XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-216 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Ministry of Environment CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Biodiversity]]+ 500000.00 500000.00 500000.00 500000.00 500000.00 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment 2500000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-636 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Biosphere protection]]+ 680000.00 680000.00 680000.00 680000.00 680000.00 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 0 UNDP Ministry of Hydro-Electric Resources (MoHER) /Electricite du Liban (EDL) 3400000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-1707 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment CEO Approval Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Forestry policy and administrative management]]+ 176833.33 176833.33 176833.33 0 UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment 0 UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment 0 UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment 0 UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment 0 UNEP The Lebanese Ministry of Environment 530500 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-3028 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon CEO Approval Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Agricultural land resources]]+ 326666.67 326666.67 326666.67 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 0 UNDP Ministry of Environment of the Government of Lebanon 980000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-3418 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI CEO Approval Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Biodiversity]]+ 326666.67 326666.67 326666.67 0 UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI 0 UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI 0 UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI 0 UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI 0 UNDP Lebanese Agriculture Research Institute LARI 980000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-4020 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon CEO Approval Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Biodiversity]]+ 316666.67 316666.67 316666.67 0 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 0 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 0 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 359332 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 114323 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 249710 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 173008 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 896373 UNEP Directorate General of Environment - Ministry of Environment of Lebanon 950000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-4108 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility World Bank Ministry of Environment CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Biosphere protection]]+ 507780.00 507780.00 507780.00 507780.00 507780.00 0 World Bank Ministry of Environment 0 World Bank Ministry of Environment 0 World Bank Ministry of Environment 0 World Bank Ministry of Environment 1236214 World Bank Ministry of Environment 824095 World Bank Ministry of Environment 478586 World Bank Ministry of Environment 2538895 World Bank Ministry of Environment 2538900 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-4749 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Energy generation, renewable sources - multiple technologies]]+ 290000.00 290000.00 290000.00 290000.00 290000.00 0 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 0 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 1408368 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 463005 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 945363 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 0 UNDP Ministry of Energy and Water 1450000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-5229 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon +![cdata[Rural land policy and management]]+ 637534.20 637534.20 637534.20 637534.20 637534.20 353198 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 971106 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 790399 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 0 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 2899267 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 784565 UNDP Lebanese Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture 3187671 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-9388 Global Environment Facility NA Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility UNDP Ministry of Environment CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date Actual Completion Date ' Lebanon Beirut 33.89332 35.50157 Caza de Aakkar 34.53333 36.16667 +![cdata[Rural land policy and management]]+ 924201.00 924201.00 924201.00 924201.00 924201.00 23457 UNDP Ministry of Environment 222543 UNDP Ministry of Environment 796783 UNDP Ministry of Environment 1192595 UNDP Ministry of Environment 1277733 UNDP Ministry of Environment 4618110 UNDP Ministry of Environment 4621005 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-10358 Global Environment Facility Promote sustainable transport in Lebanon through electric mobility and improved quality of service Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.The number of direct project beneficiaries is estimated