October 29, 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared under The QED Group, LLC Egypt SIMPLE Project. Team leader and lead author, Robert Travers and other contributors including Richard Gaeta, Monica Hanna, Ahmed Ibrahim, Nivine Ramses, Soheir El Sherif, and Nesma Saleh. NAVE, RED MONASTERY, SOHAG, EGYPT, JULY 2018 END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt and Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT IN TOURISM IN EGYPT (SITE) SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT IN TOURISM IN EGYPT (SITE) END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt and Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development October 29, 2018 Task Order AID-263-I-15-00001/72026318F00007 Submitted by: The QED Group, LLC 1820 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209, USA Tel.: +1. 703.678.4700 www.qedgroupllc.com Egypt Office: The QED Group, LLC 1A Nadi El Etisalat off Ellaselky Street, New Maadi, 11435, Cairo, Egypt Office: +2090 2 25226697 DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | I CONTENTS ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV PROJECT BACKGROUND IV PURPOSE IV METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION IV FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, EMERGING RECOMMENDATIONS – CHTE (ARCE) V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, EMERGING RECOMMENDATIONS – MEMPHIS, EGYPT’S ANCIENT CAPITAL: A PLAN FOR SITE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AERA) XI INTRODUCTION 1 DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 1 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 3 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 4 DESK REVIEW 4 QUALITATIVE DATA SOURCES 4 QUANTITATIVE DATA SOURCES 5 SAMPLE SELECTION 5 DATA COLLECTION 6 DATA STORAGE AND TRANSFER 6 DATA ANALYSIS 6 QUALITY CONTROL 7 LIMITATIONS ENCOUNTERED 7 REPORT STRUCTURE 8 BACKGROUND 8 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT FOR CULTURAL TOURISM IN EGYPT 8 11 CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM IN EGYPT (ARCE): FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: 12 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: 16 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: 19 EVALUATION QUESTION 4: 21 MEMPHIS, EGYPT’S ANCIENT CAPITAL; A PLAN FOR SITE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (AERA): FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: 25 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: 27 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | II EVALUATION QUESTION 3: 29 EVALUATION QUESTION 4: 31 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS 34 ANNEXES 35 ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK 36 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 50 ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRPAHY 54 ANNEX 4: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS LIST 62 ANNEX 4A: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS - ENGLISH 63 ANNEX 4B: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS - ARABIC 111 ANNEX 5: CHTE SITES - EXTENT OF PHYSICAL CHANGE 154 SUGGESTED CONSOLIDATION MATERIALS 177 ANNEX 6: CHTE – TABULATIONS AND GRAPHS – OUTPUT OF ONLINE SURVEY OF TRAINEES 178 ANNEX 7: CHTE – TABULATIONS OUTPUT OF THE TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH WORKERS 192 ANNEX 8: MSCD SITES - EXTENT OF PHYSICAL CHANGE AND CONSULTATION PROCESSES 200 ANNEX 9: MSCD - TABULATIONS AND GRAPHS – OUTPUTS OF ONLINE SURVEY OF TRAINEES 210 ANNEX 10: MSCD – TABULATIONS FROM THE TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH WORKERS 223 ANNEX 11: CASE STUDIES 227 ANNEX 12: EVALUATION TEAM 241 ANNEX 13: ARCE STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES AND SIMPLE RESPONSE 244 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | III ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AERA Ancient Egypt Research Associates APS Annual Program Statement ARCE American Research Center in Egypt ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research CHTE Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt Project COR Contracting Officer Representative DAC Development Assistance Committee DQA Data Quality Assessment DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse EGP Egyptian Pound ENCC Egyptian National Competitiveness Council EQ Evaluation Question ETA Egyptian Tourism Authority GD Group Discussion GDP Gross Domestic Product GOE Government of Egypt IP Implementing Partner KII Key Informant Interview MOA Ministry of Antiquities MOSS Ministry of Social Solidarity MOT Ministry of Tourism MPC Marginal Propensity to Consume MSCD Memphis Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development Project NGO Non-Governmental Organization OEG Office of Economic Growth OUV Outstanding Universal Value PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation PPP Public-Private Partnership SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SITE Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt SMEs Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises SOW Statement of Work TOT Training of Trainers TT Thebes Tomb UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizationi UNWTO World Tourism Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development WEF World Economic Forum WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND USAID’s purpose in this intervention was to solicit projects that conserve, preserve and promote more effective management of Egypt’s cultural heritage resources, with the aim of enhancing cultural tourism potential while also providing job opportunities for communities affected by the decrease in tourism. Applicants were encouraged to propose innovative approaches to build linkages between local businesses, affected communities and tourism. And given the downturn in the economy, applicants were also asked to give priority to generating employment in communities near targeted sites. This evaluation examines two activities funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt (SITE) intervention (APS number: 263-14- 000008). SITE sought to increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism sector while providing employment during Egypt’s downturn in tourism arrivals. The two activities evaluated are: a) Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt (CHTE) implemented by the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE), which was awarded EGP 67,734,684 plus $1,577,087; and b) Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development (MSCD), implemented by Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA), who were awarded EGP 9,219,141 + $164,482, a smaller project. USAID requested Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) to answer four evaluation questions (EQs). PURPOSE The evaluation specifically focused on evaluating the interventions proposed and implemented at cultural heritage sites in Egypt by both awardees in response to the SITE Cultural Tourism Annual Program Statement (APS). Findings of this evaluation will assist USAID in determining the human development and economic impact the interventions have had at the selected sites and feed into future decision making in this sector. Findings will also help USAID determine if the interventions were effective in promoting better management of cultural heritage resources and enhancing the sites’ cultural tourism potential. METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION The methodology agreed with USAID to address the four EQs using a mixed methods approach, which enabled the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, thereby strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the observed findings. Data collection involved extensive desk research of IP outputs and independent sources, together with an agreed program of key informant interviews (KIIs) in all project locations. A survey of trainees from both projects was undertaken. A significant limitation to the evaluation did, however, arise in that the eight Egyptian team members were not allowed into the field to conduct stakeholder interviews. In addition, the Memphis Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development (MSCD) project was completed 11 months ago, which could adversely impact the accuracy of project recall by interviewees. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, EMERGING RECOMMENDATIONS – CHTE (ARCE) EQ1: What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Findings In Sohag, the Red Monastery nave and its adjoining tower have been restored. The floor of the nave has been paved in limestone and the columns re-erected to indicate the basilica church structure. Murals have been uncovered and restored. A flexible space for religious, community and possible tourism use has been created adjacent to the sanctuary (the main attraction and not funded under this intervention). The ground floor of the tower has been repurposed for small receptions and display and its upper stories restored as a monk’s cell. The changes add a flexible open space to the magnificent, restored triconch sanctuary (previous USAID interventions 2003-2013). In Luxor (East Bank), extensive conservation work on the Khonsu Temple chapel murals has been undertaken. On the West Bank, access and site lines have been improved in the Tombs of the Nobles area. Three tombs in Luxor have been added to MOA’s inventory of possible tombs to visit, one of which is currently open to tourists (Thebes Tomb [TT] 110). Detailed records of finds during the Luxor projects have been kept and are currently being digitized by ARCE. Some innovative eco-friendly lighting has been introduced in Luxor. Most consultation in planning interventions was with MOA (both central and local); Qurna and Al Boarat communities were consulted through the site foreman following project approval. At the Red Monastery, there was continuous consultation with the religious community and some of their congregation. Consultation with tourism interests did not take place before the intervention, and throughout at all sites it was very limited. Some concerns were raised in consultations that the Luxor project needed a higher academic authority because of the importance of the site and the restoration methods that were applied. The most significant physical changes were observed in Dra Abu ’l-Naga with a) the removal of rubble, b) the construction of 147 meters of a paved combination ramp/stairway for improved visitor access to tombs and flash flood control; and c) some shaded seating areas for tourist/visitor relief from the sun. From a tourism point of view, the newly cleaned murals at Khonsu Temple could provide a significant additional attraction within the highly visited Karnack complex, if made accessible. Conclusions • Luxor interventions continued cleaning/conservation works on the Khonsu Temple (East Bank) that started prior to the project. The project improved the visual and security environment in parts of the West Bank, provided improved pedestrian access to part of the Tombs of the Nobles area, and conserved and made accessible three tombs for possible public viewing. • Some of the conservation procedures at Khonsu Temple and the Theban Necropolis tombs were not in accordance with current international best practices. • The extent of project consultations was insufficient (limited to MOA in the Luxor sites and not sufficiently engaged with tourism concerns (local and national interests). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | VI • At the Red Monastery (Sohag), the restoration under this project is robust, repurposing the area as a courtyard where visitors can gather, and religious services can take place. • There is a clear scientific methodology to the selection and high-quality application of cleaning materials in the Red Monastery. However, there are some concerns regarding best practices. • An advance agreement was unable to be reached with the MOA on some decisions regarding important conservation issues, in particular, how the nave murals uncovered were to be protected once exposed. This was an implementation challenge. Recommendations R1.1: For similar future projects, a memorandum of agreement between the MOA and prospective implementing partners should be drawn up regarding anticipated methods, protective measures and future site management needs. This should be a part of future USAID application processes. R1.2: A wider consultation approach involving multiple stakeholders represents best practice and is specifically required by USAID sustainability guidelines: USAID should require wider consultations as part of future projects. R1.3: The IP should clearly demonstrate the application of international best practices regarding cultural heritage management planning and delivery. IPs engaged in conservation should ensure that experimental studies regarding conservation methods are made clear and stated in the final report, and comprehensive publications for the scientific community should be produced. Conservation processes should be documented before future interventions of this nature. The IP should ensure that wider academic consultation takes place and is documented to ensure that current best practices are always applied in conservation projects. R1.4: To increase community engagement, publications and media releases in Arabic about restoration projects, designed for the local community, should be produced. Future community work should be carried out based on a clear philosophy of collaborative activities. R1.5: The construction of shading to protect frescos on exterior walls from direct sunlight and other damage is recommended. Coordination and agreement with MOA are necessary early in the life of the project for ensuring the installation of needed mural protection. EQ2: How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? To what extent, if any, have the training and capacity￾building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? Findings The online trainees’ survey indicated a very high level of satisfaction with the overall training program (94.1% in Luxor, 95.9% in Sohag). All aspects of training were highly satisfactory from the trainees’ point of view, except for the extent to which they were considered helpful as a tool for professional development (MOA promotion is a factor of age, depending on years in post). In both Luxor and Sohag, there was almost full agreement on the fact that equal training opportunities were provided for men and women (94.1% in Luxor, 95.8% in Sohag). Trainees in Luxor were also in agreement regarding the usefulness of the training program in improving job performance (97%). Interviewed trainees reported a general increase in knowledge and skills, which they attributed to the field schools. In particular, transitioning from manual documentation to computer-based and photographic documentation were USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | VII highlighted as being very useful. Slightly more than half of the trainees in Sohag have been able to work with other international archaeological missions as a result of being trained, although volunteers (female archaeology graduates in Sohag) were disappointed that they have not received expected work. In Luxor, the percentage of trainees who have since worked with other projects decreased to 23.5%. The MOA’s Training Department (established in 2015) was not significantly involved in the training program, nor was Training for Trainers undertaken. Conclusions • High satisfaction levels were demonstrated with regards to the provided training programs, in terms of content, format, sufficiency and quality. • The training had a positive impact on the trainees’ knowledge and performance, although impact on career development is dependent on availability of resources and opportunities, and there are concerns regarding some conservation methods being taught; e.g., dissatisfaction with training on experimental studies of the the treatment materials and methods of application. • Trainees considered conservation workshops to be the most relevant in both Sohag and Luxor (88% and 91%, respectively). However, general site management and visitor management were not a substantial element of the training programs overall, although they are critical to site conservation. • The IP currently lacks a digitally documented monitoring and evaluation process to support training impact and future training needs, which could be shared with MOA’s Training Department. • Female employees have been empowered through the program and reported that they were treated with equal consideration to men. Recommendations R2.1: The newly established training department in MOA provides an opportunity for applying training materials developed and utilizing the knowledge and expertise of the field school participants for re￾training other groups of MOA conservators and inspectors. Future USAID-funded projects with an IP should consider engaging with the training department through the provision of training materials and direct technical assistance to the MOA training department. R2.2: IPs, in collaboration with the MOA training department, a more formalized Training for Trainers could be developed to build the capacity of field schools’ participants as trainers (e.g. trainer modules developed, participants to train other groups under the master trainers’ supervision). R2.3: In future projects, the IPs need to develop more thorough, documented monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems overall. R2.4: The IPs need to consider the provision of further training on general site management and visitor management, which is critical to conservation as well as visitor satisfaction. EQ3: To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? Findings Two of three group discussions in Luxor expressed satisfaction with the wages paid by the project, and one group did not. The continuous nature of the work was appreciated as well as the fact that ARCE USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | VIII provided medical insurance to workers along with immediate medical attention for minor injuries. The dissenting group suggested that 60-70 EGP/day would have been fair, and research indicates that the going rate for short-term excavations was higher. The national minimum wage rate in Egypt since 2014) is EGP 1200/month (five days a week). The wage paid to the Luxor project’s workers throughout March 2015- 2017 amounts to 65% of the national minimum wage. This percentage increases to 83% with the wage rate increase that was eventually granted in April 2017 (EGP 40/day) following the Egyptian Pound’s devaluation the previous November. The Luxor project used services and supplies provided by a large number of vendors including large, medium and small vendors located in Lower and Upper Egypt. Wage earnings and vendors’ revenues also had significant multiplier effects locally. The workers learned to make mud brinks, but market demand for this product is limited (being mainly used at archeological sites). Most workers report being out of regular work since the project ended, despite some tourism recovery in Luxor. Conclusions • Wages paid to workers were lower than the market rate. This was counterbalanced by some job security while the project lasted and a reasonable level of benefits package. • Most workers interviewed expressed satisfaction with the fair treatment they received during the project. • Of the total investment of EGP 8.8 million ($652k) in wages and supplies, (approximately 12% of the total IP grant) resulted in an investment of EGP 48.3 million ($3.4 million) based on standard Egyptian multiplier rates. • The project provided temporary employment during a period of instabilitity in visitor numbers. but has not significantly enhanced workers’ job prospects. After November 2016, tourism was more competitive due to the devaluation of the Egyptian pound. • For economic development, greater sustainability comes from working to create full-time jobs in crafts, education and tourism enterprises through integrated regional approaches. Recommendations R3.1: USAID should ensure that IPs pay workers at least the national minimum wage. R3.2: IPs and USAID need to consider permanent rather than temporary job creation as a focus for future tourism interventions. Opportunities for creating permanent jobs exist, for example, relating to at least crafts and catering in the recovering and more price-competitive tourism economy of Egypt. EQ4: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. Findings The Red Monastery intervention provides a flexible space that will continue to be used by the Coptic community and is available for tourists. Khonsu Temple is an integral part of the World Heritage Site of Ancient Thebes with its Necropoli, and is within the Karnak complex of temples, one of Egypt’s most visited tourism sites. The government of Egypt is accountable to UNESCO for its conservation of the site as part of the universal heritage of USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | IX humanity: The intervention is likely to be sustained, although the murals may be vulnerable to tourist damage if guard supervision is weak. Of the three conserved tombs, one (TT110) is now open to visitors. Their sustainability is dependent on the MOA’s ability to protect them from natural and touristic damage. These tombs are also part of the World Heritage Site, so the intervention should be sustainable if managed effectively. The training component design and approach has been reviewed and provides a good operational potential for sustainability if these can be institutionalized within MOA or continued by the IP. Trainees are likely to be retained within MOA and gradually reach positions of seniority, thus their capacities will improve over time. In terms of tourism impact, this has been undermined by a failure to engage effectively with the MOT and the Egyptian Tourism Authority (its marketing body) at both national and governorate levels. Some (limited) training of Luxor-based tour guides took place for the Red Monastery. There was no significant or structured engagement with tour operators or the local tourism industry. ARCE’s restorations will nonetheless have some tourism impact if the news of the restoration (and the opening of the sites for tourists) is promoted. Consultations suggest that the sites most likely to have the greatest tourism impact, if promoted, are, firstly, the Red Monastery, which can attract significant numbers of Coptic pilgrims (domestic tourists) as well as some international interest. Having a new access road in Sohag to the Red Monastery (and also to the other nearby sites of Arthribis and the White Monastery) is critical for promoting the tourism development of the area and consitent with current governorate future planning as reported in consultations with governorate officials. Secondly, Khonsu Temple could have good tourism impact, if its opening is promoted to the tourism industry. Conclusions • While future interventions cannot be predicted, the trainings given and the role of the MOA as statutory guardians of the sites should help ensure future sustainability. • The Luxor sites are within the enlisted World Heritage Sites, therefore additional inspections, planning documentation and oversight from UNESCO should apply. • Poor visitor management by MOA is widely stated by the interviewed stakeholders as a concern and threatens these and other fragile heritage sites. • The Red Monastery nave project has multiple functions and should be sustainable. It also adds to the site’s tourism potential. • A major factor impacting future sustainability of all sites is weak visitor management. As UNESCO has noted, inadequate or poorly managed tourism is one of the biggest threats to heritage, and this especially applies fragile tomb interiors and irreplaceable painted murals. Recommendations R4.1 USAID and IPs should give greater emphasis to assisting MOA towards better visitor management at heritage sites. Strengthening the MOA’s Site Management Department presents an opportunity, as does the development of management plans for World Heritage Sites. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | X R4.2: USAID should ensure that IPs engage in effective consultation with the tourism industry and the MOT before and during all tourism-related projects. R4.3 USAID should consider encouraging more inclusive, destination-wide tourism strategy support in Sohag and Luxor provinces, rather than focusing solely on selected potential visitor attractions. Proposed improved access is also a key consideration, USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XI FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, EMERGING RECOMMENDATIONS – MEMPHIS, EGYPT’S ANCIENT CAPITAL: A PLAN FOR SITE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AERA) EQ1: What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Findings The MSCD project conducted thorough baseline studies and its design followed international standards for cultural heritage management. Mit Rahina has a mixed economy, and the site is located close to Sakkara within the World Heritage Site of Memphis and its Necropolis – the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur. The IP reports include before-and-after photography, which demonstrates that the physical changes planned at the beginning of the project were conducted, including: (i) developing a walking circuit in Memphis (specifically cleaning and removing vegetation, installing signs that include historical information, renovating the walking paths, installing benches, and litterbins); and (ii) renovations to the open-air museum in the area (specifically painting and fixing walls, installing signage including historical and archaeological information, erecting a detailed an informational map, installing benches, and litter bins). Interviewed stakeholders commend the signage, map, and historical information developed in the open￾air museum. The signage standard is innovative in an Egyptian context. In August 2018, however, 11 months following completion of the project, the walking circuit remains closed to the public and is not being adequately maintained. The approaches adopted to the conservation problems arising from the high-water table, salination and vegetation are only temporary solutions; indeed, they are a Sisyphean task requiring constant repetition. The IP indicated that MOA regulations highly restricted AERA’s outreach and communication with other entities, restricting the project’s interventions to archeology and the project’s outreach to MOA alone. As a result, the community outreach component was not applied as planned. There was very limited interaction with tourism interests although a brochure has been produced and a good website developed, both for the MOA. However, it is noted that other archaeological projects in Egypt do work closely with NGOs to ensure community outreach. An excellent example is the archaeological site of Shutb in Assiut carried out by the British Museum and the Freie University of Berlin. Conclusions • The physical changes to the site were fully conducted as planned to improve physical attractiveness, visitor accessibility, and structural soundness. Despite that, the actual extent of changes is limited due to environmental and infrastructural issues and governmental decisions that lie outside the project scope, resources and decision-making ability (such as opening the sites for visitors). • The project conducted a comprehensive stakeholder analysis that identified adequately all parties, governmental and non-governmental, who may have a relational effect on physical interventions and site management. However, in many cases, the project was not able to coordinate or consult with many of the identified stakeholders (such as community leaders, tourism enterprises, local businesses, or other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) due to lack of permissions which limited the project’s outreach abilities. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XII • The ground water in the area is a threat to this very important site. The constant regrowth of vegetation and residues of salt and oil will remain a continued threat to the monuments and remains of the Memphis city without a de-watering project. The project’s actions regarding conservation, the impacts of the high water-table, salination and flora are only temporary. Recommendations R.1.1: In future projects, IPs should ensure that prior agreements (formal Memoranda of Understanding) with MOA are in place to enhance MOA’s commitment to future site management and maintenance, and the opening of the site to visitors. The agreements should include ongoing permission for community engagement, collaboration with different stakeholders and evaluation processes. R1.2: IPs engaging in similar projects involving community outreach and/or tourism should seek all the necessary permissions and to plan for collaboration with relevant governmental and non-governmental entities to conduct the planned interventions (for example, other local NGOs for community engagement activities and the Ministry of Education (MoE) for school related activities and student engagement). R1.3: Active engagement with the MOT, the tourism industry and governorate economic development interests should be a prerequisite for sustainable tourism projects. EQ2: How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? To what extent, if any, have the training and capacity￾building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? Findings The training programs provided by AERA were very adequate in terms of the technical aspects that are directly related to the nature and design of the project (i.e. cleaning, heritage, and community outreach). Excavation orientation was limited, but it is noted that the excavation potential of the site is constrained until the ground water issue is addressed. The project provided 77 individuals with training, divided over four field schools. In the results of the online survey, all respondents unanimously (100%) stated their satisfaction with the training. While the survey results do not demonstrate substantial differences in responses between male and female trainees, the training has proved to motivate female trainees to seek further career opportunities; demonstrated by requesting job reference letters, seeking advice for further studies and showing more interest in archaeology. AERA training is a form of Training of Trainers (TOT). However, MSCD training material would need specific tailoring for a more general TOT approach. Conclusions • The training provided (field schools) was highly satisfactory for recipients. • The training had a positive impact on the trainees' knowledge and performance. • Women were supported by training but practical benefits to them are modest so far. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XIII Recommendations R2.1: IPs should ensure that MOA and other entities working on the site have access to the training materials to ensure the continued and repeated benefit of the training investment. The MOA’s new Training Department is a key partner in this regard. R2.2: The IP should also make the training material, especially on community engagement, available for use by local NGOs and schools. It is noted that the IP was constrained on community outreach activities under this project. R2.3: More formalized TOT in the future would also help ensure the availability of human resources needed for information sharing and reapplication of the training. In this project, TOT was limited within the MSCD because of the restrictions on community outreach activities. EQ3: To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Findings The Mit Rahina area has a mixed economy and there is less dependent on tourism than other parts of Egypt (for example, than the Red Sea coast or Luxor). Although the Memphis Open-Air Museum is a popular site for short visits, there is very limited local benefit from it (13 small stalls within the site and a five tea shops/stalls nearby). There are local craft workers, but most of their output goes to Cairo. Two-thirds of the MSCD workers sampled stated that they gained higher skill levels as a result of their work on the project. About half of MSCD workers sampled expressed satisfaction with the contribution of their work on the project to a better quality of life in their households. Sixty percent of MSCD workers sampled reported that the wage levels they received throughout the project were “fair.” AERA based its workers’ wages on local rates for manual work. All workers (unskilled workers) were residents in the project’s vicinity (Mit Rahina/ Badrashin district), accordingly, some direct benefits of the project did accrue to households in areas surrounding the project site. Conclusions • The MSCD workers gained higher levels of experience throughout their work with the project, along with better quality of life for their households. • Despite the up-skilling results, the project’s work experience was not reflected in further (post￾MSCD) job opportunities with tourism-related activities, despite the return of growth to Egypt’s tourism sector. • MSCD workers demonstrate a moderate level of satisfaction with the wages they received during the project. In the meantime, no evidence is available about the methods used for wage determination by AERA. • The multiplier effect of the wages received by MSCD’s workers was significant for their local communities. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XIV • An adverse effect was triggered by the devaluation of the Egyptian Pound in November 2016, in which inflationary pressure led to declines in the purchasing powers of their wages. It is noted that wages were determined and budgeted in 2015 before the increase of prices and the EGP devaluation. Recommendations R3.1: USAID should consider the interventions aimed at creating long term employment rather than temporary jobs in future tourism interventions. Given the substantial visitor numbers at this site, opportunities for creating long term employment exist relating to crafts and catering around the Open￾Air Museum. EQ4: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. Findings A review of documentation proved that project conducted a comprehensive and detailed conservation assessment of the site that identified areas of risk and potential causes for deterioration of targeted sites. This helps sustainability. Observations of the evaluation team on site showed that currently, there is very limited site cleaning and maintenance of the Walking Trail (especially related to garbage, wild dog excrement, clearing of paths and vegetation), although the IP suggests these could be quite quickly addressed if the site is opened. The IP has noted that indications from the MOA during implementation and within the period of the USAID Agreement had been that the MOA will open the Circuit for visitors, and when they do, that they will manage and maintain the site; however, at the time of this evaluation this has not yet happened. In addition, there are security concerns regarding open tourist access that could further delay possible opening (MOA’s preferred approach is to wall off its sites, but this approach can have negative community impacts). MOA maintenance staff did not take part in much of the site clearing. According to KIIs and GDs with tourism industry representatives and tour guides, the site has not created additional demand, although the improvements to the Open-Air Museum are appreciated by those who are aware of them. Ensuring visitor satisfaction is important for improving tourism competitiveness. The Memphis/Sakkara area has considerable assets for tourism development, but very little local benefit is evident at present (much of the tourism income goes to Cairo-based tour operators), and local tourism businesses interviewed are struggling. Good quality print materials and a website have been developed and handed over to MOA. The publications were printed at the MOA press and designed for reprinting. If funds are allocated for reprinting, they can be sustainable. Some guide training was also undertaken; however, this would need to be ongoing to be sustainable. Community engagement was not undertaken to any significant degree. The IP informs that high-ranking members of the MOA told the IP that the reason their Permanent Committee denied permission for community outreach activities was because it was not in the MOA’s purview to grant such permissions; rather, only to conduct training programs and to clean and develop archaeological sites. As a foreign NGO registered in Egypt, the IP takes direction from the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MOSS) until the guidelines for the new law governing NGOs are implemented. It was the IP’s understanding from the MOSS that it was not allowed to conduct business with any other NGO, or government Ministry other than the MOA, without prior approval, and that it is not the MOA that could grant such approval. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XV Partnerships with other organisations (governmental or NGO) that are mandated to work with communities were not developed by the IP. Conclusions • The project provided a comprehensive risk assessment of the site and proposed interventions. While long-term and strategic solutions for addressing risks lie outside the project scope, some additional short-term and simple solutions could have been useful to mitigate the risks. • Community engagement is essential if local residents are to value and care for heritage attractions. • The tourism potential of the site is directly dependent on a new management approach and three factors in particular: i) the opening of the sites beyond the Open-Air Museum to visitors, ii) regular cleaning and maintenance of the site, and iii) close coordination with the tourism industry on the inclusion of the site in tour designs and site marketing. None of these things have been actioned to date. However, it is noted that AERA delivered a plan for sustainable management to the MOA and did discuss and communicate with MOA the need for coordination with other parties and ministries. • As mentioned under EQ1, the ground water in the area continues to be a threat to the site. The constant regrowth of vegetation and residues of salt and oil will remain a continued threat to the monuments and remains of Memphis city without a de-watering project. Recommendations R4.1: It is essential for the MOA to collaborate with other entities as necessary in a groundwater lowering project to ensure both the usability and the sustainability of the site to protect the archaeological remains against environmental risks caused by water level and residues and to improve local environmental conditions for residents. R4.2: In order to ensure the safety and sustainability of archaeological sites in Mit Rahina from plant growth effects in the case of non-solution of the problem of ground water or until the problem is solved, an herbicide that is archaeologically and environmentally acceptable should be applied by the MOA. It is noted that plant growth effects have been assessed and reported and several options for solutions, including environment friendly chemicals, were considered. R4.3: It will not be possible to protect these sites going forward unless they become part of a management strategy that involves local residents, local administrators and other ministries. The collaborative management strategy needs to include: – Improving trash removal infrastructure and process through creative recycling start-up projects instead of dumping south of the Abusir archaeological site. – Establishing a sewage collection and treatment system. – Stopping the encroachments on the area of Mit Rahina by identifying the areas and ownership of all the lands surrounding the area as part of an integrated master plan. A new management strategy is needed for the Memphis area. In addition, there is a need for the MOA to engage more deeply with the MOT, as recommended in the USAID-supported Refreshed Tourism Strategy of 2013,1 for setting strategic priorities towards improved tourism management. USAID might facilitate this process in coordination with UNESCO. 1 ENCC (2013) Refreshed Tourism Strategy 2013-2020: The Way Forward and New Horizons. Technical support and co￾sponsorship provided by Egypt’s Competitiveness Program (ECP), USAID. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | XVI R4.4: The IP might have considered conducting direct interventions for small-scale mitigation strategies instead of relying only on the site management plan handed over to the MOA. Some of the identified issues in the risk assessment could have been easily addressed via the project to mitigate the effect of risks. Examples include installing a system to overcome fire risks and installing protective covers on more vulnerable Open-air Museum artefacts; and providing safety and conservatory instructions for bus drivers transporting visitors to mitigate the effect of vibrations and pollution if relocating the parking area was not possible. It is noted that national standards for tour bus and automobile engine vibrations and exhaust fumes on vehicles are not robust in Egypt, so on-site measures may be needed. R4.5: To ensure the longer-term sustainability of the walking circuit in Mit Rahina, consideration should be given by the MOA to replacing wooden ramps with stone/steel ramps and benches equipped with shading from the impact of sunlight and rain. R4.6: The MOA should consider developing augmented reality applications or virtual reality installations to provide 3D modelling guided tours of the Walking Trail. Without these it is difficult to imagine how the site must have looked like in its different phases. Mobile app games could also be devised for the site to make it more attractive to younger audiences. These are opportunities to develop public-private partnerships (PPP). R4.7: IPs should ensure prior Memoranda of Agreement with the MOA on timing regarding opening to the public, levels of local community involvement, and continued site management, to guarantee the continued maintenance of the site and continued accessibility to visitors. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 1 INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS Egypt’s post-revolution social and political upheaval resulted in an economic downturn across every sector; perhaps most significantly in tourism. Continuing political unrest and a number of terrorist incidents increased the downward economic pressures on the sector since 2012. USAID’s development hypothesis behind SITE was as follows: If cultural heritage destinations are sustainably managed for enjoyable/engaging travel experiences, cultural tourists will return to Egypt. International tourism increases foreign exchange earnings, assists in local economic development and generates employment. Programming under the SITE Assistance Agreement is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism industry through cultural heritage preservation projects at tourism sites and workforce development activities. The purpose of the SITE project is: To increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism sector while providing employment during the downturn in tourism arrivals. Both awards fall under Component 1 of the SITE assistancel agreement, which aims to improve the cultural heritage sites that tourists visit while providing employment. