MTR Bioenergy Final Version

United Nations Development Programme
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Evaluation of UNDP/GEF Project: Bioenergy for

Sustainable Rural Development
(PIMS No: 2284)
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
Mission Members:
Mr. Roland Wong, International Consultant
February 2013
UNDP – Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................................ II
ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... V
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 RATIONALE FOR PROJECT........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS..............................................................................3
1.4 MID-TERM EVALUATION............................................................................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Purpose of the Evaluation................................................................................................................. 4
1.4.2 Key Issues to be addressed.............................................................................................................. 5
1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology and Structure of the Evaluation..................................................................5
1.5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS................................................................................................. 6
2. KEY FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 PROJECT PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE......................................................................................7
2.1.1 Project Outputs................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Project Impacts................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 PROJECT DESIGN AND RELEVANCE............................................................................................................ 19
2.2.1 Project Relevance and Country Drivenness....................................................................................19
2.2.2 Project Design and Implementation Approach................................................................................19
2.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement, Linkages to Project and Other Interventions in Sector...........................20
2.3.2 Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, Identification and Management of Risk.........................20
2.4 PROJECT BUDGET AND COST EFFECTIVENESS...........................................................................................21
2.5 EVALUATION OF PROJECT.......................................................................................................................... 22
2.6 SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY........................................................................................................... 25
2.6.1 Sustainability................................................................................................................................... 25
2.6.2 Replicability..................................................................................................................................... 27
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................28
3.1 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 29
3.3 LESSONS LEARNED................................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX A – MISSION TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................. 33
APPENDIX B – MISSION ITINERARY (SEPTEMBER 1 - 14, 2012).....................................................................40
APPENDIX C – LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.......................................43
Appendix D – project logical framework.................................................................................................................. 45
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission i February 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Evaluator wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the time and effort expended by all project
participants and stakeholders during the evaluation interviews. This provided valuable insights, candid
perspectives, and made the evaluation process more informative and enjoyable. In particular, the
Evaluator wishes to thank UNDP Egypt and the Bioenergy Project Management Unit for arranging
mission logistics, itinerary and stakeholder interviews. We hope that this report will contribute to the
successful conclusion of the project, and the sustained increase of bioenergy usage in the rural areas
of Egypt.
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission ii February 2013

ABBREVIATIONS
APR Annual Progress Report
BBL/D Barrels per day
BCM Billion cubic meters
BSRD Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development
BET Bioenergy Technologies
BESF Bioenergy Support Fund
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CO Country Office
DEX Direct Execution (of a project by UNDP)
DNA Designated National Authority
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EE Energy efficiency
EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
EOP End-of-Project
ESCO Energy Service Company
EU European Union
FY Fiscal year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Greenhouse gas
GoE Government of Egypt
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau / German Bank for Reconstruction
kTOE Kilotonnes of oil equivalent
kWh Kilowatt hour
LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas
LE Egyptian pound (currency)
log-frame Logical framework matrix
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEE Ministry of Electricity and Energy
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MIC Ministry of International Cooperation
MLD Ministry of Local Development
MoENR Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
MoEU Ministry of Environment and Urbanization
MoD Ministry of Development
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoSIT Ministry of Science, Industry and Trade
MoP Ministry of Petroleum
MRV Monitoring, reporting and verification
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation
mTOE Million tonnes of oil equivalent
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hour
NAMA Nationally appropriate mitigation actions
NEX National Execution
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NREA New and Renewable Energy Authority
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission iii February 2013

PIR Project Implementation Report

PMU Project Management Unit
ProDoc UNDP Project Document for “Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development
Project in Egypt”
PSC Project Steering Committee
RE Renewable Energy
RTA Regional Technical Advisor
SFD Social Funds for Development
SGP GEF Small Grants Program
SME Small and Medium Size Enterprise
TA Technical Assistance
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USD US dollar
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission iv February 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brief Description of the Project
The objective of the UNDP-GEF Project in Egypt entitled “Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural
Development” (BSRD or Project) is to remove the technical, institutional, information, financial
and market barriers to the increasing use of biomass energy in promoting sustainable rural
development in Egypt and to reduce the negative global and local environmental impacts
associated with the use of fossil fuels and the environmentally unsound management of
agricultural and solid waste. This objective is to be achieved through: (i) testing the technical
and, in particular, the economic and financial feasibility of selected bioenergy technologies on
the basis of new business and financing models and developing further the financial, institutional
and market strategies for their large-scale replication; (ii) supporting the development and
adoption of an enabling policy framework to implement and leverage financing for the
recommended strategies; iii) building the capacity of the supply side to market, finance and
deliver rural bioenergy services; and iv) institutionalizing the support provided by the project to
facilitate sustainable growth of the market after the end of the project.
The rationale for BSRD lies in promoting the use of agricultural waste as a GHG-neutral,
alternative energy source to kerosene and LPG, through the use of modern technologies such
as biogas digesters, biomass combustion plants and gasifiers. While earlier efforts have been
made to introduce modern gasification technologies in Egypt, these attempts have typically
suffered from a technology-driven focus without adequate follow-up during operation and without
recognizing or addressing broader policy, capacity, financing and institutional barriers that
sustain market transformation. The proposed project has sought a different approach that
incorporates lessons learnt from these previous attempts and to initiate market transformation
that would be linked to the overall social and economic development needs of targeted rural
communities.
BSRD is implemented under a NEX modality, under the management of the Executing Agency,
the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA). With the project starting operations in
December 2009, the MTE has evaluated approximately 33 months of Project progress, and is
providing recommendations for the remaining period of the Project scheduled to end in
December 2013.
Context and Purpose of the Evaluation
The purpose of the mid-term evaluation (MTE) for this Project is to evaluate the progress
towards attainment of global environmental objectives, project objectives and outcomes, capture
lessons learned and suggest recommendations on major improvements. The MTE is to serve as
an agent of change, play a critical role in supporting accountability, and serve to:
 Strengthen the adaptive management and monitoring functions of the Project;

 Enhance the likelihood of achievement of Project and GEF objectives through analyzing
project strengths and weaknesses and suggesting measures for improvement;
 Enhance organizational and development learning;
 Enable informed decision-making;
 Create the basis for replication of successful project outcomes achieved to date;
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission v February 2013

 Identify and validate proposed changes to the project document to ensure achievement
of all project objectives; and
 Assess whether it is possible to achieve the objectives in the given timeframe, taking into
consideration the speed at which the project is proceeding.
Evaluation of Project
The overall rating of the Project is Satisfactory (S), based mainly on the following:
 Satisfactory to Highly Satisfactory progress on Outcomes 1 and 2 at the mid-point of the

Project despite the difficulties of finding a Project Manager in 2010 and the disruptive
political events of 2011. This includes effective awareness raising activities, engagement
of relevant Government stakeholders in the gradual removal of fuel subsidies, and
identification of appropriate BETs for Egypt’s rural communities. There has been
insufficient progress on Outcomes 3 and 4 to render an evaluation;
 Current activities serve as an excellent foundation for market transformation for the
remaining period of the Project. These activities include installation of 100 household
biogas units; the completion of the tender for the poultry farm biogas units; the
engagement of an experienced international biogas consultant for the installations of
pilot household biogas units; assessments of local capacity for supply and installation of
BETs; and the provision of technical support for existing biogas units;
 Although there have not been any substantial GHG reductions from the direct
investments of BSRD and with 31% of resources committed (11% expended) at the mid-
term of the Project, the Project is now piloting biogas units in rural communities with an
experienced international consultant deployed in the field. As such, the Project is in a
position to:
o prepare biogas standards and regulations;
o design appropriate actions to scale-up the installation of household and poultry
biogas units;
o provide pilot testing of other biogas or energy generation technologies that would
utilize other agricultural wastes. This would include waste straw which can be
converted into a biogas or thermal energy for cooking; waste straw is currently
burned in open fires in September and October each year causing serious air
quality problems in Cairo and throughout much of Egypt;
o leverage the current households and poultry farms pilot biogas installations, if
successful, for additional GHG reductions from direct post-project activities that
are supported by the SFD and other sources of financing including NAMA or
carbon funds;
 The high caliber and performance of the PMU in monitoring and adaptively managing
field and office activities. This was notable during the period of political instability of 2011.
As of December 31, 2012, USD 304,929, or close to 11% of the GEF-funded Project budget,
has been expended. Care has been exercised in justifying each expenditure, and there is
currently USD 744,735 in signed contracts with SKG Sangha for biogas installations for 100
households and 2 poultry farms. With the addition of these contractual commitments to the
December 31, 2012 expenditure of USD 177,192, USD 936,039 or 31% of the Project finances
are currently committed. With a planned 2013 expenditure of USD 1.115 million and a Project
terminal date of December 31, 2015, an estimated USD 762,000 of the Project budget remains
unallocated.
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission vi February 2013

Project sustainability rating is Likely (L) due to:
o The strong engagement of all stakeholders interviewed on the Project;

o A strong foundation built for market transformation that includes:
 High level of awareness of biogas as a substitute for subsidized fossil fuel usage
in rural communities;
 Movement by the Government to gradually remove fuel subsidies in rural areas;
 The resulting high demand for biogas units as alternatives to LPG in targeted
communities including household units and units for SME poultry farms;
 The effectiveness thus far of the technical assistance being provided for
household biogas units.
Table A: Summary Evaluation of Project
Effective- Overall
Project Strategy Relevance Efficiency
ness Rating
Outcome 1:
New business and financing models successfully
introduced using appropriate technical solutions S S S S
and demonstrating the possibility to construct and
operate BET systems on a cost recovery basis
Outcome 2:
An enabling policy framework, effectively HS S HS HS
promoting rural bioenergy development adopted
Outcome 3:
Enhanced capacity of the local supply chain to Unable to Unable to Unable to Unable to
market and deliver sustainable rural bioenergy rate rate rate rate
products and services, including financing
Outcome 4:
Unable to Unable to Unable to Unable to
Institutionalization of the support provided by the
rate rate rate rate
project
Monitoring and Evaluation S S HS S
Overall Rating S S HS S
Conclusions
While BSRD has committed 31% of Project funds (with only 11% expended) at its mid-term
milestone, it is well positioned to implement successful biogas demonstrations and provide initial
scale-up efforts to transform the cooking fuels market in rural communities of Egypt. Project
actions that have led to this conclusion include:
 The 2011 recruitment of the ex-CEO of the EEAA as Project Manager who has
successfully and effectively engaged the Ministry of Petroleum to support a gradual
removal of fuel subsidies. This has had the impact of dramatically increasing demand for
domestically available alternative fuel (to LPG) such as biogas as a fuel for cooking and
heating, and reducing the country’s reliance on imported fossil fuels, thereby improving
Egypt’s energy security;
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission vii February 2013

 Cleverly devised financing by the Project to leverage the country’s GEF Small Grants
Programme (SGP) for effective awareness raising activities on biogas as an alternative
to non-subsidized LPG and as a fuel to improve rural environmental conditions. This has
reduced the need to expend Project funds for awareness raising;
 Project association with key domestic biogas promoters and technology champions who
provide credibility to BSRD activities;
 Careful selection and management of the foreign technical assistance consultancies for
the pilot installation of biogas units in rural communities using strong references from
UNDP India;
 Deliberate actions by the PMU to carefully identify and plan the types and sizes of
biogas units for demonstration to maximize exposure of the technology in rural
communities;
 Identification of biogas technologies that are simple, robust and serviceable by local
technicians using lessons learned from biogas installations prior to 2009;
 With current efforts underway to install 100 biogas units in 3 governorates, there is an
assessment of local capacity to manufacture install and service biogas units, and to
identify financing partners who will provide concessional financing for rural households
for biogas units. This includes the involvement of the Social Fund for Development
(SFD), which will capitalize a fund with BESF for concessional loans to individual
households and poultry farms for biogas units;
 Careful planning and targeted actions demonstrated by the PMU;
The impact of these biogas technologies that use animal waste will be to displace a significant
proportion of non-subsidized LPG fuel as a cooking fuel. There is a risk that current gasification
technologies that convert animal waste to biogas are not likely to fully displace the use of
imported LPG due to some rural households not having access to sufficient volumes of animal
waste for gasification. If this is the case, demonstrations and pilots of other biogas technologies
that utilize other agricultural waste streams should be implemented to provide the opportunity for
full market transformation to domestically generated biogas or thermal energy. Other agricultural
waste streams may include straw, an abundant waste by-product of wheat and rice farming in
Egypt.
Lastly, the completion date of the Project needs to be revised since there is insufficient time to
achieve all the intended Project outcomes and expend all remaining resources by the current
December 31, 2013 terminal date. In addition, the Project needs to review and revise its end-of-
project targets depending on how the Project utilizes its remaining resources.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Work on safeguarding the quality of biogas installations should

commence immediately.
With high demand forecast for biogas units in the near future, the importance of safeguarding
the quality of the biogas unit installations is of utmost importance. Activities to strengthen the
quality of installations will sustain consumer confidence in the Project’s biogas installation
programme, and sustain growth and transformation of the rural cooking fuels market. As such,
BSRD should be working closely with EEAA officers in the formulation of quality control
mechanisms for biogas units, based on the current pilot programme for 100 household units and
4 poultry farm units. Suggested steps are as follows:
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission viii February 2013

 Establish a monitoring system for quality standards of construction of biogas units.