at 704,000 women and 713,000 men. This includes the estimated passengers in the northern corridor (25% of the total demand) that will make use of the higher-quality bus services introduced by the project through voluntary agreements and by the use of the pilot electric buses. It also includes the residents in Jbeil (25% of the population) and tourists (40% of visitors) that will benefit from walking and cycling infrastructure improvements to access the main bus stops. It also includes 10% of the total Lebanese population that will benefit from the implementation of the national e-mobility strategy (details are provided in Annex M). Indirect project beneficiaries are estimated at 1,105,000 women and 1,118,000 men, based on the Lebanese urban population that could benefit from the replication and up-scaling of the project’s activities (details are provided in Annex M). In terms of benefits for the local population, through the improvement of public transport, walking and cycling, and the introduction and scale-up of electric vehicles over the medium- to long-term, the project will contribute to reducing air pollution from transport-related emissions, improving air quality around the northern corridor and, through scaling up, in other urban areas in the country. This has the co-benefit of improving the health of the citizens and reducing associated health care costs and possibility mortality rates, which has become even more relevant with the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the EVs initially introduced by the project will be unable to impact significantly on noise abatement, the scaling up of project results has a strong potential to reduce noise pollution. Facilitating the introduction of EVs into the public transport system may improve the quality of the service in terms of comfort by reducing noise and vibrations. It may consequently promote a modal shift from the use of private transport to the public transport system. A number of climate change adaptation benefits can also be attained from the project. The implementation of management measures through GPTS and GFM is likely to enhance the resilience of the fleets through the identification of vulnerabilities and the development of contingency plans. The provision of enhanced door-to-door mobility and public transport services are likely to provide mobility conditions less exposed to weather conditions (bus stop shelters, well-ventilated and climatized buses) and information available to users in order to better plan their trips. These enhanced conditions are likely to make the Lebanese society more resilient in the face of changes in climate in the region, particularly in what refers to heat waves. In terms of economic benefits, the deployment of EVs in the country will reduce the needs to import oil, and will further stimulate the electricity market, and the appetite of investors in renewables, in accordance with the country’s policy, as investment uncertainties are reduced. Global Environment Facility UNDP UNDP Country Office in Lebanon CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date ' Lebanon Jbaïl 34.12111 35.64806 Beirut 33.89332 35.50157 +![cdata[Environmental policy and administrative management]]+ 710593.60 710593.60 710593.60 710593.60 710593.60 18863 UNDP UNDP Country Office in Lebanon 523373 UNDP UNDP Country Office in Lebanon 1491937 UNDP UNDP Country Office in Lebanon 3552968 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-10803 Global Environment Facility To reduce UPOPs emissions and improve solid waste management services in selected areas Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Global Environment Facility World Bank Ministry of Environment in Lebanon CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date ' Lebanon Srar (Akkar, North Lebanon) 36.1320 34.6167 +![cdata[Chemicals]]+ 0 World Bank Ministry of Environment in Lebanon 3387408 World Bank Ministry of Environment in Lebanon 281288 World Bank Ministry of Environment in Lebanon 8858447 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-11117 Global Environment Facility The project objective is to reduce wildfire risks in selected hotspots in Lebanon by improving forest landscape management. Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.Yes, socio-economic benefit is reflected in the project document and ESS.Global Environment Facility World Bank Ministry of Environment CEO Endorsement Date Actual Implementation Start Date Expected Completion Date ' Lebanon 19272 World Bank Ministry of Environment 3458000 GEF XI-BRIDGE-6385676864-11348 Global Environment Facility Restore ecological connectivity and improve ecosystem services for sustainable livelihoods in the Upper Litani Basin through mosaic-landscape restoration and sustainable agriculture and aquaculture Note: Disbursement data provided is cumulative and covers disbursement made by the project Agency.The project aims to enhance the socio-economic and environmental landscape of the Upper Litani watershed through targeted ecosystem restoration and would have the following socio-economic benefits derived from the project interventions: The project would promote biodiversity conservation by connecting the Shouf Biosphere Reserve and the Mount Hermon Protected Area through ecosystem restoration. This would facilitate the movement and interaction of species across the landscape, helping to maintain genetic diversity and ecosystem resilience. The project's focus on restoring