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES USAID/Egypt has requested the project Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE), implemented by QED Group LLC, to conduct a final performance evaluation of Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt (SITE). The evaluation covers two activities summarized in the table below: SUMMARY OF SITE ACTIVITIES Activities Name a) Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt (CHTE) b) Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development (MSCD) Evaluation Task Order AID-263-I-15-00001/72026318F00007 Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Seba Auda Contracting Specialist Shaymaa Shaatoot IDIQ Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Seba Auda Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt (CHTE) and Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development (MSCD) Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) Sylvia Atalla Implementing Partner a) American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) b) Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA) Cooperative Agreement No. a) AID 263-A-15-00007 b) AID 263-A-15-00021 Grant award (before adjustment) a) EGP 67,734,684 + $1,577,087 b) EGP 9,219,141 + $164,482 Life of Activity a) January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2018 b) August 1, 2015 – September 30, 2017 Active Geographic Regions a) Luxor, Sohag, Cairo b) Memphis, Giza. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 2 Development Objective(s) (DOs) Mission DO: Egyptian economy is more competitive and inclusive IR 2.2 Tourism sector more diversified and sustainable USAID/Egypt Requesting Technical Office Office of Economic Growth (OEG), USAID/Egypt AWARD 1: CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM IN EGYPT The overarching goal of the Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt (CHTE) proposal from the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) was to continue efforts to safeguard Egypt’s cultural heritage. This has mainly been addressed through integrating capacity building into conservation and archaeological fieldwork and integrating heritage awareness and education into heritage management. Additionally, the project aimed at generating greater economic and educational benefits for those living in and around the proposed project sites. ARCE’s proposed approach is to utilize conservation and preservation activities that provide training and employment, promote social and community values, promote awareness of heritage significance, contribute to the economy and assist the Government of Egypt (GOE) organizations in stewardship of historic monuments and sites. ARCE proposed seven programs focused on the restoration and conservation of significant monuments. In Luxor, interventions were as follows: – Program 1: Tomb of Djehuty (TT110) forecourt and interior – Program 2: Dra Abu ’l-Naga and Qurnet Mara’i – Outlined below program 3: Khonsu Temple Conservation and Training In Sohag, work was undertaken at the Red Monastery as outlined below: – Program 4: Red Monastery Nave Conservation and Training – Program 5: Red Monastery Site Management – Program 6: Red Monastery Cultural Heritage and Community Awareness – Program 7: Multi-disciplinary Capacity Building Courses (Cairo and Upper Egypt) AWARD 2: MEMPHIS, EGYPT’S ANCIENT CAPITAL: A PLAN FOR SITE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The scope of activities of Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA) focuses on the establishment of a tourist walking trail (the “Memphis Circuit”) in the remains of the pharaonic city of Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt during the Old Kingdom period of Egypt’s history. The proposed trail includes eight sites where archaeologists have excavated important parts of downtown Memphis, including the Great Temple of Ptah, the Apis House, a Hathor Temple, a New Kingdom shrine and a series of early tombs and residences. These monuments were threatened by modern urban expansion and dumping. AERA indicated that the monuments offered a unique opportunity for tourists to experience the rich cultural heritage of Egypt’s ancient capital. The project involved inputs from York University in the United Kingdom (UK). AERA’s strategy included cleaning, stabilization of elements, enhancement of local capacity and outreach activities with stakeholder involvement throughout the process. The project offered employment opportunities to local workers while cleaning and preparing the sites as well as training for Ministry of Antiquities (MOA) staff on cultural heritage management. AERA launched the Memphis Site and Community Development (MSCD) project with three objectives: 1. Preparation of an archaeological walking circuit, including the eight Memphis sites. 2. Development of a heritage and outreach program for the central Memphis area. 3. Conservation assessment of the monuments within the archaeological circuit. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 3 EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES This report responds to the USAID/Egypt Statement of Work (SOW), provided as Annex 1. The objective of the evaluation is to provide USAID with findings, conclusions and strategic recommendations. These relate to the effectiveness of the interventions implemented at cultural heritage sites in Egypt by two awardees in response to the SITE Cultural Tourism APS. The evaluation will assist USAID in determining the human development and economic impact the interventions have had at the selected sites and will feed into future decision making in the sector. Findings will also help USAID determine if the interventions were effective in promoting sustainable management of cultural heritage resources and enhancing the sites’ cultural tourism potential. The two awards are evaluated and reported on separately. Some common conclusions and recommendations also arise. The audience for this report is expected to be: 1. USAID, specifically the Egypt mission but also those working on tourism and heritage-related activities in other countries. 2. The Ministries of Antiquities and Tourism in Egypt. 3. The relevant Governorates (Giza, Luxor and Sohag). 4. The implementing partners (IPs). 5. The wider development community engaged in heritage tourism development in the Middle East, those who are interested in the effectiveness grant aid coupled with technical assistance and the general public who will have access to the report through USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation explicitly addresses the following evaluation questions (EQs) set by USAID: EQ1: What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) a) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? b) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ2: How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? (Training included: site management by AERA; conservation, archeological, photography field schools, and Microsoft by ARCE.) Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. a) To what extent, if any, have the training and capacity-building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? (i.e., confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; and share what they have learned with other colleagues.) EQ3: To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE). For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? EQ4: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 4 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team used a mixed methods approach to answer the evaluation questions. The use of mixed methods enables the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, thereby strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the observed findings. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative results, the evaluator offsets weaknesses inherent in using a single approach. TABLE 1: DATA COLLECTION METHODS EQS Desk Review 1, 2, 3, 4, Group Discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, Key Informant Interviews 1, 2, 3, 4 Participative Observation and Site Visits 1, 2, 3, 4 Site Inspection Rubrics 1 Online/Paper and Pencil Questionnaire 2 Quantitative Form 3 This evaluation is not an audit. We have not examined financial issues other than those directly relating to specific evaluation questions, and we do not comment on the extent to which the USAID activity represents best value. The Evaluation Design Matrix is outlined at Annex 2: Details are summarized below. Fieldwork took place from July 18 through August 9, 2018 in Greater Cairo (including Giza) and in the Luxor and Sohag Governorates. DESK REVIEW The team conducted a desk review of all activity-related qualitative and quantitative materials identified in the scope of work, while additional technical references related to archaeology and heritage tourism were also gathered. Annex 3 lists bibliographical references and further reading. The desk review informed the development of the data collection tools and helped in the identification of key issues relevant to the evaluation. Annex 4 contains the data collection tools used. Desk review continued to be expanded through the evaluation as additional material came to hand. QUALITATIVE DATA SOURCES A total of 256 individuals were consulted in Cairo and three project intervention governorates (Giza, Luxor and Sohag) from July 24 through September 4, 2018. These include GOE officials, project site officers and managers (including religious personnel), participating trainers and trainees, site workers and private sector small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Supplemental telephone interviews were conducted between August 20 and 27, 2018. A total of 154 individuals were surveyed, including 29 workers and 125 trainees. A total of 102 individuals were interviewed via key informant intereviews and/or group discussions involving 15 MSCD project related personnel, 75 CHTE project related personnel, 11 USAID, ARCE and AERA managers and 1 external archeological expert. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 5 The evaluation team systematically met after site visits to consolidate findings, confer on lessons learned, and ensure that the quality of the data met USAID standards as per the agency’s Evaluation Policy of January 2011 (updated October 2016). Content analysis, summarized in tally sheets, was used to quantify qualitative data. Recurring themes, supplemented by outlier themes, were identified and analyzed. Quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated/integrated to cross-validate the findings. The evaluation team developed and applied a Site Management Assessment Rubric following international benchmarks for cultural heritage management (e.g. UNESCO Guidelines and Handbook of Site Management), taking into consideration the applied practices in Egypt. The Site Management Rubric assesses mapping, preliminary studies, risk assessment, description of the tourist activity, the stakeholder’s analysis survey and methodology for collaborative work, infrastructure survey, visitor management, site management plan, publications, sustainability, site branding and marketing plan. A Conservation Assessment Rubric has also been developed and applied based on standard procedures including condition Assessment, conservation plan and methodology as well as the documentation and examination processes. Seven case studies were also used as a benchmark for best practices for site management for tourism and community development; including 1) Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project (SCHEP), USAID/Jordan, 2-4) Cultural Heritage Site Management through Public Private Partnerships in Italy, and 5) the Çatalhöyük Projectby Ian Hodder. In terms of community archaeology, 6) Al-Quseir Al-Qadim Project of University of Southampton and 7) the Valley of the Kings Site Management by Kent Weeks; both in Egypt. QUANTITATIVE DATA SOURCES The evaluation team used online surveys to examine each activity’s former trainees. In addition, paper and pencil surveys were used for collecting primary quantitative data from both former trainees and former site workers to obtain key information related to USAID’s evaluation questions. Fifty-eight trainees (40 males and 18 females) took part in two online surveys; in addition, six volunteers in Sohag (ARCE) were targeted in the online survey. The online survey was conducted in August, and a 100% response rate was achieved in Sohag and 81% in Luxor following the issue of follow-up reminders. A 79% response rate was achieved for the Memphis (AERA) project. Another quantitative survey was also conducted with 29 site workers hired as temporary labor by the two projects (15 in MSCD and 14 in CHTE). The survey questionnaire was conducted by telephone with the workers. SAMPLE SELECTION For the trainees’ online survey, the evaluation design outlined a purposive sampling methodology. To the extent possible, enumerators sought to achieve a gender balance. Contacting former trainees was challenging, as there was limited contact data available for them prior to the start of the field work. Prior to conducting fieldwork, the evaluation team sought the assistance of IPs and the Ministry of Antiquities (MOA) in obtaining more detailed contact data for trainees. As the AERA project ended September 30, 2017, attempts to survey AERA trainees was discontinued due to the lack of trainee contact information. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 6 Notwithstanding, the evaluation team targeted ARCE trainees for both the Luxor and Sohag intervention sites. In Luxor, a total of 88 trainees were targeted (57 males and 31 females). In Sohag, a total of 24 trainees were targeted (14 males and 10 females). In addition, 9 trained female volunteers from Sohag were targeted. In Luxor, it was determined that not all 88 trainees completed all 2015-2018 project training modules. Only 42 of 88 trainees from Luxor attended all training modules; i.e., 30 males (71%) and 12 females (29%). Accordingly, the evaluation team limited its selection to those who attended the full 2015-2018 training program. Due to the small population size, the evaluation team targeted the entire 42-person trainee population. In Luxor, a total of 34 of 42 trainees completed the survey, providing a response rate of 81%. The respondents were divided into 25 males (74%) and 9 females (26%). In Sohag, the evaluation team targeted the entire 24 trainee population. All of the 24 trainees from Sohag completed the survey; providing a response rate of 100%. For the workers survey, IPs provided a limited number of workers’ names and contact information. Sampling was based on convenience. The ARCE project employed a total of 406 skilled and unskilled workers in Luxor. The survey was conducted with 14 workers, which constitutes 3.4% of the total sample population. The results thus are not statistically significant and cannot be generalized. Notwithstanding, survey results provide a quantitative insight into findings specific to wage satisfaction and the project’s contribution to the workers’ future employability. Workers participating in the group discussions provided their names and contact information and agreed to participate in a follow-up phone survey at a later date. Sampling frames for KIIs and group discussions were determined by the evaluation team based on a consolidated contact list compiled from USAID/Egypt, AERA, and ARCE. The contact list was continually updated throughout fieldwork. DATA COLLECTION All data collection took place between July 24 and September 4, 2018. The data collection included the online survey with the trainees, the phone survey with the workers. The qualitative data collection was administered within the same timeframes through in-person interviews and group discussions during field visits, and a number of skype interviews with IPs personnel and experts currently unavailable in Egypt. DATA STORAGE AND TRANSFER Data storage procedures for this evaluation are governed under the provisions set out in the SIMPLE contract signed by USAID and QED. Survey data collected for this evaluation will be cleaned for submission to the Development Data Library in a machine-readable format. Respondent identifying information will be redacted, in accordance with QED ethical guidelines. DATA ANALYSIS Qualitative data was documented and digitized on a daily basis and later categorized and collated to identify patterns and repetitions. The team administered content and thematic analyses of the qualitative data gathered to derive results and triangulate quantitative data gathered as applicable. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 7 SPSS and MS Acces were used for descriptive and statistical analyses of the quantitative data. Tabulations were derived, including numbers and percentages, and where applicable, gender disaggregation, from the statistical data sets created by SPSS and MS Access. Economic returns were analyzed through calculation of the project’s multiplier effects based on estimates of the Marginal Propensities to Consume (MPC) by the different socio-economic strata of the Egyptian population. Different MPC estimates were used for the projects’ vendors, classified as large, medium and small enterprises. The multilplier effect is based on the concept that an injection of extra income (e.g., for workers) leads to successive rounds of incremental spending by other community members. Summation of the successive incremental spending reflects the multiplier of the first injection. The multiplier's aggregate value depends on the spenders' propensity to consume (MPC), i.e. the percentage of each incremental income they allocate to consumption, rather than saving. In other terms, the higher the MPC, the larger the multiplier effect. It is also known that MPC levels tend to be higher among the low-income groups of any community. In relation to impact estimates, calculations of multipliers were based on estimates used by Egypt Ministry of Planning for the Marginal Propensities to Consume (MPC). The following MPC levels were applied: 85% for laborers, 80% for small vendors, 75% for medium vendors and 70% for large vendors. In other terms, the lower the income level, the higher the propensity to consume, usually on basic goods and services from local sources. US$ equivalents were calculated on the basis of the US$/EGP before and after the devaluation (effective November 2016), depending on the dates of the transactions (wages and vendors payments). QUALITY CONTROL All deliverables meet USAID and QED quality standards and have been subject to the review and approval of the SIMPLE Senior Evaluation Specialist and technical reviewers from the QED home office in Washington, D.C. In addition, validation workshops were conducted with both IPs to ensure accurate understanding and analysis of the data collected throughout the evaluation process thereby mitating any potential errors in data analysis and reporting. LIMITATIONS ENCOUNTERED SIMPLE was unable to obtain permission for the eight Egyptian members of the evaluation team to travel to project sites. This means that there is extensive reliance on IP reporting through the use of intensive desk research. Field interviewing was undertaken by one team composed of two international consultants that was not gender-balanced. This may have resulted in more limited local contextual understanding. There is also a possible selection bias associated with interviewees being provided by IP coordinators: This was mitigated by the addition of extra interviewees identified during fieldwork and from desk research. In addition, the Memphis project had ended 10 months prior to the evaluation, possibly impacting interviewees’ project recall. As noted in the Research Design Report shared with USAID prior to commencement of data collection, a general limitation is the reliance on a non-probabilistic purposive sampling approach, which does not permit the use of in-depth statistical inferential analysis. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 8 REPORT STRUCTURE This report first provides background on the economic and political environment for heritage tourism in Egypt. Second, for the MSCD project and then for CHTE, the report outlines findings, conclusions and recommendations organized by evaluation question. As per USAID guidance and to reduce repetition, the report treats the four high-level EQ topics as organizational guideposts and provides findings and conclusions for sub-questions under the larger discussion, as appropriate. Finally, the report offers additional observations for specific use by USAID (p. 30) to improve future programming of similar scope and context. Annexes outline further details of the SOW, USAID guidelines and the evaluation process and findings. BACKGROUND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT FOR CULTURAL TOURISM IN EGYPT ECONOMIC SITUATION According to IP documents, secondary data sources, and in-depth interviews with sector stakeholders, the enabling environment for tourism2 in Egypt has been gravely impacted by instability since 2011. There were some positive signs for tourism in 2013 and 2014 before a relapse in 2015. The flotation of the Egyptian pound (EGP) in November 2016 made Egypt much more competitive, with continued destination marketing3 and a downturn in reported political violence, a recovery became evident in 2017 and has since strengthened. Despite that, the devaluation of currency and ensuing inflationary pressures resulted in declines in the purchasing power of Egyptians. The Refreshed National Tourism Strategy (2013) seeks to achieve 20 million visitors by the year 2020 (the 2010 peak was 14.7 million, largely driven by beach tourism).4 Press reports suggest that tourism may reach 12 million in 2018. 5 According to the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) the total contribution of travel and tourism to Egypt’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017 was EGP 374.6bn ($21.1bn), 11.0% of GDP. This is forecast to rise by 3.8% in 2018, and to rise by 4.5% pa to EGP 601.9bn ($633.9bn), to form 11.1% of GDP by 2028. 7 In terms of competitiveness (one of two key objectives of SITE), the World Economic Forum (WEF) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 20178 defines competitiveness in tourism as “the set of factors and policies that enable the sustainable development of the travel and tourism sector, which in turn, contributes to the development and competitiveness of a country”. The WEF report sets benchmarks for 2 Definitions applied regarding tourism are those defined by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in UNWTO (1995) Concepts, Definitions, and Classifications for Tourism Statistics. Madrid. 3 Reda, L. (2018) Bringing Tourists Back: A look at initiatives and policies launched. In: EGYPT TODAY, March 5, 2018 (electronic). Available at (accessed 07.20.2018). J Walter Thompson’s award-winning global campaign #thisisegypt was launched by the Egyptian Tourism Authority (ETA) in December 2015. 4 ENCC (2013) Refreshed Tourism Strategy 2013-2020: The Way Forward and New Horizons. USAID Egypt’s Competitiveness Program (ECP) contract no. EMM-I-12-07-0000 5 Mohamad, R (2018) Tourists visiting Egypt to reach 12 million in 2018: Travco Chairman. In: EGYPT TODAY Saturday March 10, 2018. (electronic). Available at (accessed 07.20.2018) 6 Oxford Business Group (n/d) Egypt sees growth in visitor numbers and tourism revenue. Electronic. Available at: (accessed 07.20.2018). 7 WTTC (2018) Travel & Tourism: Economic Impact Egypt 2018. London. Available at www.wttc.org (accessed 08.27.2018) 8 WEF (2018) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017. Available at (accessed 08.20.2018) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 9 key areas such as the overall enabling environment, policy prioritization for tourism, infrastructure and natural and cultural resources. Overall, Egypt scores poorly (74th out of 136 countries), well behind its major regional competitors, for cultural and beach tourism, Turkey (44th) and Greece (24th). Egypt’s ranking has, however, improved slightly since 2014, when it ranked 83rd out of 141 countries.9 Egypt continues to be one of the world's most price-competitive destinations (2nd out of 136 countries in 2017, after Iran and followed by Malaysia), scores well on cultural resources (22nd), and has eased its visa policy substantially (51st). Still, security concerns remain the largest challenge (130th of 136). Areas where there is considerable scope for improvement include international openness (102nd), human resources (also 102nd), tourist service infrastructure (93rd), and business enabling environment (87th). Figure 1 illustrates this. Source: WEF (2018) To preserve cultural resources in the long run, they must be put to sustainable use, and they must also be organized to meet environmental and social standards. In terms of competitiveness, products in cultural tourism must standout for their high degree of expertise, meticulousness and imagination, and be delivered with a whole panoply of quality background services.10 The links between tourism and culture offer an immense opportunity to contribute to inclusive economic growth, social development and stability and heritage preservation, but only if they work together.11 The second SITE objective was to “provide employment” during the economic downturn. The GOE’s response was to stimulate domestic tourism as a means of keeping the industry going.12 USAID, on the 9 WEF (2016) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2015. Available at (accessed 08.20.2018) 10 UNWTO (2018) Tourism and Culture Synergies. Madrid. 11 Rifai, T. (2015) Opening Speech by Secretary-General, UNWTO. Joint conference between UNWTIO and UNESCO on tourism and culture, Siem Reap, Cambodia, February 4, 2015. 12 The government launched an initiative called Egypt in our Hearts in 2016 following a series of negative international travel advisories. Through the scheme, Egyptians were eligible to receive discounts on tickets for major tourism sites. EgyptAir also supported the initiative. The state-owned airline was offering four-day trips including flights and accommodation starting at EGP 990 ($65.22) for three-star lodging, EGP 1095 ($72.14) for four-star hotels, and EGP 1350 ($88.94) for five-star accommodation. FIGURE 1: WEF GLOBAL TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS REPORT 2017 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 10 other hand, focused on applications from United States/international archaeological organizations, which proposed to provide temporary jobs for workers on archaeological sites in Luxor and Mit Rahina. Travel and tourism generated 1,099,000 jobs directly in 2017 (3.9% of total employment) and this is forecast to grow to 4.0% in 2018 and to 1,143,000 (3.9% of total employment). 13 This includes employment by hotels, travel agents, airlines and other passenger transportation services (excluding commuter services). It also includes, for example, the activities of the restaurant and leisure industries directly supported by tourists. The 2014 figure was 1,322,500 jobs (5.2% of total employment). 14 Egyptian monuments and antiquities are reported to require close to a total of 40,000 workers to maintain.15 In 2018, Minister of Antiques Khaled Alanany stated that there were 230 archeological missions working in Egypt.16 CULTURAL TOURISM Revenue streams for both the MOA and Ministry of Tourism (MOT) were adversely impacted by the downturn in international arrivals after 2011, and the cultural heritage sector in particular has been severely challenged by lack of resources as well as by increased looting and theft. Many important sites formerly open to visitors remain closed. Tourism arrivals to Egypt have been volatile during the period under review. In 2018, they are seeing a strong recovery. Source: /Central Bank of Egypt The MOA operates some 115 ticketed pharaonic sites (including combined tickets). Tourist ticket prices (for foreigners) range between EGP 400 ($22.37) for the Great Pyramid to EGP 20 ($1.12) for smaller sites, with discounted prices for Egyptians and students. Entrance to Karnak costs EGP 120 ($6.71) with a secondary ticket sold to visit inner areas (e.g. the Karnak Open-air Museum). 17 According to direct consultations with relevant ministries, Egypt lacks a published strategy for heritage under the care of the 13 WTTC (2018). 14 WTTC (2016) Travel & Tourism: Economic Impact Egypt 2018. London. Available at www.wttc.org (accessed 08.27.2018). 15 Bluffenstein, A (2017) Drop in Tourism Hinders Restoration Efforts in Egypt. (Electronic). Available at: (accessed 07.20.2018). 16 ETA (2018) Press release April 24, 2018. Available at http://www.egypt.travel/en/news (accessed 08.09.2018) 17 MOA (2017) Newsletter of the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities. Issue 19, December 2017. Available at: accessed 07.22.2018. FIGURE 2: EGYPT TOURISM ARRIVALS 2013-2018 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 11 MOA (the ministry’s plans are secret), nor is there a strategy specifically for cultural tourism from the MOT. In 2013, USAID assisted the MOT to develop a refreshed tourism strategy, updating the pre-revolution MOT National Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2008-2020. The 2013 update does not outline a vision built around cultural tourism,18 but it does set some tourism heritage objectives in very general terms, as follows: To conserve and present the full range of the rich heritage of Egypt for the enjoyment and education of citizens, residents and visitors. This includes urban heritage, historical sites, social heritage, way of life, music, literature, poetry, legends, stories, and oral tradition. To present Egypt’s great culture and heritage resource in innovative ways that allow for the optimum engagement and enjoyment by the national public and visitors. To use tourism as a catalyst to support the preservation, presentation, and revitalization of Egypt’s Heritage, Culture, and Traditions. To demonstrate to the population the economic and social value of preserving and showcasing the heritage and culture of Egypt.19 The strategy calls on the MOT to establish technical groups with the MOA and the Ministry of Culture (MOC) in relation to visitor experiences at sites that require creative innovation to enhance the presentation of heritage and culture. The strategy states that the priority project must be the Pyramids of Giza, which must become a first-class visit experience.20 The 2008 National Sustainable Tourism Strategy was more focused on culture and highlighted key sector issues that need to be addressed to attract more cultural tourists, as follows: SECTOR CHARACTERISTICS SECTOR NEEDS PRODUCT AVAILABLE One/two weeks High spending High use of tourism plant. Low repeat business (global travelers). Low impact on environment. W Europe/ worldwide Generally visiting multiple sites around the country Accessible top-class cultural attractions Well-presented interpretation High quality guides Range of serviced accommodation Good air access close to attractions. Evening facilities Dining facilities Nile cruises Little presentation and over crowding Inadequate interpretation. Good quality guide service Bottlenecks occurring Airports in Cairo, Luxor and Aswan Generally adequate Generally adequate Number of cruise boats being restricted because of congestion. Long cruise remains suspended 18 Vision: “Egypt will be one of the world’s foremost diversified, differentiated and vibrant destinations for leisure and special interest tourism where history, landscape and sunshine fuse with the cultures of Europe, Arabia, Asia and Africa to create unique visitor experiences.” 19 ENCC (2013). 20 Consultations with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) indicate that major changes are underway at the northern (Giza) end of the site, with a new entrance and orientation center under construction, and with the Japanese-supported Grand Egyptian Museum taking shape. Source: MOT (2008) National Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2008-2020, Volume 1: Existing conditions and capacities USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 12 CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM IN EGYPT (ARCE): FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1: What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? a) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? b) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? FINDINGS Luxor IP reports illustrate that works on Khonsu Temple on the East Bank of Luxor improved significantly. Khonsu is a beautiful example of an almost complete New Kingdom temple. The work under this USAID project is a continuation of a long-term MOA project within the pay perimeter of the Karnak Temple complex and in turn within the World Heritage Site of Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis (inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] in 1979). 21 The IP has conducted training, cleaning and conservation work in the beautifully decorated room shrines here and has improved their lighting in an innovative and sustainable way. Consultations with MOA staff, tour operators and tour guides, however, indicate that due to its location, Khonsu Temple is rarely visited by tourists, though it does have the potential to be visited more if promoted and/or if established tour routings were to be changed. On the West Bank, in the Tombs of the Nobles area, IP evidence shows that access to tombs has been improved through the construction of a substantial stone staircase/flash flood spillway and other access paths.22 An area has been excavated to give entry to the Tomb of Djehuti23 (TT110) and nearby tombs. The staircase runs up from a group of eight alabaster showrooms, which have also been visually improved (exterior plastering). Through the construction of the stone staircase tourists, security staff, archaeologists and other researchers as well as MOA have better access. Seating and shade areas have been provided. Google Earth data and IP reports show significant improvements in terms of removing derelict building remains, improving the visual appearance and security site lines on the West Bank. Discussions with MOA suggest that the current interventions were in Dra Abu ’l-Naga and Qurnet Mara’I are a replication of previous USAID social support through temporary job creation under the same IP in Qurna. According to the project documentation, and verified through the international team members’ field visits, TT110 conservation has been completed (a continuation of a previous project) and the tomb was opened by the minister of antiquities on May 13, 2016. 24 Two other small but very beautiful tombs have been conserved and made ready for public access. With very low ceilings, these are fragile and would require 21 accessed 09.04.2018 22 Not a wheelchair ramp due to the steep incline and the need to avoid archaeological remains. 23 Djehuti is an important figure from Pharaonic history, having been a senior official to two remarkable “kings “, the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and her successor Tuthmosis III. 24 The MOA tickets West Bank tombs in variable bundles of three, depending on staffing and conservation needs. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 13 close visitor management to ensure protection. Like all painted tombs, they require close visitor management to ensure protection. The Luxor sites form part of the enlisted World Heritage Site of Ancient Thebes and its Necropolis. Details of how the individual sites will fit into overall management plans for Karnak (Khonsu Temple) and for the West Bank are lacking. Consultations with UNESCO and tourism interests indicate that a key challenge impacting tourism and heritage site conservation is weak site management/visitor management. According to KIIs with IPs and MOA representatives, the IP has not assisted MOA to focus on this critical issue for conservation. Training for MOA on visitor management and carrying capacities were not part of the project. Consultations with the IP’s site manager indicated that visitor management is seen as the MOA’s responsibility. Detailed records of archaeological finds during the Luxor West Bank projects have been kept and are currently being digitized by the IP. In terms of conservation methods applied, in some cases, standard international conservation procedures were not followed/documented in the project conservation reports (e.g. experimental studies, analysis and examination processes). A review of the project documents and reports in comparison to international standards (a full list of references is provided in Annex 3), some materials used for consolidation and their combination with other materials as listed in the project reports may have been unsuitable for application to the murals, especially given the sensitive conditions of the sites (e.g. limewater, Paraloide 44, Paraloide B72, Acrill 3, Plextol P500, Estil 1000). In addition, project documentation and observations of the evaluation team provide no evidence of a protection system inside Khonsu Temple to protect mural paintings from visitors, e.g. glass panels, protective walkways, handrails. According to follow-up consultations with the IP, ARCE proposed protections system to the MOA but they were rejected. In relation to the IP consultations process, at the time of the evaluation there was no evidence in project documentation examined that comprehensive community work was carried out as part of cultural heritage management planning prior to the project. The main consultation was with MOA personnel. In addition, there is no evidence of a stakeholder analysis for Khonsu temple, or the West Bank interventions: The IP notes that they have been working in Luxor for many years and are familiar with stakeholders. Most of the community engagement on the West Bank was done under theme of “job creation” rather than through a proper plan for cultural heritage engagement. According to KIIs with MOA, MOT, and IP, the MOT and tourism companies were not consulted on the effect of works in Khonsu on the touristic experience in the temple, or about the activities on the West Bank. However, it is noted that the final report on the Dra Abu el Naga site improvement was recently submitted and details of the community work carried out with families that resided in the area is documented. The IP has not engaged an independent academic authority to advise on the archaeological work and excavation in this phase of the ongoing project, although all work was approved by MOA. The UNESCO Regional Bureau was not consulted or advised about the project by MOA or the IP, despite being a World Heritage Site (KII with UNESCO). In follow-up consultations with the IP, the implementing partner clarifies that excavation did not take place at any of the Luxor sites under this grant agreement. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 14 Sohag According to academic publications,25 the church of Saints Bishai and Bigol, known as the Red Monastery, was an important center for ascetic life in Upper Egypt in the 5th century A.D. Its superb and unique Coptic murals in the Byzantine jeweled style were restored with USAID support over the decade from 2003 to 2013. In 2014, work on the ruin of the basilica church (the nave) continued: This is of later date than the sanctuary triconch.26 The nave had been cleared of mud-brick dwellings in the 20th century;27 it also contains some important murals, which have now been exposed. Under this intervention, most of nave murals have been restored, the nave area has been repaved and its remaining column shafts and capitals re-erected. The project reports detail the changes that have taken place, verified by the evaluation team members’ visit and observations of the site: The floor of the nave has been paved in limestone and columns re-erected to indicate the basilica church structure. The style of the restoration is robust, repurposing the nave area as a pleasant courtyard where visitors can gather, the community can meet with monks, and where religious services can take place. A flexible space for religious, community and possible tourism use has been created adjacent to the sanctuary. The ground floor of the tower has been repurposed for small receptions and display and its upper stories restored as a monk’s cell. The tower itself has been given a somewhat obtrusive modern roof, but this is reversible. An issue regarding toilet provision for a resident monk is still to be resolved. A display of archaeological finds is presented beside the Chapel of the Virgin, and some in the adjoining tower. The project report shows that in terms of conservation of murals, there is a clear scientific methodology to the selection of cleaning materials in the Red Monastery and applying them with high quality. Some concerns arose regarding the conservation and protection of the mural paintings in the nave. These relate to analysis and examination processes, experimental studies on the consolidation materials and the use of Paraloide B72 in acetone as consolidation material. The IP reported raising this matter with the Italian team of conservators. During the earlier 2003-2012 conservation, the De Cesaris conservation team peformed scientific analyses to identify the main original components to select the mortars There was a delay in installing a protective structure above the murals, owing to lack of agreement with the MOA and church authorities. The shading to cover the mural was part of the IP’s original design and was allocated funding. Implementation was negotiated with the GOE several times; however, the IP did not receive an approval. Annex 5 provides further detail. According to KIIs with the IP, the religious community and Coptic Church site management in Sohag and KII with the MOT in Sohag, continuous consultation with the religious community and some of their congregation took place at the Red Monastery. However, the tourism industry in Sohag and Luxor has not been effectively engaged (other than a tour guides’ familiarization). 25 For example: Bolman, S. ed. (2016) The Red Monastery: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. ARCE, Yale. 26 Literally ‘three conches’: A trefoil shaped domed building-style uniquely surviving from Byzantine Egypt. 