While SKG Sangha has extensive experience in the construction of biogas units, the
construction monitoring system needs to be setup and documented in close
collaboration with EEAA officers and other trainees. Selected EEAA officers participating
in the construction of pilot units should be “trained as trainers” for ensuring compliance of
construction standards for biogas installations;
 Completed biogas installations should be monitored for efficiencies in the generation of
biogas. Efficiency of biogas generation is lower if the units are too large, if the user is
feeding insufficient waste into the unit, or if the quality of the construction is poor
resulting in leakage of biogas to end-users;
 Standards for biogas appliances should be formulated that specify the materials and
dimensions of biogas stoves, the required quality of workmanship, burner performance,
manufacturing and assembly process, packing of appliances for shipping, required
sampling for quality checks;
 Identify an institution that is suited to the testing of bioenergy technologies. Changes in
the designs of biogas units are expected as well as new bioenergy technologies coming
to Egypt. As such, testing facilities will be necessary to ensure new designs and new
entrants to the Egyptian bioenergy market comply with standards set by EEAA or other
government institutions. The PMU will need to determine the most suitable location for
the testing of new bioenergy technologies in Egypt; this may include testing facilities that
have linkages to best bioenergy practices from other countries. One possible testing
facility is the Testing and Research Center at the New and Renewable Energy Authority
(NREA).
Recommendation 2: With an outcome of increased biogas demand after the completion

of the pilot biogas units, the Project should consider scale-up of biogas pilot
installations that include cities beyond Shebin-el Kom, Asyut and Fayoum.
 The forecast of higher demand for biogas units was based on observed consumer
reaction in Fayoum during the Evaluation Mission, the orders for larger biogas units from
poultry farms, and strong financial incentives to convert to biogas with the removal of
LPG cylinder subsidies;
 With the expected higher demand for biogas units in other cities, the trainers (as
identified in Recommendation 1) should conduct training of trainers and local technicians
to install quality biogas units, build capacity of local suppliers and service providers, and
improve biogas installation oversight. This should have a positive impact on the scale-up
of employment opportunities for youth (a Government priority) and accelerate Egypt’s
moves towards energy security. With the remaining “unallocated budget” of USD
320,000 in Outcome 3, BSRD should have sufficient budget to scale-up training activities
and balance this with other planned Project activities;
 Scale-up of biogas units in other cities could commence in late 2013 and continue until
the end of the Project in late 2015 (See Recommendation 5).
Recommendation 3: If there is high demand for biogas units resulting from scaled-up
activities from Recommendations 1 and 2, the Project will need to prepare financing
packages that include possible buy-downs for the biogas units:
 The national importance of biomass energy coupled with the high demand for household
biogas units and available capital from the SFD for a pilot “Bioenergy Support Fund”
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission ix February 2013

(BESF) increases the urgency for the Project to design the appropriate financing
packages for rural households to access financing for a biogas unit. Initial prices of the
biogas units and appurtenant appliances indicate that concessional loans and even a
buy-down1 may be necessary for widespread adoption of household biogas units;
 Efforts to start-up the BESF should commence in April 2013 as it is anticipated that more
than 6 months will be required to set up a fund charter including procedures for loan and
buy-down approval, loan evaluation, system of borrower evaluation, loan approval
decision making process, loan and buy-down contracts, and monitoring. Operational
start-up of the BESF could be as early as December 2013;
 While BSRD are committing USD 1.0 million as start-up capital for the pilot BESF and
with the possibility that the Government cannot provide sufficient funds from the SFD to
meet the demand for biogas units, the PMU should focus its efforts on sourcing other
funds for the BESF. This may include carbon funds and funds linked to NAMAs.
Recommendation 4: Consider implementing a pilot to utilize waste straw that is often

disposed of through opening burning.
 The Project needs to quantify how much LPG will be displaced by the current biogas
models that use only animal waste. Current estimates for the full displacement of
household LPG are in the range of 50 kg of animal waste per day per household. The
Project will need to estimate the number of households that do not have access to this
amount of waste;
 The opportunity of using rice straw to generate additional biogas should be explored,
notably for those households that do not have access to sufficient volumes of animal
waste and the associated biogas units. Rice straw is currently burned in open fields
during September and October, causing adverse air quality impacts in Cairo and
throughout Egypt;
 While Indian experience indicates that rice straw incineration is economic 2, the Project
should use lessons learned from co-digestion and rice straw fermentation pilots and
commercial units operating in China, India and Cambodia, and design appropriate pilot
tests of similar units under Egyptian conditions. Co-digestion (or the 2:1 mixture of
animal dung to rice straw) can potentially produce additional biogas to the extent that
household LPG use could be entirely displaced;
 Undertake pilot tests for straw incineration, co-digestion of rice straw and animal dung
and rice straw fermentation in Fayoum or another governorate where biogas units are
currently being installed. If the pilots are started early 2013, the Project should target
September 2013 as the completion date of pilot tests for incineration, co-digestion and
rice straw fermentation;
 The pilot tests will need to address the primary techno-economic concern, being the
additional effort and cost required to chop the rice straw into 2 to 3 mm particles, and the
application of sodium hydroxide to improve the biodegradability of the rice straw. This
additional cost may be offset by 30-50% gains in biogas generation from a dung-only
biogas unit to a unit that has a mix of one part straw and two parts animal dung;
 If the pilot tests reveal an economically feasible option for rice straw disposal, further
studies should be conducted to ensure that soil fertility is not affected by using the straw
for energy generation instead of open field disposal. In addition, product and
1
An action by a funding agency to assist a low-income household by partially paying for the cost of an item, reducing the cost
of the item to the end-user.
2
Personal communication with Dr. S.N.Srinivas, UNDP India.
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission x February 2013

performance standards for the straw bioenergy units should be formulated in preparation
for scale-up;
 If appropriate, a scale-up phase of straw-disposal bioenergy units should be planned
commencing in 2014 with completion by 2015.
Recommendation 5: The Project terminal date needs to be extended to December 31,

2015 to allow sufficient time to achieve its objectives.
The rationale for a 24-month extension of BSRD past the current terminal date of December 31,
2013 includes:
 Completion of Output 1.3 (BET systems installed). The current pilot phase of 100
household biogas units and the four biogas units with two poultry farms is expected to be
completed by April 2013 with another 6 months to September 2013 to monitor the
performance of the biogas unit installations;
 Completion of Output 1.2 (an operational BESF). Discussions will not take place on a
BESF until there is confidence in the biogas units being installed under Output 1.3. As
such, discussion could reasonably start in April 2013 with an operational BESF expected
by December 2013 and capitalized by funds from BSRD and SFD. More than one year
will be required to operate the pilot BESF, mainly to train loan officers and administrators
in BESF operations, to assist the BESF in the design of new financing packages for new
bioenergy technologies and to secure new sources of capital for BESD from NAMAs-
linked funds or carbon funds. As such, sufficient time should be planned to design and
operationalize the BESD until mid-2015;
 Scale-up of activities for Output 3.6 (trained and certified product and service providers
for biogas unit installations). The decision to scale-up TA activities for biogas installations
in other cities in Egypt will be made in late 2013. At this time, the Project will need to
decide on the size of the scale-up efforts based on available TA budget, and the level of
BESF support for loans and buy-downs (Output 1.2). To a large extent, the decision will
be based on reports of the effectiveness of the training provided in Output 3.6 during
2012 and early 2013 for biogas technicians and the biogas installation programme
managers, and pilot tests for the generation of biogas using straw (from
Recommendation 4). Scaled-up TA activities should be planned over a 2-year period
from late 2013 to late 2015;
 Monitor, report and verify the performance of the scaled-up pilot bioenergy installations
in a systematic manner commencing in late 2013 to the proposed terminal date of
December 31, 2015.
Recommendation 6: Reset the GHG emission reduction targets that reflect a realistic
target for biogas unit installations by the proposed new terminal date of BSRD on
December 31, 2015.
The current emission reduction estimate of each household biogas unit is in the order of 0.85
tonnes CO2 per year. Direct emission reduction targets in the ProDoc are 192,000 tonnes CO 2
spread over a 10-year period. This will require the installation of more than 460,000 household
biogas units (2 m3/day) in the 3 years remaining on the Project (assuming BSRD is extended to
December 31, 2015). Since it may not be realistic to target 460,000 households for biogas unit
installations, the Project should reset a realistic target for GHG reductions based on the
absorptive capacity of stakeholders and the ability of the Project to deliver a large number of
operational bioenergy units to the Egyptian market.
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission xi February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission xii February 2013

1. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of the Mid-Term Evaluation Mission conducted during the
period of September 2-16, 2012 for the UNDP-GEF project entitled “Bioenergy for Sustainable
Rural Development” (herein referred to as the “Project” or BSRD, PIMS 2284) implemented by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) with financing support provided by the
Global Environment Facility (GEF).
The Project Document (ProDoc) provides details on how UNDP-GEF resources were to be
utilized to increase the use of biomass resources in the rural areas of Egypt for the domestic
production of energy, to reduce the consumption of imported fossil fuels, to reduce the harmful
impacts of associated with the consumption of and emissions from fossil fuels, and to reduce
local air pollution from open burning of agricultural and livestock waste. Project activities include:
a) Introducing and testing business and financing models for adoption of bioenergy
technologies,
b) Formulation and adoption of an enabling policy and regulatory framework for promoting and
sustaining bioenergy technologies;
c) Building the capacity of the local supply chain to provide services, products and financing
for bioenergy technologies; and
d) Institutionalizing project support for bioenergy technologies. Although the ProDoc for BSRD
was signed in November 2008, the Project effectively commenced operations in December
2009 due to Government delays in signing the Project agreements. Project completion is
scheduled for December 31, 2013.
1.1 Background
With strong economic growth experienced over the past 2 decades, Egypt’s primary energy
consumption has grown at an average annual rate of 4.6%, primarily from rapid urbanization
and associated increases in demand for electricity and transport services. The increases in
energy demand have been met by increasing fossil fuel usage. In 2009, Egypt’s fossil fuel
consumption was 60 mTOE comprising 51% oil, 47% gas, and 2% coal.
Egypt has been a significant exporter of oil since the 1980s. Total oil production, however, has
declined since 1996 from 935,000 BBL/D to current levels of 685,000 BBL/D with oil demand
steadily increasing to the extent that current oil production is absorbed domestically. Currently,
Egypt is trending towards the status of a net importing nation for fossil fuels, as depicted in
Figure 1.
Natural gas accounts for over 50% of primary energy consumption in Egypt today. Since 1998,
production of natural gas in Egypt has nearly tripled to the 2010 production of 60 BCM with
domestic consumption being around 45.3 BCM3. The electricity sector is the dominant gas
consumer, accounting for 56% of the total gas demand. Since the early 1990s, the use of
natural gas has been promoted by the Government in all sectors of Egyptian society. This
3
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=EG
Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 1 February 2013

includes the industrial sector (29% with fertilizer and cement industries being the largest
consumers), the petroleum sector (5%), and the residential sector (2%), where gas is delivered
through low-pressure pipeline distribution systems and in LPG cylinders supplied by retailers.
Residential sector demand, however, is expected to grow at a rapid pace based on the previous
growth rates of 15% annually for the past 4 years.
Figure 1: Egyptian Oil Production and Consumption from 1990 to 2011 4
With the steep rise of fossil fuel costs in 2008, the cost of subsidizing the Egyptian energy sector
has risen to USD 20 billion in 2011; the energy subsidy is now estimated to be in the order of
20% of Egypt’s state budget and 10% of the its GDP. This has become a primary concern of the
GoE, which is actively seeking strategies and policies to reduce domestic fossil fuel
consumption to reduce subsidies. As with other countries with fuel subsidy issues, the reduction
of fuel subsidies in Egypt is a sensitive issue that has proven difficult to fully implement. The
Government’s FY 2012-2013 budget includes a 27% reduction in fuel subsidies that mainly
targets the removal of energy subsidies for energy-intensive industries. To improve controls over
distribution of subsidized fuel and limit profiteering, a system of smart cards and coupons will be
deployed. The current challenge for the Government in the energy sector is unprecedented,
where a response is required to rapidly increasing domestic energy demands, declining
domestic production of fossil fuels, increasing prices of imported fuels, and an increasing
awareness of the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and the local and global
environments.
Currently, Egypt’s energy policies are aimed at a power development strategy while curbing
GHG emissions through increasing the use of efficient fossil fuel generation technologies (such
as combined cycle gas turbines and supercritical steam boilers), development of renewable
energy resources (with a goal of having a 20% share of renewables by 2020), and increased
efforts regarding the efficient use of electricity and other energy resources.
While rural electrification now covers more than 95% of rural households, fossil fuels are still
used extensively: bottled LPG for cooking fuel and kerosene for lighting in households that have
unreliable or no electricity. With growing demands for electricity throughout Egypt, blackouts are
4
US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics

common in rural areas even though the energy needs for rural areas are generally only for
lighting and basic electronic appliances. Nevertheless, the availability of cheap subsidized LPG
has improved the quality of the energy supply in many rural areas 5. The current energy issues
for the Government revolve around the growing subsidies for fossil fuels and, in the case of rural
areas, increased LPG usage and subsidies to rural communities. With little incentive to utilize
biomass as an energy source in rural areas, stocks of agricultural waste have become an
environmental hazard for rural communities. To control the growth of rice and wheat straw
residues, local communities burn them in September and October, causing serious air pollution
over much of Egypt’s populated areas.
1.2 Rationale for Project

The rationale for BSRD lies in promoting the use of agricultural waste as a GHG-neutral,
alternative energy source to kerosene and LPG, through the use of modern technologies such
as biogas digesters, biomass combustion plants and gasifiers. For the Government, the
displacement of LPG for biogas represents a potential reduction of LE 19.75 billion (USD 3.3
billion) in 2010 LPG subsidies, or 19% of total 2010 fossil fuel subsidies of LE 103.5 billion (USD
17.3 billion)6.
While earlier efforts have been made to introduce modern gasification technologies in Egypt,
these attempts have typically suffered from a technology-driven focus without adequate follow-
up during operation and without recognizing or addressing broader policy, capacity, financing
and institutional barriers that sustain market transformation. The BSRD design has sought a
different approach that incorporates lessons learnt from these previous attempts and to initiate
market transformation that would be linked to the overall social and economic development
needs of targeted rural communities.
The project seeks to contribute to:
a) Alleviate poverty in rural areas by promoting their economic and social development and by
creating additional job opportunities;
b) Improve environmental conditions through better and environmentally sound management of

agricultural and other domestic solid wastes; and
c) Reduce GHG emissions through substitution of fossil fuels and improved management of
organic waste.
1.3 Project Goals, Objectives and Expected Results

The Project development goal is to facilitate and accelerate the market development for new
bioenergy technologies (BET) in Egypt, thereby promoting the sustainable socio-economic
development of the rural communities in Egypt and reducing the negative global and local
environmental impacts associated with the use of fossil fuels and the environmentally unsound
management of the agricultural waste.
5
The cost of a 12 kg LPG cylinder to a rural consumer is about LE 2.70 (USD 0.45). The actual economic cost of this 12 kg
LPG cylinder is LE 52 (USD 8.70).
6
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/ECON%20Vincent%20notes%20mars%202012_ECON
%20Vincent%20notes%20mars%202012.pdf

The Project objective is to remove the technical, institutional, information, financial and market
barriers to developing the BET market in Egypt by:
 testing the feasibility and building public confidence regarding BET systems and on new
business and financing models to facilitate their broader adoption, and on the basis of
those models showing success, developing further the financial, institutional and market
strategies for their large-scale replication;
 supporting the development and adoption of an enabling policy framework to implement
and leverage financing for the recommended strategies;
 building the capacity of the supply side to implement marketing, finance and delivery of
rural bioenergy services;
 institutionalizing the support provided by the project to facilitate sustainable growth of the
market after the end of the project.
1.4 Mid-Term Evaluation

