2.5 Country programme performance rating

4. Effectiveness

3

4.A. Achieving stated outputs and outcomes

4.B. Programme inclusiveness (especially those at risk of being left behind) 4.C. Prioritizing GEwE 4.D. Programming processes adhered to sustainable development principles 3 Overall, programme outputs were delivered successfully in close cooperation with the Government. Outcome‑ 3 level achievements varied, with more visible success in economic development and entrepreneurship, but less in the areas of social protection and GEwE, where UNDP has brought some important results, albeit mainly at 3 individual level with limited transformational potential. 2 while UNDP interventions focused on ensuring outreach to socially‑excluded groups such as women, rural communities, people living with HIV and TB, youth, etc., more efforts are required to integrate and support these marginalized communities and most vulnerable groups in interventions to ensure that no one is left behind. Investments were mainly designed from a premise that support to institutional capacity strengthening would result in better and more sustainable delivery of services. Environment‑related results were generally more effective and are progressing well, but were not particularly designed to address inclusiveness and GEwE. The HDR was an important intervention in this regard.

5. Sustainability

3

5.A. Sustainable capacity 3 The sustainability prospects of UNDP interventions 5.B. Financing for in the country have been mixed, with energy‑related development initiatives demonstrating better uptake and sustainability potential. UNDP strongly supported financing for development through direct engagement with IFIs and the Government on SDG financing, but also through direct interventions in the economic development area. while this has varied across the programme, UNDP has been particularly effective in securing development financing for environmental initiatives and given prominence to market transformation approaches and the demonstration of the net economic and social benefits of initiatives. Most initiatives, except for GEwE, have good potential for scale‑up and replication with minimal project support in the future.

3

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

This chapter presents the evaluation conclusions on UNDP performance and contributions to development results in Egypt, recommendations, and the management response.

3.1 Conclusions

Conclusion 1. UNDP is well positioned as a reliable and credible partner of the Government for the provision of services and institutional capacity‑strengthening across the spectrum of UNDP thematic engagement, and for linking and connecting different actors. However, concerns remain regarding the lack of depth of its engagement beyond administrative support. UNDP has a lot to offer the Government and development partners beyond procurement and administrative services, but its internal structures and in‑house expertise are weak.

Stable UNDP support and input into the capacity‑strengthening of government systems and institutions is well aligned with country priorities in the areas of economic development, social protection and inclu‑ sion, climate change, and the environment. This stable support is reflected in strong and steady financial contributions from the Government, as the largest contributor to the UNDP funding base, as well as large ongoing contributions from vertical funds brokered by UNDP (including GEF and now GCF), which have supported innovations and pilot projects addressing environment and climate change issues. Another comparative advantage of UNDP has been its support for SDG integration into government programmes and policies, and the development of a national SDG financial strategy by bringing a wide range of actors to the table. In its design, UNDP work across all focus areas and related activities was ambitious, envisaging deep engagement in reforms. However, the implementation of UNDP work in some areas (economic and urban development, public administration reform, governance, social protection and inclusion) was limited to the provision of administrative services and/or horizontal institutional support by outsourcing experts. Partners benefiting from these services recognize that UNDP offers competitive advantages, but its in‑house expertise and structures are not optimal to offer the full technical potential beyond administrative and procurement services. Some opportunities and progress are emerging, such as UNDP programme technical support for energy initiatives, where UNDP staff experience in the sector has helped to facilitate projects and leverage new partnerships with the private sector, but to a lesser extent in other outcome areas.

Conclusion 2. UNDP support to economic and urban development and job creation was well conceptual‑ ized and responds to the key challenges of Egypt’s transition economy. However, more effort is needed to build an enabling environment to overcome structural challenges for youth employment and economic empowerment. while UNDP engagement has resulted in strengthening the capacity of key government institutions to integrate a gender and equity perspective, an ongoing challenge has been the apparent “silo” effect of different ministerial mandates, hampering initiatives where policy integration and cross‑sector efforts are needed to further inclusive growth, effective environmental management or adaptation to climate change.

UNDP responded effectively to the needs of MPED, MSMEDA and other government agencies for the implementation of economic and urban development, job creation and entrepreneurship measures, and the improved reach and benefits of social protection, providing necessary institutional support and administrative services. UNDP performance was highly appreciated by partners, confirming the role of UNDP as a key supporter of Egypt’s priorities in the inclusive growth field. Through this support, UNDP has contributed to a multiplier effect, boosting economic and business potential across Egypt, in particular for youth, women and more vulnerable groups. However, the focus has often been more on the individual and less on the enabling environment, leading to individual‑level rather than large‑scale results on economic empowerment. UNDP demining activities and support to urban planning and development have strong