27 Bolman (2016) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 15 CONCLUSIONS Luxor C1.1: Luxor interventions continued cleaning/conservation works on Khonsu Temple (East Bank) that started prior to the project. The project improved the visual and security environment in parts of the West Bank, provided improved pedestrian access to part of the Tombs of the Nobles area, and conserved and made accessible three tombs for possible public viewing. C1.2: Some of the conservation procedures at Khonsu Temple and the Theban Necropolis tombs were not in accordance with current international best practice. C1.3: The extent of project consultations was insufficient (limited to the MOA in the Luxor sites and not sufficiently engaged with tourism (local and national interests). Sohag C1.4: The restoration under this project is robust, repurposing the area as a courtyard where visitors can gather and for religious services to be conducted. C1.5: There is a clear scientific methodology to the selection of cleaning materials in the Red Monastery and applying them with high quality. C1.6: Some decisions regarding important conservation issues were not agreed in advance with the MOA, in particular, agreeing how the nave murals uncovered were to be protected once exposed. RECOMMENDATIONS R1.1: For similar future projects, a memorandum of understanding between the MOA and prospective IPs should be concluded regarding anticipated methods, protective measures and future site management needs. R1.2: A wider consultation approach involving multiple stakeholders represents best practices and is specifically required by USAID sustainability guidelines: USAID should require wider consultations as part of future projects. R1.3: To increase community engagement, publications and media releases in Arabic, designed for the local community about restoration projects, should be produced. Future community work should be carried out based on a clear philosophy of collaborative activities, R1.4: In the case of Luxor, the IP could more clearly demonstrate international best practices regarding cultural heritage management planning and delivery. IPs engaged in conservation need to ensure that experimental studies regarding conservation methods are made clear and stated in the final academic report and comprehensive technical publications for the scientific community should be produced (it is noted that these may yet be forthcoming following the close of the project). The IP should continue to ensure that wideacademic consultation takes place and is documented to ensure that current best practices are always applied in conservation projects. R1.5: The MOA should ensure the construction of shading to protect frescos on exterior walls from direct sunlight and other damage. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 16 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? (Training included: site management by AERA; conservation, archeological, photography field schools, and Microsoft by ARCE.) Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. a) To what extent, if any, have the training and capacity-building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? (i.e., confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; and share what they have learned with other colleagues.) FINDINGS In both Luxor and Sohag, trainings were built around the conservation needs of the sites (trainees were enabled to take part in the various conservation practices applied under close supervision) and so were effective in helping to deliver the physical improvements planned. The training provided was quite distinct between Sohag and Luxor and involved different tutors. In Luxor, the training was provided by ARCE experts, specifically on conservation. In Sohag, the training was not limited to conservation but also included training on community heritage awareness and community interaction. The training in Sohag was provided by Italian mural experts in addition to other technical experts and a national cultural heritage expert focusing on community engagement and awareness. The online trainees’ assessment indicated a very high level of satisfaction with the overall training program (94.1% in Luxor, 95.9% in Sohag). Further detail is outlined at Annex 6. In both Luxor and Sohag, there was almost full agreement that equal training opportunities were provided for men and women (94.1% in Luxor, 95.8% in Sohag). Trainees in Luxor were also in full agreement aspect regarding the usefulness of the training program in improving job performance (97.0%). On a Likert 4% n=1 54% n=13 42% n=10 Figure 3a: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Training Program(s) in Sohag Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 2% n=1 3% n=1 21% n=7 74% n=25 Figure 3b: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Training Program(s) in Luxor Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 17 Scale, males scored (4.12 in Luxor, 3.97 in Sohag) out of 5 and females scored (4.20 in Luxor, 4.02 in Sohag) out of 5, on average, which implies good satisfaction levels. Equal training opportunities were provided for both men and women Helped with professional development Helped to improve job performance Training materials were comprehensive Highly knowledgeable trainers 38% 21% 33% 21% 29% 58% 38% 50% 63% 54% 16% 17% 8% 17% 21% 0% 4% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% Figure 4a: Distribution of Sohag's Trainees Based on Their Agreement with Select Aspects of Training Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Equal training opportunities were provided for both men and women Helped with professional development Helped to improve job performance Training materials were comprehensive Highly knowledgeable trainers 50% n=17 21% n=7 74% n=25 32% n=11 41% n=14 44% n=15 47% n=16 24% n=8 44% n=15 32% n=11 21% n=7 12% n=4 15% n=5 3% n=1 11% n=4 12% n=4 6% n=2 3% n=1 2% n=1 6% n=2 Figure 4b: Distribution of Luxor's Trainees Based on Their Agreement with Select Aspects of Training Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 18 In Luxor, it was found that not all of the 88 trainees completed all the modules conducted in the project period from 2015 to 2018. Only 42 trainees have completely attended all the modules; consisting of 30 males (71%) and 12 females (29%). Additional training in Sohag is scheduled to take place between October and December 2018. Trainees were asked if the ARCE training program had provided them with the skills to work with other international archeological missions. Results show that almost half of the trainees in Sohag (54%) had worked with other international archaeological missions. A slightly higher percentage regarding this further work was observed among females (60% versus 50% for males). Trainees were asked to state only one of the training workshops they considered to be the most relevant to their jobs at the ministry. There was a strong agreement that the conservation workshop was the most relevant in both Sohag and Luxor (88% and 91%, respectively). Trainees considered trainers knowledgeable on their subjects, however, the extent to which trainers were considered knowledgeable differed slightly between the two locations, according to the survey: Location % Strongly agree % Agree % Neutral % Disagree % Strongly Disagree Sohag (n=48) 29.1 54.2 16.7 - - Luxor (n=34) 41.2 32.4 14.7 5.9 5.8 Training materials were well received: 83.3% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the training materials in Sohag were comprehensive, and 76.5% thought likewise in Luxor. In addition, the usefulness of the training in Luxor was particularly appreciated: One-third of trainees in Sohag strongly felt it would improve their job performance, whereas in Luxor the rating was much higher (73.5%). Overall, trainees and MOA representatives were confident that they acquired adequate operational skills, although putting them into practice is highly dependent on availability of resources (for example tools needed such as mortars and pigments). Comprehensive and well-prepared individual assessment of the trainees (trainers’ perspectives) were conducted regularly. The assessments provide detailed evaluation of different skill levels, strengths and weaknesses of trainees. Training performance of MOA employees could be integrated with the MOA’s new (2017) Training Department in the future. Consultations with the IP indicate that in the Tombs of the Nobles area, particularly challenging conservation sites were allocated to the project by MOA, giving trainees excellent experience in managing conservation challenges (such as collapsing ceilings, flaking murals, tombs filled with debris, smoke damage and consolidation challenges). Consultations also indicate that training in general site management and visitor management was not a substantial element of the training programs overall, although they are critical to site conservation. Female employees have been empowered through the program and reported that they were treated equally to men. Female volunteers in Sohag (n = 6), however, expressed disillusionment rather than empowerment regarding their training. They expected training to result in employment, but this did not happen. The majority agreed that the training they received increased their self-confidence and their ability to deal with various job responsibilities. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 19 CONCLUSIONS C2.1: High satisfaction levels were demonstrated with regards to the provided training programs, in terms of content, format, sufficiency, and quality. C2.2: The training had a positive impact on the trainees’ knowledge and performance, although impact on career development is dependent on availability of resources and opportunities. C2.3: Trainees considered conservation workshops to be the most relevant in Sohag and Luxor (88% and 91%, respectively). However, general site management and visitor management were not a substantial element of the training programs overall, although they are critical to site conservation. According to follow-up consultations with the IP, only training on conservation and photography was agreed with MOA and USAID. C2.4: The training management currently lacks a digitally documented monitoring and evaluation process to support training impact and future training needs, to be tracked by MOA’s Training Department. C2.5: Female employees have been empowered through the program and reported that they were treated with equal consideration to men. RECOMMENDATIONS R2.1: The newly established training department at the MOA provides an opportunity for applying training materials and utilizing the knowledge and expertise of the field school participants for re-training other groups of MOA conservators and inspectors. The IP should consider engaging with the training department through the provision of training materials and direct technical assistance to the MOA training department. IPs should ensure that MOA and other entities working on the site have access to the training materials to ensure the continued and repeated benefit of the training investment. R2.2: The IP, in collaboration with MOA training department, needs to administer a more formalized TOT which could be developed to build the capacity of field schools’ participants as trainers (e.g. trainer modules developed, participants to train other groups under the master trainers’ supervision). In this project, TOT was limited within the MSCD because of the restrictions on community outreach activities. R2.3: The IPs needs to consider provision of further training on general site management and visitor management, which are critical to conservation as well as visitor satisfaction. R2.4: In future projects, the IPs need to develop more thorough, documented monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems overall. R2.5: The IP should also make the training material, especially on community engagement, available for use by local NGOs and schools. It is reinterated that under this project the IP was constrained from conducting community outreach activities. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE). For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 20 FINDINGS Two thirds of interviewed workers in Luxor-TTS (n=10) were satisfied with the wages they received during implementation of the interventions; i.e., EGP 32/day (US$ 4.2) from March 2015 through March 2017 and EGP 40/day (US$ 2.3) from April through June 2017. On the other hand, another group of workers who participated in a GD in Luxor- Qurna (n=5) reported that a EGP 60-70 /day (US$ 7.9 – 9.2) wage would have been fair in March 2015. Workers noted that the IP provided medical insurance to workers, along with immediate medical attention for minor injuries and paid daily wages for lost work days due to injury. Given the fact that the minimum wage rate in Egypt (since 2014) is EGP 1200/month (US$ 157.9), based on a five-day work week, the wage rate paid to the project’s workers throughout March 2015-2017 amounts to 65% of the minimum wage rate at the national level. This percentage increases to 83% with the EGP 40 wage paid from April to June 2017. Group discussions with workers on the Luxor West Bank (n=5) revealed that they had some experience making mud bricks prior to the project (2013 - 2015), and that they are now more professional regarding preparation of clay and proper mud brick dimensions, however market demand for this product is very limited. All workers interviewed (n=5) worked 12 months from March 2015 through June 2017. However, none of the five workers has had a regular job in the last 12 to 14 months, despite some tourism recovery. The IP purchased services and supplies provided by a large number of large, medium and small vendors located in Egypt (secondary data provided by ARCE), which had additional economic impact during the downturn in tourism. The rais (foreman) estimates that the project has hired approximately 15% (n=450 of 3,000) of the eligible male workforce (not less than 16 and not more than 55 years of age) as unskilled workers on the project from the neighboring Qurna and al-Boiarat communities. This was validated through secondary data sources provided by ARCE. Wage earnings and vendors’ revenues had significant multiplier effects, as illustrated below28: TOTAL PAID TOTAL WITH MULTIPLIER EGP $ Equivalent EGP $ Equivalent LUXOR WORKERS 3,689,685 209,641 24,720,890 1,404,596 LUXOR VENDORS 4,972,368 429,917 21,910,248 1,903,605 TOTAL LE 8,886,610 $652,317 LE 48,286,015 $3,402,024 On November 3, 2016, the Central Bank of Egypt floated the Egyptian pound in an attempt to help stabilize the economy: A major devaluation took place, and since then inflationary pressures led to declines in 28 The Red Monastery data is not applicable to local community multiplier. Laborers were brought in by a subcontractor and they were mostly skilled workers and residing in another governorate USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 21 average purchasing powers of wages; however, Egypt has become significantly more competitive for exports (including inbound tourism). CONCLUSIONS C3.1: Wages paid to workers were lower than the market rate. This was counterbalanced by some job security while the project lasted and a reasonable level of benefits package. C3.2: Most workers interviewed demonstrated satisfaction with the fair treatment they received during the project. C3.3: Of the total investment of EGP 8.8 million ($500k29) in wages and supplies (approximately 12% of the total IP grant) resulted in an investment of EGP 48.3 million ($2.7 million) based on standard Egyptian multiplier rates). C3.4: The project provided temporary employment during a period of instabilitity in visitor numbers but has not significantly enhanced workers’ job prospects. After November 2016, tourism was more competitive due to the devaluation of the Egyptian pound. RECOMMENDATIONS R3.1: USAID should ensure that IPs pay workers at least the national minimum wage. R3.2: IPs and USAID need to consider permanent rather than temporary job creation as a focus for future tourism interventions. Opportunities for creating permanent jobs exist, for example, relating to at least crafts and catering in the recovering and more price-competitive tourism economy of Egypt. R.3.3 For economic development, greater sustainability comes from working to create full-time jobs in crafts, education and tourism enterprise through integrated regional approaches. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. FINDINGS Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable. Impact refers to the positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. 30 Khonsu Temple is an integral part of the World Heritage Site of Ancient Thebes with its Acropolis, and within the Karnak complex of temples, one of Egypt’s most visited heritage tourism sites. The Government of Egypt is accountable to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for its conservation as part of the universal heritage of mankind. Of the three restored tombs, one (TT110) is now open. Its sustainability is dependent on the MOA’s 29 Base on a 1US$=17.6 EGP exchange rate/ 30 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) [1991] Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris. Available at: < http://www.oecd.org> (accessed 09.20.2018) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 22 ability to protect it from natural and touristic damage. Documented studies regarding carrying capacity have not been undertaken under this intervention, however, according to interviews with MOA and IPs, MOA can decide to close tombs to let the tombs rest, substituting other accessible tombs in its three￾tomb ticketing system: This is a sustainable approach if well-managed. It was observed that the Red Monastery intervention provides a flexible space that will continue to be used by the Coptic community and is available for tourists. Church services in the monastery complex are attended by large numbers of pilgrims from all over Egypt.31 Consultations indicate that the IP has trained church workers in the responsible maintenance of the nave, and there is a long-term plan (developed under previous interventions) that may guide future operations. The team was advised that efforts are being made to address environmental issues, in particular measures to reduce ground water, which is linked to a termite problem. It was observed that guard rails, Perspex protections sand some signage have been installed to control visitor flows in the project’s accessible tombs. Moisture-monitoring equipment has also been installed at some sites. In overall terms, however, the IP has stated that visitor management is MOA’s responsibility, and there has not been a significant focus on it as part of conservation planning under this project. Based on the references reviewed for the evaluation and the team’s experience, the team’s conservation experts expressed some concerns regarding the sustainability of conservation practices being applied. All the consolidation materials used are polymers that have an expiration date, so they lose their properties and therefore require future interventions for the consolidation process. Some erroneous applications and misuse of consolidation materials make these materials ineffective in performing their functions. In addition, the mortars used consisted of natural materials that are affected by deterioration factors, therefore requiring future interventions for the completion process. Further details can be found in Annex 5. Environmentally friendly lighting has been installed in the Khonsu chapels and provide an innovative and less intrusive solution to floor-based strip lighting; however, the lack of protection for the wall murals (endangered by touching, flash-photography, graffiti and over-crowding) other than guard supervision - notoriously poor in Egypt - is a sustainability concern. In addition, observations of the West Bank site and document review indicate that the environmentally friendly solar lighting (with an innovative fan system to blow off dust) has been installed near the restored tombs. The MOA has expressed some doubts about its ability to maintain this, however. According to project report and KIIs with site management, IP, and tourism interests, tourism impact has been undermined by insufficient communication with the MOT and the Egyptian Tourism Authority (its marketing body) at both the national and governorate levels. Some (limited) training of Luxor-based tour guides took place for the Red Monastery. In addition, there has been no effective engagement with tour operators or the local tourism industry. This is a significant weakness. The restorations themselves, however, will have some tourism impact if the news of the project works (and the opening of the sites for tourists) is promoted. There is little evidence of this to date, and neither the IP nor the MOA has developed a marketing strategy for publicizing the sites. For example, the only direct reference to Khonsu Temple on the popular travel website TripAdvisor32 is as follows: Hi everybody, I was wondering if somebody knows if the sanctuary of the temple of Khonsu inside the temple complex of Karnak is open for visitors? I know the temple itself is, but the sanctuary was not on my previous visits. As the decorations in those rooms are amazing, I would love to see them with my own eyes. (TripAdvisor; January 15, 2018). 31 Bolman, S. ed. (2016) The Red Monastery: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. ARCE. Yale. 32 (accessed August 27, 2018). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 23 This does, however, show latent demand potential. Of the CHTE sites that can currently be visited, TripAdvisor gives the Red Monastery a five-star rating (85% of reviews rate it as excellent and 15% as very good): I think “so beautiful" would be the first words everyone who visits this monastery would say, as you would be surrounded with vivid colours from everywhere, rich history and a clear feeling of spirituality, this monastery should be added to everyone's itinerary (TripAdvisor review, April 18, 2018). It is noted that the IP’s grant agreement did not require enagement with the MOT, only with the MOA. However, we understand that, since the project, ARCE has entered talks with MOT to work on better engagement with the tourism authority and promoting Khonsu to some bloggers. TT110 has not yet been reviewed on TripAdvisor. Consultations do indicate that the Red Monastery has the potential to attract significant numbers of domestic tourists due to its spiritual significance in the Coptic Church. Some international tourists may be attracted by the restored murals and both groups will use the nave area. It is worth noting that the IP’s grant agreement did not require enagement with the MOT. Proposals for a new tourist road to Abydos will link the monastery to its mother foundation (the White Monastery) and Sohag. The team noted that development of areas with attractions (rather than attractions alone) is more likely to have an impact on tourism. Consultations with members of the tourism industry indicate that opening new tombs can attract a specialist audience, particularly from the resident expatriate segment of the domestic tourism market. It was, however, also noted by a leading Luxor hotel that the opening of some of the West Bank’s most spectacular tombs to the general public as part of Karnack’s World Capital of Tourism year in 2015 did not result in increased demand. All Luxor sites are within the World Heritage Site of Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis. The Government of Egypt is obliged to protect its World Heritage Sites, respecting their outstanding universal value (OUV). A long-term management plan for Luxor is a requirement of the World Heritage Site management process but is not currently in place, according to UNESCO. Many consultees noted that a key challenge impacting tourism and heritage site conservation is weak site management and visitor management by the MOA. The IP has not significantly assisted the MOA to focus on these critical issues in Luxor. At the Red Monastery, however, there is a long-term plan (developed under previous interventions), which may guide future operations. CONCLUSIONS C4.1: While future interventions cannot be predicted, the trainings given and the role of the MOA as statutory guardians of the sites should help ensure future sustainability. C4.2: The Luxor sites are within the enlisted World Heritage Sites; therefore, additional inspections, planning documentation and oversight from UNESCO should apply. C4.2 Poor visitor management by MOA is widely stated by the interviewed stakeholders as a concern and threatens these and other fragile heritage sites. C4.3: The Red Monastery nave project has multiple functions and should be sustainable. It also adds to the site’s tourism potential. Proposed improved access is also a key consideration, C4.54: A major factor impacting future sustainability of all sites is weak visitor management. As UNESCO has noted inadequate or poorly managed tourism is one of the biggest threats to heritage, and this especially applies fragile tomb interiors and irreplaceable painted murals. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 24 RECOMMENDATIONS R4.1 In future project designs, USAID and IPs should give greater emphasis to assisting MOA towards better visitor management at heritage sites. Strengthening the MOA’s Site Management Department presents an opportunity, as does the development of Management Plans for World Heritage Sites. R4.2: In future project designs, USAID should ensure that IPs engage in effective consultation with the tourism industry and the MOT before and during all tourism-related projects. R4.3 In future project designs, USAID should consider encouraging more inclusive, destination-wide tourism strategy support in Sohag and Luxor provinces, rather than focusing solely on selected potential visitor attractions.33 33 For example, USAID/Jordan has supported the drafting of tourism development strategies for parts of Jordan such as Aqaba, the Petra Region and other sub-regions. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 25 MEMPHIS, EGYPT’S ANCIENT CAPITAL; A PLAN FOR SITE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (AERA): FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1: What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? a) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? b) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? FINDINGS The project conducted ample baseline studies, a GIS archive, infrastructure survey and a visitor survey. Their design followed international standards for cultural heritage management. The risk assessment and environmental impact studies show a clear understanding of the natural and human threats to the site. However, there is not a clear strategy on communicating to stakeholders as to how these threats can be mitigated sustainably (e.g. ground-water causing repeated growth of vegetation and residues, vehicle vibrations and refuse, garbage accumulation). The IP reports include before-and-after photographic documentation, which proves that renovations to the walking circuit in Memphis (specifically cleaning and removing vegetation, installing signs that include historical information, renovating the walking paths, installing benches and litterbins, and adding a box of children’s activity items) were undertaken as planned. According to project reports, the project risk assessment study, and interviews with MOA, tour guides, workers, and IPs, ground water remains the constant threat to the site. Any cleaning of the site or removal of vegetation is considered futile without a de-watering intervention: Indeed, it is a Sisyphean task. The IP reports, in addition to team observations on site, prove that the renovations to the Open-Air Museum at Memphis took place (specifically painting and fixing walls, installing signage including historical and archeological information, and posting an informational map). The pathways created were observed to be non-intrusive and integrate into the Memphite landscape. They mostly follow the existing desire￾lines (informal routes) already created by local residents. Although the Walking Circuit remains unopened since September 2017 when the intervention ended, the evaluation team’s visit to the Circuit proved that it includes rest stops and that the signage has taken into account “museum fatigue” (i.e. spacing between the information, walking and rests is adequate so the visitor has time to take in the archaeological landscape and reflect on the information). Publications produced by the project and reviewed allow access to knowledge about the site to various stakeholders. They provide a good model for community awareness-building at archaeological sites. The new signage and explanations of the Memphis Museum was inspected during the team’s field visit (together with some of the shrouded/boxed in signs on the [officially closed] Walking Circuit). These are in an educational style and appear robust, replaceable and well designed. Not all signs face away from the sun however; as a result, some fading may occur. Interviewed stakeholders (trainees, tour guides, site guard, MOA officials and UNESCO) positively commended the signage, map, and historical information specifically in the Open-Air Museum. Senior IP staff confirmed the team’s observation that the Walking Circuit is really for the person who is particularly interested in archaeology, not for the general tourist. In this regard, the information panels USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 26 may be a little too basic. However, they are an innovative improvement in an Egyptian context. The team’s review of documentation indicates that solid waste management procedures at the site were good for the duration of the project but need more creative solutions to guarantee sustainability. Regarding the consultation processes, according to project documentation and five in-depth interviews with IP staff, AERA faced constraints regarding community outreach. 34 This limited the project’s interventions to archeology and the project’s outreach to MOA alone. As a result of these restrictions, the community outreach component was not applied as planned, community engagement and local business development did not take place, and the project did not have the opportunity to collaborate with schools and NGOs. The IP indicated that it substituted additional training in community engagement for MOA instead. Outreach to tourism entities was also not undertaken for the same reason, although a modest tour guide familiarization did take place. Tourism businesses (accommodation) in the Memphis area consulted report very limited awareness of the project. CONCLUSIONS C1.1: The physical changes to the site were fully conducted as planned to improve physical attractiveness, visitor accessibility, and structural soundness. Despite that, the actual extent of changes was limited due to environmental and infrastructural issues and governmental decisions that lie outside the project scope, resources and decision-making ability (such as opening the sites for visitors). C1.2: The project conducted a comprehensive stakeholder analysis that identified adequately all parties, governmental and non-governmental, who may have a relational effect on physical interventions and site management. However, in many cases, the project was not able to coordinate or consult with many of the identified stakeholders (such as community leaders, tourism enterprises, local businesses or other NGOs) due to restrictions imposed by the MOA limiting the project’s outreach abilities. C1.3: The ground water in the area is a threat to this very important site. The constant regrowth of vegetation and residues of salt and oil will remain a threat to the monuments and remains of Memphis city without a dewatering project. The project’s actions regarding conservation and the impacts of the high￾water table, salination and flora are only temporary. RECOMMENDATIONS R.1.1: In future projects, IPs should ensure that prior agreements (formal Memoranda of Understanding) with MOA are in place to guarantee MOA’s commitment to future site management and maintenance, and the opening of the site to visitors. The agreements should include ongoing permission for community engagement, collaboration with different stakeholders and evaluation processes. R1.2: IPs engaging in similar projects involving community outreach and/or tourism need to take all the necessary permissions and plan for collaboration with relevant governmental and non-governmental entities to conduct the planned interventions (for example, other local NGOs for community engagement activities and the Ministry of Education (MoE) for school related activities and student engagement). 35 34 It was noted that the MOA does not have clear jurisdiction in dealing with communities, or economic development issues. It was also noted that AERA as a NGO, is registered under MOSS. 35 While the current restriction on NGO operations in Egypt are acknowledged, AERA might consider formally widening the scope of its operations to include working within communities on cultural heritage and to collaborating with other stakeholders as necessary. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 27 R1.3: Active engagement with the MOT, the tourism industry and governorate economic development interests should be a prerequisite for sustainable tourism projects. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? (Training included: site management by AERA; conservation, archeological, photography field schools, and Microsoft by ARCE.) Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. a) To what extent, if any, have the training and capacity-building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? (i.e., confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; and share what they have learned with other colleagues.) FINDINGS The team’s review of the training materials, field school reports and interviews with trainees and York University trainer prove that the training programs provided by AERA were considered good in terms of the technical aspects that are directly related to the nature and design of the project (i.e. cleaning, heritage, and community outreach). The topics covered were site management, heritage, media development, photography and engaging local communities. Excavation orientation was limited (one of 45 training days), due to the extreme difficulty of excavating a site with high groundwater. Despite the fact the project was unable to deal directly with the communities, the training materials relating to community engagement were comprehensive, clear, and could be used in the future through partnering with one of the local NGOs and schools. According to AERA records, the project provided 77 individuals with training divided over four field schools (FS) as follows: FS1 (15 participants, 19.5%, FS2 (17 participants, 22.1%), FS3 (22 participants, 28.6%), and FS4 (23 participants, 29.9%). These results show a steady increase in participation in the field schools among MOA conservators, which indicate 1) a gradual increase in opportunities for training and 2) increased interest among MOA conservators for participation in training. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 28 The increasing levels of interest among participants implied above indicate a high satisfaction level. This was reflected in the results of the online survey conducted with the trainees, where all respondents unanimously (100%) declared their satisfaction with the training. Results of the survey revealed that increasing motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies was the statement that received the highest agreement among trainees (92%), followed by improving the ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities (90%), and increasing self-confidence (86%). Improved technical capability to train colleagues Increase motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies Improve ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities Increase self-confidence Increase ability to innovate and contribute new ideas 70% n= 41 92% n= 54 90% n= 53 86% n= 51 78% n= 46 1% n= 1 29% n= 17 8% n= 5 10% n= 6 14% n= 8 22% n= 13 Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of MSCD Trainees by Their Level of Agreement on the Effect of Training on Their Professional Lives Yes No To Some Extent 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% % of Students in FS1 (n=15) % of Students in FS2 (n=17) % of Students in FS3 (n=22) % of Students in FS4 (n=23) 19.50% 22.10% 28.60% 29.90% Figure 5: Percentage Distribution of MSCD Field School Students By Season (Total n=77) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 29 There was no significant difference between males’ and females’ opinions on the impact of training. However, the results of the KIIs with IPs and York University trainers show an increased motivation among female trainees towards further studies and better career opportunities, requesting reference letters from trainers, seeking advice on studies and demonstrating higher interest in archaeology. According to online survey results, the training program was able to support women in pursuing additional training, tasks or studies (94.7%), increase their self-confidence (86.8%), effectively deal with different job responsibilities (84.2%), increase their ability to innovate and create new ideas (76.3%) and gain capabilities to train other colleagues (71.1%). Though the training was supportive of women, only 37.5% of them got the benefit of working with other international archeological missions as a result of the training (versus 76.2% of the males who got this benefit). The UNESCO Regional Bureau was not consulted about project design, despite it being within the World Heritage Site. However, UNESCO is aware of the project and reports positive feedback. CONCLUSIONS C2.1: The training provided (field schools) was highly satisfactory for recipients. C2.2: The training had a positive impact on the trainees' knowledge and performance. C2.3: Women were supported by training, but practical benefits to them are modest so far. RECOMMENDATIONS R2.1: IPs should ensure that the MOA and other entities working on the site have access to the training materials to ensure the continued and repeated benefit of the training investment. The MOA’s new Training Department is a key partner in this regard. R2.2: The IP should also make the training material, especially on community engagement, available for use by local NGOs and schools. R2.3: More formalized Training of Trainers in the future would also help ensure the availability of human resources needed for information sharing and reapplication of the training and sustainability. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE). For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? FINDINGS Two-thirds of the MSCD workers’ sample (n=15) stated that they gained higher skill levels as a result of their work on the project. About half (47%) of MSCD workers’ sample (n=15) expressed satisfaction with the contribution of their work on the project to a better quality of life for their households. An additional 20% of the sample had the same perception, albeit at a lower level of satisfaction. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 30 For those workers surveyed who got post-MSCD jobs elsewhere (n=10), only 30% were employed in tourism-related activities. Thirty percent of MSCD workers’ sample responding (n=10) reported that the experience they gained through their work on the project helped them find new jobs. Sixty percent of MSCD workers’ sample (n=15) reported that the wage levels they received throughout the project were “fair.” Respondents considering the project’s wages as “unfair” (n=6) estimated the fair wages to be EGP 100 (US$ 5.7) and EGP 300 (US$ 17) (by 83% and 17% of respondents respectively. Forty percent of the MSCD workers’ sample (n=15) confirmed insurance coverage throughout their work with the project. Types of insurance reported were health, social and safety insurance. Sixty percent of MSCD workers’ sample respondents (n=10) indicated that the wage levels in their new jobs are higher than the wages they received during the project. Workers engaged in site clearance were paid in the range of EGP 70-80. This is not below the national minimum wage. Throughout the period from September 2015 to September 2017, workers in AREA’s MSCD project received total wages (including benefits) of EGP 618,626. The multiplier effect of this amount is EGP 4,144,794 (the equivalent of US$ 391,495). All workers (unskilled workers) were residents in the project area (Mit Rahina/ Badrashin district). Accordingly, the direct benefits of the projects accrued to households in areas surrounding the project site. Considering the consumption pattern of the income stratum to which MSCD’s workers generally belong, the successive rounds of expenditure (reflecting the multiplier effect/indirect income benefits) are also assumed to have materialized mostly in the local community. However, on Nov. 3, 2016, the Central Bank of Egypt floated the Egyptian pound in an attempt to help stabilize the economy. A major devaluation took place, and since then inflationary pressures have resulted in declines in the purchasing power of wages. On the other hand, the devaluation has resulted in Egypt becoming significantly more competitive for exports (including inbound tourism). This may result in future opportunities for those with an entrepreneurial spirit and access to finance. CONCLUSIONS C3.1: The MSCD workers gained higher levels of experience throughout their work with the project, along with better quality of life for their households. 