1.4.1 Purpose of the Evaluation
The purpose of the mid-term evaluation (MTE) for this Project is to evaluate the progress
towards attainment of global environmental objectives, project objectives and outcomes, capture
lessons learned and suggest recommendations on major improvements. The MTE serves as an
agent of change and plays a critical role in supporting accountability. As such, the MTE serves
to:
 Strengthen the adaptive management and monitoring functions of the Project;

 Enhance the likelihood of achievement of Project and GEF objectives through analyzing
project strengths and weaknesses and suggesting measures for improvement;
 Enhance organizational and development learning;
 Enable informed decision-making;
 Create the basis for replication of successful project outcomes achieved to date;
 Identify and validate proposed changes to the ProDoc to ensure achievement of all
project objectives; and
 Assess whether it is possible to achieve the objectives in the given timeframe, taking into
consideration the speed, at which the project is proceeding.
In accordance with UNDP/GEF monitoring and evaluation (M&E) policies and procedures, all
projects with long implementation periods (e.g. over 3 or 4 years) are strongly encouraged to
conduct MTEs. In addition to providing an independent, in-depth review of implementation
progress, the MTE is intended to be responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and
better access to information during implementation. MTEs are intended to identify potential
project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, identify and
document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design and implementation of
other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might
be taken to improve the project. It is expected to serve as a means of validating or filling the
gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from

monitoring. The MTE provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure
and prompt necessary adjustments.
For these reasons, an evaluation mission was fielded to Cairo from September 2 - 16, 2012 for
the MTE of this UNDP-GEF full-sized Project.
1.4.2 Key Issues to be addressed

Key issues to be addressed by this MTE include:
 The appropriateness of the project concept and design in the context of current events in
Egypt;
 Implementation of the Project in the context of effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery
of its activities; and
 Project impacts based on current outputs and outcomes and the likelihood of sustaining
project results.
Outputs from this MTE are to be used to chart future directions for this Project.
1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology and Structure of the Evaluation

The methodology adopted for this evaluation includes:
 Review of project documentation (i.e. project documents, APRs/PIRs, inception meeting

minutes) and other pertinent background information;
 Interviews with key project personnel including the Project Manager, past project
personnel, project consultants, and relevant UNDP staff;
 Interview with relevant stakeholders from Government (e.g. EEAA, GEF focal point); and
 Field visits to selected project sites and interviews with beneficiaries.
A detailed itinerary of the Mission is shown in Appendix B. A full list of documents reviewed and
people interviewed is given in Annex C. The Evaluation Mission for the UNDP-GEF project
comprised one International Consultant.
This evaluation report is presented as follows:
 An overview of project implementation from the commencement of operations in

December 2009;
 Review of project results based on project design and execution;
 Conclusions and recommendations that can increase the probabilities of a successful
conclusion; and
 Lessons learned from implementation of the project to date.
This evaluation has taken into consideration the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policy available
from:
http://www.thegef.org/gef/Evaluation%20Policy%202010,

The Evaluation also meets conditions set by the UNDP Document entitled “Handbook on
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results”, 2009:
http://www.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf
And the “Addendum June 2011 Evaluation”:
http://www.undp.org/evaluation/documents/HandBook/addendum/Evaluation-Addendum-June-
2011.pdf
1.5 Project Implementation Arrangements

The Project executing agency is the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), which
follows UNDP guidelines for nationally executed projects (with UNDP being the GEF
Implementing Agency).
The day-to-day management of the project has been carried out by a Project Management Unit
(PMU) under the overall guidance of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PMU is
established within the premises of the BSRD and reports to the executing agency and the PSC.
The PSC was established to monitor project progress, to guide project implementation and to
support the project in achieving targeted outputs and outcomes.
Figure 2: Project Management Organigram
Project Steering
Committee
UNDP/GEF UNDP
RCU CO
Project
CO Director
PMU
Consultants and
subcontractors
Final Beneficiaries

2. KEY FINDINGS
2.1 Project Progress and Achievements to Date
2.1.1 Project Outputs
BSRD has been operational for more than 33 months, commencing in December 2009. It is
currently the only project in Egypt that is promoting the use of biomass as an alternative energy
source to displace subsidized LPG and fossil fuels in general as well as to reduce national CO 2
emissions. The progress of BSRD, however, has been hampered by the political events of 2011
and the resulting changes of key Government personnel. As such, Project outputs scheduled for
completion have not yet been fully delivered although recent progress has been excellent
notwithstanding these political events.
During initial operations in 2010, the Project undertook social surveys and market analyses to
understand how biogas units would be utilized, operated and maintained at household scale.
The analyses concluded that there was interest and willingness of people in the rural
areas to adopt BETs. The analyses also estimated the national potential for BET usage
and assessed potential locations where household-scale BETs could be piloted and marketed
for widespread adoption. Financial and technical assessments for biogas and gasification units
in households were also conducted by a Chinese mission from the Sichuan Agricultural Institute
and a Czech mission representing Vitkovice Machinery Group; both missions provided
troubleshooting assistance for biogasification units that were installed in 2006 by the Sichuan
Institute that have not subsequently functioned properly.
An Argentine expert also visited Egypt in 2010 to assess the market potential for
larger farm-scale BET units, and how biogas technology could be usefully deployed.
Driven by the knowledge that EEAA and the Ministry of Petroleum (MP) were intent on gradually
removing energy subsidies, the Project identified opportunities for SME-scale biogasifiers on
poultry farms that would be used for heating to displace the use of electricity and LPG.
Interviews with poultry farm owners indicated that there was significant demand for such units
as a substitute for non-subsidized gas and electricity to the extent the SMEs were willing to fully
finance their own biogas installations.
With improved knowledge of market conditions, the Project has raised awareness of rural
biogas usage through strengthening its linkages with prominent organizations including the
Agricultural Research Center (under the Ministry of Agriculture at Cairo University) 7, the National
Research Center, NGOs (Abdallah El Nadeem in Menya, Association Basaisa South Sinai), and
the American University of Cairo8.
The Project has also raised awareness of biogas through its engagement with policy-makers
from the Supreme Council for Energy9, the Ministry of Electricity and Energy (MEE), Ministry of
7
This includes Dr. Samir El-Shimi, Expert of Biogas technology and Recycling Agricultural Residues, who has been involved
with research on biogasification of crop residues and animal dung, and was instrumental in the identification of Indian
gasification technology
8
This includes Dr. Salah Arafa, who is widely acknowledged as the pioneer of community-based participatory development for
rural areas. His work involving rural civic engagement has been credited with stemming rural migration to urban areas; his
involvement in promoting biogas as a rural fuel contributes to raising awareness of how rural quality of life can be enhanced.
9
The Supreme Council for Energy was formed 2006. The Council is headed by the Prime Minister and is comprised of all the
concerned ministers. Functions of the Council include oversight of the various policies and strategies of the energy sector
including their supportive legislative and institutional frameworks, policy initiatives, investment programs, and energy pricing.

Petroleum (MoP), the Ministry of Local Development (MLD), the Ministry of International
Cooperation (MIC), and the Social Fund for Development (SFD):
 The Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency’s (EEAA) discussions with the Supreme
Council of Energy were focused on extending the removal of subsidies from butane
cylinders for households that would make biomass energy and other sources of
renewable energy more economically viable. With a number of community and civil
society groups interested in a shift to alternative fuels, these discussions led to
actions of gradual removal of fuel subsidies since early 2011. One discussion has
opened the concept of providing a license for newly-registered poultry farms on condition
their energy needs are switched over to BETs. This output has been a remarkable
achievement considering the difficulties in achieving consensus amongst a large number
of stakeholders, all with different interests;
 On the basis of the contacts made by BSRD, the New and Renewable Energy Authority
(NREA) under MEE has now recognized the importance of biogas as a domestic
alternative energy source. To this end, they now have a “Bioenergy General Manager”
who is promoting bioenergy in rural areas of Egypt.
In June 2012, the Project signed a contract with SKG Sangha, an international NGO from India,
to provide the necessary technical assistance for the installation of household biogas units. This
was a demonstration of successful South-South cooperation, with UNDP Egypt linking
with UNDP India to identify suitable and qualified entities to implement the first
pilots of biogas units for household gasification units for communities. SKG Sangha
has been tasked with undertaking the development and delivery of a number of outputs
including:
 Installation of household biogas systems for 100 households in Fayoum and Asyut
(Output 1.3) with each biogas system designed to produce 50 kg of biogas daily,
sufficient fuel for 4 families. Installation work on a first batch of 20 biogas units
commenced in late August 2012 and, as of December 31, 2012, three installations were
completed. Given the importance of the technical assistance to the Project, their
performance and interactions with the local communities are being closely monitored to
ensure their technical assistance is effective and can be sustained during the duration of
the Project;
 Survey and evaluation of existing local capacity to service bioenergy demand of rural
communities (Output 3.1). This is underway with the current household biogas
installations;
 Enhanced information exchanges to foster cooperation between local and foreign
bioenergy entities (Output 3.2). SKG Sangha has registered a company in Egypt,
signaling their commitment to increase their involvement with the development of the
Egyptian bioenergy market. Their outreach (along with the tender document response for
installation of 100 household gasifiers and the removal of subsidies) has yielded a large
number of companies that have expressed an interest in various aspects of the rural
bioenergy business; and
 Trained certified product and service providers (Output 3.6). With the current household
biogas installations, SKG Sangha is training, “on-the-job”, a number of trainers on biogas
installations, most of who are from the regional EEAA office. A scale-up of this training
program will be designed with the increasing number of biogas installations.

With regards to Output 3.1, the Project signed a contract with SKG Sangha in October for the
supply and installation of four biogas units10 at two poultry farms.
Project outputs that have not yet commenced development are dependent on the completion of
demonstration biogas installation and performance monitoring of the household and SME-scale
units by the Project over the next 9 months. This would include:
 The establishment of a Biomass Energy Support Fund (BESF) (Output 1.2) for financing
a dissemination program for household biogas units;
 A draft policy paper (Output 2.2);
 The manual for development and financing of rural bioenergy projects (Output 3.3);
 Information and marketing package to potential co-financers to support rural bioenergy
(Output 3.4);
 Draft technical standards and certification systems (Output 3.5);
 Public awareness raising and marketing campaigns for bioenergy product suppliers and
service providers (Output 3.7); and
 All outputs related to Outcome 4: Institutionalization of support provided by the Project.
Actual Project outputs are summarized against the Project log-frame in Table 1.
2.1.2 Project Impacts

The Project had a slow start from its initial operations in December 2009 for a number of
reasons, including delays in finding a qualified Project Manager, delayed receipt of
government co-financing, and the political events of 2011 that made travel to a number of the
Project sites unsafe. In addition, the Project was a “lone voice” for the development of
biomass energy in Egypt; as such, the Project had difficulties in 2010 fully engaging all
stakeholders in regulatory reform without a qualified Project Manager. However, since late
2010, BSRD has made good progress notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulties and
delays; it has fully engaged the Government on the highly sensitive issue of reducing fuel
subsidies and programs to replace these fuels, issues on which the Project was designed with
the objective of transforming the rural fuels market. Notwithstanding the low rate of
disbursements, the impact of BSRD has been significant:
 The recruitment of the former CEO of EEAA in late 2010 as Project Manager helped
raise BSRD’s profile and importance as a means to reduce rural fuel subsidies, a
highly sensitive issue in Egypt;
 The Project has been able to engage with relevant Government ministries to support
the gradual removal of subsidies from LPG cylinders, which has created higher
demand for biogas units as a substitute 11. While there are no firm dates that have
been set by the Government for removing LPG subsidies, the Government is moving
10
The sizes of the four biogas units at two poultry farms are 50 kg/day (3.0 m3), 300 kg/day (18 m3), 500 kg/day (30 m3), and
2,000 kg/day (120 m3).
11
Rural families need to fill a 12 kg LPG cylinder every 15 days at a cost of LE 2.70 (USD 0.45). With the gradual removal of
LPG subsidies, the cost of filling an LPG cylinder without subsidy has risen to LE 45 (USD 7.50) in Fayoum, well beyond the
financial reach of rural families. Details of the alternative scenario are still being determined; however, this scenario includes
the building of a 2.0 m 3 biogas unit that consumes 50 kg of animal waste per day for an anticipated price of LE 5,400 (USD
900). Assuming 2.0 m3 biogas is produced daily and the calorific value of this volume of biogas is equivalent to 0.8 kg of LPG,
the biogas generated from 50 kg of animal waste will be the equivalent of 24 kg of LPG, sufficient for domestic needs of a
family of 5 persons.