agroecosystems would directly support sustainable agricultural production. Adaptive reforestation and the management of agricultural interfaces with natural habitats would improve soil health and reduce erosion, leading to more productive and sustainable farming practices and mitigating the impacts of climate change on agriculture. Enhancing the region's ecological health would lay the foundation for ecotourism opportunities, benefiting local businesses and contributing to economic development. The project's participatory approach would ensure that local communities are actively involved in the restoration process, empowering them by giving them a stake in the management and outcomes of the project, potentially leading to enhanced local governance of natural resources. Training sessions and workshops would increase the technical skills of the communities, enabling them to manage their resources effectively in the long term. The project's efforts to address land degradation and water pollution through coherent planning and restoration would improve land and water quality. This, in turn, would benefit agriculture and human health, reducing the costs associated with land degradation and pollution. Implementing restoration activities such as planting, monitoring, and maintenance work would create job opportunities in the region, which would be particularly significant in areas suffering from high unemployment rates. Assessment of the financial and economic feasibility of the proposed activities of the project The financial and economic feasibility of the proposed activities of the project has been assessed, focusing on two major components: • Component A “Strengthening the enabling environment to scale-up ecosystem restoration in degraded mosaic landscapes”: Output 1.1.2. "A Selection of Priority Areas of High Ecological Value Is Restored" allocates USD 5.6 million, including USD 1.2 million from GEF financing. According to the Ecosystem Restoration Plan (ERP), which will identify key priority areas, ecological restoration activities such as reforestation, afforestation, terracing, establishment of riparian woodlands, riverbank management, rangeland management, and aquaculture development, approximately 3,523 ha will be restored under this component. • Component B "Promotion of Agroecological and Sustainable Aquaculture Practices and Responsible Value Chains": Output 2.2.1. "Public-Private Partnerships for Value Chain Business Models Activated Through Program of Grants" involves supporting 160 grant subprojects. Each subproject will receive USD 5,000 from GEF financing, matched by another 25 percent from beneficiaries through in-kind contributions. These subprojects will support various sustainable agriculture and aquaculture initiatives, from asset acquisition to soil degradation combat and establishing processing units and aquaculture infrastructure. The subprojects will be backed by Farmers Field Schools (FFS) and Aquaculture Field Schools (AFS), providing training on business planning, environmental monitoring, improved aquaculture practices at the Anjar Centre, and demonstrations at integrated agriculture-aquaculture sites. The restoration activities under Component A, while difficult to assess in terms of financial feasibility due to their non-direct financial benefits, were economically assessed using the EX-ACT tool and applying both low and high carbon shadow prices. The GHG analysis indicates that the planned restoration activities on 3,523 ha could have a mitigation potential of -166,880 tCO2-e. Considering the economic cost of Component A at around USD 5.6 million, the cost-benefit analysis shows that with the higher carbon price, the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) would be 22.6%, well above the discount rate, with an economic NPV of USD 2.8 million over a 20-year project lifespan, confirming the financial feasibility of the restoration activities. However, applying the lower carbon price results in an ERR of 6.4%, below the discount rate (10%), with a negative economic NPV. Nonetheless, considering other unquantifiable socio-economic benefits from the restoration activities, their economic feasibility is likely positive even with the lower carbon price. The cost-benefit analysis of the matching grants program under Component B indicates an overall ERR of 18.4%, significantly above the discount rate, with an economic NPV of USD 0.8 million, confirming their economic feasibility. This level of economic return assumes that the financial feasibility of the grant subprojects generates at least USD 0.2 of incremental benefits for each USD 1 of financing. The experience from similar grant subprojects in other countries typically shows incremental benefits per USD 1 investment ranging from USD 0.1 to USD 0.3-0.4. This analysis allows us to reasonably assert that the economic viability of the grant subprojects within Component B will be sustainable, considering the extensive training, capacity building, and other supportive activities accompanying them. Tilapia Production Pilot Analysis The financial feasibility of one of the project’s activities (activity 2.1.1.2) was given more detailed analysis as it concerns piloting tilapia production, a new fish variety for the project territory. The pilot involves a 1,200 m3 earthen pond optimized for extensive tilapia farming, focusing on sustainable and integrated aquaculture. This includes using formulated, extruded, and floating feed with a 30% protein