47% 20% 27% 7% Figure 7: Percentage Distribution of Memphis Site Workers' Opinions on how Wages Contribute to Life Quality Yes To some Extent No No Answer USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 31 C3.2: Despite the up-skilling results, the project’s work experience was not reflected in further (post￾MSCD) job opportunities with tourism-related activities, despite the return of growth to Egypt’s tourism sector. C3.3: MSCD workers demonstrate a moderate level of satisfaction with the wages they received during the project. In the meantime, no evidence is available about the methods used for wage determination by AERA. C3.4: The multiplier effect of the wages received by MSCD’s workers was significant for their local communities. C3.5: An adverse effect was triggered by the devaluation of the Egyptian Pound in November 2016 in which inflationary pressures led to declines in the purchasing power of workers’ wages. It is noted that wages were determined and budgeted in 2015 before the increase of prices and the EGP devaluation. RECOMMENDATIONS R3.1: USAID should consider the interventions aimed at creating long term employment rather than temporary jobs in future tourism interventions. Based on the evaluation team’s visit to the site and KIIs administered with the tourism industry surrounding the area (specifically hosting and workshops), opportunities for creating long term employment exist relating to crafts and catering around this highly visited small site (the Open-Air Museum). EVALUATION QUESTION 4: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. FINDINGS A review of documentation proved that the project conducted a comprehensive and detailed conservation assessment of the site that identified areas of risk and potential causes for deterioration of targeted sites. The Open-Air Museum attracts significant visitor numbers and has seen a significant increase in foreign visitors as Egypt’s tourism economy recovers. Visitor numbers increased by 80% overall in 2017 but are still below 2010 levels. MEMPHIS OPEN-AIR MUSEUM: NUMBER OF VISITORS (2013-2017) YEAR ADULTS (FOREIGN) STUDENTS (FOREIGN) ADULTS (EGYPTIAN) STUDENTS (EGYPTIAN) 2013 61,716 4,602 1,253 1,189 2014 44,367 3,359 1,470 6,42 2015 51,521 4,402 1,970 765 2016 71,233 4,613 1,659 895 2017 143,818 7,051 2,713 1,286 Source: MOA Mit Rahina However, the project is not responsible for increasing the number of visitors to the site, as this is largely controlled by tour operator itineraries (interviews with tour guides), nor was substantial marketing of the improvements carried out. The team did note that limited efforts had been made to market the improved USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 32 site (a tour guide awareness seminar and a public announcement, but no structured contacts with the MOT or the tourism industry). Planned community engagement was not carried out; this undermines sustainability. The MOA has not set an opening date for the Walking Trail (consultations with the MOA), and demand for it is likely to be limited to archaeology specialist interest visitors (consultations with IP). Its value as a site for training on visitor management challenges was, however, significant (consultations with IP and MOA). As described in the project reports and documentation, and as a result of almost all interviews and group discussions, there is a constant and repeated rise in ground-water with its effect on the status of the site (vegetation, residues, and microorganisms). In addition, the accumulation of garbage, encroachment and constant public access to the area remain a substantive threat to the site’s sustainability. Observations of evaluation team representatives on site indicate that the site cleaning and maintenance (especially related to modern garbage removal and vegetation) is not being carried out as recommended by AERA and negatively impacts the potential attractiveness of the Walking Circuit. CONCLUSIONS C4.1: The project provided a comprehensive risk assessment. While long-term and strategic solutions for addressing risks lie outside the project scope, some additional short-term and simple solutions could have been useful to mitigate the risks. C4.2: Community engagement has not been undertaken to any significant degree but is essential if locals are to value and care for heritage attractions. C4.3: The tourism potential of the site is a directly dependent on a new management approach and three factors in particular: 1) the opening of the sites beyond the Open-Air Museum to visitors, 2) regular cleaning and maintenance of the site, and 3) the close coordination with the tourism industry on the inclusion of the site in tour designs and site marketing. None of these things has been actioned to date. However, it is noted that AERA delivered a plan for sustainable management to the MOA and did discuss and communicate with MOA the need for coordination with other parties and ministries. . C4.4: As mentioned under EQ1, the ground water in the area continues to be a threat to the site. The constant regrowth of vegetation and residues of salt and oil will remain a continued threat to the monuments and remains of the Memphis city without a dewatering project. RECOMMENDATIONS R4.1: It is essential for the MOA to collaborate with other entities as necessary in a groundwater lowering project to ensure both the usability and the sustainability of the site, to protect the archaeological remains against environmental risks caused by water levels and residues and to improve local environmental conditions for residents. R4.2: In order to ensure the safety and sustainability of archaeological sites in Mit Rahina from plant growth effects in the case of non-solution of the problem of ground water or until the problem is solved, an USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 33 herbicide that is archaeologically and environmentally acceptable should be applied by the MOA. 36 It is noted that plant growth effects have been assessed and reported and several options for solutions, including environment friendly chemicals, were considered. R4.3: It will not be possible to protect these sites going forward unless they become part of a management strategy that involves local residents, local administrators and other ministries. The collaborative management strategy needs to include: - Improving trash removal infrastructure and process through creative recycling startup projects instead of dumping south of the Abusir archaeological site. - Establishing a sewage collection and treatment system. - Stopping the encroachments on the area of Mit Rahina by identifying the areas and ownership of all the lands surrounding the area as part of an integrated Master Plan. A new management strategy is needed for the Memphis area. In addition, there is a need for the MOA to engage more deeply with the MOT, as recommended in the USAID-supported Refreshed Tourism Strategy of 2013, and for setting strategic priorities towards improved tourism management. USAID might facilitate this process. R4.4: The IP might have considered conducting direct interventions for small-scale mitigation strategies instead of relying only on the site management plan handed over to the MOA. Some of the identified issues in the risk assessment could have been easily addressed via the project to mitigate the effect of risks. Examples include installing a system to overcome fire risks and installing protective covers on more vulnerable Open-air Museum artefacts; and providing safety and conservatory instructions for bus drivers transporting visitors to mitigate the effect of vibrations and pollution if relocating the parking area was not possible. It is noted that national standards for tour bus and automobile engine vibrations and exhaust fumes on vehicles are not robust in Egypt, so on-site measures may be needed. R4.5: To ensure the longer-term sustainability of the walking circuit in Mit Rahina, consideration should be given by the MOA to replacing wooden ramps with stone/steel ramps and benches equipped with shading from protection from the impact of sunlight and rain. R4.6: The MOA should consider developing augmented reality applications or virtual reality installations to provide 3D modeling guided tours of the Walking Trail. Without these, it is difficult to imagine how the site must have looked in its different phases. Mobile app games could also be devised for the site to make it more attractive to younger audiences. These are opportunities to develop public-private partnerships (PPP), which USAID might facilitate. An example for the usage of augmented reality in enhancing accessibility to information and site attractiveness to visitors can be found in Annex 11 (Venera Reale in Turin). R4.6: IPs should ensure prior Memoranda of Agreement with the MOA on timing regarding opening to the public, levels of local community involvement, and continued site management, to guarantee the continued maintenance of the site and continued accessibility to visitors. 36 Because the site is part of enlisted World Heritage, panels of experts from ICOMOS can advise (consultation with UNESCO). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 34 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS The following observations are offered to USAID in order to improve programming of future cultural heritage projects of similar scope and design. A1: For tourism initiatives like SITE to be sustainable, engagement with the MOT and the tourism industry is essential. A2: Tourism competitiveness is not significantly affected by developing new heritage attractions. There are many other weaknesses in Egypt’s tourism sector that need to be addressed. A3: MOT has over 100 ticketed Pharaonic sites in its care; some of these remain closed. There is a need for strategic prioritizing of which heritage sites to improve for tourism access. This decision-making process should involve the MOA, the MOT and local community interests. A4: Heritage projects of this nature have an intrinsic value that goes far beyond economics: They have cultural, educational and diplomatic value that needs to be recognized and funded. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 35 ANNEXES USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 36 ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF: Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt (SITE) Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt Annual Program Statement (APS) Grants: American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA) PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION USAID/Egypt is seeking an end of project performance evaluation of the Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt (SITE) project. The evaluation will examine the effectiveness of two cooperative agreements, the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) and Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA). The evaluation will specifically focus on evaluating the interventions proposed and implemented at cultural heritage sites in Egypt by both awardees in response to the SITE Cultural Tourism Annual Program Statement (APS). Findings of this evaluation will assist USAID in determining the human development and economic impact the interventions have had at the selected sites, and feed into future decision making in this sector. Findings will also help USAID determine if the interventions were effective in promoting better management of cultural heritage resources and enhancing the sites’ cultural tourism potential. ACTIVITY NAME USAID OFFICE IP COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT / CONTRACT # TEC LIFE OF ACTIVIT Y ACTIVE GEOGRA PHIC REGIONS REQUIRED? PUBLIC OR INTERNAL? Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt. EG/T AOR: Sylvia Atalla ARCE AID 263- A-15- 00007 EGP 67,734,684 + $1,577,087 January 1, 2015 - June 1, 2018 Luxor, Sohag, Cairo Required Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital: A Plan for Site and Community Development EG/T AOR: Sylvia Atalla AERA AID-263- A-15- 00021 EGP 9,219,141 + $164,482 August 1, 2015 - September 30, 2017 Memphis, Giza (Greater Cairo) Required SUMMARY INFORMATION Mission DO: Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive Intermediate Result: 2.2 Tourism Sector More Diversified and Sustainable BACKGROUND USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 37 Both awards were awarded in response to USAID request for application (RFA) of the SITE Cultural Tourism Annual Program Statement # 263-14-000008 issued June 17, 2014, and closed August 15, 2014. The purpose of the APS was to solicit projects that conserve, preserve, and promote more effective management of Egypt’s cultural heritage resources, with the aim of enhancing cultural tourism potential, while also providing job opportunities for communities affected by the downfall in tourism. Applicants were encouraged to propose innovative approaches to build linkages between local businesses, affected communities, and tourism. And given the downturn in the economy, applicants were also asked to give priority to generating employment in communities near targeted sites. In total, USAID made four awards through this APS, including awards to AERA and ARCE. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM, DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS (ES), AND THEORY OF CHANGE Problem: Egypt no longer receives the same income from tourism as it did pre-2011. Travel and tourism is the largest service industry in the world. Egypt holds unique assets as a tourism destination, an assured climate, and a diversity of landscapes and special places. The travel and tourism sector is an important part of Egypt’s economy because of its contribution to Egyptian GDP, employment, and foreign currency revenues. At its peak in 2010, when 14.7 million foreign tourists visited Egypt, the sector generated revenues of nearly $12.5 billion, contributed more than 11% of GDP and 14.4% of foreign exchange earnings, and employed about 12% of Egypt’s workforce. Egypt’s post-revolution social and political upheaval has resulted in an economic downturn across every sector; perhaps most significantly in tourism. Continuing political unrest and a number of terrorist incidents increased the downward economic pressures on the sector since 2012. Egypt’s tourism has continued to struggle in the past 5 years, however recent statistics (April 2017) have shown an increase compared to similar periods in the past year. The number of international tourist arrivals was only 5.4 million in 2016 – and although there was a 50% increase in the number of international tourist arrivals in the first 6 months of 2017 compared to the same period last year, it is expected that a total of only about 8 million foreign tourists will visit Egypt this year. The development hypothesis: If cultural heritage destinations are sustainably managed for enjoyable/engaging travel experiences, cultural tourists will return to Egypt. International tourism increases foreign exchange earnings, assists in local economic development and generates employment. Tourism can be a vital source for social development if it is modeled on sustainable principles. For example, the UNWTO definition is “Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support system.” [WTO 1998: 19]. If Egypt is to meet its goal of expanding tourism’s contribution to the national economy and recovering from the shocks of the post-2011 period, it needs to create an attractive investment environment to drive growth. While traditional tourism development in Egypt has relied on low-yield, unsustainable forms of mass tourism, future success will only be achieved through investment in developing and marketing diversified tourism products, including cultural heritage and natural sites. Cultural tourists tend to be wealthier and consume more domestic services (as they must often use multiple hotels, tour guides, more domestic transport, etc.). Programming under the Sustainable Investment in Tourism in Egypt (SITE) Assistance Agreement is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism industry through a combination of cultural heritage preservation projects at tourism sites and workforce development activities designed to increase the skills of tourism sector workers in Egypt. The purpose of the SITE project is “to increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism sector while providing employment during the downturn in tourism arrivals.” USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 38 MISSION RESULTS FRAMEWORK These activities mainly aim to achieve results 2.2.1 “Cultural Heritage Sites Improved While Providing Employment.” 2.2 Tourism Sector More Diversified and Sustainable 2.2.1 Cultural Heritage Sites Improved While Providing Employment 2.2.2 Skills and Profession￾alism of Travel and Tourism Workers Increased SUMMARY STRATEGY/PROJECT/ACTIVITY/INTERVENTION TO BE EVALUATED These awards fall under component one of the SITE bilateral agreement, which are 1. Improve the cultural heritage (‘antiquities’) sites that tourists visit while providing employment and 2. Increase skills and professionalism of workers in the travel and tourism sector. USAID is supporting the conservation of Egyptian antiquities. Restoration activities usually entail conservation of important monuments such as components of temples, tombs, churches, mosques, etc. Traditional restoration and conservation activities usually include cleaning walls and facades, consolidating the structure of a historical building, or conserving wall paintings or other decorative elements. These conservation activities may entail small- scale construction. USAID will also provide institutional support to the Ministry of Antiquities (MOA) and other institutions involved in antiquities conservation in Egypt. Technical assistance and training are provided in the areas of conservation techniques, museum management, etc. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES FOR ARCE Tangibly Improve the Lives of Ordinary Egyptians during a Period of Transition Development Objective 2 Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive Tangibly Improve the Lives of Ordinary Egyptians during a Period of Transition USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 39 The overarching goal of this award, as proposed by ARCE, was to continue the efforts for safeguarding Egypt’s cultural heritage. This is mainly addressed through integrating capacity building into conservation and archaeological fieldwork and integrating heritage awareness and education into heritage management. Additionally, the project aims to generate greater economic and educational benefits for those living in and around the proposed project sites. ARCE’s proposed approach is to utilize conservation and preservation activities that provide training and employment, promote social and community values, promote awareness of heritage significance, contribute to the economy, and assist Government of Egypt (GOE) organizations in stewardship of historic monuments and sites. ARCE proposed the seven programs listed below, which focus on restoration and conservation of significant monuments and tourist destinations representing four key elements of Egypt’s cultural and heritage resources: “pharaonic civilization” (Luxor), “Christianity in the Nile Valley” (Sohag), the “Medieval Islamic world” (Cairo), and by harnessing the fourth rich resource element of modern day— the “Egyptian people”—by providing needed employment to skilled and unskilled workers, and by training MOA staff in conservation and sustainable management of the heritage assets in their midst. The seven main program components proposed by ARCE are: Main Program areas as per scope of work: Geographic Location: LUXOR (building on previous work by ARCE) Program 1. Theban Tomb 110 (TT110) Forecourt and Interior: Program 1. Activity 1. Excavation, Recording, and Site Preparation: Program 1. Activity 2. Job Creation: Program 1. Activity 3. Conservation and Training: Program 2. Dra Abu ‘l-Naga and Qurnet Marai: survey, job creation, archaeology, conservation, and training Program 2. Activity 1. Conduct Survey: Program 2. Activity 2. Job Creation: Program 2. Activity 3. Archaeology: Program 2. Activity 4. Conservation and Training: Program 3. Khonsu Temple Conservation and Training Program 3. Activity 1. Cleaning and Conservation of the Khonsu Temple Chapels: Program 3. Activity 2. Patching and Joint Work: Program 3. Activity 3. Structural Consolidation, Repairs and Conservation: Geographic Location: RED MONASTERY: Program 4. Red Monastery: nave conservation and training, job creation, and site management Number and type of beneficiaries: 24 Egyptian conservators, 12 skilled and unskilled Egyptian workers Program 4. Activity 1. Conservation of Nave Program 5. Red Monastery: Site Management Development Objective 2 Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 40 Number and type of beneficiaries: 80 skilled and unskilled Egyptian workers, the Coptic Community in Sohag Program 5. Activity 1. Interior Treatment within Nave: Program 5. Activity 2. Exterior Treatment: Program 5. Activity 3. Groundwater issues: Program 5. Activity 4. Structural Works for Improved Visitor Experience: Program 6. Red Monastery: Cultural Heritage and Community Awareness Number and type of beneficiaries: Approximately 50 Clergy, lay community members, MOA inspectors Program 6. Activity 1. Maintenance and Risk Management Training: Program 6. Activity 2. Public and Community Development Awareness Training: Original geographic area was Cairo and Upper Egypt - Connecting and consolidating all proposals. Program 7. Multi-disciplinary Capacity Building Courses in Cairo and Upper Egypt Number and type of beneficiaries: Up to 60 GOE representatives, persons from the tourism sector, and Coptic Church officials. (This component was later narrowed down to focus mainly on Sohag.) SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES FOR AERA AERA’s scope of activities focuses on the establishment of a tourist walking trail (the “Memphis Circuit”) in the remains of the pharaonic city of Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt during the Old Kingdom period of Egypt’s history. The proposed trail includes eight sites where archaeologists have excavated important parts of downtown Memphis, including the Great Temple of Ptah, the Apis House, a Hathor Temple, a New Kingdom Shrine, and a series of early tombs and residences. These monuments were under threat from modern urban expansion and dumping. Yet the monuments offer a unique opportunity for tourists to experience the rich cultural heritage of Egypt’s ancient capital. AERA’s strategy included cleaning, stabilization of elements, enhancement of local capacity, and outreach activities with stakeholder involvement throughout the process. The project offered employment opportunities to local workers while cleaning and preparing the sites, as well as training for MOA staff on cultural heritage management. AERA launched the Memphis Site and Community Development (MSCD) project with three objectives: 1. Preparation of an archaeological walking circuit, including the eight Memphis sites 2. Development of a heritage and outreach program for the central Memphis area. (This objective was not fully met due to lack of permissions for the project to communicate with the local community). 3. Conservation assessment of the monuments within the archaeological circuit. Elements of the project included: a. Conserve eight sites located at Mit Rahina, by cleaning, stabilizing, and documenting an endangered area within the Memphis precinct. b. Enhance local capacity to manage the Memphis Circuit by training four teams of 20 inspectors from the MOA. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 41 c. Engage and train MOA inspectors to develop and implement a plan of outreach to the local population in consultation with other stakeholders. d. Employ local workers for cleaning and preparing the Memphis Circuit and create new opportunities for local entrepreneurs to develop infrastructure for tourism. e. Introduce local tour guides, who lead large groups into the Memphis/Saqqara area, to the Memphis Circuit. f. Undertake a conservation assessment of the cleaned areas to identify problems and priorities and to suggest solutions. Monuments and sites that require immediate attention will at least be stabilized. Google Earth, aerial view of Mit Rahina showing sites treated in the Memphis Site and Community Development (MSCD) project. SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT/ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING (MEL) PLAN Indicators: • Number of sustainable management plans created as a result of USG assistance. • 3.3.3-9: Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming • Custom: Number of Cultural sites that have a material improvement in either their physical attractiveness, structural soundness or accessibility to visitors upon completion of (USG)- funded physical improvement activity • Custom: Number of individuals with improved skills following completion of USG assisted workforce development program. The Activity AOR, will provide relevant activity documents including: 1. USAID Documents: 2. Original SITE Agreement and amendments 3. Available quarterly and annual reports for both ARCE and AERA 4. Annual work plans for ARCE and AERA 5. Monitoring and evaluation plans for ARCE and AERA 6. Final Report for AERA (if available at the time of this award) 7. ARCE and AERA contracts The contractor is encouraged to visit both ARCE and AERA websites to better understand the role of ARCE and AERA in Egypt. ARCE : http://www.arce.org/ AERA: http://www.aeraweb.org/ EVALUATION QUESTIONS QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS SUGGESTED DATA SOURCES (*) SUGGESTED DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 1. What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeolo gical mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change Site Visits; examinations of documents and photos; Interview of Project Staff, tourists, Government officials, other cultural heritage experts, Direct Observation; Interviews; Document review. [To be determined by evaluation team] Whenever change had an impact on USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 42 QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS SUGGESTED DATA SOURCES (*) SUGGESTED DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS refers to conditions of a site before and after the project). a. To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? b. How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? and community members whenever possible. Whenever possible and data is available from direct sources, such as attainable government records, they should be used. Gender please reflect. 2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the awards? (Training included: Site Management by AERA; conservation, archeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. a) To what extent, if any has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues, etc. - training evaluation sheets by students (if available) - Student assessment sheets showing progress. - Interview of trainees and their immediate supervisors, and more senior level. - Interview of trainers (graduates of former trainings when available) Interviews; Document review. 3. To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE). For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? - Review of worker sheets and financial records - Interview a sample of workers and their immediate supervisors. - Interview members of the local community Interviews; Document review. 4. To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 43 QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS SUGGESTED DATA SOURCES (*) SUGGESTED DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS sustained and impact future tourism. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the questions of interest in this evaluation. All person-level data should be disaggregated by sex. The evaluation must follow the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (Updated October 2016). DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation team must develop data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation questions to ensure high quality analysis. The evaluation team is required to share data collection tools with the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback, and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The evaluation team may also review additional resources to the extent necessary to perform its work. Data collection methods may include a combination of the following: • Desk review of relevant documentation: USAID/Egypt will provide the Evaluation Team with soft copies of the activity related documents; • Key informants’ interviews - sample size will be determined by the evaluation team; • Meetings and group discussions with beneficiaries and other counterparts; and stakeholders. • Independent research of international best practices for management of cultural heritage sites for tourism. INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS Fieldwork will take place in Cairo, Luxor and Sohag. Key Informant and Group Interviews will include, but does not need to be limited to: • USAID/Egypt OEG, Activity Manager. • ARCE and AERA staff in Cairo and Luxor, and Sohag including sub-awardees of each award if they are available in Egypt at the time of the evaluation or easily accessible for interviews in a non-costly method (Italian Conservation Team (De Cesaris S.r.I., Italy), Heritage Architect, UK Nicolas Warner, and members of York University). • Staff from the Ministry of Antiquities, and the Ministry of Tourism. Staff from Ministry of Antiquities would include both beneficiaries of the award, as well as senior level officials. • Private and public tourism associations or private travel agencies or guides who benefit or frequent the sites. • Beneficiaries: local citizens, NGOs and local business women and men. • Other donors or specialists in the area of cultural heritage working in Egypt USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 44 The evaluation team must provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed methodology for collecting data. In addition to the evaluation’steam list of interviewees and key stakeholders, USAID may contribute additional names and contacts. DATA ANALYSIS PLAN Prior to the start date of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for the task order COR review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how group groups and key informant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative and quantitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from performance indicators and the activity performance monitoring records to reach conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of both activities. Data will be disaggregated by sex, when applicable, to identify how the activity benefitted women. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS o USAID Team Planning Meeting: A team planning meeting must be held in Egypt at the outset of the evaluation. This meeting will allow the COR to discuss the purpose, expectations, and agenda of the assignment with the Evaluation Team. In addition, the team will: - Finalize team members’ roles and responsibilities; - Review and make recommendations for improving the precision of evaluation questions; - Review and finalize the assignment timeline; - Present and discuss data collection methods, instruments, tools and guidelines; and - Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. o Work Plan: Within 2 weeks of the award of the Task Order (TO), a draft work plan for the evaluation shall be completed by the lead evaluator and presented to the Contracting Officer’s Representative COR of this TO. The Work Plan will not exceed 10 pages and will detail a methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, operational work plan) for discussion with the COR during the planning meeting. A draft interview schedule will be submitted as part of the draft work plan. The COR may provide the evaluation team with a proposed list of interviewees, from which the evaluation team can work to create a more comprehensive list. The evaluation team will construct an interview schedule that includes different stakeholders to share with the COR, and updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place. The COR will provide instructions/guidance on who will accompany the team on some of the interviews and meetings that are held with the awardees, GOE officials and beneficiaries. A final Work Plan must be sent to the COR for approval within one week after the Team Planning Meeting with the COR. o Evaluation Design: Within 1 week of approval of the work plan, the evaluation team must submit to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) of this TO an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: 1. A detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; 2. Draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 45 3. The list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); 4. Known limitations to the evaluation design; and 5. A dissemination plan. 6. A conflict of interest mitigation plan based on the Disclosure of Conflict of Interests submitted with the awardee’s proposal. Data collection instruments will be shared with the COR for review, feedback and/or discussion and approval prior to start of fieldwork. o Weekly briefings and meetings: The team will provide the COR with periodic briefings and feedback on the team’s findings, as agreed upon during the in-briefing. If desired or necessary, weekly briefings by phone can be arranged. o Final Exit Briefing: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final exit briefing prior to leaving the country to discuss the status of data collection and preliminary findings. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the Team Planning Meeting. This briefing is mainly for the Office of Economic Growth (OEG). The COR is responsible for inviting the specified USAID Personnel to whom QED will present the preliminary findings, conclusions and emerging recommendations. o Final presentation: The evaluation team must present their final findings to the COR within 15 business days after conducting the field visits. The Mission debriefing must include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team must consider any USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report as appropriate. o Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with the COR. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, USAID will have on/about 10 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft to provide comments and submit the comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked to submit a revised final draft report in no more than 10 business days hence, and again USAID will review and send comments on this final draft report within 10 business days of its submission. o Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 10 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from a USAID peer review. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The evaluation team leader will then submit the final report to the COR of this TO. All project data and records will be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. All datasets, if any) will be submitted to DDL in machine readable format. o Debriefing with partners: A debriefing with partners will be take place after the evaluation team has submitted the final report. The Evaluation Team will present the major findings of the evaluation to the GOE project counterparts and other relevant stakeholders. QED should inform the COR in advance about the logistics of the debriefing meeting. FINAL REPORT FORMAT USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 46 The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 6-8 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The executive summary should also be translated to Arabic only in the last final copy to be reviewed, but not in the drafts. The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The format for the evaluation report is as follows: • Executive Summary • Table of Contents • Introduction • Background • Evaluation Methodology • Findings/Conclusion/Recommendations • References • Annexes The annexes to the report may include: • The Evaluation SOW; • All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; • All sources of information, properly identified and listed, including secondary literature review; and • Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts. • Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. • Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of USAID formal written approval of the final report (English only), executive summary (English and Arabic) and corresponding infographics (English and Arabic). USAID/Egypt will review and share the executive summary, final report and recommendations with both implementing partners, the Ministry of Antiquities, the Ministry of Tourism and the general public through posting on USAID Development Education Clearinghouse (DEC) online. The final evaluation report must be submitted to the COR in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (five copies in English and five in Arabic for the executive summary. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 47 The Arabic translation of the executive summary must be submitted to the COR within 7 working days after COR formal written approval of the evaluation report. The evaluation report is not to exceed the 30pagese and will serve as the document of reference for creating an Infographics version (English and Arabic) of the evaluation report. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.37 To help ensure a high-quality evaluation report, the Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report must be included in the evaluation Statement of Work to communicate to evaluators USAID’s quality criteria. The following criteria should serve as the basis against which the report will be viewed. • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. o The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). o Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. The COR of the Evaluation Seba Auda, may observe the data collection efforts. 37 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 48 Evaluation Team Leader – Key Personnel: The team leader should be an international expert with extensive experience in leading evaluation teams and conducting monitoring and evaluation for Cultural Heritage or Tourism Projects. Previous experience in conducting evaluations in the Middle East region is highly desirable. The team leader should have 10 years of experience in designing monitoring and evaluation systems, leading data collection teams, analyzing data and summarizing findings. TEAM MEMBERS 1. Key Personnel: Senior Cultural Heritage Expert: The Evaluation Team shall include a local Heritage expert. It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Heritage Expert: fluency in Arabic language; 8-10 years of past experience in both monitoring and evaluation of development projects and cultural heritage projects; extensive field experience in Egypt or the MENA region; strong written and verbal communication skills. 2. Key Personnel: Mid-level Monitoring and Evaluation Expert: The Evaluation Team shall include a local monitoring and evaluation expert. The following characteristics must be reflected in the monitoring and evaluation expert in in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: fluency in Arabic and English language; 4-5 years past experience in monitoring and evaluation of Cultural Heritage and/or Tourism projects with a focus on Egypt; extensive field experience; and strong written and verbal communication skills. 3. Local Logistics Coordinator: A local consultant will serve as local logistics coordinator. The person should be fluent in written and spoken Arabic. He/she will provide logistical, administrative, and clerical support to the team. He/she will have at least five years of experience in an administrative support role. ESTIMATED LOE AND EVALUATION SCHEDULE Task/Deliverable Team Leader Cultural Heritage and Tourism Expert M&E Local Expert Logistical Support Coordinator Review background documents, draft work plan, methodology and data collection tools 10 days 10 days 10 days 0 Travel to Egypt 2 days 0 0 0 Team Planning meeting and meeting with USAID/Egypt 9 days 9 days 9 days 5 Data collection. Includes interviews with key stakeholders (stakeholders and USAID staff) and site visits to Memphis, Luxor and Sohag. 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days Discussion, analysis, and draft evaluation report in country 20 days 20 days 20 days 4 Exit briefing with the OEG Team and Debrief meeting with USAID and key stakeholders (preliminary report due to USAID); and presentation to Mission 6 days 6 days 6 days 6 Depart Egypt/travel to US 1 day 0 0 0 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 49 Task/Deliverable Team Leader Cultural Heritage and Tourism Expert M&E Local Expert Logistical Support Coordinator USAID/Egypt provides consolidated comments on draft report 0 days 0 0 0 Team revises draft report and submits final to USAID 10 days 10 days 10 days 0 Translation of Executive Summary and Infographics 0 10 days 10 days 5 days Submission of final report to the USAID DEC and DDL 1 day 1 day 1 day Total estimated LOE 74 days 81 days 81 days 35 days LIST OF ANNEXES Original SITE Agreement and amendments. Available quarterly and annual reports for both ARCE and AERA Annual work plans for ARCE and AERA Monitoring and evaluation plans for ARCE and AERA Final Report for AERA (if available at the time of this TO). LOGISTICS The COR and/or Alternate will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. They will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field-work. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of this evaluation and advising USAID/ Egypt prior to each of those meetings. The evaluation team is also responsible for arranging transportation as needed for site visits in and around Cairo and other governorates. The evaluation team will be responsible for arranging its own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing, and photocopying. The evaluation team is also responsible for procuring and paying for translation services for interviews, reports and any other evaluation related task. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own lodging and travel arrangements and payments. USAID personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 50 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX NO: EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION/DATA INFORMATION NEEDED DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH DATA ANALYSIS METHODS EQ 1 What has been the extent of physical change at the archeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project). Physical changes will be measured through objective data points included photography and observation, as well as qualitative/subjective measures based on key stakeholders’ assessments of the ‘extent’ of these changes and also the project support for these changes. Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) data, periodic progress reports to USAID, photographs/observation of sites; Google Earth imaging; USAID staff, activity staff, local community members (including women) and business owners in areas affected by activity interventions; government officials (local and national) Site visits, desk review, data mining; key informant interviews 100% of sites if possible Sampling gender sensitive Before and after comparisons (such as between time stamped photos of sites, data trends reported by the projects; retroactive qualitative analysis where objective baseline is not available.) EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Project reports will contain information on consultations held as part of the project processes, but key stakeholders’ opinions will be needed to understand the ‘extent’ or quality of these engagements. This could also include an element of how prioritization of interventions was undertaken and how this is understood and accepted by stakeholders. AMEP data, academic papers, periodic progress reports to USAID, activity staff, local community members (including youth) and business owners in areas affected by activity interventions, government officials (local and national) Site visits, desk review, data mining, key informant interviews, group interviews Sampling gender sensitive Description of process reported by stakeholders and comparison with project design (expectations) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 51 NO: EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION/DATA INFORMATION NEEDED DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH DATA ANALYSIS METHODS EQ1 - B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Project reports will contain information on stakeholder/community consultations held as part of the project processes, but key stakeholders’ opinions will be needed to understand the extent or quality of these engagements. AMEP data, periodic progress reports to USAID, activity staff, local community members (including youth and women) and business owners in areas affected by activity interventions Desk review, data mining, key informant interviews, group interviews Sampling gender sensitive Description of process reported by stakeholders and comparison with community and stakeholder expectations EQ2 How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the awards? (Training included: site management by AERA; conservation, archeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. To assess effectiveness and benefit to trainees the team will need to qualitatively assess key training stakeholders (students, trainers) perceptions of effectiveness. Training materials can be reviewed. Indicator and project report data can also be collected and incorporated. If feasible post￾tests could include subsequent employment: and/or changes in job responsibilities. Benefits/effectiveness to the needs of the site will involve Training participants, activity staff/trainers, program documents and indicator data related to training interventions Desk review, data mining, key informant interviews; and discussion groups if not possible a poll of former students will be undertaken Electronic poll of former students will be organized if possible, if not KIIs with former students will be arranged. Sampling will be gender sensitive Trends and frequencies reported by participants related back to training programs Benchmarking against similar sites. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 52 NO: EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION/DATA INFORMATION NEEDED DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH DATA ANALYSIS METHODS a review of site protection/conservation and (where relevant) visitor management based on best practice in similar sites. EQ2 - A To what extent, if any has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues…etc. As data will be collected and analyzed in a gender sensitive way, the analysis for this question will focus on additional questions (survey/interview/discussion group) that deal with the specific experiences of female students (from their perspective and perhaps from the trainers’ perspective and activity staff Female training participants; activity staff/trainers Key informant interviews, group discussions, and if not possible, a poll of former students will be undertaken Discussion groups & KIIs Trends for female participants in terms of increased access or benefit from the training EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to workers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE). For example, were daily wages fair and This question can rely on data collected for the previous questions by reviewing trends and perspectives of stakeholders on sustainability of intervention results/outcomes in the context of diminishing tourism to Egypt. This Workers/beneficiaries Key informant interviews, group discussions. Discussion groups & KIIs Synthesis of data gathered through focus groups and interviews, observation of desk review/data mining, as well as team’s understanding of this type of work elsewhere, will USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 53 NO: EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION/DATA INFORMATION NEEDED DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH DATA ANALYSIS METHODS appropriate for the type of work performed? question also lends itself to comparisons to best practices/lessons learned in this sector in Egypt. identify/describe possible sustainability and the evidence base behind conclusions drawn here. EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism. This question can rely on data collected for the previous questions by reviewing trends and perspectives of stakeholders on sustainability of intervention results/outcomes. This question also lends itself to comparisons to best practice/lessons learned in this sector through interventions globally. AMEP data, periodic progress reports to USAID, photographs/observation of sites; Google Earth imaging; USAID staff, activity staff, local community members (including youth) and business owners in areas affected by activity interventions; government officials (local and national) reports/evaluations/assessments of similar activities in other parts of the world (best practices/lessons learned/challenges), tourism industry Desk review; data mining; key informant interviews, group interviews, data gathering for this question will be woven into all tools - Sampling must be gender sensitive Synthesis of data gathered through survey, group discussions and interviews; observation with desk review/data mining, as well as team’s understanding of this type of work will describe possible sustainability and the evidence base behind conclusions drawn here. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 54 ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRPAHY CITATIONS Bluffenstein, A., “Drop in Tourism Hinders Restoration Efforts in Egypt.” www.news.artnet.com, 2017, (accessed 07.20.2018). Bolman, S. “The Red Monastery: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt.” ARCE. Yale, 2016. Development Assistance Committee (DAC). “Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance.” Paris, 1991. www.oecd.org, accessed September 20, 2018. ENCC. “Refreshed Tourism Strategy 2013-2020: The Way Forward and New Horizons.” 2013. ETA. Press Release, April 24, 2018. www.egypt.travel, accessed August 9, 2018. MOA. “Newsletter of the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities.” Issue 19, December 2017. file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Temp/MoA_Newsletter_19_English.pdf accessed July 22, 2018. Mohamad, R. “Tourists visiting Egypt to reach 12 million in 2018: Travco Chairman.” EGYPT TODAY, March 10, 2018 (electronic). www.egypttoday.com, July 20, 2018. MOT. “National Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2008-2020, Volume 1: Existing conditions and capacities.” Cairo, 2008. Oxford Business Group (n/d) Egypt sees growth in visitor numbers and tourism revenue www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com, accessed July 20, 2018. Reda, L. “Bringing Tourists Back: A look at initiatives and policies launched.” EGYPT TODAY, March 5, 2018. www.egypttoday.com, accessed July 20, 2018. Rifai, T. Opening Speech by Secretary-General, UNWTO. Joint conference between UNWTIO and UNESCO on tourism and culture, Siem Reap, Cambodia, February 4, 2015. UNWTO, Concepts, Definitions, and Classifications for Tourism Statistics. Madrid, 1995. UNWTO, “Tourism and Culture Synergies,” Madrid, 2018. WEF. “Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2015.” Geneva, 2016. https://www.weforum.org, accessed August 20, 2018. WEF. “Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017.” Geneva, 2018. https://www.weforum.org, accessed August 20, 2018. WTTC. “Travel & Tourism: Economic Impact Egypt 2018.” London, 2016. www.wttc.org, accessed August 27, 2018. WTTC. Travel & Tourism: Economic Impact Egypt 2018. London. www.wttc.org, accessed August 27, 2018. DESK REVIEW ———. 2008. “Heritage as Therapy: Set Pieces from the New South Africa.” Journal of Material Culture 13 (2): 153–73. ———. 2009. “Atalay, S., 2009. Building a Sustainable Archaeology at Çatalhöyük.” 2009. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/. ———. 2010. “‘We Don’t Talk about Çatalhöyük, We Live It’: Sustainable Archaeological Practice through Community-Based Participatory Research”.” World Archaeology 42 (3). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 55 ———. 2010. “Human Rights and Heritage Ethics.” Anthropological Quarterly 83 (4): 839–59. ———. 2014. “Heritage Studies and the Privileging of Theory.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 20 (5): 556–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.798671. ———. 2016. “From Ethics to Politics.” In Archaeology and Capitalism from Ethics to Politics, edited by Philip Duke and Yannis Hamilakis. ———. 2016. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9781315416533. ———. 2016b. “Using Nanocomposites in the Consolidaiton and Protection of Sandstone,” International Journal of Conservation Science, 29–40. ———. n.d. “Community Archaeology at Çatalhöyük 2006.” Catalhoyok. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/. ———. n.d. “The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in Egypt.” Annals New York Academy of Sciences 925 (1): 146–69. “People-First Tourism.” n.d. Accessed April 30, 2018. https://www.peoplefirsttourism.com/. “The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice.” 2018, January. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190676315.001.0001. ADL. Study on Visitor Management and Associated Investments on the West Bank of the Nile at Luxor, Interim unpublished consultants’ report. Arthur D. Little International Inc., Cairo: ADL. Study on Visitor Management and Associated Investments on the West Bank of the Nile at Luxor. Technical appendix. Interim unpublished consultants’ report. Arthur D. Little Inc., Cairo: Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, 1981b. ADL. Study on Visitor Management and Associated Investments on the West Bank of the Nile at Luxor. Final Report. Unpublished Consultants’ Report. Arthur D. Little Inc. Cairo: Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, 1983. Archaeology, University of London Institute of. 1989. Stone: Technology, Deterioration and Conservation: Course Handbook. Institute of Archaeology, Summer Schools Press. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=55bhswEACAAJ. Atalay, Sonya, Duygu Camurcuoglu, Ian Hodder, Stephanie Moser, Ian Orbasli, and Elizabeth Pye. 2010. “Protecting and Exhibiting Catalhoyuk,” Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Cultural Inventory, 8: 155–66. Atalay, Sonya. 2007. “Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey,” Archaeologies, 3 (3): 249–70. Barsum, L.K., The Comprehensive Development for the City of Luxor Project (CDCL), Sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities (MHUUC) and The United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Cairo: Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, 2000. Benton, Tim. 2010. Understanding Heritage and Memory. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Berger, M. “The New Metropolis in the Arab World. New Delhi.” Allied Publishers, 2008, p. 210-229. Blackman, W S. “The Fellahin of Upper Egypt.” London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. 1927 (1968 edition). Bonomi, J. “Topographical Notes on Western Thebes collected in 1830.” London: British Library ADD MS 29816, 1830. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 56 Brodie, Neil, and Kathryn Walker. Tubb. 2002. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge. http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203165461. Brodie, Neil, and Paul A. Shackle. 2008. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Burke, H., C. Smith, and L.J. Zimmerman. 2008. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook: North American Edition. AltaMira Press. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=fc6-AAAAQBAJ. Cameron, F., and S. Kenderdine. 2010. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Media in Transition. MIT Press. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=E3r8QQAACAAJ. Carlson, D.H., and C.C. Plummer. 2008. Physical Geology: Earth Revealed. International Student Edition. McGraw-Hill. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=lS1OMAAACAAJ. Champion, E. 2016. Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=lbm1CwAAQBAJ. Colla, E., “Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity.” Duke University Press Books, 2007. Coombes, Annie E., Lotte Hughes, and Karega-Munene. 2014. Managing Heritage, Making Peace: History, Identity and Memory in Contemporary Kenya. Corzo, Miguel Angel., Mahasti Ziai. Afshar, Getty Conservation Institute., and Hayʼat al-Āthār al￾Miṣrīyah. 1993. Art and Eternity: The Nefertari Wall Paintings Conservation Project, 1986-1992. Santa Monica, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Trust. Cronyn, J. M. 2003. Elements of Archaeological Conservation. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=5LmJAgAAQBAJ. Doyon, W. “Representing Egypt’s Past: Archaeology and Identity in Egyptian Museum Practice.” Unpublished Masters’ thesis, University of Washington, 2007. Doyon, W. “The Poetics of Egyptian Museum Practice. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and the Sudan.” 2008, p. 1-37. Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, 1981a. Eraqi, Mohammed I. 2006. “Tourism Services Quality (TourServQual) in Egypt: The Viewpoints of External and Internal Customers.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 13 (4): 469–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610676308. Faulkner, N. “Archaeology from Below.” Public Archaeology, 2000, p. 21-33. Fekri A.H. “Memorabilia: Archaeological Materiality and National Identity in Egypt.” 1998, p. 200-216. Field, J., Barker, J., Barker, R., Coffey, E., Coffey, L., Crawford, E., Darcy, L., Fields, T., Lord, G., Steadman, B and Colley, S. 2000. “‘Coming Back’: Aborigines and Archaeologists at Cuddie Springs.” Public Archaeology 1(1) p. 35–48. Gonzalez-Ruibal, Alfredo. 2016. Ethics and the Archaeology of Violence. [Place of publication not identified]: Springer-Verlag New York. Hamilakis, Y. and Anagnostopoulos, A. (eds).. Archaeological Ethnographies. London, 2009: Maney (Public Archaeology, special double issue 8, 2-3). Hamilakis, Y. The “War on Terror” and the Military-Archaeology Complex: Iraq, Ethics and Neo￾Colonialism. Archaeologies: The Journal of the World Archaeology Congress, 2009, 5(1): p. 39-65. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 57 Hamilakis, Y. “The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Philip Duke. 2016. Archaeology and Capitalism from Ethics to Politics. Edited by Yannis Hamilakis. Hamilakis, Yannis. 2012. “Are We Postcolonial Yet? Tales from the Battlefield.” Archaeologies 8 (1): 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-012-9200-5. Hanna, M. “Problems of Preservation of Mural Paintings in the Theban Necropolis: A Pilot Study on the Theban Tomb 14 using 3D Scanning Techniques.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: University of Pisa, Italy, 2010. Hanna, M., Keshk, F. and Abou Bakr, S. “The Documentation of the Cultural Heritage of the Bedouins of South Sinai.” In: H. Bernard (ed.), The Peoples of the Eastern Desert: Dutch Flemmish Institue in Cairo (in print), 2009. Hansen, N.B. Posting on Qurnawi in the ‘Export of Antiquities, Collectors and ‘Bandits’’ discussion thread, Egyptologists’ Electronic Forum Email Discussion List, June 7, 2004. Also see the EEF Archives for May 2004, ‘Antiquities Export Records’, [Online publication] URL:http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/archeef.html. Hassan, F.A. “Memorabilia: Archaeological Materiality and National Identity in Egypt.” 1998. Helmi, Fatma, and Yasser Hefni. 2016a. “Nanocomposites for the Protection of Granitic Obelisks at Tanis, Egypt,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 16 (2): 87–96. Henry, A. 2015. Stone Conservation: Principles and Practice. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=s0seCwAAQBAJ. Hirsch, E. “Landscape: Between Place and Space.” Introduction in: E. Hirsch and M, 1995. Hirsch, E. and O’Hanlon, M. “Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space.” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Hodder, Ian. 1995. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Second. London: Routledge. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=199931. Husseen, F. “Project of Relocation of People of Qurna to New al-Tarif.” Unpublished private consultants’ report prepared for Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities (MHUUC). Cairo: ESC Engineering Systems and Consultants (in Arabic), 1995. Ioannides, M., and E. Quak. 2014. 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage: A Roadmap in Digital Heritage Preservation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=Mf￾JBAAAQBAJ. Janssens, K., and R. Van Grieken. 2004. Non-Destructive Micro Analysis of Cultural Heritage Materials. Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry. Elsevier Science. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=zzqxUOOgNp4C. Kumar, A. V., Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, and Indian Council of Conservation Institutes. 2001. Conservation of Building Stones. INTACH, Indian Council of Conservation Institutes & Sundeep Prakashan. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=c57bAAAAMAAJ. L.Meskell ed. “Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.” London: Routledge, 1998. p. 200-216. Lane, E.W. “The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians.” The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 1860 (2003). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 58 Lyon, Sarah M., and E. Christian Wells. 2012. Global Tourism: Cultural Heritage and Economic Encounters. Rowman Altamira. MacGuire, Randall. 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. California Series in Public Anthropology. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=138572. Makuvaza, S. 2018. Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and Practices. Springer International Publishing. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=- CpADwAAQBAJ. Manniche, L. Lost Tombs: “A Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monuments in the Theban Necropolis.” London: Kegan Paul International Limited, 1988. Matero, Frank. n.d. “The Conservation of an Excavated Past”,” In Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example of Çatalhöyük, edited by Ian Hodder. University of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. McMillon, Bill. 1991. The Archaeology Handbook: A Field Manual and Resource Guide. New York: Wiley. Merriman, N. (ed.). “Public Archaeology.” London: Routledge, 2004. Meskell, L. (ed.) “Archaeology Under Fire.” London Routledge, 1998. Meskell, L. (ed.), “Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.” London: Routledge. Meskell, L. “Archaeologies of Identity.” In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Oxford: Polity Press & Blackwell, 2002b, p. 187-213. Meskell, L. “Archaeologies of Social Life. Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt.” London: Blackwell, 1999. Meskell, L. “Sites of Violence: Terrorism, Tourism, and Heritage in the Archaeological Present.” In: L. Meskell, and P. Pels (eds), Embedding Ethics. Oxford: Berg. 2005 Meskell, L. “The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in Egypt. In: A.M. Cantwell, E. Friedlander & M.L. Tram. Ethics and Anthropology: Facing Future Issues in Human Biology, Globalism and Cultural Property.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2001, p. 116-119. Meskell, L., “Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt.” Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press, 2002a. Meskell, Lynn. 2007. “Heritage Ethics for a Present Imperfect.” Archaeologies 3 (2). Meskell, Lynn, and Peter. Pels. 2005. Embedding Ethics. Oxford, UK; New York: Berg. Mitchell, T. “Colonising Egypt.” Oxford: University of California Press, 1991. Mitchell, T. “Making the Nation: The Politics of Heritage in Egypt.” In: N. al-Sayyad (ed.), Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage – Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism. London: Routledge, 2001, p.212-239. Mitchell, T. “The Invention and Reinvention of the Egyptian Peasant.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 22, 1990: p.129-150. Mitchell, T. “Worlds Apart: An Egyptian Village and the International Tourism Industry.” Middle East Report. September-October 1995, No. 196, 25(5), p.8-11. Moser, S., Glazier, D., Philips, J., El Nemer, L.N., Mousa, M.S., Richardson, S., Conner, A. & Seymour, M. “Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Practice in the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt.” World Archaeology, 2002, 34(2), pp. 220-248. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 59 Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohammed Saleh Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiesh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner, and Michael Seymour. 2002. “Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt.” World Archaeology 34 (2): 220–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0043824022000007071. Nicholas, George, and Julie Hollowell. 2016. “Ethical Challenges to a Postcolonial Archaeology: The Legacy of Scientific Colonialism.” In Archaeology and Capitalism from Ethics to Politics, edited by Yannis Hamilakis and Philip Duke. O’Hanlon (eds), “The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space.” Oxford: Clarendon Press. Olivier, Adrian, and Council for British Archaeology. 1989. Safety in Archaeological Fieldwork. London: Council for British Archaeology. Orra Mourad, T. “An Ethical Archaeology in the Near East: Confronting Empire, War and Colonization.” In: Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke (eds). Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Walnut Creek, CA: Left coast Press, 2007, pp. 151-168. Pedersen, Arthur. n.d. “Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers,” 96. Peers, L. and Brown, A.K. (eds). “Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader.” London: Routledge, 2003. Plenderleith, Harold James., and A. E. A. Werner. 1988. The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art: Treatment, Repair, and Restoration. New York: Oxford University Press. Pluciennik, Mark. 2001. The Responsibilities of Archaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics. Oxford: Archaeopress. Pollock, S., and R. Bernbeck. 2009. Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives. Wiley Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Wiley. https://books.google.de/books?id=bRUMQb_1uKcC. Price, C.A., and E. Doehne. 2011. Stone Conservation: An Overview of Current Research. Research in Conservation. Getty Conservation Institute. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=SVeJ4eOKU70C. Reid, D.M. “Indigenous Egyptology: The Decolonization of a Profession? Journal of the American Oriental Society.” 1985. 105(2): 233-246. Reid, D.M. “Nationalizing the Pharaonic Past – Egyptology, Imperialism, and Egyptian Nationalism, 1922- 1952.” In: J, Jankowski and I. Gershoni (eds), Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. p.127-149. Reid, D.M. “Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I.” Cairo: AUC Press, 2002. Reinhard, Bernbeck, and Susan Pollock. 2016. “‘Grabe, Wo Du Stehst!’ An Archaeology of Perpetrators.” In Archaeology and Capitalism from Ethics to Politics, edited by Yannis Hamilakis and Philip Duke. Rossi-Manaresi, R., Centro “Cesare Gnudi” per la conservazione delle sculture all’aperto, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation, the Restoration of Cultural Property, International Council of Monuments, and Sites. 1981. The Conservation of Stone II: Treatment. Rapporti Della Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici per Le Province Di Bologna, Ferrara, Forlì e Ravenna. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 60 Centro per la conservazione delle sculture all’aperto. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=JL5NAAAAYAAJ. Saleh A. Saleh, Fatma M. Helmi, Monir M. Kamal, and Abdel-Fattah E. El-Banna. 1992. “Study and Consolidation of Sandstone: Temple of Karnak, Luxor, Egypt.” Studies in Conservation 37 (2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/1506401. Sandis, Constantine, ed. 2014. Cultural Heritage Ethics: Between Theory and Practice. Open Book Publishers. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1287k16. Sayer, Duncan. 2017. Ethics and Burial Archaeology. Springer. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1612372. Scarre, Chris. 2008. The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Scarre, Geoffrey and Robin. Coningham. 2013. Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shankland, D. Catalh.yük: “The Anthropology of an Archaeological Presence.” In: I. Hodder (ed.), On the Surface: Catalh.yük 1993-1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, McDonald Institute Monographs, 1996. Siegesmund, S., T. N. Weiss, A. Vollbrecht, and Geological Society of London. 2002. Natural Stone, Weathering Phenomena, Conservation Strategies and Case Studies. Geological Society. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=wCnm0iyAkX4C. Silverman, Helaine, and D. Fairchild Ruggles. 2008. Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. Singapore: Springer. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=337454. Silverman, Helaine. 2005. “Ethical Issues in Archaeology.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 127 (3): 372. Simpson, C. “Modern Gurna - Pieces of an Historical Jigsaw.” In: N. Strudwick and J. Taylor (eds), The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future. London: British Museum Press, 2003, p. 244-249. Simpson, C. Posting on Qurnawi in the “Export of Antiquities, Collectors and ‘Bandits’’ discussion thread, Egyptologists’ Electronic Forum Email Discussion List, June 2, 2004. Also see the EEFArchives, May 2004, ‘Antiquities Export Records’, http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/archeef.html. Smith, Laurajane, and Emma Waterton. 2012. “Constrained by Commonsense: The Authorized Heritage Discourse in Contemporary Debates.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, 153– 71. http://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A14112/. Social Memory and Heritage Tourism Methodologies. 2017. Taylor & Francis. Soderland, Hilary A., and Ian A. Lilley. 2015. “The Fusion of Law and Ethics in Cultural Heritage Management: The 21st Century Confronts Archaeology.” Journal of Field Archaeology 40 (5): 508– 22. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000024. Starzmann, Maria Theresia, John R. Roby, and Paul A. Shackel. 2016. Excavating Memory: Sites of Remembering and Forgetting. Stoner, J. H., and R. Rushfield. 2013. Conservation of Easel Paintings. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=1msM3h9mbaoC. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 61 Strudwick, N. Taylor, J.H. (eds). “The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future.” Proceedings of papers presented at an international colloquium held at the British Museum, London, July 2000. London: The British Museum Press, 2003. Teutonico, Jeanne Marie., Gaetano. Palumbo, Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University. 2002. “Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, 19-22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece.” In. Getty Conservation Institute. Tully, G. “Answering the Calls of the Living: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology and Ancient Egyptian Daily Life Exhibitions in Museums.” Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Southampton, UK, 2010. Tully, G. “Community Archaeology, Children and Culturally Relevant Learning: The Trial of a New Methodology: Quseir, Egypt.” Unpublished Masters’ thesis: University of Southampton, 2005. Tully, G. “Community Archaeology: General Methods and Standards of Practice.” Public Archaeology, 2007. 6(3), p. 155-187. Van der Spek, K. “Making a Living in the City of the Dead: History, Life and Work at al-Hurubat in the Necropolis of Thebes, al-Qurna, Luxor.” Unpublished PhD thesis: Australian National University, Canberra, 2004. Vitelli, Karen D.., Julie. Hollowell-Zimmer, and Larry J. Zimmerman. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, Calif.; Society for American Archaeology: Washington, D.C.: Altamira Press. Vitelli, Karen D., and Chip Colwell. 2006. Archaeological Ethics. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Wajdner, Ben. n.d. “Cultural Heritage Theory and Practice: Illustrating Real World Complexities Using the City of York as a Case Study.” Accessed April 29, 2018. http://www.academia.edu/4899946/Cultural_Heritage_Theory_and_Practice_illustrating_real_world _complexities_using_the_City_of_York_as_a_case_study. Walkowitz, Daniel, and Lisa Maya Knauer. 2008. Contested Histories in Public Space: Memory, Race, and Nation. Duke University Press. Weeks, Kent R., Nigel J. Hetherington, Dina Bakhoum, Theban Mapping Project, American University in Cairo Press, and N.Y.) World Monuments Fund (New York. 2014. The Valley of the Kings: A Site Management Handbook. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press. White, Gregory G., and Thomas F. King. 2007. The Archaeological Survey Manual. Left Coast Press. Winter, Tim. 2013. “Clarifying the Critical in Critical Heritage Studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 19 (6): 532–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.720997. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 62 ANNEX 4: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS LIST SR. TOOL TYPE TARGET GROUP 1 Assessment Rubric – Conservation (None) Physical Site Assessment 2 Assessment Rubric – Site Management (None) Physical Site Assessment 3 Quantitative Form SITE Workers 4 Quantitative Form / Internet Survey MOA Trainees (different specializations) 5 Group Discussion Protocol SITE Workers 6 Group Discussion Protocol MOA Trainees 7 Key Informant Interview Protocol/Group Discussion Trainers 8 Group Discussion Protocol Female Volunteers in Sohag 9 Key Informant Interview Protocol Local Small Businesses/Services and Crafts 10 Key Informant Interview Protocol Tourism Industry 11 Key Informant Interview Protocol/Group Discussion Tour Guides 12 Key Informant Interview Protocol Site Administration / Coptic Church in Sohag 13 Key Informant Interview Protocol Ministry of Tourism 14 Key Informant Interview Protocol Site Administration / Strategic (Central and Local MOA) 15 Key Informant Interview Protocol Site Administration / Operational (on Site MOA) 16 Key Informant Interview Protocol Site Guards 17 Key Informant Interview Protocol Implementing Partners 18 Key Informant Interview Protocol USAID USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 63 ANNEX 4A: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS - ENGLISH TOOL # 1 - CONSERVATION RUBRIC Project Title: ________________________ Project Management: ______________________ Implementing Body: ____________________ Time Period: __________________________ In order to answer question one (EQ I), the following rubric is needed to answer the changes of the physical setting. 1. CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT: THIS SCORE ASSESSES WHETHER A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS FOLLOWED ON CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS AS WELL AS THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Condition assessment report - Report Summary -Description of Defects / Structures - Description of Defects / Services - Recommendations - Appendices No evidence of condition assessment report Inadequate condition assessment report Condition assessment report with little details Condition assessment report with partial description Condition assessment report not supported by appendices Detailed scientific report Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 2. PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS. INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Preliminary Conservation plan - Coordinating the work and preparing the site from outside - Coordinating the work and preparing inside - Development of temperature and humidity meters and lighting filters No evidence of preliminary conservation plan Not enough preliminary conservation plan Preliminary conservation plan without clear methodology Preliminary conservation plan difficult to implement Partially implemented preliminary conservation plan Detailed preliminary conservation plan and has been implemented USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 64 2. PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS. INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 3. DOCUMENTATION PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE ASSESSES WHETHER A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS FOLLOWED ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS. INDICATO R LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Documentat ion pre￾conservation - Artistic & Archaeological documentatio n - Layout Situation - Architectural documentatio n - Photography Recording - Microscopic Photography - Draw Recording No evidence of Documentat ion pre￾conservation Documentati on pre￾conservation is not scientific Documentati on pre￾conservation status not enough Documentati on of the pre￾conservation status is unclear or well done Documentati on pre￾conservation complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific documentat ion pre - conservatio n Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 4. EXAMINATION PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE ASSESSES WHETHER A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWING THE EXAMINATION PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS IS ADOPTED. INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Examination pre￾conservation - Visual Examination - Examination with Polarizing microscope - Examination by Scanning Electronic Microscope No evidence of examination pre￾conservation Non￾scientific examination pre￾conservation Pre￾conservation examination is not enough Examination pre￾conservation without a clear methodology Examination pre￾conservation is complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific examination pre￾conservation USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 65 4. EXAMINATION PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE ASSESSES WHETHER A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWING THE EXAMINATION PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS IS ADOPTED. INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 - Cross￾Section of Paint Layers (stratigraphy study) Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 5. ANALYSIS PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED BY ANALYSIS PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Analysis pre￾conservation - X- Ray Diffraction Analysis - X- Ray Florescence Analysis - Fourier Transform Infra￾Red (FTIR) - Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscope (EDX) No evidence of analysis pre￾conservation Analysis pre￾conservation is non￾scientific Analysis pre￾conservation is not enough Analysis pre￾conservation is without a clear methodology Complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific pre￾conservation analysis Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 6. TESTS PERFORMED PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON TESTS PERFORMED PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 LEVEL 5 Tests Performed pre￾conservation - Study of Microbiological Deterioration - Determination of Physical No evidence of tests performed pre￾conservation Tests performed pre￾conservation non-scientific Tests performed pre￾conservation not enough Tests performed pre￾conservation without clear methodology Complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific Tests Performed pre￾conservation USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 66 6. TESTS PERFORMED PRE-CONSERVATION: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON TESTS PERFORMED PRE-CONSERVATION AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 LEVEL 5 Properties (Density￾Apparent Porosity- Water Absorption) - Determination of Mechanical Properties (Compressive Strength￾abrasion resistance) - Determination of stone pore – size) Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 7. MONITORING WORKS: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON MONITORING WORKS AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Monitoring Works - Monitoring of Cracks - Recording (Temperature - light- Humidity￾Gases) No evidence of monitoring works Monitoring works are non-scientific Monitoring works are not enough Monitoring works are inaccurate Complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific monitoring works Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 8. DETAILED CONSERVATION PLAN/METHODOLOGY: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON DETAILED CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Detailed Conservation Plan / Methodology - Mechanical Cleaning No evidence of detailed conservation plan Detailed conservation plan non￾scientific Detailed conservation plan is without a clear methodology Detailed conservation plan is not enough Complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific conservation plan USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 67 8. DETAILED CONSERVATION PLAN/METHODOLOGY: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON DETAILED CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 - Chemical Cleaning - Detachment Treatment - Re-adhesion of Flaking - Consolidation - Removing repair mortar from a Previous Intervention - Crack Treatments - Completion of the missing parts - Wall Stabilization Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 9. IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Implementin g Conservation action plan - The chemicals used, their characteristics, their production companies and their application methods - Experimental study for mechanical cleaning materials and methods - Experimental study for chemical cleaning materials and methods No evidence of implementin g conservatio n action plan Implementin g conservation action plan non￾scientific Implementin g conservation action plan is without clear methodology Implementin g conservation action plan is not enough Implementin g conservation action plan is complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific implementatio n of the conservation action plan USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 68 9. IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Experimental study for Re￾adhesion materials - Experimental study for consolidation materials and methods - Biological control - Documentation during conservation Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 10. MONITORING AND POST-CONSERVATION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON MONITORING AND POST-CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Monitoring and post￾Conservation plan - Setting up heat and humidity monitoring devices - Use appropriate lighting - Provide suitable ventilation systems - Use a suitable system to absorb excess moisture and gases - Provide suitable protection systems for walls and ceilings No evidence of monitoring and post￾conservatio n plan Monitoring and post￾conservation plan non￾scientific Monitoring and post￾conservation plan is not enough Monitoring and post￾conservation plan is not effective Monitoring and post￾conservation plan is complete with very few minor errors Detailed scientific monitoring and post￾conservatio n plan USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 69 Project Ranking Key Exceptional 90-100% Commendable 75-89% Acceptable 60-74% Unacceptable 59% or less 10. MONITORING AND POST-CONSERVATION PLAN: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ON MONITORING AND POST-CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATIONS INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 - Protection of natural hazards (floods) Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score Total Score________ Percent ________ Rank ______ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 70 TOOL # 2 - SITE MANAGEMENT RUBRIC Project Title: ________________________ Project Management: ______________________ Implementing Body: ____________________ Time Period: __________________________ EQI 1. MAPPING: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE AVAILABILITY OF MAPS AND ACCURATE PLANS FOR THE SITE INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Mapping No evidence of Maps Generic Maps without Survey Works Partial Survey Archaeologic al Site Sites are properly mapped, but without spatial analysis Sites are properly mapped with appropriate polygons and some spatial analysis Complete GIS data with maps and spatial analysis Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQI 2. PRELIMINARY STUDIES: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE QUALITY LEVEL OF THE PRELIMINARY STUDIES. INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Preliminary Studies No evidence of preliminary studies Inadequate preliminary studies Basic preliminary studies with some visual data Preliminary study with visual data, but insufficient details Preliminary study lacking a few details Full complete preliminary studies with appropriate visuals Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ4 3. RISK ASSESSMENT: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE QUALITY OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT CARRIED FOR THE SITE INCLUDING (PRE-RISK AND POST-RISK) INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Risk Assessment No evidence of risk assessment Mentioning risk factors in general reporting Minimal risk assessment of the natural and human factors A developing risk assessment plan with some environmental data Risk assessment sheets with some analysis A full risk assessment plan with risk types, zones and future mitigation plans Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 71 EQI 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE TOURIST ACTIVITY OF THE SITE PRIOR TO INTERVENTION: THIS MEASURES THE TOURISM TRENDS, TOURISM RISE AND FALL IN NUMBERS AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION NUMBER SPECIFIC TURNOUT INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Tourist Activity Description No evidence of a description Little unsubstantiat ed tourist activity description Minimal tourist activity description with some evidence Meets basic description of the tourist activity with solid examples Developing tourist activity description with assessment of trends A full detailed tourist activity historical description past trends and possible future changes Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ4 5. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS SURVEY AND COLLABORATIVE WORK: THIS SCORE MEASURES THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS SURVEY, THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Stakeholder Analysis Survey No stakeholder survey There is minimal description of the different stakeholders There is a stakeholder analysis survey, but a minor implementatio n plan of methodology of engagement There is a developing stakeholder analysis survey with a clear methodology, but poor implementatio n Stakeholder analysis survey provides adequate detail on the various stakeholders, proper methodology, but limited implementatio n Stakeholder analysis survey provides an efficient detailed survey, adequate methodology and successful implementatio n Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 72 EQ4 6. INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY: THIS EVALUATES THE PLANS TO APPROACH THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE, ROADS AND PATHWAYS, TYPES OF TRANSPORT, PARKING, VENDORS’ AREA, VISITOR CENTER, SECURITY ENTRANCE, TOILETS, SHELTERS AND REST STOPS, SITE UTILITIES AND SITE FABRIC INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Infrastructure Survey No infrastructur e survey included There is some mention of the infrastructure around the site Infrastructure survey data is inconsistent Infrastructure survey data is available, but incomplete Infrastructure survey data is done, but lacking a few details Infrastructure survey is complete Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 7. VISITOR MANAGEMENT: THIS SCORE DISCUSSES THE CARRYING CAPACITY, TICKETING PROCEDURES, AND THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE IN THE SITE INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Visitor Management No visitor management Some visitor management plan available Incomplete visitor management plan Developing visitor management plan, but lacking a few aspects such as a clear action plan Adequate visitor management plan, but without a clear methodology A clear visiting management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ3 8. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN: OVERALL CAPACITY BUILDING PLAN QUALITY, EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PLAN, ACCESSIBILITY, SIGNAGE, AND MAINTENANCE INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Site Management Plan No site management plan Little or ineffective site management planning Low quality site management plan A developing site management plan, but lacks consistency or clarity Accurate and concise site management plan, but with some practical limitations Complete and implemented site management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 73 EQ1, EQ2, EQ4 9. PUBLICATIONS: THIS SCORE INDICATES THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF THE PUBLICATIONS, FEASIBILITY OF REPRINTS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Publications No publication limited scientific publications Scientific publications and project reports in English only Detailed scientific publication in English and Arabic Detailed scientific publication and visibility material such as brochures and maps in multiple languages Rich publications written collaboratively between the stakeholders and the IP in multiple languages Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 10. SUSTAINABILITY: THIS SCORE MEASURES THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROJECT INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Sustainability All activities ended by the end of the project Little activities continue after the project Project completed but demonstrates low quality Project is completed, and has a few ongoing activities, but not for a long time Project is completed, and one of the stakeholders is continuing some activities implemented in the project Project is completed and some stakeholders are continuing activities and/or building on them other activities Project is completed and the main stakeholders identified are continuing the different activities and building on them Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 11. SITE BRANDING AND MARKETING PLAN: THIS SCORE MEASURES THE QUALITY AND FEASIBILITY OF THE BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKETING PLAN OF THE SITE INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Branding and Marketing No branding or marketing plan for the site Some branding and incoherent marketing attempts A developing marketing plan without implementatio n A complete and coherent marketing plan, but with minimal implementatio n A solid marketing and branding plan, but limited implementatio n A professional solid cultural marketing and site branding implemented plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 74 Project Ranking Key Exceptional 90-100% Commendable 75-89% Acceptable 60-74% Unacceptable 59% or less 11. SITE BRANDING AND MARKETING PLAN: THIS SCORE MEASURES THE QUALITY AND FEASIBILITY OF THE BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKETING PLAN OF THE SITE INDICATOR LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score Total Score________ Percent ________ Rank ______ Comments: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 75 TOOL # 3 – SITE WORKERS QUANTITATIVE FORM DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Temporary Workers TYPE OF TOOL Quantitative Form NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 30 survey targets / site (12 in total/120 – 96 individuals in total) LOCATION(S): Per Site TIME PER TOOL: 10 minutes per individual LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Arranging for the discussion (i.e. inviting workers) + Place for implementation, INFORMATION TO BE FILLED BY THE INTERVIEWER Governorate: …………………. Date: ……/ ……/ ……… Site: …………………………… Questionnaire ID: ……………… # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 1) Age (in complete years) 2) Education Attainment Illiterate (1) Can read and write (2) Primary Education (3) Preparatory/Secondary Education (4) Intermediate Education (5) Above Intermediate Education (6) University Education (7) Above University Education (8) Other (Specify: …….) (9) 3) Where are you from? (State the name of the governorate) 4) Where is your main residency? (State the name of the governorate) 5) How long have you worked in the (state the name of the heritage site)? (……….) days # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 6) Why did you accept this job? (Multiple Choice Question) Didn’t have a job (1) To gain experience (2) Higher salary than the job I had (3) Needed to work more than one job (4) Other (mention: ….) (5) 7) What was exactly your job on the site? Workman (1) Driver/Loader Driver (2) Carpenter (3) Blacksmith (4) Guard (5) Plumber (6) Electrician (7) Other (mention: ….….) Mud Brick (8) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 76 # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 8) How would you classify yourself? Highly-Skilled (1) Semi-Skilled (2) Low-Skilled (3) 9) Do you think that working on this site has improved your work skill level? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 10) What was the average number of working hours per day? # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 11) How much was your wage for this job (in LE)? (If different wages were given among years, please state the average) Amount in LE Per Hourly Basis (1) Daily Basis (2) Weekly Basis (3) Monthly Basis (4) By Task (5) Other (State: ..) (6) 12) In your opinion, was this wage fair enough/reasonable for the amount of work/effort you exerted? Yes (1) Skip to Q14 No (2) To some extent (3) 13) In your opinion, what would have been a fair wage for the amount of work you exerted? ……… LE per …….. Skip to Q15 14) So, would you say that this wage has provided you with better life quality? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 15) While working on this project, were you provided by any insurance? Yes (1) Skip to Q17 Skip to Q17 No (2) Don’t Know (3) 16) What type of insurance were you provided? (Multiple Choice Question) Health Insurance (1) Social Insurance (2) Safety Insurance (3) Other (mention…….) (4) 17) Before working on this site (i.e. before 2015), did you have a job? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q21 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 77 # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 18) If yes, was this job related to local tourism industry? Yes (1) No (2) # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 19) What was its type? Full Time (1) Part Time (2) Daily-basis (3) By Task (4) Other (mention: ……) (5) 20) What was your average wage per day during that period? (……) LE per (……..) 21) Are you currently working? Yes (1) No (2) End the survey 22) If yes, is this new job related to the Tourism industry? Yes (1) No (2) 23) Do you think that the experience you gained from working on the site helped you in finding this new job? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 24) Is your wage in your new job higher than that you used to take from your work on the site? Higher (1) Lower (2) Same (3) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 78 TOOL # 4: QUANTITATIVE FORM + ONLINE POLL – MOA TRAINEES Introductory Statement: This survey is being conducted by an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of: 1) The Memphis Egypt’s Ancient Capital Project implemented by Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA) from August 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017; 2) The Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt Project implemented by ARCE from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. The findings of the evaluation are intended to assist USAID in: a) Determining the extent to which training and conservation (restoration and preservation) efforts have impacted the intervention sites (Memphis, Luxor and Sohag); b) To what extent interventions were effective in promoting better management of cultural heritage resources while increasing the sites’ cultural tourism potential. Your participation is voluntary but your participation is important to the results of this study. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. Thank you for your valuable contribution; the survey should not take more than 10 minutes to complete. Questionnaire ID: ……………… # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 1 Age (in completed years) 2* Gender Male (1) Female (2) 3* Please state the name of the governorate you were working in at the time of training 4* Please state the name of the governorate in which you are currently working 5* Educational Attainment Intermediate Education (1) Above Intermediate Education (2) University Graduate (3) MSc Holder (4) PhD Holder (5) Other (Specify :………………….) (6) 6* As a result of your training by the Memphis, Egypt’s Ancient Capital, Project implemented by AERA from August 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017 / The Cultural Heritage Tourism in Egypt Project implemented by ARCE from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, have you worked with any other international archaeological missions? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q9 7 If yes, what is the name of this (these) international archaeological mission(s)? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 79 # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 8 Please state the names of the projects you participated in with these missions. 9* Are you currently employed by the Ministry of Antiquities? Yes, full time (1) Skip to Q11 Skip to Q11 Yes, but currently on leave (2) No (3) 10* What is your current job in the Ministry of Antiquities? Conservator (1) Inspector (2) Other (Specify:………………………) (3) 11* What was your job in the Ministry of Antiquities at the time of training? Conservator (1) Inspector (2) Other (Specify:………………………) (3) 12* How long have you been/were you working in the Ministry of Antiquities? Less than one year (1) One year – Less than 3 years (2) 3 years – Less than 5 years (3) 5 years – Less than 10 years (4) 10 years or more (5) 13* Have you received a bonus as a result of being trained by the AERA / ARCE project? Yes (1) No (2) # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 14* Related to the AERA / ARCE project, please list below all the training workshops that you have completed. (Multiple Choice Question) Site Management (1) Cultural Heritage Management (2) Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness (3) Conservation (4) Photography (5) Other (Specify: ……………………..) (6) 15* Which of those trainings you listed in the previous question was the most relevant to your job at the Ministry? (Mention only one) Site Management (1) Cultural Heritage Management (2) Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness (3) Conservation (4) Photography (5) None (6) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 80 # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES Other (Specify: ……………………..) (7) 16* Would you like to take additional training in similar aspects of the AERA / ARCE project’s training program? Yes (1) No (2) 17 Please list the name(s) of the training program(s) you would recommend for future training. # QUESTION ANSWER NOTES 18* How were you selected to join the AERA / ARCE project’s training program(s)? (Select only one choice) Nominated by my direct supervisor (1) Nominated by a higher-level manager (2) Nominated by the project (3) I volunteered/applied (4) Other (Specify: ……………) (5) 19* To what extent were you satisfied with the AERA / ARCE project’s overall training program(s)? Very Satisfied (1) Satisfied (2) Neutral (3) Unsatisfied (4) Very Unsatisfied (5) Overall assessment for the training program(s) you received related to the AERA / ARCE project Please respond to each of the following statements by selecting the level of agreement reflecting your opinion. # STATEMENT STRONGLY AGREE (1) AGREE (2) NEUTRAL (3) DIS￾AGREE (4) STRONGLY DISAGREE (5) 20 Trainers were highly knowledgeable about the training subject. 21 Training materials were comprehensive (i.e. included all the required information needed). 22 The training program helped me to improve my job performance. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 81 # STATEMENT STRONGLY AGREE (1) AGREE (2) NEUTRAL (3) DIS￾AGREE (4) STRONGLY DISAGREE (5) 23 The training program helped me with my professional development (e.g. applying for international internship, master degree, diploma, etc.). 24 The Ministry of Antiquities in collaboration with AERA (ARCE) provided equal training opportunities for both men and women. Please respond to each of the following questions by selecting the level of agreement reflecting your opinion. Did the training program(s) you received from AERA/ARCE Project? # STATEMENT YES (1) NO (2) TO SOME EXTENT (3) 25 Increase your ability to innovate and contribute new ideas? 26 Increase your self-confidence? 27 Improve your ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities? 28 Increase your motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies? 29 Improved your technical capability to train colleagues? Thank you for your valued contributions to this evaluation effort. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 82 TOOL # 5: GROUP DISCUSSION WITH TEMPORARY WORKERS DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Temporary Workers TYPE OF TOOL Group Discussion NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 3 Group discussions + 30 survey targets / site (12 in total/ 96 - 120 individuals in total) LOCATION(S): Per Site TIME PER TOOL: 1 hour LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Arranging for the discussion (i.e. inviting workers) + Place for implementation. EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: Indicate quantitatively which site the laborers were assigned to at the beginning of the discussion. Indicate quantitatively whether the laborers were from the community surrounding the site. Have you visited the site(s) before the project started? - What changes have you observed in the site – in terms of physical changes? (in as much detail as possible) - Which of those changes have you supported through your job? - What changes have occurred in the site – in terms of accessibility for visitors (physical accessibility for persons with disabilities)? Were they sufficient? - On a scale from 1 – 5, how would you rate the physical changes conducted by the project? (Quantify in discussion – get a response per person). EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Were you, or other people you know consulted regarding the project or the physical development in the site? - If yes, how were you consulted? What was your input regarding the project when consulted? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 83 AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Did you receive any training from the project? - If yes, what training did you receive? - Was the training relevant to your work? Was it sufficient? - What changes in your skills and performances have you observed in your skills and performance as a result of the training? - If no, what other training would have been useful for you to conduct your job better? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - NA EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - How did you get a job on site? What was the choice process for workers on site? - What was your skills level at the beginning of the project? (Individual responses). How has this changed by the end of the project? - Are you satisfied with the wages you received? In your opinion, do the fees offered match the skill level and level of effort needed for the job? - Is this amount considered the normal wage level in the area for similar type of jobs? If no, what is the normal wage? - Do you recall the wages you received three years ago for this type of job? How different is it from your current wages? (Amount, increase, decrease, % of increase/decrease). - How did the decrease in tourism over the past few years affect you? (in terms of availability of employment opportunities and wages). - How has your work in the project helped in this regard? - How do you think the project affected tourism? How has it affected the site’s surrounding community? - Were you ensured by the project? What type of insurance (health, social, hazard, etc.) - Were your instructed/trained on safety precautions in your work? Were you provided/instructed to use safety equipment and safety gear? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - What is your opinion on the site maintenance? Do you believe there are sufficient procedures to ensure the site continues to be maintained? - Do you think the site will remain clean after the project’s end? - If No – What do you think needed for the site to remain clean and inviting to tourists? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 84 TOOL # 6 – GROUP DISCUSSION WITH MOA TRAINEES DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Trainees (MOA Conservators, Archeologists, Inspectors, Photographers) TYPE OF TOOL Group Discussion NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 3 Group discussions / site in Cairo and Sohag (6 in total/60 in total) 2 Group discussion / site in Luxor (4 in total/40 in total). LOCATION(S): Per Site TIME PER TOOL: 60 minutes per tool LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Arranging for the discussion (i.e. inviting trainees) + Place for implementation. EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - Indicate quantitatively which site the participants were assigned to at the beginning of the discussion. - Have you visited the site(s) before the project started? - What changes have you observed in the site – in terms of physical changes? (in as much detail as possible) - Which of those changes have you contributed to through your practical training? How did you contribute? - What changes have occurred in the site – in terms of accessibility for visitors (including access to information and physical accessibility for persons with disabilities)? (in as much detail as possible). - Besides the training, did you contribute to these changes in any other way (e.g. as a supervisor, a different assignment by MOA, etc.) - On a scale from 1 – 5, how would you rate the physical changes effected by the project? (Quantify in discussion – get a response per person). - Do you think these changes were the most relevant/needed? - What would have been a more relevant change/development in the area(s)? - In your opinion, what other developments/physical changes need to be conducted in order to ensure higher visitor count and better accessibility to the site? - Were the measure taken to ensure access of persons with disabilities to the site sufficient? If no, why not? What else was needed? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Were you involved/consulted in the decision making/thinking associated with the changes that took place at the site? If yes, in what way and at which phase? - Are you aware or were you involved in the research conducted prior to the physical interventions at the site? - Did you think the research was sufficient? - Do you have access to this research? - Do you know if a research was conducted with the local communities to seek their opinion on the interventions? - If yes, do you know the most important results of those consultations? - What else could have been done to ensure communities’ involvement in decision making related to the interventions on the site? EQ2. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 85 How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Please distribute the questionnaire among participants and ask them to fill them in before the next section of questions. Tool Questions: - What is the role played by the students in the project (besides receiving the training)? - Which training did you find the most useful? Why, and in what way was it useful? - Which training did you find the least useful? Why? - How did you apply the trainings you received through the project in your daily practices? (specifics) (Note different results between males and females) - Can you give us examples of change you perceived in your practices due to the project activities? - What challenges have you faced? How did you mitigate the challenges? - How did the training affect you on the personal and professional level? (For example increased confidence, seeking further development, promotions/higher professional level, different roles or responsibilities, higher chances to join other projects, etc.) (Note different results between males and females) - What other skills and competencies should be incorporated into the training component to improve capacities and better opportunities for students? - What do you suggest for maximizing the effect of the students’ role in the project? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Approximately, what is the percentage of female attendance in the training? - What measures were taken to ensure a substantial female participation? Were those measures sufficient? Training impact on daily practices, professional, and personal levels covered in previous questions – responses to be disaggregated by male and female EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - NA EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - How will the training component continue after the end of the project? Are you aware of a plan for sustainability of this component? If yes, what is the strategy for that? - What is your role now that the project is completed? - What do you suggest for ensuring the continuation of the provision of training after the project’s end? - What role do you think you can play in this regard (e.g. providing knowledge and technical assistance, sharing information, etc?) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 86 TOOL # 7 – TRAINERS FOR MOA TRAINEES DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Trainers for MOA Conservators, Archeologists, Inspectors, and Photographers SPECIFIC CONTACT PERSON(S) Master Trainers of Trained MOA Trainees (assuming trainers’ roles) TYPE OF TOOL KIIs or GDs NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 1 GD per site, and 3/4 KIIs with Trainers inside (if unavailable) or outside Egypt LOCATION(S): Per Site and remote TIME PER TOOL: 60 minutes LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Arranging for the discussion or KII (i.e. inviting trainers) + Place for implementation. If KIIs outside Egypt or unavailable on site, arrangement for telephone or skype calls. EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - How has the training component and the trainees contributed to the physical changes of the archeological sites? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - NA EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - NA EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Can you describe the field school component of the project? (i.e. what is the program, how was it implemented, what were the objectives, who were the target students, etc.) - How was the training designed? What factors were included in the training design? - Who was consulted on the design of the training? What was their contribution? - Were the students consulted prior to the design/implementation? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 87 - What were the categories of the trainees (i.e. conservators, archeologists, management, etc.)? - How were the trainees selected for participation? - Which topic do you think was the most useful for students? Why, and in what way was it useful? - Which training did you find the least useful? Why? - How effective was the training received on the students’ daily practices? - How did you assess the students’ progress in knowledge and skills? - Did you follow-up on the trainees’ performance after the training? How? - What was the biggest challenge you faced in training the groups of students? How did you mitigate the effects of this? - What other skills and competencies should be incorporated into the training component to improve capacities and better opportunities for students? - What do you suggest for maximizing the effect of the students’ role in the project? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Approximately, what is the percentage of female attendance in the training? - What measures were taken to ensure a substantial female participation? Were those measures sufficient? - How different were the results between males and females in the program, particularly in: o Commitment o Technical capacity o Interest o Motivation o Post-training progress (in job, responsibilities, and wages). - Do you think that the training has specifically helped female trainees gain further confidence to pursue further study or seek better positions? If yes, how? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - What type of training was provided for laborers? - (If training was provided, the same questions under EQ2-General – should be repeated here) EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - What is the current status of the training component? How is it operating (if it is)? - Is there a sustainability plan for this component? If yes, what are the main elements of this plan? - If no, how will the training component continue after the end of the project? - What is your role now that the project is completed? - What do you suggest for ensuring the continuation of the provision of training after the project’s end? - What role do you think you can play in this regard (e.g. providing knowledge and technical assistance, sharing information, etc?) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 88 TOOL # 8 – GROUP DISCUSSION – LOCAL VOLUNTEERS IN SOHAG DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Local Volunteers – Sohag (Female) TYPE OF TOOL GDs NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 1 GD in Sohag (Red Monastery). LOCATION(S): On site, Red Monastery TIME PER TOOL: One hour LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Inviting volunteers for participation + space for implementation EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) A) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? B) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - Are you all from the surrounding community? Quantify! - If no, have you visited the site before the conservation? - What are the changes that have taken place in the site? - In your opinion, how have those changes affected the site? (in terms of visit numbers and frequency)? - How have these physical changes helped increase the popularity of the site? (Did the project help increase the number of visitors, how?) - How has the project affected the surrounding community (as a result of the renovations and conservations)? - What is your role as volunteers on the site? How frequent do you provide that role? - Why did you join the project? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Were you or - to your knowledge - other community members consulted regarding the physical interventions in this place before it started? - If yes, how were you/they consulted? - Do you think the project has pursued sufficient consultations before it started? - Do you believe that the recommended changes were the needed ones? Or do you believe that other changes had a higher priority? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 89 conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - What is your role as volunteers in this site? (including frequency and hours) - What type of training did you receive from the project? (details). If received: - What was the purpose/objectives of the training? - How satisfied are you with it? Quantify – on a scale from 1 to 5). - How did the training help you assume your role as a volunteer on the site? How confident are you about your ability? - How did the training help you on the personal level? How did it affect your life? - What other skills and competencies that you need could have been beneficial for you. - What do you suggest for maximizing the effect of the training in the project? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - What motivated you to join the project? - How has your participation in the project affected your life? Your personal skills and competencies? - How did it make a difference, especially as a female, particularly in: o Commitment o Technical capacity o Interest o Motivation o Post-training progress (in job, responsibilities, and wages). - How does the community/visitors perceive your contribution as volunteers on this site? - What difficulties did you face in assuming your role? How did you address those difficulties? - Are any of those difficulties gender related? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - NA EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - What is your role now? - Who is following up on your work? Who is currently providing you with guidance on your role? - How do you report your daily activities? - Do you believe you will continue with your role as volunteers? - What challenges did you anticipate that might prevent you from continuing your role as volunteers on this site? - How would you mitigate those challenges? - Do you think that the changes that happened with the surrounding community will continue in effect? If no, why not? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 90 TOOL # 9: INTERVIEW WITH LOCAL SMES AND CRAFTS Data Source (Target Group) Local SMEs and Crafts Type of Tool KIIs Number of Tools to be implemented: 3/4 per site Location(s): Per Site Time per tool: 20 – 30 minutes Logistical Needs: Arranging for the implementation (i.e. accompanying to local SMEs participating in project or inviting them to site/location) + Place for implementation. EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? POINT OF DISCUSSION RESPONSE 1. Personal profile 1.1 Gender 1.2 Age bracket 1.3 Education 2. Enterprise profile 2.1 Field of activity • Craftsmanship • Contracting/Supply of laborers (classified by skills %) • Transportation services • Retail trade (Souvenirs, …..) • Others (specify) 2.2 Year of enterprise start-up 2.3 Size of employment • Family members (m/f) • Non-family members (m/f) 2.4 Business growth (gauged on a Likert scale) • Before 2015 (if business existed) • During 2015-2018 • Prospect for the future 2-3 years 3. Major challenges encountered in business (rank) 3.1 Access to finance 3.2 Regulatory/municipal obstacles 3.3 Tourism recession 3.4 Others 4. Involvement/experience with project name 4.1 Provider of services (types – dates) 4.2 Recipient of assistance (types – dates) 4.3 Others 5. Assessment of/satisfaction with involvement/experience with project activities (gauged on a Likert scale) 5.1 In relation to own business 5.2 In relation to other SMEs/entrepreneurs in the area 6. Involvement/experience with other technical assistance (TA) activities (if any) 6.1 6.1 Name of organization USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 91 POINT OF DISCUSSION RESPONSE 6.2 6.2 Type of TA • For own business • For the community USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 92 TOOL # 10 – INTERVIEWS WITH TOURISM INDUSTRY DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Tourism industry SPECIFIC CONTACT PERSON(S) Travel agencies or tour operators TYPE OF TOOL KII NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 2/3 per Governorate LOCATION(S): Cairo (for Memphis), Luxor. Sohag TIME PER TOOL: 30 – 45 minutes LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Appointments or invitation to participate + location EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) C) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? D) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - Do you or your clients ever visit Memphis/Luxor/Red Monastery? - Have you seen any improvements/changes at any of these sites? - What changes are you aware of? - In your opinion will these changes impact the visitor experience at those sites? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Were you or your business association consulted about the planned changes or the choice of sites, as far as you know? If yes, what consultation? - Are you aware of any other bodies being consulted (e.g. local community)? - How did consultations take place? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Does your staff have any need for training regarding archaeology, conservation or visitor management? - Were you involved in trainings? o If yes, how effective was it? o What feedback do you have about the trainings (quality, relevance, etc.)? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 93 EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Were any females involved in trainings, as far as you know? - Do any of the project changes make the sites safer/welcoming or have any other impact on female tourists? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - What have been the tourism trends in your area in the past four years? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - Which project activities/sites will have the best chance of being sustained, in your view? Why? - Which will have the greatest impact on future tourism? - Are there any current initiatives to support/increase emphasis on Heritage Tourism in Egypt or in your area that you are aware of? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 94 TOOL # 11 – GROUP DISCUSSIONS WITH TOUR GUIDES DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Tour guides TYPE OF TOOL KIIs or GD NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 3/4 per LOCATION(S): Cairo (for Memphis), Luxor. Sohag TIME PER TOOL: 30 minutes per KII or one hour in case of GD LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Arranging for the discussion (i.e. inviting workers) + Place for implementation, EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - How often have you guided visitors at this site on a weekly basis? - How many guides are authorized to work at this site? - Have you seen any improvements/changes at the archaeological sites of XXXX? - What changes are you aware of? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - Were tour guides or tour companies consulted about the planned changes or the choice of sites, as far as you know? If yes, what consultation? - Have tour guides been consulted/tested the material/publications produced by the project? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Are you aware of any other bodies being consulted (e.g. local community)? - How did consultation take place? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 95 Tool Questions: - Does your staff have any need for training regarding archaeology, conservation or visitor management? - Were you involved in trainings? - If yes - How effective was it? - What feedback do you have about the trainings (quality, relevance, etc.)? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Were any female guides involved in trainings, as far as you know? - Do female guides have any specific training needs? - Do any of the project interventions impact the quality of female visitors to the site (such as clean toilets, signage ... or other)? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - What have been the tourism trends in your region in the past four years? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - Which project activities/sites will have the best chance of being sustained, in your view? Why? - Which will have the greatest impact on future tourism? - Are there any current initiatives to support/increase emphasis on Heritage Tourism in Egypt or your area that you are aware of? - What are the challenges/threats facing Cultural Tourism in Egypt in your opinion? - What is the nature of your relation with MOA officials at the site when you visit? - Have any of the project materials/signs impacted how you guide the tourists around this site? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 96 TOOL # 12: SITE ADMINISTRATION – COPTIC CHURCH Data Source (Target Group) Site Administration (Coptic Church) Specific Contact Person(s) Fr. Anthonios, Other Monks Type of Tool Qualitative Questions and Reflections Number of Tools to be implemented: Location(s): Sohag Time per tool: 1 hour per each KII Logistical Needs: Arranging for meetings and Place for Implementation EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - What do you think the site has mostly needed before the intervention? - What do you think the methodology of the implementing body was? - Were these physical changes appropriate for the sustainability of the site? - In your capacity, how did the physical change improve the site for monastery different users? - How do you think that the physical changes will affect the living heritage of the church? - How do you think the physical changes affect the local community and the monks? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - To what extent were the physical changes the ones agreed upon prior to the project? - Were they modified? - Was the modification discussed and consulted with the monastery and church community before the implementation? - To what extent were academics and experts in the field consulted before the intervention? How were the church experts involved? - What were the comments and feedback of the church and monastery with the Implementing Partner? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - In what capacity has the church/monastery/MOA and the IP consulted with the local community? - In your opinion, how effective did the IP and MOA work collaboratively with the local community and church? Were they only informed or were they part of the inception of ideas for the project? Elaborate… EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 97 EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - What was the training priority for the monastery that lead to this training? - To what extent do you think the training of these individuals affected the community relation to the monastery? - To what extent do you think the training of the inspectors and conservators helps the upkeep and maintenance of the site? - How will MOA and church/monastery in the future make best use of these trainees? - How do they transfer the knowledge and experience gained through the training? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees hold key positions in MOA? - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees pursue further professional endeavors? - Please give us examples about how the female trainees have innovated or effected change that might help the sustainability of the monastery. - What is the role of the female volunteers trained by the project? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the project has helped improve the economic situation around the monastery? - Elaborate on how do think that the laborers income through working in the different projects might have had a trickle-down effect on the local village community? - In your opinion, were the daily wages appropriate for the work performed? - How do you think the IP can improve the work conditions for the laborers? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? (Breakdown: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? What areas have the greatest potential to be sustained? How will the sustainable award activities impact future tourism?) Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the activities carried out during the project will be sustained through the church and local community? - How can these activities impact future pilgrimage and international tourism? And why? - How can the church build on these activities future plans? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 98 TOOL # 13 – MOT CAIRO – CENTRAL Data Source (Target Group) MOT Cairo – Central Type of Tool KII Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 at the central level and 2 at the local level (Sohag and Luxor) Location(s): Cairo & MOT directorate in Sohag and Luxor Time per tool: 30 – 45 minutes Logistical Needs: Appointment arrangement with the official EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - Have you seen any improvements/changes at the archaeological sites of Luxor, Memphis or the Red Monastery, Sohag? - What changes are you aware of? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - Was the Ministry consulted about the planned changes or the choice of sites, as far as you know? If yes, what consultation? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Are you aware of any other bodies being consulted (e.g. local community)? - How did consolation take place? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. A) To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Does your staff have any need for training regarding archaeology, conservation or visitor management? - Were any MOT staff involved in trainings, as far as you know? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 99 - If yes, what types of training? - What feedback did you receive about the trainings? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Does the MOT have a gender program for its staff? - Does your female staff have specific training needs? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - What have been the tourism trends in these regions in the past four years? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - How are these destinations featured in the National Sustainable Tourism Master Plan? - Which project activities/sites will have the best chance of being sustained? - Which will have the greatest impact on future tourism? - Are there any current initiatives to support/increase emphasis on Heritage Tourism in Egypt? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 100 TOOL # 14: SITE ADMINISTRATION (STRATEGIC) Data Source (Target Group) Site Administration (Strategic) i.e. MOA officials at the directorate level responsible for the site administration such as Head of Conservation in Luxor East and in West Bank. Type of Tool Qualitative Questions and Reflections Number of Tools to be implemented: 4 to 5 in total (1 at the central level, and 1 in each governorate) Location(s): Cairo, Mit Rahina, Sohag, and Luxor Time per tool: 1 hour per each KII Logistical Needs: Appointment arrangement and Place for Implementation EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - What do you think the site has mostly needed before the intervention? - What do you think the methodology of the implementing body was? - Were these physical changes appropriate for the sustainability of the site? - In your capacity, how did the physical change improve the site for its multiple users? - How do you think that the physical changes will affect tourism? Presentation of site - How do you think the physical changes affect the local community? - EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - To what extent were the physical changes the ones agreed upon prior to the project? - Were they modified? - Was the modification discussed and consulted before the implementation? - To what extent were academics and experts in the field consulted before the intervention? - What were the comments and feedback of the MOA with the Implementing Partner? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - In what capacity has the MOA and the IP consulted with the local community? - In your opinion, how effective did the IP and MOA work collaboratively with the local community? Were they only informed or were they part of the inception of ideas for the project? Elaborate… EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 101 EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - What was the training priority for MOA that lead to this training? - To what extent do you think the training of the inspectors and conservators affected their performance on future job placement within MOA? - To what extent do you think the training of the inspectors and conservators helps the upkeep and maintenance of the site? - How will MOA in the future make best use of these trainees? - How do they transfer the knowledge and experience gained through the training? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees hold key positions in MOA? - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees pursue further professional endeavors? - Please give us examples about how the female trainees have innovated or effected change, despite minimal within your organization. EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the project has helped improve the economic situation around the different archaeological sites? - Elaborate on how do think that the laborers income through working in the different projects might have had a trickle-down effect? - In your opinion, were the daily wages appropriate for the work performed? - How do you think the IP can improve the work conditions for the laborers? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? (Breakdown: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? What areas have the greatest potential to be sustained? How will the sustainable award activities impact future tourism?) Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the activities carried out during the project will be sustained through your organization or another stakeholder? - How can these activities impact future tourism? And why? - How can MOA build on these activities future plans? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 102 TOOL # 15: SITE ADMINISTRATION (OPERATIONAL) DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Site Administration (Operational) (i.e. MOA inspectors and conservators at each site such as Karnak Temple, tombs). For the Red Monastery in Sohag, a separate tool is prepared for the Church in its capacity as Site Administrator. TYPE OF TOOL Qualitative Questions and Reflections NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 1 to 2 per site LOCATION(S): Cairo, Mit Rahina, Sohag, and Luxor TIME PER TOOL: 1 hour each LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Appointment arrangement and Place for Implementation EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) - To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? - How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - In your opinion, based on your current position, what do you think the site has mostly needed before the intervention? - How appropriate to the site needs, do you think the methodology of the implementing body was? - With respect to your governmental position as someone who is responsible directly or indirectly with the site, do you think that these physical changes were appropriate for the sustainability of the site? - In your capacity, how did the physical change improve the site for its multiple users? - How do you think that the physical changes will affect tourism? - How do you think the physical changes affect the local community? - Can you reflect in detail on how the physical change can improve the relation between the local community and the archaeological site? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - To what extent were the physical changes the ones agreed upon prior to the project with you as a local site inspector/conservator or a head inspector/head conservator? - Were these plans modified? - Was the modification discussed and consulted at your level before the implementation? - To what extent were academics and experts in the field consulted before the intervention? - What were the comments and feedback of the inspectors/conservators with the implementing partner? And how were they accommodated? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - In what capacity has the inspectors/conservators and the implementing body team consulted with the local community? - In your opinion, how effective did the implementing body and the site inspectors/conservators work collaboratively with the local community? Were they only informed or were they part of the inception of ideas for the project? Elaborate. EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 103 - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - What was the training priority for you as an inspector/head inspector, conservator/head conservator that led to this training? - To what extent do you think the training of the inspectors and conservators affected their performance on future job placement within MOA? - To what extent do you think the training of the inspectors and conservators helps the upkeep and maintenance of the site? - How can you employ the skills and technologies you have acquired in the training on your current job? Do you have access to similar equipment with which you can use the different skills you have learned? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees hold key positions in MOA? - In your opinion, to what extent has the training helped female employees pursue further professional endeavors? - If the inspector is a trained female, how has this training changed your attitude towards the job? How has the training given you enough power to effect change on the job? - Please give us examples about how you or other female trainees have innovated or effected change, despite minimal within your organization. EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the project has helped improve the economic situation around the different archaeological sites? - Elaborate on how do think that the laborers income through working in the different projects might have had a trickle-down effect? - In your opinion, were the daily wages appropriate for the work performed? - How do you think the IP can improve the work conditions for the laborers? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? (Breakdown: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? What areas have the greatest potential to be sustained? How will the sustainable award activities impact future tourism?) Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the activities carried out during the project will be sustained through your organization or another stakeholder? - In your opinion, how can these activities impact future tourism? - How can you as a site inspector/head inspector, conservator/head conservator build on these activities future plans? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 104 TOOL # 16: SITE ADMINISTRATION (SITE GIUARDS) DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) Site Administration (Site Guards) TYPE OF TOOL KII NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 1 KII/site LOCATION(S): Cairo, Mit Rahina, Sohag, and Luxor TIME PER TOOL: 1 hour each LOGISTICAL NEEDS: As convenient + place for implementation EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) • To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? • How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - From your perspective as a site guard, what do you think the site has mostly needed before the intervention? - How appropriate to the site needs, do you think the methodology of the implementing body was? - How has the physical changes affected site security and affected you positively or negatively on the job? - In your capacity, how did the physical change improve the site for its multiple users? - How do you think that the physical changes will affect tourism? - How do you think the physical changes affect the local community? - Can you reflect in detail on how the physical change can improve the relation between the local community and the archaeological site? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - To what extent were you aware of the plans for site management/conservation of the project? - Have you been consulted for an input? - What was your input to the plan? - How was your input accommodated in the site management/conservation plan? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? Tool Questions: - Can you explain your role as a mediator between the implementing body and the local community? - In your opinion, how did the implementing body involve and engage the local community effectively? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 105 EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - N/A EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - N/A EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the project has helped improve the economic situation around the different archaeological sites? - Elaborate on how do think that the laborers income through working in the different projects might have had a trickle-down effect? - In your opinion, were the daily wages appropriate for the work performed? - How do you think the IP can improve the work conditions for the laborers? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? (Breakdown: To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? What areas have the greatest potential to be sustained? How will the sustainable award activities impact future tourism?) Tool Questions: - In your opinion, do you think that the activities carried out during the project will be sustained security of the site? - In your opinion, how can these activities impact future tourism? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 106 TOOL # 17 – IPS (ARCE – AERA) DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) IPs (ARCE – AERA) TYPE OF TOOL KIIs (physical or telephone calls) NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 1 to 2 KII per each IP LOCATION(S): Central or Remote TIME PER TOOL: 60 – 90 minutes LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Appointments – connection for remote implementations EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) E) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? F) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - How were the intervention sites chosen? - Was tourism potential a consideration? - What are the most significant physical changes that took place at the site(s)? - Were there any differences between the planned and the actual implemented activity? What were those differences and how were the decision of change taken? - Were the changes implemented, the most relevant or were there any other changes recommended? - What was the role distribution between the different partners in the project? - What challenges did you face in implementation? How did those challenges affect the activity? How did you mitigate the effects of those challenges? - How have the physical changes implemented affected the site visits and popularity? How do you measure this change in visit frequency? - Do you believe that adequate promotion has been done to attract visitors’ attention and provide information on the sites? - What further changes are needed to improve access to the sites? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? Tool Questions: - What type of consultation took place prior to the project design and/or implementation? With which entities and groups? - How did the results of those consultations affect the project design? - How was the collaboration with GOE planned and maintained? - What type of collaboration did you have with ARCE/AERA? And with other specialized entities? - What type of collaboration did you have with the tourism industry? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? - Were the local communities surrounding the site(s) engaged in the intervention? How were they engaged? What is the result of this engagement? - How was the local community consulted prior to the project? - How would you rate the community acceptance to the physical changes conducted (process and result)? Why? - What lessons learned regarding community consultation and engagement did you reach? How will this affect future project planning? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 107 EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Could you describe the components of the training program? - How was the program designed? How were the target groups selected? - How were the content and training format designed? What consultations took place with the trainees and other entities to finalize the design? - How was the training received by MOA? How was it received by the trainees? - What is the level of interest and commitment have you observed among the trainees? - How have you followed up on the results of the training? - If yes, how did you follow-up? - In your opinion, how effective was the training component? How do you measure the training effectiveness? How do you determine its benefit? - How did the training benefit the students in their daily practices, career, responsibilities, and wages? What developments have the trainees, and/or their supervisors reported? - How did the training component benefit the intervention site? - What further developments to this component would you suggest to maximize this benefit? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Has a gender strategy and gender analysis been developed for the project? What are the main components/targets of the strategy? - How did the training affect the female trainees specifically? (Personal effects, skills, career, responsibilities, wages, better opportunities, etc.). - How is that different from the effects on male participants? - How did you follow up on those changes specifically? - What gender transformative measures would you further undertake in future projects? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - What was the strategy for alleviating the impact of reduced tourism in the site(s) surrounding communities? - What was the theory of change related to the effect of temporary jobs for laborers and its expected results of alleviating the effect of diminishing tourism in the community? - How were the laborers chosen? - How did the project ensure the laborers performance and skill development? - What training did they receive from the project? How was the training designed? (For example, different crafts, different skill levels, etc.) - What developments have you observed among laborers in terms of skill level, job opportunities, performance, and wages? - How are the suitable wages for laborers determined? Do you consider those as fair wages in comparison to similar jobs in the area? - What are the effects of the currency devaluation and inflation on the economic returns on the community, and on laborers specifically? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 108 - How did the project benefit / benefit from surrounding local businesses and crafts? What were the synergies and arrangements between both parties? - Besides the temporary jobs and making use of surroundings workshops and craftsmen, how did the project affect the surrounding community in terms of economic status? EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - How will the changes in the sites be sustained after the project’s end? Who is responsible for site management and maintenance on a daily basis? - What challenges do you anticipate in maintaining the sites and ensuring the continued access of visitors? - How are these destinations featured in the National Sustainable Tourism Master Plan? - Are current initiatives to support/increase emphasis on Heritage Tourism in Egypt sufficient? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 109 TOOL # 18: USAID DATA SOURCE (TARGET GROUP) USAID TYPE OF TOOL KIIs NUMBER OF TOOLS TO BE IMPLEMENTED: 2 LOCATION(S): USAID or QED office TIME PER TOOL: 60 minutes LOGISTICAL NEEDS: Appointment arrangement General questions In terms of activity design: - To what extent were the SITE interventions modeled after previous activities? - The development hypothesis is - If cultural heritage destinations are sustainably managed for enjoyable/engaging travel experiences, cultural tourists will return to Egypt. To what extent do you think these interventions are focused on cultural heritage management? The purpose of the project is to increase the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism sector while providing employment during the downturn in tourism arrivals. To what extent do you think these proposals are focused on competitiveness? In terms of implementing: - In your opinion, has implementation mirrored the original design? (i.e. Award document and work plans) - Were there any major course corrections, omissions or changes that you are aware of? - Were the activity objectives and targets realistic? - Has either IP team been able to effectively track progress towards the targets? Synergies - Have IPs been able to effectively work with DOA? - Why no formal engagement with MOT? Learning - What do you see as the major achievements or successes of SITE in your view? - What factors assisted or made those achievements possible? - What were some of the challenges? - How were they overcome? - Has either IP been able to effectively capture lessons learned and transform the knowledge into programming decisions? (i.e. adequate M+E staff, indicator data quality, follow up) - If SITE could be redesigned and/or re-implemented, what changes would you propose in light of what you know now? EQI What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) G) To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? H) How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? EQ1 – General What has been the extent of physical change at the archaeological sites following the conservation/cleaning/archaeological mapping or other physical interventions? (Physical change refers to conditions of a site before and after the project.) Tool Questions: - What changes at the archaeological sites of Luxor, Memphis or the Red Monastery, Sohag do you consider them the most significant? - Have there been any issues of concern regarding changes undertaken that you are aware of? - Were there any discussions with USAID regarding the choice of intervention sites? - Were there any sites proposed for interventions that were dropped or changed? EQ1 – A To what extent were physical interventions researched and shared/consulted with other stakeholders before starting implementation? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 110 Tool Questions: - Was there any agreement between USAID and GOE regarding public access to supported sites (e.g. Memphis)? - In your opinion, how effective has either IP been in consultations? - What have been the successes? - What have been the major challenges? - Was there any cooperation between the two IPs? - Is there a USAID Tourism or Antiquities working group that brings IPs together? EQ1-B How were stakeholders and/or local communities surrounding the site(s) consulted or informed before starting the interventions? - Has either IP been effective at engaging with beneficiaries and stakeholders? (e.g. local communities, tourism interests) - How successful do you think community engagement has been at each site (Memphis, Luxor Sohag)? - Which was the most successful, and why? - Which was the least successful, why? EQ2. How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. - To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. EQ2-General How beneficial and effective (to the needs of the students and site) were the types of field school training offered through the award? Evaluation of full programs, not individual modules. (Training included Site Management by AERA; conservation, archaeological, photography field schools and Microsoft by ARCE). Evaluation of full programs not individual modules. Tool Questions: - Have you received any feedback about the trainings undertaken by either IP? - Given that the overall hypothesis refers to tourism management, do you think tourism management has improved at the sites? - Which ones? EQ2-A To what extent, if any, has the training and capacity building components of the awards affected empowerment of female trainees? i.e. confidence to pursue additional training or tasks; ability to innovate or contribute more ideas to their original post; share what they have learned with other colleagues … etc. Tool Questions: - Have gender and gender related issues been adequately addressed by IPs? - Are there specific gender requirements for these IPs? EQ3 To what extent have the temporary jobs offered to laborers affected targeted beneficiaries in terms of alleviating or reducing the impact of diminishing tourism at areas surrounding selected sites? (Mit Rahina Village for AERA and Qurna and Sohag for ARCE) For example, were daily wages fair and appropriate for the type of work performed? Tool Questions: - No specific questions to USAID EQ4 To what extent are the award activities likely to be sustained? Identify areas that have the greatest potential to be sustained and impact future tourism? Tool Questions: - How are these destinations featured in the National Sustainable Tourism Master Plan? - Which project activities/sites will have the best chance of being sustained in your view? - Which will have the greatest impact on future tourism in your view? - Are current initiatives to support/increase emphasis on Heritage Tourism in Egypt sufficient? - Is there anything that we have not discussed already that is important for our understanding this USAID￾funded activity? USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 111 ANNEX 4B: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS - ARABIC أداة رقم 1 - أداة تقييم الحفظ والترميم للموقع اسم المشروع: ______________________ مدير المشروع: ______________________ الجهة المنفذة: ___________________ الفترة الزمنية:__________________________ إلجابة عن السؤال األول )QI)،يلزم استخدام نموذج التقييم الالي لإلجابة عن التغييرات المادية .1 تقرير تقييم الحالة: ُتشير هذه الدرجة إلى ُ المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في تقرير تقييم الحالة للموقع ومحيطه باإلضافة إلى جودة العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 تقرير تقييم حالة علمي مفصل تقرير تقييم الحالة غير مدعوم بالملحقات لتقرير متضمن وصف جزئي للحالة تقرير تقييم الحالة ذو تفاصيل قليلة عدم كفاية تقرير تقييم الحالة ال يوجد دليل على تقرير تقييم الحالة تقرير تقييم الحالة التقرير￾ملخص - وصف المشاكل )العيوب( / التصاميم. - وصف المشاكل )العيوب( / الخدمات - الملحقات￾التوصيات ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: .2 خطة الصيانة األولية: ُ ُ تشير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في خطة الصيانة األولية وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 خطة الصيانة ألولي ة مفصلة وقد تم تنفيذ ها خطة الصيانة ألولي ة منفذة جزئيا خطة الصيانة ألولية صعبة التنفيذ خطة الصيانة ألولية بدون منهجية واضحة خطة صيانة أولية غير كافية ال يوجد دليل على خطة الصيانة ألولية خطة الصيانة األولية الموقع من الخارج￾تنسيق العمل وإعداد الموقع من الداخل￾تنسيق العمل وإعداد -تطوير عدادات الحرارة والرطوبة وفالتر اإلضاءة ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 112 .3 التوثيق -قبل الصيانة : ُتشير هذه الدرجة إلى ُ المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في التوثيق السابق لعمليات الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 عمليات التوثيق ما قبل الصيانة علمية ومفصلة عمليات التوثيق –قبل الصيانة كامل ة مع أخطاء قليلة جدا عمليات التوثيق – قبل الصيانة غير واضحة أو غير جيدة عمليات التوثيق – قبل الصيانة ليست كافية عمليات التوثيق – قبل الصيانة ليست علمية ال يوجد دليل على التوثيق -قبل الصيانة التوثيق –قب الصيانة - التوثيق الفنىواألثرى. -وضع التخطيط. - التوثيق المعمارى. -التسجيل الفوتوغرافي. -التصوير الميكروسكوبى. ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 ￾5التسجيل بالرسم. تعليقات: النقاط: .4 الفحص –قبل الصيانة: ُتشير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة لعمليات الفحص قبل الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 عمليات الفحص –قبل الصيانة علمية ومفصلة عمليات الفحص – قبل الصيانة كاملة مع أخطاء قليلة ًجدا عمليات الفحص – قبل الصيانة بدون منهجية واضحة عمليات الفحص – قبل الصيانة ليست كافية عمليات الفحص – قبل الصيانة غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على الفحص-قبل الصيانة الفحص –قب الصيانة -فحص بصرى -الفحص بالميكروسكوب المستقطب -الفحص بالميكروسكوب إلليكترونى الماسح -قطاعات عرضية لطبقات التصوير )دراسة الطبقات( ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: .5 التحليل-قبل الصيانة: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة فى عمليات التحليل قبل الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 عمليات التحليل المنفذة قبل الصيانة كافية ومنفذة بطريقة علمية عمليات التحليل المنفذة قبل الصيانة كامل ة مع عدد قليل جدا من ألخطاء الطفيفة عمليات التحليل المنفذة قبل الصيانة نفذت بدون منهجية واضحة عمليات التحليل المنفذة قبل الصيانة غير كافية عمليات التحليل المنفذة قبل الصيانة غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على عمليات التحليل قبل الصيانة تحليل ما قبل الحفظ - التحليل بحيوداألشعة السينية - التحليل بتفلور األشعة السينية - التحليل األشعة تحت الحمراء. - التحليل بالميكروسكوب ألليكترونى الماسح المزود بوحدة )EDX) ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 113 .5 التحليل-قبل الصيانة: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة فى عمليات التحليل قبل الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 تعليقات: النقاط: .6 إلختبارات التي أجريت قبل الصيانة: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهج العلمي الصحيح المتبع في اإلختباراتالتي تم إجراؤ ها قبل الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 إلختبارات التي أجريت قبل الصيانة علمية ومفصلة إلختبارات التي أجريت قبل الصيانة كامل ة مع عدد قليل من ألخطاء الطفيفة اجريت إلختباراتقبل الصيانة بدون منهجية واضحة إلختبارات التي أجريت قبل الصيانة غير كافية إلختبارات التي أجريت قبل الصيانة نفذت بطريقة غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على اختبارات أجريت قبل الصيانة اإلختبارات التى اجريت قبل الصيانة - دراسة التلف الميكروبيولوجى -تقدير الخواص الفيزيائية )الكثافة -المسامية الظا هرة - امتصاص الماء( -تقدير الخواص الميكانيكية )مقاومةاالنضغاط -مقاومة البرى( ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 ￾5تحديد حجم مسام تعليقات: النقاط: .7 أعمال الرصد: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في أعمال الرصد وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 اعمال المرصد نفذت بطريقة علمية ومفصلة. اعمال الرصد المنفذة كافي ة مع عدد قليل جدا من ألخطاء الطفيفة. اعمال الرصد غير دقيقة. اعمال الرصد التى اجريت ليست كافية. اعمال الرصد نفذت بطريقة غير علمية. ال يوجد دليل على أعمال الرصد. أعمال الرصد -رصد الشقوق )الشروخ(. -رصد )درجات الحرارة –شدةاإلضاءة – الرطوبة النسبية - الغازات(. ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 114 .8 تفاصيل خطة الصيانة )المنهجية(: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في خطة الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 خطة الصيانة علمية ومفصلة منهجية خطة الصيانة كامل ة مع عدد قليل جدا من ألخطاء الطفيفة تفاصيل خطة الصيانة ليست كافية خطة الصيانة بدون منهجية واضحة منهجية خطة الصيانة غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على منهجية مفصلة لخطة الصيانة تفاصيل خطة الصيانة )المنهجية( -عالجاالنفصال￾التنظيف الكيميائي￾التنظيف الميكانيكي المنفصلة￾إعادة التصاقاألجزاء -التقوية - إزالة الترميم السابق )الخاطىء( - الج الشروخ ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 ￾5تثبت الجدران￾استكمالاألجزاء الناقصة تعليقات: النقاط: .9 تنفيذ خطة الصيانة: ُت ُ شير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في تنفيذ خطة الصيانة وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 تنفيذ خطة الصيانة كاملة بطريقة علمية اكتمال تنفيذ خطة الصيان ة مع أخطاء ً قليلة جدا تنفيذ خطة الصيانة بصورة ليس كافية تنفيذ خطة الصيانة بدون منهجية واضحة تنفيذ خطة الصيانة بطريقة غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على تنفيذ خطة الصيانة تنفيذ خطة عم الصيانة -خصائص المواد الكيميائية المستخدمة وشركاتاإلنتاج وطرق التطبيق - دراسة تجريبية لمواد وطرق التنظيف الميكانيكي - دراسة تجريبية لمواد وطرق التنظيف الكيميائى - دراسة تجريبية لمواد وطرق إعادةاللتصاق - دراسة تجريبية لمواد وطرق التقوية -المكافحة البيولوجية - اعمال التوثيق اثناء الصيانة ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 115 مفتاحتصنيف المشروع استثنائية 100-90 ٪ جديربالثناء ٪89-75 مقبول ٪74-60 غير مقبول ٪59 أو أقل .10 خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد: ُ ُ تشير هذه الدرجة إلى المنهجية العلمية الصحيحة المتبعة في خطة الصيانة الدورية وأعمال الرصد بعد اإلنتهاء من أعمال الترميم وجودة هذه العمليات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد بعداإلنتهاء من ألعمال علمية وكاملة )مفصلة( خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد بعداإلنتهاء من ألعمال كافي ة مع قليل من ألخطاء الطفيفة خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد بعداإلنتهاء من ألعمال ليست فعالة خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد بعداإلنتهاء من ألعمال ليست كافية خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد غير علمية ال يوجد دليل على خطة للصيانة الدورية والرصد بعد إلنتهاء من ألعمال خطة الصيانة الدورية والرصد بعد إنتهاء العمل )الترميم( الحرارة والرطوبة￾إعداد أجهزة رصد - استخدم اإلضاءة المناسبة -توفير أنظمة تهوي ة مناسبة - استخدام نظام مناسب المتصاص الرطوبة الزائدة والغازات -توفير أنظمة حماية مناسبة للجدران واألسقف- أنظمة - حماي ة من المخاطر الطبيعية )السيول( ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: مجموع النقاط ________ نسبة ________ المرتبة )التقدير( USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 116 أداة رقم 2 - أداة تقييم مخطط إدارة الموقع اسم المشروع :______________________ مدير الموقع : ______________________ الجهة المنفذة : ___________________ الفترة زمنية : __________________________ EQ I .1 رسم الخرائط: تشير هذه الدرجة إلى توافر الخرائط والخطط الدقيقة للموقع مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 اكتمال بيانات نظم المعلومات الجغرافي ة مع الخرائط والتحليل المكاني يتم تعيين المواقع بشكل صحيح بحدود ها المناسبة وبعض التحليل المكاني يتم تعيين المواقع بشكل صحيح ، ولكن دون تحليل مكاني مسح جزئى للموقع ألثرى خرائط عامة بدون أعمال مسح ال يوجد دليل على الخرائط رسم الخرائط ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليثات النقاط: EQ I .2 الدراسات األولية: تشير هذه الدرجة إلى مستوى جودة الدراسات األولية مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 دراسة أولية كاملة مع وسائل مرئية واضحة دراسة أولية تفتقر إلى بعض التفاصيل دراسة أولي ة مع البيانات المرئية، ولكن التفاصيل غير كافية الدراسات ألولية ألساسي ة مع بعض البيانات المرئية عدم كفاية الدراساتاألولية ال يوجد دليل على الدراساتاألولية الدراساتاألولية ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: EQI, EQ2, EQ4 .3 تقيم المخاطر: تشير هذه الدرجة إلى جودة تقييم المخاطر التي يتم إجراؤ ها للموقع بما في ذلك )المخاطر المسبقة والمخاطر المستقبلية( مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 خطة تقييم المخاطر الكاملة مع أنواع المخاطر والمناطق وخطط التعديل المستقبلية أوراق تقييم المخاطر مع بعض التحليل خطة مطوره جزئياً مع بعض البيانات البيئية الحداألدنى من تقيم المخاطر للعوامل الطبيعية والبشرية ذكر عوامل الخطر في التقارير العامة ال يوجد دليل على تقيم المخاطر تقيم المخاطر ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 117 EQI .4 وصف النشاط السياحي للموقع قبل التدخل: هذا يقيس اتجا هات السياحة ، ارتفاع وانخفاض اعداد السياح بالمواقع المختلفة والتقسيم الجغرافىألعداد الزوار مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 وصف تفصيلي كامل لتاريخ النشاط السياحى واألتجا هات السابقة والتغيرات المستقبلية المحتملة تطوير وصف النشاط السياحي مع تقييم االتجا هات تجميع الوصف ألساسى للنشاط السياحى مع أمثلة قوية الحداألدنى لوصف النشاط السياحي مع بعض ألدلة وصف النشاط السياحى قليل وغير مدعوم األدلة ال دليل على الوصف وصف النشاط السياحي ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: EQI, EQ2, EQ4 5 . تحليل أصحاب المصلحة والعمل التعاوني: يقيس هذا التقييم مستوى التفصيل لمسح تحليل أصحاب المصلحة، وخطة التنفيذ ومنهجية المشاركة المجتمعية. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 يقدم مسح تحليل أصحاب المصلحة ً مسح ً ا تفصيليا ًال ومنهجية فعا ًا كافية وتنفيذ ً ناجحا قدم استبيان تحليل أصحاب المصلحة تفاصيل كافية عن مختلف أصحاب المصلحة، والمنهجية الصحيحة، ولكن التنفيذ محدود هناك مسح وتحليل رأى ألصحاب المصلحة مع منهجية واضحة ولکن تنفيذ عير كافى يوجد تحليل ألصحاب المصلحة مع وجود خطة تنفيذ محدودة لمنهجية المشاركة يوجد وصف محدود ألدوار أصحاب المصلحة ال يوجد استطالع رأي ألصحاب المصلحة مسح تحليل اصحاب المصالح ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: .6 مسح البنية التحتية: يقوم هذا التقييم بتقييم خطط االقتراب من تجربة الزائرين والطرق والممرات وأنواع المواصالت ومواقف السيارات ومنطقة البائعين ومركز الزوار ومدخل األمن والمراحيض وال الجئ وأماكن الراحة ومرافق الموقع ونسيج الموقع مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 مسح كامل للبنية التحتية تم إجراء بيانات مسح البنية التحتية، ولكنها تفتقر إلى بعض التفاصيل بيانات مسح البنية التحتية متاحة، ولكنها غير مكتملة بيانات مسح البنية التحتية غير متناسقة هناك بعض إلشارة إلى البنية التحتية حول الموقع ال يوجد مسح للبنية التحتية مسح البنية التحتية ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 118 EQI, EQ2, EQ4 .7 إدارة الزوار: تناقش هذه الدرجة القدرة الستيعابية وإجراءات حجز التذاكر وتجربة الزوار في الموقع مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 خطة إدارة زيارة موجزة واضحة خطة إدارة الزائر كافية ، ولكنها تفتقر إلى منهجية واضحة . خطة إدارة الزوارمطورة ، ولكن تفتقر إلى بعض الجوانب خطة إدارة الزائرين غير مكتملة هناك خط ة مبدئية إلدارة الزوار ال يوجد إدارة للزوار إدارة الزوار ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: .8 خطة إدارة الموقع: الجودة الشاملة لخطة بناء القدرات، وخطة الطوارئ والكوارث، وإمكانية الوصول، والالفتات، والصيانة مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 اكتمال وتنفيذ خطة إدارة الموقع خطة إدارة موقع دقيقة وموجزة، ولكن مع بعض القيود العملية خطة إدارة موقع مطوره، ولكنها تفتقر إلىاالتساق أو الوضوح خطة إدارة موقع منخفضة الجودة تخطيط قليل أو غير فعالإلدارة المواقع ال يوجد خطة إلدارة الموقع خطة إدارة الموقع ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: EQ1, EQ2, EQ4 .9 المطبوعات: تشير هذه الدرجة إلى الجودة الفعلية للمطبوعات وسهولة إعادة الطبع والوصول للمعلومات. مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 المطبوعات جيدة ومكتوبة بالمشارك ة مع أصحاب المصلحة والشريك المنفذ بلغات متعددة مطبوعات علمية مفصلة ومواد مرئي ة مثل الكتيبات والخرائط بلغات متعددة مطبوعات علمية مفصلة بالغتين اإلنجليزية والعربية المطبوعات العلمية وتقارير المشروع بالغة اإلنجليزية فقط المطبوعات العلمية قليلة المنشورات ال يوجد مطبوعات ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 119 مفتاح تصنيف المشروع استثنائية 100-90 ٪ 4 جدير بالثناء ٪89-75 مقبول ٪74-60 غير مقبول ٪59 أو أقل EQ4 .10 االستدامة: هذه الدرجة تقيس استدامة ألنشطة المختلفة للمشروع مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 بعد انتهاء المشروع، الشركاء ألساسيون يستكملوااألنشطة المختلفة ويطورو ها بعد اكتمال المشروع بعض الشركاء يستمروا األنشطة المختلفة ويقوموا بمحا الت للتطوير بعد اكتمال المشروع أحد الشركاء يستمر او يستكمل بعض ألنشطة المختلفة يوجد بعض ألنشطة المستمره لفترة بسيطة تستمر بعض ألنشطة الصغيرة بعد المشروع انتهت جميع ألنشطة بنهاية المشروع الستدامة 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0 ضع دائرة تعليقات: النقاط: EQ4 .11 عالمة الموقع التجارية وخطة التسويق: تقيس هذه الدرجة جودة وإمكانية تنفيذ استراتيجية العالمة التجارية وخطة تسويق الموقع مؤشر المستوى 0 المستوى 1 المستوى 2 المستوى 3 المستوى 4 المستوى 5 وضع خطة تسويقية ثقافية مهنية جيدة وعالمة تجارية خطة تسويق وعالمة تجارية قوية، لكن التنفيذ محدود خطة تسويقية كاملة ومتسقة، ولكن بأقل قدر من التنفيذ خطة تسويق متطورة بدون تنفيذ بعض العالمات التجارية ومحاوالت التسويق غير متوائمة ال يوجد عالمة تجارية أو خطة تسويقية للموقع العالمة التجارية والتسويق ضع دائرة 0 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 تعليقات: النقاط: مجموع النقاط نسبة ________ المرتبة )التقدير( ___ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 120 أداة رقم :3 األداه الكمية لعمالة المؤقتة مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: العمال المؤقتون نوعاألداة: نموذج بيانات كمية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 30في كل موقع من مواقع العمل )96 - 120فرد( الموقع: لكل موقع الوقت لكل أداة: 10دقائق لكل فرد الحتياجات اللوجستية: إلعداد للمناقشة )أي دعوة العمال( + مكان للتنفيذ ُ معلومات تسجل بواسطة الباحث المحافظة: .............................. التاريخ: ...... /...... /...... الموقع: ................................. رقم االستمارة: ........................................ # السؤال االستجابات تعليقات 1( العمر )بالسنوات الكاملة( 2( المستوى التعليمي أمي (1) يقرأ ويكتب (2) شهادة ابتدائية (3) شهادة اعدادية /ثانوية (4) شهادة متوسطة (5) شهادة فوق المتوسطة (6) شهادة جامعية (7) شهادة فوق الجامعية (8) أخرى )حدد: .......( (9) )3 محل ميالدك؟ )ُيذكر اسم المحافظة( )4 محل اقامتكاألساسي/الرئيسي؟ )ُيذكر اسم المحافظة( )5 كم من الوقت قمت بالعمل في )اذكر اسم )..................( يوم الموقعاألثري(؟ # السؤال االستجابات تعليقات )6 لماذا وافقت على العمل في هذه الوظيفية؟ )يسمح بتعدد اإلجابات( لم أكن أعمل وقتها (1) الكتساب الخبرة (2) المرتب كان أكبر من مرتب الوظيفةالتي كنت أعمل بها (3) كنت محتاج أعمل في أكثر من وظيفة (4) أخرى )حدد: ................( (5) )7 كانت وظيفتكاألساسية في الموقع هي .......؟ عامل (1) سائق (2) نجار (3) حداد (4) حارس (5) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 121 # السؤال االستجابات تعليقات سباك (6) كهربائي (7) أخرى )حدد.............:( (6) 8( كيف تصف مهاراتك في العمل؟ مهارات عالية الكفاءة (1) مهارات متوسطة الكفاءة (2) مهارات منخفضة الكفاءة (3) )9 في اعتقادك، هل العمل في هذا المشروع ساعدك على تنمي ة مهاراتك في العمل؟ نعم (1) ال (2) إلى حد ما (3) في المتوسط، كم كان عدد ساعات عملك 10( في اليوم؟ # السؤال االستجابات تعليقات )11 كم كان أجرك في هذه الوظيفة؟ )بالجنيه المصري( )في حال اختالف األجر من سنة أل ُ خرى، يذكر المتوسط( المبلغ )بالجنية( في الساعة (1) اليوم (2) ألسبوع (3) الشهر (4) الم همة (5) أخرى حددذ: ......( (6) في رأيك، هل كان هذا ألجر كافي/متناسب مع 12( حجم العمل/المجهود الذي كنت تبذله؟ نعم (1) انتقل إلى سؤال ال (2) 14 إلى حد ما (3) في رأيك، كم كاناألجر المناسب للعمل الذي 13( ......... جنيه مصري في.......... كنت تقوم به؟ انتقل إلى سؤال 15 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن هذا األجر استطاع ان 14( يوفر لك مستوى حياة أفضل؟ نعم (1) ال (2) إلى حد ما (3) خالل فترة عملك في هذا المشروع، هل كان 15( لديك تأمين؟ نعم (1) انتقل إلى سؤال 17 انتقل إلى سؤال 17 ال (2) ال أعرف (3) )16 ما هو نوع هذا التـأمين؟ )يسمح بتعدد االجابات( تأمين صحي (1) تأمين اجتماعي (2) تأمين ضد المخاطر (3) أخرى )حدد: ......( (4) قبل عملك في هذا المشروع )أي قبل عام 17( 2015(، هل كنت تعمل؟ نعم (1) انتقل إلى سؤال 21 ال (2) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 122 # السؤال االستجابات تعليقات إذا كانت اإلجابة نعم، هل هذه الوظيف ة مرتبطة 18( بمجال السياحة المحلية؟ نعم (1) ال (2) 19( كيف كانت طبيعة هذه الوظيفة؟ دوام كامل (1) دوام جزئي (2) باليومية (3) بالم همة (4) أخرى )تذكر: .......( (5) كم كان أجرك في المتوسط في هذه الوظيفة 20( )...........( جني ه مصري في ).........( السابقة؟ 21( هل تعمل حالياً؟ نعم (1) انهي المقابلة ال (2) إذا كانت اإلجابة نعم، هل ترتبط هذه الوظيفة 22( الجديدة بمجال السياحة؟ نعم (1) ال (2) )23 هل تعتقد أن الخبرة التي اكتسبتها من خالل عملك في هذا المشروع ساعدتك على إيجاد هذه الوظيفة الجديدة؟ نعم (1) ال (2) إلى حد ما (3) )24 ) هل أجرك في الوظيفة الحالية أكبر مناألجر الذي كنت تحصل عليه في هذا المشروع؟ أكبر (1) أقل (2) في نفس المستوى (3) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 123 أداة رقم :4است الع الرأي االلكتروني – المتدربين من وزارة اآلثار يقوم فريق تقييم مستقل تعاقدت معه بعثة الوكالة األمريكية للتنميةالدولية في مصر بإجراء هذا المسح بغرض تقييم أداء المشاريع التالية في نهايتها: )1( مشروع العاصمة القديمة لمصر - مدين ة ممفيس -الذي تفذته جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة في الفترة من 1أغسطس 2015 حتى 30سبتمبر .2017 )2( مشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر الذي نفذه مركز البحوث األمريكى بمصر في القترة من 1يناير 2015 حتى 31 ديسمبر .2018 تهدف نتائج التقييم إلى مساعدة الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية في تحديد: - أ( مدى تأثير جهود التدريب والصيانة )الترميم والحفظ( على التدخالت فى مواقع )ممفيس واألقصر وسو هاج(. ب( إلى أي مدى كانت التدخالت فعالة في تعزيز إدارة موارد التراث الثقافي مع زيادة إمكانات السياحة الثقافية للمواقع. مشاركتك تطوعية بالكامل ولكن مشاركتك م همة لنتائج هذه الدراسة. ستكون النتائج مجهولة المصدر )ال توجد معلومات تعريف شخصية( وتقاس مها مع أصحاب المصلحة فيالمشروع. نشكركم على مشاركتكم القيمة والفعالة، االستبيان لن يستغرق أكثر من 10 دقائق الستكماله. رقم االستمارة: .................... # السؤال إلجابة الحظات 1 العمر )بالسنوات الكاملة( 2 النوع ذكر (1) أنثى (2) 3 من فضلك، اذكر اسم المحافظة التي كنت تعمل بها وقت التدريب 4 من فضلك، اذكر اسم المحافظة التي تعمل بها حالياً 5 المؤ هل التعليمي تعليم متوسط (1) تعليم فوق المتوسط (2) خريج جامعي (3) حاصل على الماجستير (4) حاصل على الدكتوراه (5) أخرى )حدد: ....( (6) 6 كنتيجةلتدريبكفيمشروع العاصمةالقديمة ً لمصر - مدينة ممفيس -الذينفذته جمعية أبحاث مصرالقديمةفيالفترة من 1أغسطس 2015 حتى 30سبتمبر 2017 / مشروع السياحةالتراثيةفيمصرالذينفذهمركز البحوث األمريكيبمصرفيالفترة من 1يناير 2015 حتى 31 ديسمبر ،2018 هل عملت مع أيبعثاتدولية أخرىلآلثار؟ نعم (1) ال (2) انتقل إلى سؤال 9 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 124 # السؤال إلجابة الحظات 7 إذا كانت اإلجابة نعم، ما هي أسماء هذه البعثات الدولية؟ 8 من فضلك أذكر اسماء المشاريع التي شاركت بها مع هذه البعثات الدولية. 9 هل أنت تعمل حالياً بوزارة اآلثار؟ نعم، بدوام كامل (1) انتقل إلى سؤال 11 نعم، ولكني في أجازه حاليا (2) ً ال (3) انتقل إلى سؤال 11 10 ما هي وظيفتك الحالية بوزارةاآلثار؟ مرمم آثار )1( مفتش )2( أخرى )حدد: ......( )3( 11 ماذا هي وظيفتك بوزارةاآلثار وقت التدريب؟ مرمم آثار )1( مفتش )2( أخرى )حدد: ......( )3( كم تبلغ / بلغت مدة عملك بوزارة اآلثار؟ 12 أقل من سنة )1( سنة – أقل من 3سنوات )2( 3سنوات – أقل من 5سنوات )3( 5سنوات – أقل من 10سنوات )4( 10سنوات أو أكثر )5( 13 هل حصلت على مكافأة مالية نتيجة تدريبك مع مشروع العاصمة القديمة لمصر )ممفيس( المنفذ من قبل جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة / مشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر المنفذ من قبل مركز البحوث األمريكي بمصر؟ نعم (1) ال (2) 14 من فضلك، اذكر جميع الدورات التدريبية التي أكملتها مع مشروع مشروعالعاصمة القديمة لمصر )ممفيس( المنفذ من قبل جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة /مشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر المنفذ من قبل مركز البحوث األمريكي بمصر )يسمح بتعدد االجابات( التدريب على إدارة الموقع (1) التدريبعلى إدارةالتراثالثقافي (2) برامج تدريبية تهدف إلى التوعية/ الوعي المجتمعي اآلثار/ الوعي العام اآلثار (3) التدريب على الترميم والحفظ (4) التدريب على التصوير (5) أخرى )حدد: .......( (6) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 125 # السؤال إلجابة الحظات 15 أي من الدورات التدريبية التي قمت بذكر ها في السؤال السابق تعتبر األقرب لطبيعة وظيفتك بالوزارة؟ )أذكر واحدة فقط( التدريب على إدارة الموقع (1) التدريبعلى إدارةالتراثالثقافي (2) برامج تدريبية تهدف إلى التوعية/ الوعي المجتمعي اآلثار/ الوعي العام اآلثار (3) التدريب على الترميم والحفظ (4) التدريب على التصوير (5) ال يوجد (6) أخرى )حدد: .......( (7) 16 هل ترغب في الحصول على دورات تدريبية إضافية في نفس المجاالت التي حصلت فيها على تدريب مشروعالعاصمة القديمة لمصر المنفذ من قبل جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة / مشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر المنفذ من قبل مركز البحوث األمريكي بمصر؟ نعم (1) ال (2) من فضلك أذكر أسماء الدورات التدريبية التي 17 توصي بإتاحتها في المستقبل 18 كيف تم اختيارك لاللتحاق ببرامج التدريب التابعة لهذا المشروع؟ )اختر إجابة واحدة فقط( تم ترشيحي من قبل مديري المباشر (1) تم ترشيحي من أحد المديرين غير المباشرين لي (2) تم ترشيحي من قبل المشروع نفسه (3) تطوعت / تقدمت بطلب إلتحاق (4) أخرى )حدد: .........( (5) إلى أي مدى أنت راضي عن مستوى برامج 19 التدريب التابعة لهذا المشروع بشكل عام؟ راضي جدا (1) ً راضي (2) محايد (3) غير راضي (4) غير راضي تماما (5) ً USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 126 التقييم الشامل للبرامج التدريبية التي التحق بها المتدرب والتابعة لمشروع العاصمة القديمة لمصر )ممفيس( المنفذ من قبل جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة / لمشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر المنفذ من قبل مركز البحوث ألمريكي بمصر من فضلك أجب على كل من الجمل التالية من الل اختيار اإلجابة التي تعكس رأيك # العبارة موافق بشدة (1) موافق (2) محايد (3) غير موافق (4) غير موافق بشدة (5) 20 كان المدربين على دراية كبيرة بموضوعات التدريب 21 المواد التدريبية )المحاضرات، المذكرات، ...( كانت شاملة؛ أي كان تحتوي على جميع المعلومات المطلوبة 22 ساعدني البرنامج التدريبي على تحسين أدائي في العمل 23 ساعدني البرنامج التدريبي على تنمي ة مهاراتي ال مهنية )مثل: التقدم لتدريبات/منح دولية، التقدم للحصول على درجة الماجستير، الحصول على دبلومة، ،... إلخ( 24 وفرت وزارةاآلثار بالتعاون مع جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة )مركز البحوث األمريكي بمصر( فرص تدريب متساوية للذكور اإلناث من فضلك أجب على األسئلة التالية من الل اختيار اإلجابة التي تعكس رأيك هل ساعدتك البرامج التدريبية التي حصلت عليها من مشروع العاصمة القديمة لمصر المنفذ من قبل جمعية أبحاث مصر القديمة/ مشروع السياحة التراثية في مصر المنفذ من قبل مركز البحوث األمريكي بمصر على: # العبارة نعم (1) ال (2) إلى حد ما (3) 25 زيادة قدرتك علىاالبتكار والمسا همة بأفكار جديدة؟ 26 زيادة الثقة بنفسك؟ 27 تحسين قدرتك على التعامل بفاعلية مع المسئوليات المختلفة بالعمل؟ 