Table 1: Project Progress Observed in September 2012 (against 2006 log-frame from Project Executive Summary)
Project Strategy Measurable End of Project (EOP) Status of Delivery as of December 31, Rating12
(taken from Prodoc) Indicators from Target 2012
Prodoc Log-
Frame
Project Objective: To The level of High level of confidence Technology demonstrations for household
remove the technical, confidence on biogas units were recently commenced.
institutional, modern BET as The demonstrations are being carefully
information, financial, means to planned to bring a high level of confidence
and market barriers to contribute to rural to the biogas units as a replacement to
developing the energy needs. LPG fuel.
bioenergy technology
(BET) market in Egypt
The market growth Average 20% market growth Market growth will be dependent on the
of BET at the end of the project success of pilot biogas installations and
the successful development of SMEs to
support the growth of biogas units at the
rural community levels.
The level of Supportive policy, including Policymakers are awaiting results of the
supportive required financial and fiscal operation of the household and poultry
framework incentives in place to sustain farm biogas units before committing to
conditions in place the market growth formulation of policies and standards as
sustaining the well as financial and fiscal incentives that
market growth will sustain market growth in biogas use in
after the end of rural areas in Egypt.
the GEF project.
Outcome 1: The level of The first pilot bioenergy Construction of the first 20 biogas units
New business and confidence on systems constructed and was commenced in late August after
financing models modern BET and operated by professional mobilization of the selected international
successfully the “Bioenergy Service consultant, SKGS, India. Three units
introduced using implementation Providers” on the basis of were completed in Fayoum, while biogas
appropriate technical mechanisms maximum cost recovery. construction is ongoing in the presence of
solutions and promoted. Government personnel who will train other
demonstrating the technicians on building biogas units for
possibility to construct The operational households.
and operate BET and financial data
systems on a cost of the systems
recovery basis under a installed.
supportive and
enabling policy and The level of At least 90% customer Customer satisfaction can only be gauged
financing environment. customer satisfaction on the new when the installations are completed.
satisfaction. systems Surveys will need to be planned by the
Project after the completion of
installations to get feedback from
customers that will be useful for improving
future biogas unit installations
Output 1.1: An Finalized, updated Finalized, updated market A market survey has been completed for
12
Green cell shows completion and successful achievement; Yellow cell shows expected completion by the end of the project
(assuming there is an extension to the Project terminal date); Red cell show poor achievement and unlikely to be complete by
end of Project

Project Strategy Measurable End of Project (EOP) Status of Delivery as of December 31, Rating
Prodoc Log-
Frame
updated market market analysis, analysis, plans and various sites to understand the household
analysis and finalized plans and operational criteria for the energy usage patterns and actual demand
plans and operational operational criteria project’s capacity building for biogas if subsidies are removed for the
criteria for the project’s for the project’s and financial support LPG cylinders.
capacity building and capacity building strategy
financial support and financial Plans and operational criteria for the
strategy. support strategy. household biogas units has been
completed
Financial support strategy is only at the

discussion stage with SFD. When the
technology demonstrations are generating
information on its use within the
household, these discussions will resume.
Output 1.2: The Number of The applications for support Discussions for BESF have not yet
Biomass Energy applications to reach the first year commenced until technology
Support Fund (BESF) received and targets, i.e. 50 family-scale demonstrations are generating
scheme successfully approved biogas plants and 2 information on BET use within the
announced and community-scale biogas households. Project will need to prepare
launched. plants received and approaches on large-scale deployment of
approved. rural biogas units including financial
models based on experience from other
countries with similar programmes.
Output 1.3: The BET Number of As per the stated project Household (family-scale) biogas systems
systems installed as systems targets, at least 1,000 family- are being installed at 20 locations at
per the project annual constructed. scale, 10-20 community- Fayoum, Monofia and Assuit
and final targets. scale, 2 farm-scale biogas Governorates with a total of 40 completed
systems and, 2 gasification by the end of 2012. In 2013, another 60
systems (supported by the household systems will be installed.
Government of Egypt) and
1-3 additional biomass Two poultry farm (farm-scale) biogas
combustion or, as systems are proposed in Fayoum and
applicable, gasification Monofia Governorates. Construction of
plants constructed and these poultry waste biogas systems will
commissioned by the end of commence in October after the PMU has
the project. had sufficient time to monitor the progress
of the household biogas installations
EOP targets should be reset to reflect

realistic objectives
Output 1.4: A mid-term Reports finalized The results compiled, As construction of the systems has
and final monitoring analyzed and disseminated. commenced, no reports on the systems
and evaluation report have been compiled. This report can be
of the systems more comprehensive to include a
constructed. comparative analysis of other BETs (e.g.
systems to produce energy from waste
straw), required enabling conditions to

Prodoc Log-
Frame
increase their deployment, similar
experiences with these BETs in other
countries and plans to pilot their use in
Egypt
Outcome 2: An The content of the An enabling policy With 20 biogas units completed by the
enabling policy policy actions, framework for promoting end of 2012, knowledge on biogas
framework, effectively legal and sustainable rural biomass installations is being gathered which will
promoting rural regulatory energy adopted, including: then be used to improve the biogas
bioenergy changes adopted. installations for 2013.
development adopted.  Recognition of the BET
and other renewable With the completion of biogas pilots and
systems in official the collection of biogas performance
Government documents information, the Project will need to
as the first option to be commence work on standardizing biogas
studied and considered installations that will inform a future policy
for meeting rural energy framework on rural biogas installations.
needs, whenever
technically and Studies can also be commenced in early
economically feasible 2013 on planning how bioenergy can be
 A level playing field for effectively promoted with the gradual
BET systems to removal of subsidies for LPG, and with
compete with subsidized the emerging support from local bioenergy
fossil fuels created and, services and product control standards
as applicable, being developed
introduction of eventual
additional financial or
fiscal incentives to
support BETs on the
basis of their socio-
economic and
environmental benefits;
 A supportive regulatory
framework for managing
the relations between
the bioenergy service
providers and the
customers;
 Adoption of adequate
product standards and
quality control
mechanisms.
Output 2.1: Enhanced The PR material A project presentation Awareness of the benefits of biomass
awareness of and produced. package finalized. energy in rural communities is being
established policy Initial meetings and raised through parallel GEF Small Grant
dialogue with the key The list and output consultations with the key Program (SGP) funds which are being
stakeholders and of consultations stakeholders and decision used to support this full-sized GEF project
decision makers on held. makers finalized within the as well as other FSP projects in Egypt.
the socio-economic first 6 months of the project.

Prodoc Log-
Frame
benefits of BET
systems. Enhanced awareness of the Consultations with key stakeholders and
general public through implementers of the awareness raising
programs and articles in were held prior to granting of the SGP
public media, workshops etc. funds. Consultations will continue
throughout the Project duration
Awareness programs have only targeted

rural communities
Output 2.2: A draft The status of the The draft policy paper Activities towards this output have not yet
policy paper document finalized. commenced.
highlighting the
barriers and With the completion of biogas pilots and
recommending the collection of biogas performance
improvements for the information, the Project can commence
current policy work on standardizing biogas installations
framework for the that will inform a future policy framework
promotion of rural on rural biogas installations.
bioenergy systems.
Studies can also be commenced in early
2013 on planning how bioenergy can be
effectively promoted with the gradual
removal of subsidies for LPG, and with
the emerging support from local bioenergy
services and product control standards
being developed
Output 2.3: Continuing The status and The required measures to Activities towards this output have not yet
consultations, level of policy facilitate the adoption of the commenced
promotional events, dialogue recommended improvement
high-level meetings of the BET policy
and other measures to environment finalized
facilitate the adoption
of the
recommendations
made.
Outcome 3: The number of The capacity of at least 20 The SKG Sangha NGO from India was
Enhanced capacity of identified and local entities to serve as contracted on May 21, 2012 to deliver
the local supply chain trained “Bioenergy BSPs built. operational household biogas units and to
to market and deliver Service Providers” train a critical mass of masons and
sustainable rural (BSPs) The follow-up activities and managers who will in future become
bioenergy products capacitated to business of the trained BSPs BSPs, to manage crews that will construct
and services, including continue to show an increasing trend, and maintain future biogas installations
financing. operate on a self- leveraging financing from a
sustaining basis variety of sources.
after the end of
the project.
The level of follow-

up activities of the

Prodoc Log-
Frame
trained BSPs.
Output 3.1: An The status of the An updated survey and SKG Sangha is currently evaluating the
updated survey and survey. capacity evaluation finalized. potential and capacity of local market
evaluation of the players to produce and provide services
existing (or potential related to the installation of biogas units.
future) market players This is being done in parallel with the
and their capacity to construction of household biogas units in
produce rural biomass Fayoum and Asyut
energy related
products and services.
Output 3.2: Channels Number of Project web site established A project website has been established
and opportunities for contacts facilitated including links to relevant (www.egyptbiomass.com)
information exchange, information.
networking, match
making missions and At least one international, SKG Sangha has registered a company in
conditions for different bioenergy workshop in Egypt Egypt to continue assistance to construct
local and foreign and 5-10 matchmaking biogas units as well as to transfer
entities to explore missions facilitated by the knowledge on building these units as
opportunities for co- project. soon as possible
operation created
Output 3.3: A manual The status of Finalized manual in Arabic Activities towards this output have not yet
for the development manual and in English for developing commenced
and financing of rural and financing of rural
bioenergy projects in bioenergy projects in Egypt.
Egypt
Output 3.4: An The availability of Information and marketing Activities towards this output have not yet
information and the information package about BET systems commenced
marketing package and marketing to potential financing
tailored for the package. institutions finalized.
targeted co-financing
sources to support the The number of Contacts created between
BSPs and related meeting and the BSPs and with at least 5
awareness raising / financial new promising co- financing
match making matchmaking sources in addition to the
finalized events organized SFD
Output 3.5: Draft The status of the Technical standards or The current construction practices of
technical standards technical requirements and a biogas units at the household level are
and certification standards/ certification system being passed onto Government officers
system (to be adopted requirements and developed and adopted (see responsible for training local masons.
either as a voluntary a certification outcome 2) both for These practices will be monitored and
or as a mandatory system. hardware and for service adjusted based on the performance of the
quality control scheme providers in the distribution biogas units
– see outcome 2). chain.
Output 3.6: Trained Number and type At least 100 people trained Training of trainers has been initiated with
and, as applicable, of people trained and, as applicable, certified the construction of household biogas units
certified product and from the supply chain in at Fayoum and Asyut. Training recipients
service providers, Verified results of order to build up their are from the regional EEAA office with
including the training technical, management and additional trainees to be brought in from

Prodoc Log-
Frame
manufacturers, through a marketing, plant operation local youth groups and technical schools
technicians etc. certification and maintenance and/or
scheme financial engineering skills
(the scope of training
depending on the target
group)
Output 3.7: A joint The number of The number of LoIs received A project website has been established
public awareness Letters of Interest correspond to the targeted (www.egyptbiomass.com) to raise
raising and marketing (LoI) received amount investments awareness of bioenergy promotion in
campaign with supply Egypt
side product or service
providers for the
targeted customers
Outcome 4: The level of Continuing promotion of A project website has been established
Institutionalization of support available bioenergy activities in Egypt (www.egyptbiomass.com) to promote
the support provided at and after the after the end of the project bioenergy promotion in Egypt
by the project completion of the on a self-sustaining basis.
project
Output 4.1: Including The level of Rural biomass energy Activities towards this output have not yet
rural biomass energy inclusion of increasingly included into the commenced
increasingly into the bioenergy into the curricula of the relevant
curricula of the relevant curricula academic and other
relevant academic and educational institutions
other educational
institutions
Output 4.2: A The existence and A rural bioenergy focal point With the first bioenergy units being
Biomass Energy continuing established and continue its installed in Fayoum and Asyut, experience
Association or another effective operation effective operation also after and interest is being generated that
applicable entity of a bioenergy the project should result in the emergence of a local
continues to serve as focal point after foal point for promotion of biomass
a focal point for further the project energy, possibly through the local EEAA
promotional activities officers who are currently participating in
on a self-sustaining the pilot biogas installations
basis.
Output 4.3: As The continuing Adequate financial support Initial discussions have taken place with
needed, further availability of the mechanisms established SFD on their support for soft loans to
elaboration and required financial and continue to operate after poultry farms. SFD are familiar with the
financing leveraged for support, when the end of the project. poultry industry as they have previously
applicable financial needed. provided loans to them for other
support mechanisms purposes.
to continue the
promotion of
bioenergy
Output 4.4: Final The report and the The report and the related Activities towards this output have not yet
project report and the related promotional material and commenced
associated promotional events completed.
promotional material material and
and events. events completed.

cautiously by reducing these subsidies with large industrial clients given the political
sensitivity of this issue. This has had the impact of raising awareness amongst
relevant Government policymakers of the national benefits of biogas generation as
an LPG substitute and as a means towards sustainable rural development;
 The Project has had to overcome the poor perceptions of biogas generation from
previous demonstrations. This has been accomplished through concerted awareness
raising efforts by prominent Egyptian biogas promoters and NGOs (funded through
GEF’s SGP), and recently completed household biogas installations. The impact of the
awareness campaigns has resulted in public and private entities wishing to collaborate
with the Project;
 The Project has carefully selected international consultants for technical assistance to
install pilot biogas units. Their extensive working experience on biogas installations in
different cultures is important to ensure that the foreign consultancy was effective in
building trust and credibility of biogas installations within targeted communities.
The Project target for direct GHG reductions is 192,000 tons CO 2. To date, the Project has had
no direct impact on GHG reductions due to the delayed start-up of biogas installations. Table 2
provides a summary of CO2 reductions from the Project.
Table 2: Summary of CO2 Reductions from the Project to September 2012
Achieved to
Description of Emission Reduction Target Assessment of reaching target
date
An estimated 460,000 household units will need to
13 be installed to meet this target. This may not be
Direct emission reduction , t CO2 0 192,000
realistic and should be revised according to realistic
projections of the scale-up program during BSRD.
Family-scale biogas units 0
Farm-scale biogas units 0
Direct post-project emission reduction14, t Target for direct post-project emission reductions
0
CO2 added with indirect emission reductions
Target for indirect emission reductions added with
Indirect emission reduction15, t CO2 0
direct post-project emission reductions
More than 130,000 household units will need to
TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS
be installed to meet this target. Installation of
DUE TO UNDP-GEF PROJECT, t 0 2,300,000
poultry biogas units will reduce the number of
CO 2
household units required
13
These are from pilot projects and investments leveraged during the supervised implementation of the Project.
14
Post-project emission reductions are related to setting financial mechanisms (e.g. revolving funds) that continue operating
after the end of the project. In the case of the Project, financial mechanisms are planned.
15
Indirect emission reductions are from raised awareness, policies or improved regulations generated by Project activities to
late-2025, which is the end date of the 10-year GEF influence period assuming a new BSRD EOP date of December 31,
2015.