content, administered twice daily, with initial feeding at 5% of total biomass, reducing to 1% in the final month. Monitoring of growth and health is conducted fortnightly over a 3-month growth period from June to August. A conservative financial model was applied to evaluate the investment in the tilapia farming pond. The total investment by a farmer is estimated at approximately USD 7,550. This investment covers pond excavation and procuring essential equipment such as a cold store, ice machine, and cast-net. The expense breakdown of USD 8,160 for the season includes the cost of fingerlings and feed, labor, and miscellaneous operational expenses. Projected production is about 4,800 kg of fish per season, expected to generate revenue of USD 9,600. The model's Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is 14.7%, indicating moderate profitability above the discount rate (10%). The Net Present Value (NPV) is USD 2,821, affirming the project's financial viability over the analysis period (20 years). The Benefit-Cost Ratio is above 1 (1.14). Sensitivity analysis shows that a 5% decrease in tilapia prices or lower productivity (<3.0 kg/m3) could push the IRR below the discount rate, underscoring price and productivity volatility risks. The model's outcomes are susceptible to fluctuations in the cost of fingerlings, which could significantly impact profitability. Recalculation of the model in economic terms confirms that this pilot is also feasible financially. By addressing critical financial and operational aspects, the pilot supports the project's broader goals of enhancing biodiversity, improving livelihoods, and promoting sustainable land and water management practices in the region. Profitability of a demonstration processing unit: filleted smoked trout A cost-benefit analysis of the processing of fresh trout into filleted smoked trout was conducted to assess the profitability of a demonstration unit to be established by the project with activity 2.1.1.3. A conservative financial model (attached) was applied to evaluate the investment in the production of filleted smoked trout, with calculations of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Net Present Value (NPV), and Benefit-Cost Ratio. The unit uses a single-chamber kiln that smokes 100 kg of trout per batch. The total investment is estimated at approximately USD 105,433, covering the costs of factory premises, the chamber kiln, trolleys, and a chiller. The expense breakdown for the season totals USD 80,105, including the cost of packaging and outer cases, labour, and miscellaneous operational expenses. Projected production is about 3,744 kg of fish per season, expected to generate revenue of USD 104,832. The model's IRR is 45.1%, indicating high profitability above the discount rate of 10%. The NPV is USD 138,013, affirming the project’s financial viability over the 20-year analysis period. The Benefit-Cost Ratio is well above 1, at 1.3. Sensitivity analysis shows that a 10% decrease in the price of filleted smoked trout could reduce the IRR to 27.4%, which remains above the discount rate. However, a 20% price decrease would drop the IRR to a negative -7.8%, highlighting the model’s sensitivity to output price fluctuations, which could significantly impact profitability. The model also demonstrates sensitivity to changes in the price of raw materials; for example, a 20% increase in the cost of fresh trout reduces the IRR to 16.1%, close to the discount value. Overall, the analysis indicates that this demonstration unit is profitable if the specified parameters are met. Global Environmental Benefits ECONNECT will support (i) restoration of priority ecosystems, (ii) sustainable use of biodiversity, (iii) improved climate resilience, and (iv) biodiversity conservation and improved economic permanence of the agriculture and aquaculture sectors in the Upper Litani Watershed. By establishing and implementing plans for effective restoration of priority zones based on sound scientific and participatory evidence, ECONNECT will contribute to reversing land degradation and thus protect the ecosystem services the landscape provides for communities and the local environment, including reducing pollution into the watershed’s rivers and lakes. Planting native species adapted to the rapidly changing climate will strengthen ecosystems’ resilience to climate shocks and ensure the permanence of the restoration program. The project will also enhance the protection of endangered species by establishing a well-defined ecological corridor. Further, it will promote the sustainable use of biodiversity through native and underutilized crop value chain activities, providing farmers and local communities with options to adapt to a changing climate and strengthen their food and nutritional security. The resilience of local communities in the watershed will be further enhanced through climate-sensitive activities at the community level, such as the establishment of a pilot IAA system and strengthened water quality monitoring to address expected biophysical effects of climate change in freshwater ponds (less dissolved oxygen, increased disease incidences, etc.). The project will take a landscape management approach, informed by lessons on the interlinked challenges of poverty, ecosystem services, climate change, biodiversity conservation, institutional performance, governance, and community-based engagement and management. ECONNECT will engage the local communities