Policy GOE Government of the State of Eritrea Framework and Program ICAMP Integrated Coastal Area NGO Non-Governmental Management Proclamation Organization IFAD International Fund for Agricultural NIP National Implementation Plan Development NUEW National Union of Eritrean I-PRSP Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Women Paper NUEYS National Union of Eritrean IWRM Integrated Water Resource Youth and Students Management ODS Ozone Depleting Substances LD Land Degradation OFP Operational Focal Point LUCF Land Use Cover and Forestry PCU Project Coordination Unit MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 135 Country Portfolio Evaluation: Eritrea Report – December 2014 PFDJ Popular Front for Democracy and Justice PERSAC Program for Environment of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Countries PIF Project Implementation Fund PFP Political Focal Point POPs Persistent Organic Polluting Substances RAF Resource Allocation Framework ROtI Review of Outcomes to Impact SGP Small Grants Programme SLM Sustainable Land Management SIP Strategic Investment Program SNC Second National Communication on Climate Change STAR System for the Transparent Allocation of Resources SWC Soil and Water Conservation TER Technical Evaluation TER Terminal Evaluation Report TICD Toker Integrated Community Development TOC Theory of Change TOR Terms of Reference UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNEP United Nations Environmental Program UNDP United Nations Development Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNSO United Nations Sudano-Sahelean Organisation WB World Bank 136