However, based on the Project investment in the 100 household biogas units and technical
assistance for two demonstration poultry farms, the Project should generate direct emission
reductions by the new recommended BSRD EOP date of December 31, 2015 of 229 tons CO 2
from the 100 pilot household biogas units 16 and 83 tons CO2 from the 4 biogas units on the 2
poultry farms17; if these pilots are successful and adequate technical and regulatory support is
provided for a scale-up program, direct post-project and indirect emission reductions will also
be generated from biogas units funded by the proposed BESF (Output 1.2) and replication
activities respectively. Project GHG targets should be reset according to available Project
budget, and what can be realistically installed using lessons from the completed biogas units.
To generate direct emission reductions by the new recommended BSRD EOP of 192,000 ton
CO2, more than 460,000 households will need to have biogasifiers installed, which is not a
realistic expectation for this Project.
The market potential in Egypt for these biogasifiers is enormous. If each household can source
the equivalent of 50 kg of animal waste on a daily basis, biogas units will have the potential to
displace all LPG usage from biogas units for more than 8.9 million rural households, and
generate emission reductions of over 7.56 million tons CO2 per year18.
2.2 Project Design and Relevance

2.2.1 Project Relevance and Country Drivenness
Egypt has a policy framework that encourages renewable energy development. This is based
on the Supreme Council of Energy decision of 2008 to diversify Egypt’s sources of energy
production. This includes renewable energy targets of 20% of total electricity generated by
2020, of which 7,200 MW would be from wind power and the remainder from other sources,
mainly hydro and solar. BETs are not specifically mentioned, though the Project has managed
to bring BETs to the attention of the Supreme Council of Energy as a solution to subsidy issues
for rural energy. Personal communications with a number of Government officers related to
BSRD have reiterated the importance of this Project to demonstrate how the Government can
provide alternative fuel sources as well as gradually reduce subsidies without impacting rural
livelihoods. This strong Government support for the Project will undoubtedly lead to BET
policies that will facilitate numerous opportunities for smaller, decentralized BET systems in
rural communities of Egypt.
2.2.2 Project Design and Implementation Approach

The Project design is logical given that there was almost no domestic bioenergy expertise at
the beginning of the Project. The design incorporates the full cycle of market transformation
activities from initial market surveys, technology identification and awareness rising amongst
16
The 191 tons CO2 is based on the assumption that the annual monthly consumption of LPG in Egypt is 24 kg per family; a
CO2 emissions factor of 2.95 kg CO2/kg LPG; the 100 biogas units being installed are generating 24 kg (LPG equivalent) of
biogas per month; and there are 3 years of emission reductions generated before the extended EOP date of December 31,
2015 as recommended in this MTE.
17
There are two poultry farms that will have 4 biogas units installed; Poultry farms No.1 and No. 2 will displace over 220 tons
and 880 tons respectively of annual LPG consumption.
18
This is based on the estimated rural population of Egypt in 2010 of 44.8 million (World Bank 2012 estimate), the annual
average consumption of LPG of 288 kg per household, and a CO 2 emissions factor of 2.95 kg CO 2/kg LPG. This does not
include industrial uses of LPG such as poultry farms, making the estimate of potential emission reductions from rural LPG
displacement conservative.

policymakers and local communities to pilot project support, design of financing mechanisms,
building local capacity to supply and service the technology and formulation of policies.
The implementation approach has been very strong, with many of the activities being linked
with each other. For example, technology identification was closely linked with the social and
marketing survey to gauge the willingness of end-users to utilize biogasifiers in place of LPG.
The installation of BET systems in households is linked to assessing local capacity for service
provision and supply of BET components, and local training of trainers and technicians.
Plans for future scale-up efforts will be linked to the performance of the pilot biogas units.
2.3 Project Implementation Arrangements

2.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement, Linkages to Project and Other Interventions in Sector
Stakeholder involvement has been the strength of the Project outputs to date. Without the
extent of involvement of the stakeholders to date, the Project would not have its current strong
position to transform the rural fuels market. Key interactions between the Project and
stakeholders included:
 Conducting a number of socio-economic surveys in 2010 in rural communities in Asyut,

Fayoum and New Valley to gauge their willingness to purchase and utilize biogas units.
The surveys indicated over 96% of respondents were in favor of biogas but did not
expect to pay for a change in fuel sources;
 Through the country’s GEF Small Grants Program (SGP), the Project conducted a
workshop to introduce BSRD and encourage NGOs to develop proposals for the
promotion of rural biogas in parallel with Project activities. NGO activities involved key
community residents in the awareness campaigns with the intent of involving them for
training and implementation. These awareness-raising campaigns were funded under
SGP;
 To build the local capacity to supply, install and service biogas units, the Project through
its international consultant has made contact with a number of new companies that
were established to work in bioenergy. A number of agreements have been made with
these companies for their cooperation to gain experience on biogas installations, and to
become bioenergy service providers during the installation of biogas units during the
scale-up phase of the Project;
 Contacts were made with most private poultry farms in the targeted governorates to
introduce BSRD and encourage them to switch their fuels to biogas.
Since BSRD was the only project in promoting rural biogas usage, it has not had any linkages
or interventions with other projects or sectors.
2.3.2 Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, Identification and Management of Risk

Considering the slow start of BSRD in 2010 and the period of political instability in Egypt during
2011, the PMU’s management of the Project has been excellent, demonstrating careful and
intelligent use of Project resources including:
 Leveraging SGP funds for awareness raising campaigns;

 Thorough justification of all Project expenditures;

 Well researched selection of an international biogas consultant from India; and

 Advancing field data collection activities and biogas technology research during 2011
when there were security advisories against travel to rural areas.
The Project has also demonstrated thorough monitoring and evaluation of all project activities,
including those of the new international consultant and his ability to interact and establish
relations with the targeted communities for household BET installations. Field visits are made
weekly or more frequently if required to monitor the progress and quality of the installations
under Output 1.3. The Project is placing high importance on the quality of these installations as
the quality of these pilot BET systems is crucial to the expansion of bioenergy in rural Egypt.
Considering the political events in Egypt during 2011, the PMU has had to carefully assess
risks related to rural travel and has adaptively managed Project activities through this sensitive
period. Progress was achieved notwithstanding these constraints.
2.4 Project Budget and Cost Effectiveness

Table 3 provides an overview of expenditures of the GEF Project budget of USD 3.0 million
from December 2009 to December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, USD 304,929, or close
to 11% of the GEF-funded Project budget, has been expended. More than USD 2.7 million
remains in the Project budget for technical assistance and other activities, including USD 1.5
million of unallocated funds.
Although only 11% of the budget has been expended by the mid-point of the Project, care has
been exercised in justifying each expenditure. In addition, there are contractual commitments in
place for the following additional expenditures including:
 A signed contract with SKG Sangha in June 2012 for USD 355,610 for technical
assistance on the design and installation of 100 household biogas units to be completed
by mid-2013. A mobilization payment of 15% has already been transferred to them. The
Government is providing co-financing for the cost of materials and installation labor for
these biogas units;
 A signed contract with SKG Sangha in October 2012 for USD 389,125 for technical
assistance on the design and installation of 4 biogas units at two poultry farms to be
completed in mid-2013. The poultry farms will be financing the cost of materials and
installation labor.
With the addition of these contract commitments to the December 31 expenditure of

USD177,192, USD 936,039 or 31% of the Project finances are committed. This would also
reduce the “remaining unallocated” amount in Table 3 from USD 1.580 million to USD 0.762
million. As such, the cost effectiveness of the Project has been adequate. The PMU still needs
to plan on how to use these unallocated funds for scale-up efforts for biogas units.
Recommendations for scale-up are provided in this MTE report.
One excellent demonstration of cost effectiveness by the project was to hold an introductory
workshop with the rural communities and NGOs that resulted in the leveraging of SGP funds for
awareness raising campaigns. Another example is the careful selection of the international
consultant from another developing country who has excellent experience and knowledge

globally with biogas installations and carbon finance mechanisms to sustain the growth of
biogas in Egypt’s rural communities, and comes to the Project at a very reasonable rate.
Confirmed Project co-financing to date has amounted to an estimated USD 9.2 million with
details provided in Table 4. The Project is in a position to mobilize more co-financing once the
poultry farm biogas units are installed and a BESF has been capitalized with SFD.
2.5 Evaluation of Project

Table 5 provides an evaluation of the current outcomes of each Project output. Each output was
evaluated against individual criteria of:
 Relevance – the extent to which the activity is suited to local and national development
priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time.
 Effectiveness – the extent to which an objective has been achieved or how likely it is to
be achieved.
 Efficiency – the extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly
resources possible.
 Results/impacts – the positive and negative, and foreseen and unforeseen, changes to
and effects produced by a development intervention. In GEF terms, results include
direct project outputs, short-to medium term outcomes, and 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.
The Project outputs were rated based on the following scale:
 Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project has no shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives;
 Satisfactory (S): The project has minor shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives;
 Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project has moderate shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives;
 Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project has significant shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives;
 Unsatisfactory (U) The project has major shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives;
 Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project has severe shortcomings in the achievement of
its objectives.

Table 3: Project Budget and Expenditures (in USD)

Budget Remaining
Component 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planned 2013
(from ProDoc) Unallocated
1. Introduction of new business and financing
1,650,000
models 154.38 28,722.97 72,497.21 98,098.90 1,000,000 450,526.54
2. Enabling policy framework 150,000 0 1,528.75 0 0 29,000 119,471.25
3. Building capacity of the local supply chain to
370,000 0 0 111.11 3,017.66 15,000 351,871.23
deliver bioenergy products and services
4. Institutionalizing the project support 200,000 0 0 672.27 10778.09 20,000 168,549.64
Project Management 630,000 0 5,210.53 18,840.36 65,297.13 51,000 489,651.98
$177,191.7
$3,000,000.00
TOTAL $154.38 $35,462.25 $92,120.95 8 $1,115,000.00 $1,580,070.64
Table 4: Details of Project Co-Financing

Co IA own Multi-lateral Bi-laterals Central Local Private Sector NGOs Other Sources Total Total
financing Financing Agencies (Non- Donors (mill Government Government (mill US$) (mill US$) (mill US$) Financing Disbursement
(Type/ (mill US$) GEF) US$) (mill US$) (mill US$) (mill US$) (mill US$)
Source) (mill US$)
Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual Propsd Actual
Grant 0.15019 1.760 1.00020 0.250 2.160 1.000
Credits
Loans
Equity
In-kind 2.000 0.20021 0.37022 8.100 8.00023 10.470 8.200
Non-grant
Instruments
Other Types
TOTAL 0.150 2.000 0.200 0.370 9.860 9.000 0.250 12.630 9.200
19
From UNDP Core funds.
20
This is a cash grant from EEAA.
21
Parallel cost sharing for participatory planning at the community level to address development needs for rural development including energy needs
22
Bilateral parallel funds from the Spanish UN MDG Fund to support energy policy reform to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Energy
Efficiency Unit has been established at the Cabinet of Ministers and currently is supporting the promotion of the biogas energy technologies through the
Supreme Energy Council headed by the Prime Minister.
23
Parallel government cost sharing for EEAA activities to support the collection and compression of agricultural waste and supply of agriculture wastes to the
gasification units and establishment of composting factories in a number of governorates.
The overall rating of the Project is Satisfactory (S), based mainly on:
 Despite the slow start to the Project in 2010 due to the difficulties of finding a
Project Manager and the political events in Egypt during 2011, the Project has
made excellent and effective progress during 2011 and 2012. This includes
effective awareness raising activities, overcoming the difficulties of effectively
engaging relevant government stakeholders in the gradual removal of fuel
subsidies, and identification of appropriate BETs for Egypt’s rural communities;
 Current activities are an excellent foundation for market transformation for the
remaining period of the Project. These activities include installation of 100
household biogas units; the completion of the tender for the poultry farm biogas
units; and the engagement of the international biogas consultant for the
installations of the household biogas units, assessments of local capacity for
supply and installation of BETs, and the provision of technical support for existing
biogas units;
 With 31% of resources committed to date at the mid-term of the Project, and over
75% of funds allocated, the Project is in position to determine the best
approaches to scale-up the installation of biogas units, and to determine if there
are other biogas initiatives worthwhile investigating for piloting;
 The high caliber and performance of the PMU in monitoring and adaptively
managing field and office activities. This was notable during the period of political
instability of 2011.
Table 5: Summary Evaluation of Project
Effective- Overall
Project Strategy Relevance Efficiency
ness Rating
Outcome 1:
New business and financing models successfully
introduced using appropriate technical solutions S S S S
and demonstrating the possibility to construct and
operate BET systems on a cost recovery basis
Outcome 2:
An enabling policy framework, effectively HS S HS HS
promoting rural bioenergy development adopted
Outcome 3:
Enhanced capacity of the local supply chain to Unable to Unable to Unable to Unable to
market and deliver sustainable rural bioenergy rate rate rate rate
products and services, including financing
Outcome 4:
Unable to Unable to Unable to Unable to
Institutionalization of the support provided by the
rate rate rate rate
project
Monitoring and Evaluation S S HS S
Overall Rating S S HS S

2.6 Sustainability and Replicability

2.6.1 Sustainability
In assessing the sustainability of the project, we asked “how likely will Project outcomes
be sustained after termination of the Project?” Sustainability of these objectives was
evaluated in the context of financial resources, socio-political risks, institutional
framework, governance and environmental factors, using a simple ranking scheme:
 Likely (L): very likely to continue and resources in place;

 Moderately Likely (ML): model is viable, but funding or resources may not be in
place;
 Moderately Unlikely (MU): model is not viable or needs changing; and/or
resources not in place; and
 Unlikely (U): model is not viable and resources are not in place
The evaluation for sustainability is shown on Table 6. It is important to note that the index
is intended simply to facilitate an assessment of future sustainability and is not a rating
of project management and consultants. Instead, it is a rating of the project design and
viability going forward, including availability of budget and resources for continuation.
Project sustainability rating is Likely (L) due to:
 The strong engagement of all stakeholders interviewed on the Project;

 A strong foundation built for market transformation that includes:
 High level of awareness of biogas as a substitute for subsidized fossil fuel
usage in rural communities;
 Movement by the Government to gradually remove fuel subsidies in rural
areas;
 The resulting high demand for alternatives and the biogas units presented
to targeted communities including household units and SME poultry
farms;
 The effectiveness thus far of the technical assistance being provided for
household biogas units.
Table 6: Assessment of Sustainability for Objectives

Dimensions of
Outcome Assessment of Sustainability
Sustainability
Outcome 1: New business and financing  Financial Resources: Government financial resources will be L
models successfully introduced using available contingent to the results of the pilot-scale biogas
appropriate technical solutions and installations for households and poultry farms;
demonstrating the possibility to construct  Socio-Political Risks: The Government is under intense L
and operate BET systems on a cost recovery pressure to reduce fuel subsidies to balance its budget.
basis. This includes: Support for the subsidy removals will be sustained.
 Appropriate market analysis, plans and Acceptance of rural households of BETs is over 95% for those
operational criteria for capacity building and surveyed by the Project.
a financial support strategy  Institutional Framework and Governance: The Government’s L
 A functional financial support fund Social Fund for Development provides institutional support for
 Pilot-scale biogas installations that are fully concessional financing for households with low income;