and the private sector in locally-driven planning and replicable, innovative investment actions. It will generate environmental benefits in line with the following GEF 8 core indicators:1 -Area of land restored -Area of landscape under improved management practices: -Additional Global Environmental Benefits: -Enhanced sustainable livelihoods for local communities and ecosystem-dependent people; -Forest conservation and management with sustained carbon sequestration and the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions; -Conservation and enhanced carbon stocks in agriculture, forestry, and other land use The primary target group will be individual men and women small-scale farmers and fishers willing to engage in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through sustainable agriculture and aquaculture practices, specifically those who are particularly resource-poor. The direct beneficiaries receiving support from GEF resources will be 138,898 individuals representing the area's inhabitants covering the Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Out of the total beneficiaries, 800 will receive training under Component 2, and 160 will receive grants. The proposed targets are based on the costs of achieving the target per beneficiary, the land area available in target locations, and the total investment available. An appropriate social targeting strategy will be developed, and the targeting performance will be monitored continuously. All people-centered data will be disaggregated by gender and age. The Global Environment Benefits targets align with the government's national biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAPs),?Land Degradation Neutrality Targets, the costs of implementation, challenges, and the capacity that will be available to implement the activities. Target population: the project target group interventions will be: (i) vulnerable smallholder farmers and forest users experiencing deprivations concerning essential living standards (education, health, food, shelter, and income) based on the multidimensional Household Deprivation Score (HDS) applied by the WFP for Lebanese residents in each district; (ii) commercial and economically active smallholders and small-scale processors, agro-enterprises and traders; (iii) unemployed young women and men without professional skills that prevent them from accessing job and business development opportunities; (iv) all relevant stakeholders in the target landscapes who will benefit from the ecosystem restoration interventions and the enhanced resilience of ecosystems and their services. At project inception, the project's direct beneficiaries will be identified among these broad target groups by the PMU based on the scoring criteria defined and mapped by the project design team. Vulnerable smallholder farmers will be prioritized based on the following: (i) live in the highest climate risk category areas in each landscape; (ii) own farmland plots with a size of less than 1 hectare up to five hectares; (iii) farmland plots owned by household-led women. As far as commercial and economically active smallholders and small-scale processors, agro-enterprises, and traders, priority will be granted to those actors that show a keen interest in joining the project and, at the same time, show a willingness to join the project and belong to the most economically fragile segment of the population. In the case of unemployed young women and men, the selection of the beneficiaries will be conditioned by their willingness to attend the training program offered by the project. All smallholders engaged in the targeted commodities and those living within the broader landscape will benefit from the project’s interventions. During the assessment, the issue of Syrian refugees was widely debated within the team and with the different institutions and target groups involved in the exercise. The involved groups agreed on the analysis that, in general, Syrian refugees currently enjoy a better economic situation than native Lebanese because of the subsidies and grants they receive from UNHCR and the job opportunities provided to them by several agencies, including WFP. Therefore, the consensus was that, although this category will not be excluded per se from the project, they cannot be considered a particularly vulnerable group that should be granted priority. Regarding the provision of restoration, processing, and aquaculture grants, the project will strive to reach at least 35 percent of rural women and youth. Regarding youth, the project will be consistent with the Lebanese Ministry of Youth and Sports, which applies this definition to citizens aged between 15 and 29. The project will not engage in underage employment that can be labeled as exploitation; only the legal age of employment will be taken into consideration. The new and existing enterprises that request the support of the project will be asked to establish social corporative responsibility standards that include gender equity and quotas for disabled and other fragile groups. As part of the project design process, GIS mapping and prioritization of critical areas with high needs for Ecosystem restoration have been identified (see Chapter Core Indicator 3). These maps will be updated and fine-tuned at the project's startup.Global Environment Facility IFAD Al Shouf Cedar Society CEO Endorsement Date ' Lebanon Aain Zebde 33.62441667 35.7148423 Aaqabet Rachaya 33.52069801 35.79316661 2929935 GEF