Table 6: Assessment of Sustainability for Objectives

Dimensions of
Outcome Assessment of Sustainability
Sustainability
functional and give confidence that biogas is  Environmental Factors: Reduced energy consumption and L
an alternative to subsidized fossil fuels GHG emissions are a consequence of the Project’s market
transformation activities.
Overall Rating L
Outcome 2: An enabling policy framework,  Financial Resources: Government financial resources are L
effectively promoting rural bioenergy available for the formulation of an enabling policy framework for
development adopted. This includes: bioenergy support;
 Enhanced awareness of a policy that  Socio-Political Risks: The Government is under intense L
recognizes BET as a viable alternative fuel pressure to reduce fuel subsidies to balance its budget.
for use in rural communities Support for the subsidy removals will be sustained;
 Adoption of adequate product standards and  Institutional Framework and Governance: The Government is L
quality control mechanisms under intense pressure to reduce fuel subsidies to balance its
 Building capacity of local entities as budget. Support for a bioenergy policy framework will be
bioenergy service providers sustained;
 Environmental Factors: Reduced energy consumption and L
GHG emissions are a consequence of the Project’s market
Overall Rating L
Outcome 3: Enhanced capacity of the local  Financial Resources: Private sector financial resources are L
supply chain to market and deliver available to start-up BET suppliers and service providers in the
sustainable rural bioenergy products and targeted rural communities;
services, including financing. This includes:  Socio-Political Risks: The creation of local employment L
 Delivery of joint marketing campaigns; opportunities from an emerging bioenergy industry should
 Development of web-based information eliminate any opposition to bioenergy;
platforms and increasing access to  Institutional Framework and Governance: While activities in L
networking events to improve information this area have not yet commenced, there is strong support
exchanges on best practices for BET amongst the stakeholders for local product standards
installations; certification of technical bioenergy personnel to maintain quality
 Manual for development and financing of of the BETs and to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel consumption
BET installations for cooking fuel in rural areas;
 Information and marketing packages for  Environmental Factors: Reduced energy consumption and L
increasing BET installations GHG emissions are a consequence of the Project’s market
 Technical and certification standards transformation activities.
 Trained and certified service providers for
BETs Overall Rating L
Outcome 4: Institutionalization of support  Financial Resources: Availability of sufficient financial L
provided by the Project including monitoring, resources for institutional support is contingent on the
learning, adaptive feedback and evaluation. outcomes from the pilot BET installations;
This includes:  Socio-Political Risks: The creation of local employment L
 Inclusion of biomass in the curricula of opportunities from an emerging bioenergy industry will garner
relevant educational institutes institutional support;
 Establishment of bioenergy association  Institutional Framework and Governance: Since the Project is
 Adequate financial mechanisms in place concerned with fuel subsidy removal, institutional management L
after completion of project support as well as monitoring, learning and adaptive feedback
will be institutionally supported;
 Environmental Factors Reduced energy consumption and GHG L
emissions are a consequence of the Project’s market
Overall Rating L

2.6.2 Replicability
The likelihood of biogas installations replications is high for the following reasons:
 High demand for biogas units created by the gradual removal of fossil fuel
subsidies. Without biogas, rural communities and SMEs are faced with
considerably higher energy costs;
 High level of awareness in rural communities of installed household biogas units
as a means to offset rising energy costs and improve community environmental
conditions;
 The generation of urgently needed employment opportunities in rural
communities.

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Conclusions
With 31% of BSRD’s resources committed (or 11% of its Project funds expended) at its
mid-term milestone, it is well positioned to implement successful biogas demonstrations
and provide initial scale-up efforts to transform the cooking fuels market in rural
communities of Egypt24. Project actions that have led to this conclusion include:
 The 2011 recruitment of the ex-CEO of the EEAA as Project Manager who has
successfully and effectively engaged the Ministry of Petroleum to support a
gradual removal of fuel subsidies. This has had the impact of dramatically
increasing demand for domestically available alternative fuel (to LPG), such as
biogas, as a fuel for cooking and heating, and reducing the country’s reliance on
imported fossil fuels, thereby improving Egypt’s energy security;
 Cleverly devised financing by the Project to leverage the country’s GEF Small
Grants Program (SGP) for effective awareness raising activities on biogas as an
alternative to non-subsidized LPG and as a fuel to improve rural environmental
conditions. This has reduced the need to expend Project funds for awareness
raising;
 Project association with key domestic biogas promoters and technology
champions who provide credibility to BSRD activities;
 Careful selection and management of the foreign technical assistance
consultancies for the pilot installation of biogas units in rural communities using
strong references from UNDP India;
 Deliberate actions by the PMU to carefully identify and plan the types and sizes
of biogas units for demonstration to maximize exposure of the technology in rural
communities;
 Identification of biogas technologies that are simple, robust, and serviceable by
local technicians using lessons learned from biogas installations prior to 2009;
 With current efforts underway to install 100 biogas units in 3 governorates, there
is an assessment of local capacity to manufacture install and service biogas
units, and to identify financing partners who will provide concessional financing
for rural households for biogas units. This includes the involvement of the SFD,
which will capitalize a fund with BSRD for concessional loans to individual
households and poultry farms for biogas units;
 Careful planning and targeted actions demonstrated by the PMU;
The impact of these biogas technologies that use animal waste will be to displace a
significant proportion of non-subsidized LPG fuel as a cooking fuel. There is a risk that
current gasification technologies that convert animal waste to biogas are not likely to
fully displace the use of imported LPG due to some rural households that do not have
cows and therefore would not have access to sufficient volumes of animal waste for
gasification. If this is true, demonstrations and pilots of other biogas technologies that
utilize other agricultural waste streams should be implemented to provide the opportunity
for full market transformation to domestically-generated biogas or thermal energy. Other
24
The number of rural households in Egypt is estimated to be 8.9 million households, each using 24 kg of LPG per
month.

agricultural waste streams may include straw, an abundant waste by-product of wheat
and rice farming in Egypt.
Lastly, the completion date of the Project needs to be revised since there is insufficient
time to achieve all the intended Project outcomes with the remaining resources by the
current December 31, 2013 terminal date. As such, the Project needs to review and
revise its end-of-project targets depending on how the Project utilizes its remaining
resources.
3.2 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Work on safeguarding the quality of biogas installations
should commence immediately.
With high demand forecast for biogas units in the near future, the importance of
safeguarding the quality of the biogas unit installations is of utmost importance.
Activities to strengthen the quality of installations will sustain consumer confidence in the
Project’s biogas installation programme, and sustain growth and transformation of the
rural cooking fuels market. As such, BSRD should be working closely with EEAA officers
in the formulation of quality control mechanisms for biogas units, based on the current
pilot programme for 100 household units and 4 poultry farm units. Suggested steps are
as follows:
 Establish a monitoring system for quality standards of construction of biogas
units. While SKG Sangha has extensive experience in the construction of biogas
units, the construction monitoring system needs to be set-up and documented in
close collaboration with EEAA officers and other trainees. Selected EEAA
officers participating in the construction of pilot units should be “trained as
trainers” for ensuring compliance of construction standards for biogas
installations;
 Completed biogas installations should be monitored for efficiencies in the
generation of biogas. Efficiency of biogas generation is lower if the units are too
large, if the user is feeding insufficient waste into the unit, or if the quality of the
construction is poor resulting in leakage of biogas to end-users;
 Standards for biogas appliances should be formulated that specify the materials
and dimensions of biogas stoves, the required quality of workmanship, burner
performance, manufacturing and assembly process, packing of appliances for
shipping, required sampling for quality checks;
 Identify an institution that is suited for the testing of bioenergy technologies.
Changes in the designs of biogas units are expected as well as new bioenergy
technologies coming to Egypt. As such, testing facilities will be necessary to
ensure new designs and new entrants to the Egyptian bioenergy market comply
with standards set by EEAA or other government institutions. The PMU will need
to determine the most suitable location for the testing of new bioenergy
technologies in Egypt; this may include testing facilities that have linkages to best
bioenergy practices from other countries. One possible testing facility is the
Testing and Research Center at the New and Renewable Energy Authority
(NREA).

Recommendation 2: With an outcome of increased biogas demand after the

completion of the pilot biogas units, the Project should consider scale-up of
biogas pilot installations that include cities beyond Shebin-el Kom, Asyut and
Fayoum.
 The forecast of higher demand for biogas units was based on observed
consumer reaction in Fayoum during the Evaluation Mission, the orders for larger
biogas units from poultry farms, and strong financial incentives to convert to
biogas with the removal of LPG cylinder subsidies;
 With the expected higher demand for biogas units in other cities, the trainers (as
identified in Recommendation 1) should conduct training of trainers and local
technicians to install quality biogas units, build capacity of local suppliers and
service providers, and improve biogas installation oversight. This should have a
positive impact on the scale-up of employment opportunities for youth (a
Government priority) and accelerate Egypt’s moves towards energy security.
With the remaining “unallocated budget” of USD 320,000 in Outcome 3, BSRD
should have sufficient budget to scale-up training activities and balance this with
other planned Project activities;
 Scale-up of biogas units in other cities could commence in late 2013 and
continue until the end of the Project in late 2015 (See Recommendation 5).
Recommendation 3: If there is high demand for biogas units resulting from

scaled-up activities from Recommendations 1 and 2, the Project will need to
prepare financing packages that include possible buy-downs for the biogas units:
 The national importance of biomass energy coupled with the high demand for
household biogas units and available capital from the SFD for a pilot “Bioenergy
Support Fund” (BESF) increases the urgency for the Project to design the
appropriate financing packages for rural households to access financing for a
biogas unit. Initial prices of the biogas units and accompanying cook stoves
indicate that concessional loans and even a buy-down may be necessary for
widespread adoption of household biogas units;
 Efforts to start-up the BESF should commence in April 2013 as it is anticipated
that more than 6 months will be required to set up a fund charter including
procedures for loan and buy-down approval, loan evaluation, system of borrower
evaluation, loan approval decision making process, loan and buy-down contracts,
and monitoring. Operational start-up of the BESF could be as early as December
2013;
 While BSRD are committing USD 1.0 million as start-up capital for the pilot BESF
and with the possibility that the Government cannot provide sufficient funds from
the SFD to meet the demand for biogas units, the PMU should focus its efforts to
source other funds for the BESF. This may include carbon finance and funds
linked to NAMAs.
Recommendation 4: Consider implementing a pilot to utilize waste straw that is

often disposed of through opening burning.
 The Project needs to quantify how much LPG will be displaced by the current
biogas models that use only animal waste. Current estimates for the full
displacement of household LPG are in the range of 50 kg of animal waste per
day per household. The Project will need to estimate the number of households
that do not have access to this amount of waste;

 The opportunity of using rice straw to generate additional biogas should be

explored, notably for those households that do not have access to sufficient
volumes of animal waste and the associated biogas units. Rice straw is currently
burned in open fields during September and October causing adverse air quality
impacts in Cairo and throughout Egypt;
 While Indian experience indicates that rice straw incineration is economic, the
Project should use lessons learned from co-digestion and rice straw fermentation
pilots and commercial units operating in China, India and Cambodia, and design
appropriate pilot tests of similar units under Egyptian conditions. Co-digestion (or
the 2:1 mixture of animal dung to rice straw) can potentially produce additional
biogas to the extent that household LPG use could be entirely displaced;
 Undertake pilot tests for straw incineration, co-digestion of rice straw and animal
dung and rice straw fermentation in Fayoum or another governorate where
biogas units are currently being installed. If the pilots are started early 2013, the
Project should target September 2013 as the completion date of pilot tests for
incineration, co-digestion and rice straw fermentation;
 The pilot tests will need to address the primary techno-economic concern, being
the additional effort and cost required to chop the rice straw into 2 to 3 mm
particles, and the application of sodium hydroxide to improve the biodegradability
of the rice straw. This additional cost may be offset by 30-50% gains in biogas
generation from a dung-only biogas unit to a unit that has a mix of one part straw
and two parts animal dung;
 If the pilot tests reveal an economically feasible option for rice straw disposal,
further studies should be conducted to ensure that soil fertility is not affected by
using the straw for energy generation instead of open field disposal. In addition,
product and performance standards for the straw bioenergy units should be
formulated in preparation for scale-up;
 If appropriate, a scale-up phase of straw-disposal bioenergy units should be
planned commencing 2014 with completion by 2015.
Recommendation 5: The Project terminal date needs to be extended to June 30,

2015 to allow sufficient time to achieve its objectives.
Rationale for a 24-month extension of BSRD past the current terminal date of December
31, 2013 includes:
 Completion of Output 1.3 (BET systems installed). The current pilot phase of 100
household biogas units and the four biogas units with two poultry farms is
expected to be completed by April 2013 with another 6 months to September
2013 to monitor the performance of the biogas unit installations;
 Completion of Output 1.2 (an operational BESF). Discussions will not take place
on a BESF until there is confidence in the biogas units being installed under
Output 1.3. As such, discussion could reasonably start in April 2013 with an
operational BESF expected by December 2013 and capitalized by funds from
BSRD and SFD. More than one year will be required to operate the pilot BESF,
mainly to train loan officers and administrators in BESF operations, to assist the
BESF in the design of new financing packages for new bioenergy technologies
and to secure new sources of capital for BESD from NAMAs-linked funds or
carbon funds. As such, sufficient time should be planned to design and
operationalize the BESD until mid-2015;
 Scale-up of activities for Output 3.6 (Trained and certified product and service
providers for biogas unit installations). The decision to scale-up TA activities for

biogas installations in other cities in Egypt will be made in late 2013. At this time,
the Project will need to decide on the size of the scale-up efforts based on
available TA budget, and the level of BESF support for loans and buy-downs
(Output 1.2). To a large extent, the decision will be based on reports of the
effectiveness of the training provided in Output 3.6 during 2012 and early 2013
for biogas technicians and the biogas installation programme managers, and pilot
tests for the generation of biogas using straw (from Recommendation 4). Scaled-
up TA activities should be planned over a 2-year period from late 2013 to late-
2015;
 Monitor, report and verify the performance of the scaled-up pilot bioenergy
installations in a systematic manner commencing in late 2013 to the proposed
terminal date of June 30, 2015.
Recommendation 6: Reset the GHG emission reduction targets that reflect a

realistic target for biogas unit installations by the proposed new terminal date of
BSRD on December 31, 2015.
The current emission reduction estimate of each household biogas unit is in the order of
0.85 tonnes CO2 per year. Direct emission reduction targets in the ProDoc are 192,000
tonnes CO2 spread over a 10-year period. This will require the installation of more than
460,000 household biogas units (2 m3/day) in the 3 years remaining on the Project
(assuming BSRD is extended to December 31, 2015). The Project should reset a
realistic target for GHG reductions based on the absorptive capacity of stakeholders and
the ability of the Project to deliver a large number of operational bioenergy units to the
Egyptian market.
3.3 Lessons Learned

Two valuable lessons can be drawn from the BSRD Project:
 Careful planning should be a requirement when deploying new technologies into

new markets. In the case of biogas units of BSRD, careful planning will benefit
the sustainability of technology dissemination. Careful planning needs to include
extensive end-user consultations; lessons learned from past technology
dissemination attempts; how the technology needs to be designed for overall
convenience, respect for cultural constraints, ease of use, minimal maintenance,
cost effectiveness; and estimates of the level of technical support required over
the service life of the technology. The BSRD project is addressing these issues
and increasing the likelihood that growth of the bioenergy in rural areas of Egypt
will be sustained;
 Strong Government support for private sector involvement in technology
dissemination programs is essential. The Government-supported BSRD project
has been creating enabling conditions for private sector involvement through the
training of personnel and demonstrations to prove the viability of the biogas units.
BSRD will improve market demand for biogas units by enhancing financing
conditions for households and SMEs for biogas units. The absence of
Government support for biogas units will not provide the technology
demonstrations and private sector confidence to invest in a business with biogas
technology for the sustained growth.

APPENDIX A – MISSION TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of Reference for Mid-term Evaluation
BioEnergy for Sustainable Rural Development
I. INTRODUCTION
The goal of the project is to facilitate and accelerate the market development for new bioenergy
technologies (BET) in Egypt, thereby promoting sustainable socio-economic development of the
rural communities in Egypt and reducing the negative global and local environmental impacts
associated with the use of fossil fuels and the environmentally not sound management of the
agricultural waste.
The objective of the project is to remove the technical, institutional, information, financial, and
market barriers to developing the BET market in Egypt by (i) testing the feasibility and building
the public confidence on BET systems and on the new business and financing models to
facilitate their broader adoption, and on the basis of those models showing success, developing
further the financial, institutional and market strategies for their large-scale replication; (ii)
supporting the development and adoption of an enabling policy framework to implement and
leverage financing for the recommended strategies; iii) building the capacity of the supply side
to do marketing, finance and deliver rural bioenergy services; and iv) institutionalizing the
support provided by the project to facilitate sustainable growth of the market after the end of the
project.
In order to facilitate sustainable market transformation, there is a need for parallel, mutually
supportive measures that can create a sustainable demand through an enabling policy
framework and other promotional measures, which are building the confidence of the market on
the new technologies, and on the other side meeting this demand by building the capacity of
commercially oriented and professional supply chain able to offer high quality products and
services, combined with the access to affordable and sustainable financing mechanisms.
Through the implementation of the planned investments projects, the project is going to monitor
and collect experiences from the different type and size of bioenergy applications, including
family, community and farm scale, thereby exploring further the opportunities also for semi-
industrial or industrial plants. For this purpose and in line with the recommendations coming out
from the GEF Council review, more advanced technologies also from other countries will be
evaluated in addition to the proposed lower costs technologies from China and India.
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
This mid-term evaluation is initiated by UNDP Egypt and will be conducted in accordance with
established UNDP-GEF procedures two years into the project process.
The overall purpose of the evaluation is to assess the efficiency of the project, identify potential
project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, identify and
document lessons learned and to make recommendations to improve the project.

The Mid-term Evaluation serves as an agent of change and plays a critical role in supporting
accountability. Its main objectives are:
a) To strengthen the adaptive management and monitoring functions of the Project;

b) To ensure accountability for the achievement of the UNDP/GEF objective;
c) To enhance organizational and development learning;
d) To enable informed decision-making
The mid-term review will assess the overall performance of the project against the baseline data
set in the beginning of the project.
III. EVALUATION AUDIENCE
This Mid-term Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project is initiated by UNDP as the GEF
Implementing Agency. It aims to determine progress being made towards the achievement of
outcomes and will identify course corrective actions, if needed.
It aims to provide managers with strategy and policy options for more effectively and efficiently
achieving the project’s expected results and for replicating the results. It also provides the basis
for learning and accountability for managers and stakeholders. The Evaluation will highlight
issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project
design, implementation and management.
IV. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
The scope of the evaluation is expected to cover the following:
 Review of the status of the project activities and the possibility of achieving all the outcomes
in the given timeframe, taking into consideration the speed, at which the project is
proceeding. Review of the effectiveness of the project implementation and the use of its
financial resources, including adaptive management applied for the revision of the project
implementation mechanisms and other actions to overcome the obstacles identified during
the implementation of the project,
 Review the current monitoring procedures and methodologies in place,
 Assessment of co-financing and leveraged resources
 Provide recommendations for actions necessary for the long term sustainability and
replicability of the achievements
 Provide recommendations on any changes needed, including the finalization of a concrete
action plan to address the eventual pending needs or possible corrective action;
Project concept and design
The evaluators will assess the project design. He/she should review the problem addressed by
the project and the project strategy, encompassing an assessment of the appropriateness of the
objectives, outcomes, outputs, planned activities and inputs as compared to cost-effective
alternatives. The executing modality and managerial arrangements should also be judged. The
evaluator will assess the achievement of indicators and review the work plan, planned duration
and budget of the project.

Implementation
The evaluation will assess the implementation of the project in terms of quality and timeliness of
inputs and efficiency and effectiveness of activities carried out. Also, the effectiveness of
management as well as the quality and timeliness of monitoring and backstopping by all parties
to the project should be assessed. In particular the evaluation is to assess the Project team’s
use of adaptive management in project implementation.
Project outputs, outcomes and impact
The evaluation will assess the outputs, outcomes and impact achieved by the project as well as
the likely sustainability of project results. This should encompass the following:
Attainment of objectives and planned results:
 Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives are being achieved;
taking into account the “achievement indicators”. In addition, the team will assess the
indicators matrix as to its utility for determining sustainability and replicability impact.
Achievement of outputs and activities:
 Assess the scope, quality and usefulness of the project outputs produced so far in
relation to its expected results.
 Assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the work plan in implementing the
components of the project.
 Assess the quality, appropriateness and timeliness of the project concepts, project
proposals, progress reports with regard to:
In addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria should be rated using the following divisions:
Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Marginally Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory with an explanation of
the rating.
V. DELIVERABLES
The main product expected from the mid-term evaluation is a comprehensive report following
the structure in Annex I and including the Table attached in Annex II on the assessment of co-
financing
VI. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
An outline of an evaluation approach is provided below; however it should be made clear that
the evaluator is responsible for revising the approach as necessary. Any changes should be in-
line with international criteria and professional norms and standards. They must be also cleared
by UNDP before being applied by the evaluation team.
The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. It
must be easily understood by project partners and applicable to the remaining period of project
duration.

The mid-term evaluation will be based on information obtained from reviewing relevant
documents to the project such as the project document, project brief, Annual Project Reports
Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR), minutes of Project Board Meetings, Project
Technical Reports and minutes from relevant meetings.
The evaluator should also rely on information gathered through meetings and interviews with
target beneficiaries and project staff including government officials, and/or consultants.
Interviews should include Egyptian Environment Affairs Agency, UNDP and key stakeholders.
The methodology that will be used by the evaluator should be presented in the report in detail. It
shall include scrupulous information on documentation review, interviews held; field visits;
participatory techniques and other approaches for the gathering and analysis of data.
The evaluation should provide as much gender disaggregated data as possible.
The methodology to be used by the evaluation team should be presented in the report in detail.
It shall include information on:
 Documentation reviewed;
 Interviews;
 Field visits;
 Questionnaires;
 Participatory techniques and other approaches for the gathering and analysis of data.
Although the Evaluator should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned, all matters
relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment or statement on behalf
of UNDP or GEF or the project management.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
UNDP Egypt will contract the consultant and be responsible for liaising with the project team to
set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, and coordinate meetings with the Government
Officials. The Project Management Unit will provide the evaluator will relevant project
documentation and will accompany the evaluator in the meetings, as deemed necessary.
VIII. TIMING AND DURATION
In total the evaluation time frame is one month, incorporating circulation of initial reports for
comments. The evaluation consultancy will be for 19 working days within the period of 45 days
and the activities of the evaluator are broken down as follows:
Activity Timeframe
Desk review 3 working days
Meetings with the stakeholders 7 working days
Writing draft report 4 working days

Finalization of the evaluation report
2working days
(incorporating comments received on first draft)
IX. REQUIRED QUALIFICATION

The mid-term evaluation will be carried out by an independent national consultant that has not
participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and does not have any conflict of
interest with project related activities. This may apply equally to evaluators who are associated
with organizations, or entities that are, or have been, involved in the delivery of the project. Any
previous association with the project, the Executing of national implementing Agency or other
partners/stakeholders must be disclosed in the application.
If selected, failure to make the above disclosures will be considered just grounds for immediate
contract termination, without recompense. In such circumstances, all notes, reports and other
documentation produced by the evaluator will be retained by UNDP.
The independent national consultant will be responsible for drafting and finalizing the report.
General requirements:
 Advanced university degree in a subject related to engineering, natural resources

management, development or other relevant field;
 At least eight years of work experience in renewable energy, bio-energy technologies,
rural energy, and energy policy
 Experience in environmental policy implementation and familiarity with climate change
mitigation activities;
 Previous experience in evaluation for international development agencies, preferably for
UN and/or GEF projects
 Familiarity with issues related to UNFCCC;
 Conceptual thinking and analytical skills;
 Excellent English communication skills; Strong writing and analytical skills coupled with
experience in monitoring and evaluation techniques;
 Previous involvement in and understanding of UNDP and GEF procedures is an
advantage and extensive international experience in the fields of project formulation,
execution, and evaluation is required.
X. APPLICATION PROCESS
Applicants are requested to send in electronic versions:
1) current and complete C.V. in English with indication of the e-mail and phone contact
2) price offer indicating the total cost of the assignment (including the daily fee, per diem
and travel costs)
by 14th March 2012, to:
Ms. Nadine Abou El-Gheit

Environment Programme Specialist/Analyst/Leader/ARR/Country Director/RR
UNDP
Due to the large number of applicants, UNDP regrets that it is unable to inform unsuccessful
candidates about the outcome or status of the recruitment process.

Annex I
Executive summary
ㄱ Brief description of project

ㄴ Context and purpose of the evaluation
ㄷ Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned
Introduction
ㄱ Purpose of the evaluation

ㄴ Key issues addressed
ㄷ Methodology of the evaluation
ㄹ Structure of the evaluation
The project(s) and its development context
ㄱ Project start and its duration

ㄴ Problems that the project seek to address
ㄷ Immediate and development objectives of the project
ㄹ Main stakeholders
ㅁ Results expected
ㅂ Findings and Conclusions
ㅅ Project formulation
ㅇ Implementation approach
ㅈ Country ownership/Drivenness
ㅊ Stakeholder participation
ㅋ Replication approach
ㅌ Cost-effectiveness
ㅍ UNDP comparative advantage
ㅎ Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
ㄱ Indicators
ㄴ Management arrangements
ㄷ Implementation
-0 Financial Planning
-ㄱ Monitoring and evaluation
-ㄴ Execution and implementation modalities
-ㄷ Management by the UNDP country office
-ㄹ Coordination and operational issues
ㄱ Results
-0 Attainment of objectives
-ㄱ Sustainability
-ㄴ Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff

Recommendations

Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
project
ㄱ Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
ㄴ Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
Lessons learned
ㄱ Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and
success
Annexes
ㄱ TOR
ㄴ Itinerary
ㄷ List of persons interviewed
ㄹ List of documents reviewed
ㅁ Questionnaire used and summary of results

APPENDIX B – MISSION ITINERARY

(SEPTEMBER 1 - 14, 2012)
The mid-term evaluation mission was conducted by Mr. Roland Wong, International Consultant
in accordance with the objectives of the evaluation and obtained data relevant for making
judgments regarding Project success and lessons learned.
September 1, 2012 (Saturday)

# Activity Stakeholder involved Place
Arrival of Mr. Roland Wong
September 2, 2012 (Sunday)

Meeting with Mr. Mohamed Bayoumi,
Environment Team Leader, Ms. Amany
UNDP Premises-
1 Nakhla, Programme Analyst, Ms. UNDP Egypt
Heliopolis
Nadine Abou El Gheit, Environment
Programme Specialist
Meeting with Dr. Mawaheb Abou El-
Azm, Project Manager, Mrs. Neveen
Project Premises-
2 Mostafa, Project Officer, Mr. Khaled Project Executing Agency
Fostat City
Roshdy, Administrative & Financial
Manager
Meeting with Dr. Emad Adly, GEF Small Grants Project Premises-
3
National Coordinator Programme Fostat City
September 3, 2012 (Monday)
Meeting with Dr. Mostafa Kamal Tolba,

4 Head of PSC Giza, Egypt
President of ICED
Meeting with Ms. Douaa Yassin, Credit Social Fund for SFD Premises in
5
Manager Development (SFD) Mohandeseen, Giza
September 4, 2012 (Tuesday)
Meeting with Mr. Ahmed Abdrabo M.,

Ministry Premises-
6 General Manager, Environmental Ministry of Petroleum
Nasr City
Affairs
Meeting with Eng. Laila Georgy New and Renewable

Youssef, Executive Chairman, Eng. Energy Authority (NREA) Ministry Premises
7
Ayman Mohamed Fayek, BioEnergy under the Ministry of Nasr City
Manager Electricity & Energy

Meeting with Dr. Samir El-Shimi, Expert

Agricultural
of Biogas Technology and Recycling of
8 Ministry of Agriculture Research Center,
Agricultural Residues at the Agricultural
Cairo University
Research Center
September 5, 2012 (Wednesday)
Meeting with Eng. Ahmed Abou, Project Premises-
9 NREA Board
Member NREA Board Fostat City
Preparation of Report
September 6, 2012 (Thursday)

Travel to Fayoum
Mazatly Village,
10 SKG Sangha
Fayoum
Meeting with SKG Sangha
Meeting with the Fayoum Governor
Governorate Offices
11 Fayoum Governorate
in Fayoum
Travel to Cairo
Member Selection
Meeting with Dr. Salah Arafa, Professor
Committee for SGP and AUC Campus in
12 of Physics at the American University of
Biogas Technology East Cairo
Cairo
Promoter
September 7, 2012 (Friday)
September 9, 2012 (Sunday)
No mission activity
September 10, 2012 (Monday)
No mission activity
September 11, 2012 (Tuesday)
No mission activity
September 12, 2012 (Wednesday)
Meeting with Dr. Mawaheb Abou-El

DRTPC Premises at
13 Azm, Project Manager, and Dr. Essam Project Executing Agency
Cairo University
Henawy, Senior Project Advisor
September 13 2012 (Thursday)
Mission briefing with Dr. Mawaheb

Abou El-Azm, Project Manager, Mrs.
14 Neveen Mostafa, Project Officer, Mr. Project Executing Agency Sofitel Hotel, Cairo
Khaled Roshdy, Administrative &
Financial Manager

Mission briefing of Project with Ms.

Anita Nirody, UNDP Resident
Representative, Mr. Mounir Tabet,
15 Country Director, Mr. Mohamed UNDP Egypt Sofitel Hotel, Cairo
Bayoumi, Environment Team Leader,
and Ms. Nadine El Gheit, Environment
Programme Specialist
September 14, 2012 (Friday)
No mission activity
Departure of Mr. Roland Wong
Total number of meetings conducted: 15

APPENDIX C – LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED AND

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
This is a listing of persons contacted in Cairo (unless otherwise noted) during the Evaluation
Period for the MTE only. The Evaluation Team regrets any omissions to this list.
1) Mr. Mr. Mohamed Bayoumi, Environment team Leader, UNDP Egypt;
2) Ms. Amany Nakhla, Programme Analyst, UNDP Egypt;
3) Ms. Anita Nirody, UNDP Resident Representative, UNDP Egypt;
4) Mr. Mounir Tabet, Country Director, UNDP Egypt;
5) Ms. Nadine Abou El Gheit, Environment Programme Specialist, UNDP Egypt;
6) Dr. Mawaheb Abou El-Azm, Project Manager, Project Executing Agency;
7) Dr. Essam Henawy, Senior Project Advisor
8) Mrs. Neveen Mostafa, Project Officer;
9) Mr. Khaled Roshdy, Administrative & Financial Manager;
10) Dr. Emad Adly, National Coordinator GEF Small Grants Programme;
11) Dr. Mostafa Kamal Tolba, President of International Center for Environment and
Development;
12) Ms. Douaa Yassin, Credit Manager, Social Fund for Development, Government of Egypt;
13) Mr. Ahmed Abdrabo M., General Manager, Environmental Affairs Ministry of Petroleum;
14) Eng. Laila Georgy Youssef, Executive Chairman, NREA;
15) Eng. Ayman Mohamed Fayek, BioEnergy Manager, NREA;
16) Dr. Samir El-Shimi, Expert of Biogas Technology and Recycling of Agricultural Residues at
the Agricultural Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture;
17) Eng. Ahmed Abou, Member NREA Board;
18) Governor of Fayoum Governorate
19) Dr. Salah Arafa, Professor of Physics at the American University of Cairo.
Documents reviewed for this evaluation includes:
1) UNDP-GEF “Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development”, Project Document, November

2010;

2) BSRD, “A Preliminary Study Report on Generating Bio-Gas to Achieve Sustainable Rural

Development in Ezbat Alkasr Village, New Valley Governorate”, 2010;
3) BSRD, “Report on the Initial Study of the Bio-gas Generation Project to Achieve Sustainable
Rural Development in Fayoum Governorate Almazataly Village”, 2010;
4) BSRD, “Report on the Initial Study of the Bio-gas Project to Realize Sustainable Rural
Development in the Governorate of Assiout, Awlad Elias Village”, 2010;
5) UNDP-GEF “Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development”, APR/PIRs 2010, 2011 and 2012;
6) US Energy Information Administration for Egypt (http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?

fips=EG)
7) African Development Bank Group, “The Arab Republic of Egypt Power Sector in Brief – 2010”

APPENDIX D – PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Indicator Baseline Target Sources of Risks and

Project Strategy verification Assumptions
Objective of the The level of Low level of High level of confidence Final project The political will to
project To remove confidence on confidence evaluation and the effectively promote
the technical, modern BET as related stakeholder bioenergy as an
institutional, means to contribute consultations. alternative or
Output 1.1 An
information, Finalized,
to rural energyupdated The market See the indicator. Project reports Approval of the
complementary
updated market
financial, and market needs. market analysis, analysis plans and project
energy by the
source to GEF
analysis
barriers to and plans and operational
No market criteria Average 20% market growth
growth LPG, kerosine and
finalized
developing the plans and operational
The market growthcriteria for
of BET the project’s at the end of the project diesel.
operational criteria of BET
bioenergy for the project’s capacity building
for the project’s
technology (BET) capacity building Inadequate
and financial
public Supportive policy, including
capacity
market in Egypt building and and financial
The level of support
support strategy to required financial and fiscal
to the
financial support support strategy. initiate
supportive be finalized.
and sustain incentives in place to sustain
strategy. framework the BET market the market growth.
Output 1.2 The Numberinofplace
conditions No financial
growth The applications for support Project reports
Biomass Energy applications
sustaining the support facility or to reach the first year
Support Fund received
market and
growth after scheme exist to targets, i.e 50 family scale
(BESF) scheme the approved
end of the GEF support BETs biogas plants and 2
successfully project. community scale biogas
announced
Outcome 1: New and The level of Low level of Theplants received
first pilot bioenergyand Project reports The targeted
launched.
business and confidence on awareness and approved.
systems constructed and beneficiaries accept
Output
financing 1.3 The modern
models NumberBETofand
systemsconfidence
No systems As perby
operated the stated project Project
professional Project reports
midterm the See above
proposed
BET systems
successfully constructed.
the implementation constructed targets, at
“Bioenergy Serviceleast 1000 family and final technologies,
installedusing
introduced as per the mechanisms scale, 10-20
Providers” on thecommunity
basis of evaluation, implementation and
project annual
appropriate and promoted.
technical scale, 2cost
maximum farm scale biogas including related
recovery. financing
final targets.
solutions and systems and, 2 gasification surveys. arrangements.
demonstrating the The operational Only some family systems (supported by the
possibility to and financial data scale systems Government of Egypt) and
construct and of the systems installed – lack of 1-3 additional
At least 90% customer biomass
operate BET installed. success stories on combustion or,
satisfaction on the new as
systems on a cost a broader scale. applicable,
systems gasifications
recovery basis under The level of plants constructed and
a supportive and customer commissioned by the end of
enabling policy and satisfaction. the project.
financing
environment.

Output 1.4 A mid Report finalized No monitoring The results compiled, Project reports The output 1.3
term and final analyzed and disseminated. successfully met
monitoring and
evaluation report of
the systems
constructed.
Outcome 2 An The content of Subsidized An enabling policy framework for Project reports Consistency with the
enabling policy the policy fossil fuel and promoting sustainable rural biomass and official overall Government
framework, actions, legal and electricity energy adopted, including: Government strategies and
effectively promoting regulatory prices. documents development
changes  Recognition of the BET and other priorities
rural bioenergy
adopted. Lack of renewable systems in official Gov’t
development
supportive documents as the first option to be
adopted.
policies to studied and considered for meeting
create a level rural energy needs, whenever
playing field for technically and economically
BETs. feasible
 A level playing field for BET systems
Lack of to compete with subsidized fossil
adequate fuels created and, as applicable,
product introduction of eventual additional
standards and financial or fiscal incentives to
quality control support BETs on the basis of their
mechanisms socio-economic and environmental
benefits
 A supportive regulatory framework
for managing the relations between
the bioenergy service providers and
the customers;
 Adoption of adequate product
standards and quality control
mechanisms.

Output 2.1 The PR material Inadequate A project presentation package finalized Project reports
Enhanced produced attention on
Initial meetings and consultations with
awareness of and the socio-
the key stakeholders and decision
established policy The list and economic
makers finalized within the first 6
dialogue with the key output of benefits of BET
months of the project.
stakeholders and consultations systems.
decision makers on held. Enhanced awareness of the general
the socio-economic public through programs and articles in
benefits of BET public media, workshops etc.
systems.

Output 2.2 A draft The status of the No The draft policy paper finalized. Project reports See above
policy paper document comprehensive
highlighting the proposal on the
barriers and steps to be
recommending taken for
improvements for creating an
the current policy enabling policy
framework for the framework for
promotion of rural biomass
bioenergy systems. energy.
Output 2.3 The status and Inadequate The required measures to facilitate Project reports See above
Continuing level of policy attention on the the adoption of the recommended
consultations, dialogue legal and improvement of the BET policy
promotional events, regulatory environment finalized
high-level meetings changes
and other measures needed to
to facilitate the effectively
adoption of the promote BETs.
recommendations
made.

Outcome 3 The number of Inadequate The capacity of at least 20 local Market surveys Adequate demand for
Enhanced capacity identified and capacity of the entities to serve as BSPs built. and monitoring rural bioenergy
of the local supply trained “Bionergy supply chain to reports services can be
chain to market and Service effectively The follow-up activities and created through the
Project mid-term
deliver sustainable Providers” market and business of the trained BSPs show project.
and final
rural bioenergy (BSPs) deliver an increasing trend, leveraging
evaluation Interest of the targeted
products and capacitated to products and financing from a variety of sources.
stakeholders to extend
services, including continue to services for
or expand their
financing. operate on a self- rural bioenergy
business in the
sustaining basis development.
bioenergy field.
after the end of
the project.
The level of
follow-up
activities of the
trained BSPs.

Output 3.1 An The status of the No updated An updated survey and capacity Project reports
updated survey and survey. survey exists. evaluation finalized.
evaluation of the
existing (or potential
future) market
players and their
capacity to produce
rural biomass energy
related products and
services.
Output 3.2 Number of Good channels Project web site established Project reports
Channels and contacts and opportunities including links to relevant
opportunities for facilitated for networking information.
information and matchmaking
exchange, between the local At least one international, bioenergy
networking, match supply side actors workshop in Egypt and 5-10
making missions and and potential matchmaking missions facilitated by
conditions for foreign partners the project.
different local and missing.
foreign entities to
explore opportunities
for co-operation
created
Output 3.3 A The status of No manual Finalized manual in Arabic and in Project reports
manual for the manual available English for developing and financing
development and of rural bioenergy projects in Egypt.
financing of rural
bioenergy projects in
Egypt

Output 3.4 An The availability of No consolidated Information and marketing package Project reports See above
information and the information information about about BET systems to potential
marketing package and marketing BET systems to financing institutions finalized.
tailored for the package. potential
targeted co-financing financing Contacts created between the BSPs
sources to support The number of institutions and with at least 5 new promising
the BSPs and meeting and available. co- financing sources in addition to
related awareness financial the SFD
raising / match matchmaking
making finalized events organized

Output 3.5 Draft The status of No technical Technical standards or Project reports -
technical standards the technical standards or requirements and a certification
and certification standards/ certification system system developed and adopted
system (to be requirements in place (see outcome 2) both for hardware
adopted either as a and a and for service providers in the
voluntary or as a certification distribution chain.
mandatory quality system
control scheme –
see outcome 2).
Output 3.6 Trained Number and Lack of information At least 100 people trained and, as Project reports Interest and motivation of
and, as applicable, type of people and capacity in the applicable, certified from the supply the targeted stakeholders
certified product and trained supply chain to chain in order to build up their for training can be
service providers, effectively market technical, management and created through
including Verified results and deliver their marketing, plant operation and perspective business
manufacturers, of the training products and maintenance and/or financial opportunities, the
technicians etc. through a services. engineering skills (the scope of introduction of the
certification training depending on the target certification system or by
scheme group) other means.
Output 3.7 A joint The number of Lack of information The number of LoIs received Project reports Interest of the targeted
public awareness LoIs received to provide a basis correspond to the targeted amount product and service
raising and for decision making investments providers to join the
marketing campaign campaign.
with supply side
product or service
providers for the
targeted customers
Outcome 4 The level of Discontinuing Continuing promotion of bionenergy Project final Successful completion of
Institutionalization of support support at the end activities in Egypt after the end of evaluation the prior project activities
the support provided available at and of the project the project on a self-sustaining
by the project after the basis.
completion of
the project
.

Output 4.1 Including The level of Bioenergy Rural biomass energy increasingly Project reports See above
rural biomass energy inclusion of inadequately included into the curricula of the and final
increasingly into the bioenergy into covered by the relevant academic and other evaluation
curricula of the the relevant current curriculas educational institutions
relevant academic curricular
and other
educational
institutions

Output 4.2 A The existence and No focal point for A rural bioenergy focal point Final evaluation See above
Biomass Energy continuing effective rural bioenergy established and continue its
Association or operation of a available after the effective operation also after
another applicable bioenergy focal project the project
entity continue to point after the
serve as a focal project
point for further
promotional
activities on a self-
sustaining basis.
Output 4.3 As The continuing The existing financing Adequate financial support Final evaluation See above
needed, further availability of the barriers continue to mechanisms established and
elaboration and required financial slow down the rural continue to operate after the
financing leveraged support, when bioenergy end of the project.
for applicable needed. development
financial support
mechanisms to
continue the
promotion of
bioenergy
Output 4,4 Final The report and the No compilation, The report and the related Final evaluation See above
project report and related promotional analysis and promotional material and
the associated material and events dissemination of the events completed.
promotional completed. project results and
material and lessons learnt.
events.

MTR Bioenergy Final Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MTR Bioenergy Final Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Nations Development Programme

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

Evaluation of UNDP/GEF Project: Bioenergy for

Mid-Term Evaluation Report

APPENDIX B – MISSION ITINERARY (SEPTEMBER 1 - 14, 2012).....................................................................40

APPENDIX C – LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.......................................43

Appendix D – project logical framework.................................................................................................................. 45

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission i February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission ii February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission iii February 2013

PIR Project Implementation Report

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission iv February 2013

Context and Purpose of the Evaluation

 Strengthen the adaptive management and monitoring functions of the Project;

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission v February 2013

 Satisfactory to Highly Satisfactory progress on Outcomes 1 and 2 at the mid-point of the

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission vi February 2013

Project sustainability rating is Likely (L) due to:

o The strong engagement of all stakeholders interviewed on the Project;

Table A: Summary Evaluation of Project

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission vii February 2013

Recommendation 1: Work on safeguarding the quality of biogas installations should

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission viii February 2013

 Establish a monitoring system for quality standards of construction of biogas units.

Recommendation 2: With an outcome of increased biogas demand after the completion

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission ix February 2013

Recommendation 4: Consider implementing a pilot to utilize waste straw that is often

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission x February 2013

Recommendation 5: The Project terminal date needs to be extended to December 31,

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission xi February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission xii February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 1 February 2013

Figure 1: Egyptian Oil Production and Consumption from 1990 to 2011 4

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 2 February 2013

1.2 Rationale for Project

The project seeks to contribute to:

b) Improve environmental conditions through better and environmentally sound management of

1.3 Project Goals, Objectives and Expected Results

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 3 February 2013

1.4 Mid-Term Evaluation

 Strengthen the adaptive management and monitoring functions of the Project;

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 4 February 2013

1.4.2 Key Issues to be addressed

1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology and Structure of the Evaluation

 Review of project documentation (i.e. project documents, APRs/PIRs, inception meeting

This evaluation report is presented as follows:

 An overview of project implementation from the commencement of operations in

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 5 February 2013

And the “Addendum June 2011 Evaluation”:

1.5 Project Implementation Arrangements

Figure 2: Project Management Organigram

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 6 February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 7 February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 8 February 2013

2.1.2 Project Impacts

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 9 February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 10 February 2013

Financial support strategy is only at the

EOP targets should be reset to reflect

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 11 February 2013

Mid-Term Evaluation Mission 12 February 2013

Awareness programs have only targeted