28 زيادة دافعك وراء متابعة التدريبات أو المهام أو الدراسات إلضافية؟ 28 تحسين قدراتك التقنية/الفنية لتدريب زمالئك؟ نشكركم على مس اهمتكم القيمة في إعداد هذا التقييم. ستكون النتائج مجهولة المصدر )ال توجد معلوما تعريف شخصية( وسيتم مشاركتها مع األطراف المعنية بالمشروع USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 127 األداة رقم :5 العمال المؤقتون مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: العمال المؤقتون نوعاألداة: مجموعة نقاشية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 3 مناقشات جماعية + 30فرد لألداة الكمية في كل موقع )المجموع 12 مجموعة 96 – 120فرد فرد( الموقع: لكل موقع الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة واحدة الحتياجات اللوجستية: إلعداد للمناقشة )دعوة العمال( + مكان للتنفيذ ملحوظة: تمتصميم ألداة بالغة العربية العامية لتسهيل عمل المحاور في المناقش ة مع العمال المؤقتين سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: تحديد الموقع ً الذي عمل به العمال المشاركين في المناقشة )كميا(. تحديد عدد العمال من محيط الموقع مقابل عدد العمال من خارج المكان. انتوا زرتوا الموقع قبل المشروع ما يبتدي؟ ايه التغييرات التي الحظتو ها في الموقع –التغييرات الخاصة بالمكان؟ )تفاصيل( ازاي شاركتوا بشغلكم في التجديدات والتغييرات اللي حصلت في المكان؟ غير التجديدات، ايه التغييرات اللي اتعملت في المكان وسهلت وصول واستخدام الزوار للمكان؟ )مثالً – وصول واستخدام ذوياإلعاقة(؟ هل التغييرات اللي اتعملت دي كانت كافية؟ لو طلبنا منكم تدوا للمشروع درجة من 1 ل5تدولهكام؟ )جمع آراء المشاركين كل مشارك على حدا(. سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ هل الجهة اللي بتنفذ المشروع استشارتكم في التجديدات والترميمات المطلوبة؟ هل تعرفوا إذاكانوا سألوا الناس حوالين المشروع أو سألوا حد تعرفوه؟ إذا كانتاإلجابة بنعم، ازاي استشاروكم؟ وكان رأيك ايه عن الموضوع لما سألوكم؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: اتدربتوا مع المشروع –في حد كان بيديكم تدريب عملي؟ لو ايوه، ايه نوع التدريب اللي اخدتوه؟ هل التدريب كان مرتبط بشغلكم؟ هل كان كفاية؟ هل أثر التدريب في مهاراتكم وتطوير شغلكم؟ إذا كان الجواب ال، ايه التدريب الي كان ممكن يكون مفيد بالنسبة لشغلكم ويساعدكم تعملوا شغلكم بشكل افضل؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 128 سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: غير منطبق سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة وسو هاجبـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: إزاي اشتغلتوا في المشروع؟ إزاي كانوا بيختاروا العمال اللي يشتغلوا في المواقع؟ قبل ما تشتغلوا في المشروع كنتوا بتشتغلوا في المجال ده اصالً د عليكم؟ والال كان جدي هل راضيين عن األجور اللي بتاخدو ها؟ هل األجور اللي اخدتو ها مناسبة للمجهود اللي بتعملوه او لمستوى المهارة بتاعتكم )سواء مثالً سطوات ا او جداد في الشغل(؟ هلاألجر اللي بتاخدوه يعتبر مناسب لألجور المعتادة مقابل الشغل ده في المنطقة؟ إذا كانتاإلجابةال، ايه هواألجر المعتاد؟ فاكريناألجور اللي كنتنوا بتاخدو ها من تالت سنين للشغل ده؟ لو ايوه، ايه االختالف عناألجر اللي بتاخدوه دلوقتي؟ )المبلغ، الزيادة، النقص، نسبة الزيادة/النقص(. قلة السياحة في السنين اللي فاتت ازاي اثرت على شغلكم )فرص العمل،األجور(؟ ازاي شغلكم في المشروع دساعد في الموضوع ده؟ في رأيكم، المشروع قدر يؤثرعلى السياحة وعدد الزوار؟ طب ازاي اثر المشروع على المنقطة اللي حواليه؟ هل المشروع أمن عليكم وانتوا بتشتغلوا؟ لو ايوه، ايه نوع التأمين )صحي، اجتماعي، ضداألخطار، الخ(. هل اخدتمتدريب / تعليمات الحتياطات األمن والسالمة في شغلكم؟ في حد اداكم أدوات او قالكم تستخدموا معدات او أدوات لألمن والسالمة؟ سؤال تقييم :4 . ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ مع تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلةاألداة: ايه رأيكم في الصيانة الدورية في الموقع؟ شايفين انها كافية عشان تستمر صيانة المواقع؟ تفتكروا الموقع هيفضل نظيف بع المشروع ما ينتهي؟ لو أل – ايه اللي ممكن يكون مطلوب عشان الموقع يفضل نظيف وجذاب للياح؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 129 األداة رقم :6 المتدربين من وزارة اآلثار )كل التخصصات( مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: المتدربين من وزارةاآلثار )كل التخصصات( نوعاألداة: مجموعات نقاشية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 3 مجموعة نقاشية بكل موقع في القا هرة وسوهاج )إجمالي 6 مجموعات / 60فرد( 2 مجموعة نقاشية بكل موقع في األقصر )إجمالي 4 مجموعات / 40 فرد( الموقع: كل المواقع الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة الحتياجات اللوجستية: دعوة المتدربين للمشاركة + مكان التنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: ً تحديد المواقع التي يعمل بها المشاركين فيها في بداية المناقشة )كميا( هل قمت بزيارة الموقع )المواقع( قبل بدء المشروع؟ ما هي التغييرات / التطورات المادية التيالحظتها في الموقع؟ )تفاصيل( أي من هذه التغييرات سا همت فيها من خالل تدريبك العملي؟ كيف سا همت؟ ما هي التغييرات التي حدثت في الموقع -فيما يتعلق بإمكانية الوصول للزائرين )بما في ذلك الوصول إلى المعلومات وإمكانية الوصول االستخدام لألشخاص ذوياإلعاقة(؟ )في أكبر قدر ممكن من التفاصيل(. اإلضافة إلى التدريب، هل سا همت في هذه التغييرات بأي طريقة أخرى )على سبيل المثال كمشرف، مهمة مختلف ة من قبل وزارة الزراعة، إلخ(. كيف تقيم التغيرات المادية التي أجرا ها المشروع من تطويرات وترميمات وغير ها )إعطاء درجة على مقياس من -1 5(؟ )احصل على استجابة كل شخص( هل تعتقد أن هذه التغييرات كانت األكثر احتياجا ؟ ً أو مالئمة إذا كان الجوابال، فما هو التغيير / التطويراألكثر مالءمة في المنطقة )المناطق(؟ في رأيكم، ما التطوراتاألخرى / التغييرات المادية التي يجب تنفيذ ها لضمان زيادة عدد الزوار وتحسين إمكانية الوصول إلى الموقع؟ هل تم اتخاذ التدابير الالزمة لضمان وصولاألشخاص ذوياإلعاقة إلى الموقع؟ إذاال، لمال؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ هل شاركتم او تمت استشارتكم في اتخاذ القرارات او التخطيط للتغيرات التي تمت في الموقع؟ اذا كانتاإلجابة بنعم، بأية طريقة وفي أي مرحلة؟ هل كنتم على علم او هل شاركتم في بحث تم تنفيذه قيل البدء في تنفيذ التغيرات المادية في الموقع؟ ً هل تعتقدون ان ذلك البحث كان كافيا؟ هل لديكم إمكانية للوصول لهذا البحث؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم ي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير البرنامج التدريب وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 130 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية( . )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) يرجى توزيعاالستمارة الكمية بين المشاركين واطلب منهم ملئها قبل القسم التالي من األسئلة. أسئلةاألداة: ما هو الدور الذي يقوم به المتدربين في المشروع )بجانب تلقي التدريب(؟ ً ما هو التدريب الذي وجدتموه أكثر فائدة لكم؟ لماذا، وكيف كان مفيدا؟ ما هو التدريب الذي وجدتموه األقل فائدة؟ لماذا؟ كيف قمتم بتطبيق الدورات التدريبية التي تلقيتمو ها من خالل المشروع في ممارساتكم اليومية؟ )تفاصيل( الحظة اختالف النتائج بين الذكورواإلناث هل يمكنكم اعطاءنا أمثلة على التغيير الذي حدث في ممارساتكم اليومية بسبب أنشطة المشروع؟ ما التحديات التي واجهتو ها؟ كيف واجهتوها؟ كيف أثر التدريب عليكم على المستوى الشخصي وال مهني؟ )على سبيل المثال، زيادة الثقة، والسعي لمزيد من التطوير، ترقياتالمستوى مهني عالي، أدوار ومسؤوليات مختلفة، فرص أعلى لالنضمام إلى مشاريع أخرى، وغير ها(. الحظة اختالف النتائج بين الذكورواإلناث ما هي المهارات والكفاءات األخرى التي ينبغي إدراجها في مكون التدريب لتحسين القدرات وتقديم فرص أفضل للمتدربين؟ ماذا تقترح لزيادة فاعلية دور المتدربين في المشروع؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: ما هي النسبة المئوية لمشاركةاإلناث في التدريب؟ ما هياإلجراءات / التدابير التي اتخذت لضمان مشاركة نسائية كبيرة؟ هل كانت تلك الجراءات كافية؟ تأثير التدريب على الممارسات اليومية والمستويات ال مهنية والشخصية التي تمت تغطيتها في األسئلة السابقة -يتم تصنيف الردود حسب الذكور اإلناث سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: غير منطبق سؤال تقييم :4 . ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ مع تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلة ألداة: كيف سيستمر مكون التدريب بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ هل أنت على علم بخطةالستدامة هذا المكون؟ إذا كانتاإلجابة بنعم، فما هي الستراتيجيةلذلك؟ ما هو دوركاآلن بعد اكتمال المشروع؟ ماذا تقترح لضمان استمرار تقديم التدريببعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ما هو الدور الذي تعتقد أنه يمكنك تنفيذه في هذا الصدد )على سبيل المثال تقديم المعرفة والمساعدة الفنية، ومشاركة المعلومات، الخ(. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 131 األداة رقم7 : مدربي المرممين األثريين ومفتشي اآلثار والمصورين التابعين لوزارة اآلثار مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: مدربي المرممين ألثريين ومفتشياآلثار والمصورين التابعين لوزارة آلثار نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية أو مناقشة جماعية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 1 مناقشة بكب موقع أو 3/4 مقابالت مع المدربين غير المتاحين او الموجودين خارج مصر الموقع: بكل المواقع / أو عن بعد الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة الحتياجات اللوجستية: الترتيب للمناقشات والمقابالت )مثل دعوة المدربين( + تحديد مكان المناقشات. ترتيب المكالمات التليفونية أو سكايب إذا كانت المقابالت خارج مصر او كان المدربين غير متاحين، سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: كيف ساهم مكون التدريب والمتدربين في التغييرات المادية / الترميم للمواقعاألثرية؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ غير منطبق سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: هل يمكنك وصف مكون المدرسة الميدانية / التدريب؟ )ما هو المكون، كيف تم تنفيذه، وما هي ا هداف ه، من هم المستهدفين من المكون، الخ(. كيف تم تصميم التدريب؟ ما هي العوامل التي تم تضمينها في تصميم التدريب؟ من تم استشارته بشأن تصميم التدريب؟ ماذا كانت مسا هماتهم في التصميم؟ هل تم استشارة المتدربين قبل تصميم / تنفيذ التدريب؟ ما هي فئات المتدربين )أي مرممين، ومتخصصياآلثار، إداريين، الخ(؟ كيف تم اختيار المتدربين للمشاركة؟ ما هو الموضوع األكثر فائدة للمتدربين في رأيك؟ لماذا، ما مدى فائدته؟ ما هو التدريب الذي وجدته ألقل فائدة؟ لماذا؟ ما مدى فعالية التدريب في الممارسات اليومية للمتدربين؟ كيف كنت تقوم بتقييم تقدم المتدربين في المعرفة والمهارات؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 132 هل قمت بمتابعة أداء المتدربين بعد التدريب؟ كيف؟ ما هو التحدي األكبر الذي واجهك في تدريب مجموعات المتدربين؟ كيف خففت من آثار هذا التحدي؟ ما هي المهارات والكفاءات األخرى التي ينبغي إدراجها في مكون التدريب لتنمية قدرات المتدربين وتوفير فرص أفضل لهم؟ ما هي اقتراحاتك لضمان زيادة فاعلية دور المتدربين في المشروع؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: ما هي النسبة المئوية لمشاركة إلناث ً في التدريب تقريبيا؟ ما هياإلجراءات التي اتخذت لضمان مشاركة نسائية كبيرة؟ هل كانت تلكاإلجراءات كافية؟ ما مدى اختالف النتائجبين الذكورواإلناث في البرنامج التدريبي، خاصة في: • اللتزام • القدرة الفنية / المهارة • ال هتمام • الحافز الداخلي • التطور والتقدم بعد التدريب )في الوظيفة والمسؤولياتواألجور(. هل تعتقد أن التدريب ساعد المتدربات بشكل خاص على اكتساب مزيد من الثقة لمتابعة الدراسة أو البحث عن وظائف أفضل؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجعالسياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: ما هي التدريبات التي تم تقديمها للعمال؟ إذا تم تقديم التدريب، يجب تكرار ألسئلة نفسها الموجودة في سؤال التقييم رقم 2 – عام. سؤال تقييم :4 ؟ ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلةاألداة: ما هو الوضع الحالي لمكون التدريب؟ كيف يتم تنفيذ المكون ًحاليا )إذا كان ينفذ(؟ هل هناك خطة استدامة لهذا المكون؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، ما هي العناصر الرئيسية لهذه الخطة؟ إذا كان الرد بالنفي،فكيف سيستمر مكون التدريب بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ما هو دوركاآلن بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ماذا تقترح لضمان استمرار تقديم التدريب بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ما هو الدور الذي تعتقد أنه يمكنك تنفيذه في هذا الصدد )على سبيل المثال توفير المعرفة والمساعدة الفنية، ومشاركة المعلومات، وما إلى ذلك( USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 133 األداة رقم :8 المتطوعات بالدور ألحمر بسوهاج مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: المتطوعات بالدور األحمر بسو هاج نوعاألداة: مجموعة نقاشية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 1مناقشات جماعي ة مع كل أفراد المجموعة )9( الموقع: الدير األحمر بسو هاج الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة واحدة الحتياجات اللوجستية: دعوة المتطوعات + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدىالتطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالتالماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أسئلة األداة: هل كلكم من حوالين الموقع هنا؟ والال في حد منكم من بعيد او من بلد تانية؟ )تحديد العدد( إذا كانوا من خارج الموقع –زرتوا الموقع قبل الترميم؟ ايه التغييرات اللي حصلت في الموقع؟ ايه اللي المشروع عمله؟ إزاي التغييرات دي أثرت على الموقع )عدد الزيارات وتردد الناس على المكان، الخ(. ازاي الحاجات اللي اتعملت دي زودت شعبية المكان ) هل بقيفي ناس اكتر بيزوروا المكان دلوقتي، ازاي المشروع ساعد على كده؟ ازاي المشروع أثر على المنطقة اللي حوالين الموقع )كنتيجة للترميم والصيانة(؟ ايه دوركم كمتطوعين في الموقع؟ بتقوموا بالدور ده بشكل متكرر؟ إزاي؟ ايه اللي خالكم تنضموا للمشروع؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ في حد في المشروع سألكم أو سألوا ناس من البلد حوالينالموقع حسب علمكم على رأيكم في التجديدات والترميمات المطلوبة قبل ما يبتدوا الشغل؟ لو أيوه، ازاي استشاروكم او استشاروا ا هل البلد؟ في رأيكم، هل المشروع استشار الناس بشكل كافي قبل ما يبتدي؟ تفتكروا الترميمات والتجديدات اللي اتعملت دي كانت هي المطلوبة. والال كان في حاجات تانية ليها أولوية أعلى؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي وليس اجزاءه الفردية الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي وليس اجزاءه الفردية الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: ايه دوركمكمتطوعين في الموقع؟ )شامال التردد على الموقع وعدد الساعات( ايه نوع التدريب اللي اخدتوه في المشروع؟ )تفاصيل( في حالة تلقي التدريب: ايه ا هداف التدريب اللي اخدتوه؟ لو قيمتوا التدريبات االلي حضرتو ها بالدرجات من 1لـ،5 ايه درجة رضاكم عن التدريب؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 134 إزايساعدكم التدريب على أداء دوركم كمتطوعين في الموقع هنا؟ ايه مدى ثقتكم في قدراتكم؟ إزاي ساعدكم التدريب على المستوى الشخصي؟ إزاي أثرالتدريب على حياتكم؟ ايه هي المهارات والقدرات التانية االلي كان ممكن تبقى مفيدة بالنسبة لكم؟ ايه اقتراحاتكم لزيادة فاعلية وأثرالتدريب؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم األصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: ايه اللي خالكم تنضموا للمشروع؟ إزاي أثرت مشاركتكم في المشروع على حياتكم؟ وعلى مهاراتكم الشخصية والكفاءة؟ ً ايه أثر مشاركتكم، خصوص ً ا كستات تحديدا في: - اللتزام - المهارات الفنية - ال هتمام بالموقع والترميم - الحاف لالستمرار - التطور في المهارات والقدرات بعد التدريب ايه نظرة المجتمع وزوار الموقع ليكم ولمشاركتكم كمتطوعين في المكان؟ ايه الصعوبات التي قابلتو ها في تنفيذ أدواركم؟ إزاي تعاملتوا مع الصعوبات دي؟ هل في أي صعوبات من اللي واجهتو ها مرتبطة بيكم كبنات أو ستات؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سوهاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: غير منطبق سؤال تقييم :4 . ما هي احت االت استمرارية المشروع؟ مع تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات ألى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة ؟ مستقبالً أسئلة ألداة: ايه دوركم دلوقتي )بعد انتهاء المشروع(؟ مين اللي بيتابع شغلكم؟ مين اللي بيقدملكم المشورة عن أدائكم ودوركم؟ بتقدموا لمين تقرير عن شغلكم بشكل يومي؟ هل هتستمروا في دوركم كمتطوعين بعد المشروع ما ينتهي؟ ايه الصعوبات او التحديات اللي متوقعين انها تأثر عليكم او تمنعكم تكملوا دوركم كمتطوعين في الموقع؟ ازاي ممكن تتعاملوا مع الصعوبات او التحديات دي؟ تفتكروا التغييرات اللي حصلت في المجتمع اللي حوالين الموقع هتستمر بعد المشروع ما خلص؟ لوأل، ليه؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 135 األداة رقم9 :أصحاب األعمال والحرف المحلية المشاركة في المشروع مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: أصحاباألعمال والحرف المحلية المشاركة في المشروع نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: حوالي 4/3مقابالت في كل موقع الموقع: لكل موقع الوقت لكل أداة: 20 – 30 دقيقة للفرد الحتياجات اللوجستية: إلعداد للمقابالت )اصطحاب الفريق ألصحاباألعمال او دعوتهم للحضور( + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة وسو هاجبـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ نقاط المناقشة االستجابات .1 البيانات الشخصية 1.1النوع 1.2الفئة العمرية 1.3التعليم .2 نوع المنشأة / الحرفة 2.1 مجال النشاط • الحرفة • توفير العمالة )مقسمة بدرجة المهارة %( • خدمات النقل • تجارة تجزئة )بيع هدايا وغير ها( • أخرى )تذكر( 2.2سنةاالنشاء 2.3 حجم العمالة • أفراد العائلة )عدد ذكور/اناث( • عمال ة من غير أفراد العائلة )عدد ذكور/اناث( 2.4نمواألعمال )مقاسة باستخدام مقياس ليكارت( • قبل 2015 )إن وجد( • في الفترة من 2015 - 2018 • الحتماليات الخاصة بالمستقبل )2 3-سنوات( .3التحديات التي واجهت العمل )ترتيب( 3.1 الوصول لفرص تمويل 3.2عقبات تنظيمية او خاصة باللوائح 3.3الركود السياحي 3.4 أخرى )تذكر( .4 المشاركة والخبرة مع المشروع 4.1تقديم الخدمات )نوع الخدمة –التاريخ( 4.2تلقي المساعدات )نوع المساعدة –التاريخ( 4.3 – أخرى .5تقييم مدى الرضا عن المشاركة / الخبرة في أنشطة المشروع )مقاسة باستخدام مقياس ليكارت( 5.1المشاركة المتعلقة بالعمل الخاص 5.2المشاركة المتعلقة بأعمال أو خدمات أخرى في المنطقة .6 المشاركة / الخبرة المتعلقة بمساعدات فنية أخرى )إن وجد(. 6.1اسم الجهة المقدمة للخدمة 6.2نوع المساعدة الفنية • المتعلقة بالعمل الخاص • المقدمة للمجتمع المحيط USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 136 األداة رقم :10 ممثلي مجال السياحة مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: ممثلي مجا السياحة نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 3/2مقابالت بكل محافظة الموقع: القا هرة/الجيزة )ممفيس( وسو هاج األقصر الوقت لكل أداة: 30 – 45 دقيقة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد من الجهات / األفراد أو دعوتهم للحضور + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تمتنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أسئلة األداة: هل تقوم أنت أو عمالئك بزيارة ممفيس / األقصر / الدير األحمر؟ هل الحظت أية تغييرات أو تطويرات في أي من هذه المواقع؟ ما التغييرات او التطويرات التي الحظتها؟ في رأيك، كيف أثرت تلكالتغييرات على خبرات الزوار للموقع؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ هل تم استشارتك او استشارة الجهة التي تعمل بها حول التغييرات او التطوير المخطط له بالموقع؟ أو اختيار المواقع؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم،كيف تم ذلك؟ هل لديك علم بأية جهات أخرى جرى استشارتها )على سبيل المثال، المجتمع المحيط بالمواقع(؟ إذاكانت اإلجابة بنعم، كيف تمت تلكاالستشارات؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً اجزاءه الفردية(.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلة ألداة: هل يحتاج فريق العمل لديك إلى أي تدريب حولاآلثار أو الترميم أو إدارة الزوار؟ هل شاركت في تدريبات مع المشروع؟ • إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، ما مدى فعاليتها؟ • ما رأيك في التدريبات التي شاركت فيها )الجودة، المالئمة، وغير ها(؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 137 أسئلةاألداة: حسب علمك، هل تم تدريب سيدات من خالل المشروع؟ ً أمان هل جعلت أي من التغييرات التي نفذ ها المشروع المواقع أكثر ً ا أو ترحيب ً ا للسائحات؟ هل كان لها أي تأثير آخر على السائحات تحديدا سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: ما هي االتجا هات السياحية في منطقتك في السنواتاألربع الماضية؟ سؤال تقييم :4 ؟ ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلةاألداة: أي من أنشطة / مواقع المشروع لديها أفضل فر ة لالستمرار/الستدامة في وجهة نظرك؟ لماذا؟ أي مناألنشطة / المواقع سيكون لها أثر ملموس على السياحة في المستقبل؟ هل تعلم بوجود أي ة مبادرات حالية لدعم / زيادة التركيز على السياحة ألثرية في مصر أو في منطقتك؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 138 األداة رقم :11 المرشدين السياحيين مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: المرشدين السياحيين نوعاألداة: مجوعة نقاشية أو مقابالت شخصية حسب المتاح عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 3/2لكل محافظة الموقع: المحافظات الوقت لكل أداة: 30 دقيقة لكل مقابلة فردية أو ساعة في حالة تنفيذ مجموعات نقاشية الحتياجات اللوجستية: إلعداد للمناقشة + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبلالمشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: كم مرة تقوم اإلرشاد ل ً لزوار في هذا الموقع اسبوعيا؟ كم عدد المرشدين المصرح لهم بالعمل في هذا الموقع؟ هلالحظت التحسينات / التطورات في المواقعاألثرية؟ إذا نعن، ما هي؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ هل تم استشارة المرشدين السياحيين أو الشركات السياحية حول التغييرات المخطط لها أو اختيار المواقع، على حد علمك؟ إذا كانت إلجابة بنعم، ما كيف تم التشاور؟ هل تم استشارة المرشدين السياحيين حول المطبوعات التي انتجها المشروع؟ هل قاموا باختبارها؟ هل أنت على علم بأية هيئات أخرى جري استشارتها )على سبيل المثال، المجتمع المحلي(؟ كيف تم التشاور؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني فيمكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب ألثري، وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ .)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب ألثري، وليس اجزاءه الفردية( )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: هل يحتاج فريق العمل لديك إلى أي تدريب حولاآلثار أو الترميم أو إدارة الزوار؟ هل شاركت في تدريبات مع المشروع؟ • إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، ما مدى فعاليتها؟ • ما رأيك في التدريبات التي شاركت فيها )الجودة، المالئمة، وغير ها(؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 139 أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: هل شاركت أي مرشدات في التدريبات، على حد علمك؟ هل لدى المرشدات أية احتياجات تدريب محددة – مختلفة عن التدريبات المشتركة؟ هل تؤثر تدخالت المشروع على جودة الزيارة بين الزائرات للموقع )مثل نظافة الحمامات، الالفتات، وغير ها(؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: ما هي االتجا هات السياحية في مناطق العمل في السنواتاألربع الماضية؟ سؤال تقييم :4 ؟ ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلةاألداة: أي من أنشطة / مواقع المشروع لديها أفضل فر ة لالستمرار/الستدامة في وجهة نظرك؟ لماذا ا؟ أي مناألنشطة / المواقع سيكون لهاأثر ملموس على السياحة في المستقبل؟ هل تعلم بوجود أي ة مبادرات حالية لدعم / زيادة التركيز على السياحة ألثرية في مصر أو في منطقتك؟ ما هي التحديات التي تواجه السياحةاألثرية في مصر من وجهة نظرك؟ ما هي طبيعة عالقتك مع مسئولي وزارةاآلثار في الموقع عند زيارتك له؟ هل أثرت أي من مطبوعاتوالفتات المشروع على أسلوب ارشادك للسياح في الموقع؟ كيف؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 140 األداة رقم # 12 :ادارة الموقع )الكنيسة القبطية( مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: ادارة الموقع )الكنيسة القبطية( شخص / أشخاص محددة ألب أنطونيوس، وبعض الر هبان نوعاألداة مقابلة شخصية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: الموقع: سوهاج الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة لكل مقابلة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد من الجهات / األفراد أو دعوتهم للحضور + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: -فى رأيك ما هى كانت أكثر احتياجات الموقع قبل التدخل؟ - ما رأيك في منهجي ة منفذى المشروع؟ - هل كانت هذه التغييرات المادية مناسبةالستدامة الموقع؟ - من خالل موقعك ، كيف أدى التغيير المادي إلى تحسين الموقع بالنسبة إلى مختلف مستخدمي الدير؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية ستؤثر على التراث الحى لكنيسة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية تؤثر على المجتمع المحلي والر هبان؟ سؤال تقييم .1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ أسئلةاألداة: -إلى أي مدى كانت التغييرات المادية هى التي تماالتفاق عليها قبل المشروع؟ - هل تم تعديلها؟ - هل نوقشت التعديالت وتم أستشارتها مع مجتمع الدير والكنيسة قبل التنفيذ؟ -إلى أي مدى تمت استشارةاألكاديميين والخبراء في المجال قبل التدخل؟ كيف شارك خبراء الكنيسة؟ - ما هي تعليقات ومالحظات الكنيسة والدير مع منفذى المشروع؟ سؤال تقييم .1ب: كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاباألطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ أسئلةاألداة: -إلى أى مدى تشاورت الكنيسة / الدير / وزارةاآلثار ومنفذى المشروع مع المجتمع المحلي؟ -برأيك ، ما مدى فعالية عمل منفذى المشروع ووزارة آلثارفىاشراك المجتمع المحلي والكنيسة؟ هل تم اخبار هم فقط ام كانوا جزء من تخطيط المشروع؟توضيح... سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكارفي وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم الً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير البرنامج التدريبي كام وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 141 أسئلةاألداة: - ما هي أولوية التدريب للدير ؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب هؤالء األفراد قد أثر على عالقة المجتمع بالدير؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب المفتشين والمرممين يساعد في ترميم وصيانة الموقع؟ -كيف ستستخدم وزارةاآلثار والكنيسة / الدير في المستقب االستخداماألفضللهؤالء المتدربين؟ -كيف تنقل المعرفة والخبرة المكتسب ة من خالل التدريب؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: -برأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب الموظفات على شغل مناصب رئيسية في وزارةاآلثار؟ -برأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب الموظفات على متابعة المساعي ال مهنية؟ -يرجى اعطاءنا أمثلة حول كيف قامت المتدربات االبتكار أو التغييرات ، التى قد تساعد على استدامة عمليات الحفظ للدير. سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: -فى رأيك ، هل عتقد أن المشروع ساعد في تحسين الوضعاالقتصادي حول الدير؟ -توضيح كيف يمكن أن يكون دخل العمال من خالل العمل في المشاريع المختلفة قد أثر على دخل المجتمع المحلي؟ -فى رأيك ، هل كانتاألجور اليومي ة مناسبة لألعمال المنجزة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن الشريك المنفذ يمكنه تحسين ظروف العمل لعمال. سؤال تقييم :4 ؟ ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلة ألداة: -برأيك ، هل تعتقد أناألنشطة التي نفذت خالل المشروع سوف تستمر من خالل الكنيسة والمجتمع المحلي؟ -كيف يمكن لهذهاألنشطة أن تؤثر على السياحة الدينية والحج والسياحة الدولية في المستقبل؟ ولماذا؟ -كيف يمكن لكنيسة أن تبني على هذهألعمال الخطط المستقبلية؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 142 األداة رقم :13 وزارة السياحة – ً مركزيا مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: وزارة السياحة – ً مركزيا نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 1على المستوى المركزي + 1بكل محافظة حسب اإلتاحة الموقع: القا هرة/الجيزة وسوهاج األقصر الوقت لكل أداة: 30 – 45 دقيقة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد معالمسئول سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: هلالحظت أي تحسينات او تطورات في المواقعاألثرية في األقصر، ممفيس، أو الديراألحمر بسو هاج؟ ما هي التغييرات التي الحظتها بالمواقع؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ هل تم استشارة الوزارة حول اختيار المواقع او التغييرات / التطويرات النفذة قبل بدء العمل؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم،كيف تمت الستشارة؟ هل لديك علم بأية جهات أخرى جرى استشارتها )على سبيل المثال، المجتمع المحيط بالمواقع(؟ إذاكانت اإلجابة بنعم، كيف تمت تلكاالستشارات؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير البرنامج التدريبي وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE) أسئلةاألداة: هل يحتاج فريق العمل بوزارة السياحة إلى أي تدريب حولاآلثار أو الترميم أو إدارة الزوار؟ ً هل شارك أيأ من العاملين في تدريبات مع المشروع؟ • إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، هل كانت كافية؟ ما مدى فعاليتها؟ • هل وصلك آراء المشاركين في التدريب، ما رأيهم في التدريبات التي شاركوا فيها )الجودة، المالئمة، وغير ها(؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم ألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: هل لدى وزارة السياحة استراتيجية او برنامج خاص بالنوع االجتماعي؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 143 هل يوجد لدى الموظفات العامالت بالوزارة احتياجات تدريبية محددة تختلف عن التدريبات المشترك ة مع الموظفين(؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة وسو هاجبـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: ما هي االتجا هات السياحية في مناطق العمل في السنواتاألربع الماضية؟ سؤال تقييم :4 وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً ما هي احت االت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات ألى لالستدامة ؟ أسئلةاألداة: هل تم تضمين المواقع المستهدفة الخطة القومية للسياحة المستدامة؟ أي من أنشطة / مواقع المشروع لديها أفضل فر ة لالستمرار/الستدامة في وجهة نظرك؟ لماذا ا؟ أي مناألنشطة / المواقع سيكون لها أثر ملموس على السياحة في المستقبل؟ هل هناك أي مبادرات حالية لدعم / زيادة التركيز على سياحة التراث/السياحةاألثرية في مصر؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 144 األداة رقم :14 إدارة الموقع )االستراتيجي( مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: إدارة الموقع )الستراتيجي( نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 4/3مقابالت بكل محافظة الموقع: القا هرة/الجيزة وسوهاجواألقصر الوقت لكل أداة: 30 – 45 دقيقة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد من الجهات / األفراد أو دعوتهم للحضور + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: -فى رأيك ما الذي تعتقد أن الموقع يحتاجه قبل التدخل؟ - ما رأيك في منهجي ة منفذى المشروع؟ - هل كانت هذه التغييرات المادية مناسبةالستدامة الموقع؟ -كيف تمكنت التغييرات المادية من تحسين الموقع لمستخدميه المتعددين؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية ستؤثر على السياحة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية تؤثر على المجتمع المحلي؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ اسئلةاألداة: -إلى أي مدى كانت التغييرات المادية هى التي تماالتفاق عليها قبل المشروع؟ - هل تم تعديلها؟ - هل تمت مناقشة التعديل واستشارته قبل التنفيذ؟ -إلى أي مدى تمت استشارةاألكاديميين والخبراء في المجال قبل التدخل؟ - ما هي تعليقات ومالحظات وزارةاألثار مع منفذى المشروع؟ سؤال تقييم 1ب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهمقبل بدء التدخالت؟ -إلى أى مدى تشاورت وزارةاآلثار ومنفذى المشروع مع المجتمع المحلي؟ -فى رأيك الى اي مدى قامت وزارةاألثار والجهة المنفذة باستشارة المجتمع المحلي؟ هل تم اخبار هم فقط ام كانوا جزء من تخطيط المشروع؟توضيح... سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ .)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب وليس اجزاءه الفردية( )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً ألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً ه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب وليس اجزاء ألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 145 أسئلةاألداة: - ما هي أولوية التدريب لوزارة اآلثار؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب المفتشين والمرممين قد أثر على أدائهم الوظيفى في المستقبل بوزارةاآلثار؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب المفتشين والمرممين يساعد في ترميم وصيانة الموقع؟ -كيف ستستخدم وزارةاآلثار في المستقبل أفضل استخداملهؤالء المتدربين؟ -كيف تنقل المعرفة والخبرة المكتسب ة من خالل التدريب؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: -فى رأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب المتدربات على شغل مناصب رئيسية في وزارةاآلثار؟ -فى رأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب المتدربات على متابعة المساعي ال مهنية؟ -يرجى اعطاءنا أمثلة حول كيف قامت المتدربات االبتكار أو التغيير ، على الرغم من الحداألدنى داخل مؤسستك. سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة وسوهاجبـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانتاألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: -فى رأيك ، هل عتقد أن المشروع ساعد في تحسين الوضعاالقتصادي حول المواقعاألثرية المختلفة؟ -توضيح كيفية التفكير في أن دخل العمال من خالل العمل في المشاريع المختلفة قد يكون له تأثير بسيط؟ -فى رأيك ، هل كانتاألجور اليومي ة مناسبة لألعمال المنجزة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن منفذى المشروع يمكنهم تحسين ظروف العمل لعمال؟ سؤال تقييم :4 استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً ما هي احت االت ؟ أسئلةاألداة: -فى رأيك ، هل تعتقد أناألعمال التي نفذت خالل المشروع ستستمر من خالل وزارةاآلثار أو أحد أصحاب المصلحة اآلخرين؟ -كيف يمكن لهذهاألعمال أن تؤثر على السياحة في المستقبل؟ ولماذا؟ -كيف يمكن لوزارة آلثار بناء خطط مستقبلية على هذهاألعمال؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 146 األداة رقم :15 إدارة الموقع )التشغيل( مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: إدارة الموقع )التشغيل( نوعاألداة: مقابالت شخصية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 3بكل موقع الموقع: القا هرة/الجيزة وسوهاجواألقصر الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة لكل أداة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد من الجهات / األفراد أو دعوتهم للحضور + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيط ألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: - ً برأيك ، بناء على موقعك الوظيفي الحالي ، ما الذي تعتقد أن الموقع يحتاجه قبل التدخل؟ - ما مدى مناسبة احتياجات الموقع ، هل تعتقد أن منهجي ة منفذي المشروع مناسبة؟ -فيما يتعلق بمركزك الحكومي كشخص مسؤول بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر عن الموقع ، هل تعتقد أن هذه التغييرات المادية كانت مناسبة الستمرارية الموقع؟ -كيف تمكنت التغييرات المادية من تحسين الموقع لمستخدميها المتعددين؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية ستؤثر على السياحة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن التغيرات المادية تؤثر على المجتمع المحلي؟ - هل يمكن أن تعكس )تشرح( بالتفصيل كيف يمكن للتغيير المادي أن يحسن العالقة بين المجتمع المحلي والموقع ألثري؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ اسئلة األداة: -إلى أي مدى كانت التغييرات المادية التي اتفق عليها الطرفان قبل المشروع معكم كمفتش / مرمم أو مفتش رئيسي / رئيس مرممين؟ - هل تم تعديل هذه الخطط؟ - هل تم مناقشة التعديل واستشارته على مستواك قبل التنفيذ؟ -إلى أي مدى تمت استشارةاألكاديميين والخبراء في المجال قبل التدخل؟ - ما هي تعليقات ومالحظات المفتشين / المرممين مع الشريك المنفذ؟ وكيف تم استيعابهم؟ سؤال تقييم .1ب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ اسئلةاألداة: -كيف قام المفتشون / ال مرممون ومنفذي المشروع بالتشاور مع المجتمع المحلي؟ -برأيك ، ما مدى فعالية منفذي المشروع ومفتشي الموقع / المرممين في العمل مع المجتمع المحلي؟ هل تم إبال ً غهم فقط أو كانوا جزءا من بداية ألفكار الخاصة بالمشروع؟ توضيح... سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب األثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة على االبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم األصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 147 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب األثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي وليس اجزاءه الفردية(. )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: - ما كانت أولوية التدريب بالنسبة لك كمفتش / رئيس مفتشين، مرمم/ رئيس مرممين؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب المفتشين والمرممين قد أثر على أدائهم الوظيفي بوزارة آلثار؟ -إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن تدريب المفتشين والمرممين يساعد في ترميم وصيانة الموقع؟ -كيف يمكنك توظيف المهارات والتقنيات التي اكتسبتها في التدريب على وظيفتك الحالية؟ هل يمكن استعمال معدات مماثلة يمكنك من خاللها استخدام المهارات المختلفة التي تعلمتها؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة على االبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد من األفكار في وظائفهم األصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: -برأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب المتدربات على شغل مناصب رئيسية في وزارةاآلثار؟ -برأيك ، إلى أي مدى ساعد التدريب المتدربات على متابعة المساعي ال مهنية؟ - إذا كان المفتش أنثى مدربة ، كيف غير هذا التدريب موقفك تجاه الوظيفة؟ كيف أعطاك التدريب ما يكفي من القوةإلحداث التغيير في الوظيفة؟ -يرجى إعطاءنا أمثلة حول كيفية قيامك أو غيرك من المتدربات االبتكار أو التغيير ، على الرغم من الحداألدنى داخل مؤسستك. سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة للعمال على المستفيدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قرية ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE )-على سبيل المثال، هل كانت األجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: -برأيك ، هل تعتقد أن المشروع ساعد في تحسين الوضع االقتصادي حول المواقعاألثرية المختلفة؟ -توضيح كيفية التفكير في أن دخل العمال من خالل العمل في المشاريع المختلفة قد يكون له تأثير بسيط؟ -برأيك ، هل كانت األجور اليومي ة مناسبة لألعمال المنجزة؟ -كيف تعتقد أن منفذي المشروع يمكنهم تحسين ظروف العمل لعمال؟ سؤال تقييم :4 . ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ مع تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلةاألداة: برأيك ، هل تعتقد أناألنشطة التي نفذت خالل المشروع ستستمر من خالل وزارةاآلثار أو أحد أصحاب المصلحة اآلخرين؟ - برأيك ، كيف يمكن لهذهاألنشطة أن تؤثر على السياحة في المستقبل؟ - كيف يمكنك ، كمفتش / كبير مفتشين مرمم / كبير مرممين تبنى خطط مستقبلية على هذهاألعمال ؟ - USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 148 األداة رقم :16 غفراء الموقع ومسئولي األمن مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: غفراء الموقع ومسئولي األمن نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 4/3مقابالت بكل محافظة الموقع: القا هرة/الجيزة وسوهاجواألقصر الوقت لكل أداة: 30 – 45 دقيقة الحتياجات اللوجستية: مواعيد من الجهات / األفراد أو دعوتهم للحضور + مكان للتنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: - في رأيك كمسئول أمنى، ماذا كان يحتاج الموقعاألثري قبل المشروع؟ - بالنظرالحتياجات الموقع، ماهو رأيك في منهجية وطريقة تنفيذ المشروع؟ - هل التطورات المادية في المواقع ألثرية التي نفذها المشروع تحقق إلستدامة للموقعاألثري؟ - بحكم موقعك العملي، هل التطورات المادية بالموقع اضافت اإليجاب لجميع مستخدمي الموقع؟ - كيف ستؤثر مثل هذه التغيرات المادية على السياحة؟ - كيف ستؤثر هذه التغيرات المادية على المجتمع المحلي؟ - في رأيك كيف يؤثر التطور المادي على عالقة المجتمع المحلي بالموقعاألثري؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ أ- الى أي مدى كنت تعلم خطط إدارة الموقع والترميم؟ - هل تم االستماع لك في هذه الخطط وشاركت بها؟ - هل تم مناقشة واستشارة التعديالت قبل التنفيذ؟ - ماذا كانت مشاركتك للخطط؟ - ماذا كانت تعليقات ومالحظات وزارةاألثار للجهة المنفذة قبل التنفيذ؟ ب- هل تم وضع مشاركتك في الخطط المختلفةإلدارة الموقع وعمليات الترميم؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب ألثري، وليس اجزاءه الفردية( . )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همةبمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم نامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، البر وليس اجزاءه الفردية( . )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: أ- ال يوجد سؤال التقييم 2أ: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 149 أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلة ألداة: - ال يوجد سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة وسو هاجبـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانت ألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: - في رأيك، كيف حسن المشروع من الحالةاالقتصادية في المحيط الجغرافي للموقعاألثري؟ - رجاء التوضيح كيف حسن المشاريع المختلفة الممولة الحالة االقتصادية بطريقة غير مباشرة عالحالة القتصادية لألماكن ألثرية؟ - في رأيك، هل كانت يومية العمال مناسبة لطبيعة العمل؟ - في رأيك، كيف تستطيع جهات العمل تحسين بيئة العمل ل ؤالء العمال؟ سؤال تقييم :4 السياحة مستقبالً ما هي احت االت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات ألى لالستدامة وللتأثير على ؟ أسئلةاألداة: - في رأيك، كيف تحقق هذه المشاريعاالستدامة االمنية للمواقعاألثرية المختلفة؟ - كيف تؤثر هذهاألنشطة في السياحة المستقبلية لألماكن المختلفة؟ ولماذا؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 150 األداة رقم :17 الشركاء المنفذون مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: الشركاء المنفذون نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية )مادية او تليفونية( عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 6/4مقابالت الموقع: كل المواقع الوقت لكل أداة: 60 – 90 دقيقة الحتياجات اللوجستية: المواعيد -أماكن التنفيذ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: كيف تم اختيار مواقع التدخل؟ هل تم اتخاذ اإلمكانات السياحية فياالعتبار؟ ما هي أ هم التغيرات المادية التي حدثت في الموقع )المواقع(؟ هل كانت هناك أي اخالفات بين النشاط المخطط والمنفذ الفعلي؟ ما كان هذااالختالف وكيف تم اتخاذ قرار التغيير؟ هل كانت التغييرات المنفذة هياألكثر مالءمة أم كانت هناك تغييرات أخرى مقترحة؟ كيف كان توزيعاألدوار بين الشركاء في المشروع؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهتك في التنفيذ؟ كيف أثرت تلك التحديات على النشاط؟ كيف خففت من آثار تلك التحديات؟ كيف أثرت التغييرات المادية التي تم تنفيذ ها على زيارات الموقع وشعبيته؟ كيف تقيس هذا التغيير في تكرار الزيارة؟ هل تعتقد أنه تم إجراء الترويج المناسب لجذب انتباه الزوار وتوفير المعلومات على المواقع؟ ما هي التغييراتاإلضافية الالزمة لتحسين الوصول إلى المواقع؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ ما نوع االستشارات التي جرت قبل تصيم المشروع و / أو تنفيذه؟ مع أي جهات او مجموعات؟ كيف أثرت نتائج تلك المشاورات على تصيم المشروع؟ كيف تم التعاون والتخطيط مع الحكومة المصرية؟ ما نوع التعاون الذي شاركت ب ه مع AERA/ARCE ؟ ومع الجهاتالمتخصصة األخرى؟ ما نوع التعاون الذي حدث مع صناعة السياحة؟ هل كانت المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع )المواقع( تشارك في التدخالت؟ كيف شاركت المجتمعات المحلية؟ وما هي نتيجة تلك المشاركة؟ كيف تم استشارة المجتمع المحلي قبل المشروع؟ كيف تقيم قبول المجتمع للتغييرات المادية التي نفذت )اسلوب التنفيذ والنتيجة(؟ لماذا؟ ما هي الدروس المستفادة فيما يتعلق بالتشاور والمشاركة المجتمعية التي وصلت إليها؟ كيف سيؤثر هذا على التخطيط المستقبلي للمشروع؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب وليس اجزاءه الفردية( . )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل ألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 151 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانب وليس اجزاءه الفردية( . )شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع ألثري، التصوير الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: هل يمكنك وصف مكونات برنامج التدريب؟ كيف تم تصميم البرنامج؟ كيف تم اختيار المجموعات المستهدفة؟ كيف تم تصميم محتوى وشكل التدريب؟ ما المشاورات التي جرت مع المتدربين والجهات/المجموعاتاألخرى للوصول إلى التصميم النهائي؟ ما مدى قبول وزارة آلثار للتدريب؟ ما مدى قبول المتدربين للتدريب؟ ما هو مستوىاال هتماموااللتزام الذي الحظته بين المتدربين؟ كيف تابعت نتائج التدريب؟ في رأيك، ما مدى فعالية مكون التدريب؟ كيف تقيس فعالية التدريب؟ كيف تحدد مدىاالستفادة من التدريب؟ كيف استفاد المتدربين من التدريب في ممارساتهم اليومية وال مهنية ومسؤولياتهم وفي أجور هم؟ ما هي التطورات التي أبلغكم بها المتدربون و / أو المشرفون عليهم؟ كيف أفاد مكون التدريب الموقع؟ ما هي التطورات اإلضافية التي تقترحها لتحقيق أقصى استفادة ممكنة لهذا المكون؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهماآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: هل تم تصميم استراتيجية نوعية وتحليل نوعي للمشروع؟ ما هي المكونات /األ هداف الرئيسة لالستراتيجية؟ كيف أثر التدريب على المتدربات على وجه التحديد؟ )آثار شخصي ة، مهارات، تطور مهني، مسؤوليات، أجور، فرص أفضل، وغير ها(. كيف تختلف تلك عن التأثيرات عن المشاركين الذكور؟ كيف تابعت هذه التغييرات على وجه التحديد؟ ما هي التدابير النوعية التطويرية transformative genderالتي ستقوم بها في المشروعات المستقبلية؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سوهاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانت ألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: ما هي استراتيجية التخفيف من أثر انخفاض السياحة في الموقع )المواقع( المحيطة بالمجتمعات؟ ما هي نظرية التغيير المتعلقة بتأثير الوظائف المؤقتة لعمال ونتائجها المتوقعة للتخفيف من تأثير تناقص السياحة في المجتمع؟ كيف تم اختيار العمال؟ كيف يضمن المشروع أداء العمال وتنمية المهارات؟ ما هو التدريب الذي تلقوه من المشروع؟ كيف تم تصميم التدريب؟ )على سبيل المثال الحرف المختلفة، مستويات المهارة المختلفة، وغير ها( ما التطورات التيالحظتها بين العمال من حيثمستوى ال مهارة وفرص العملواألداء األجور؟ كيف يتم تحديداألجور المناسبة للعمال؟ هل تعتبر هذه األجور عادلة مقارنة بوظائف مماثلة في المنطقة؟ ما هي آثار تخفيض قيمة العملة والتضخم على العوائد القتصادية على المجتمع، وعلى العمال على وجه الخصوص؟ كيف استفاد المشروع مناألعمال والخدمات والحرف المحلية المحيطة؟ كيف تم التعاون بين المشروع وبينهم؟ إلى جانب الوظائف المؤقتة االستفادة من الورش والحرف المحيطة، كيف أثر المشروع على المجتمع المحيط من حيث الوضع القتصادي؟ سؤال تقييم :4 د المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً ما هي احت االت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحدي ؟ أسئلةاألداة: كيف ستستمر التطورات المادية في المواقع بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ من هو المسؤول عن إدارة الموقع والصيانة على أساس يومي؟ ما هي التحديات التي تتوقعها في الحفاظ على المواقع وضمان استمرار وصول واستخدام الزائرين للمواقع؟ كيف تظهر هذه المواقع في الخطة الوطنية الرئيسية للسياحة المستدامة؟ هل تعتبر المبادرات الحالية لدعم / زيادة التركيز على السياحة التراثية في مصر كافية؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 152 األداة رقم :18 الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية مصدر البيانات )المجموعة المستهدفة(: الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية نوعاألداة: مقابلة فردية عدداألدوات المطلوب تنفيذ ها: 2مقابلة الموقع: مقر USIAD أو QED الوقت لكل أداة: ساعة الحتياجات اللوجستية: ترتيب المواعيد أسئلة عامة: حول تصميم النشاط / المشروع: إلى أي مدى تم تصميم تدخالت المشروع على غراراألنشطة السابقة؟ فرضية التنمية هي: إذا أديرت مواقع التراث الثقافي بشكل جيد وبه استدامة لتقديم تجربة سفر ممتعة وجذابة، فسوف يعود السياح ال مهتمون بالثقافةواآلثار لمصر. إلى أي مدى تعتقد أن هذه التدخالت ا هتمت او قامت بالتركيز على إدارة مواقع الترا الثقافي؟ يهدف المشروع إلى زيادة القدرة التنافسية لقطاع السياحة المصري مع توفير فرص العمل خالل فترة الركود السياحية، إلى أي مدى تركز هذه المقترحات على القدرة التنافسية؟ من حيث التنفيذ: برأي ً ك، هل تم التنفيذ طبقا للتصميم األصلي؟ )أي المستند الذي تم تقديم المنحة على أساسه إلى جانب خطط العمل( هل حدثت أي تصحيحات أو تغييرات جو هرية في المشروع، هل تم حذف أي مكونات؟ هل كانت أ هداف النشاط ومستهدفاته واقعية؟ هل تمكن فريق الشريك المنفذ من تتبع التقدم نحواأل هداف بفعالية؟ التعاون هل تمكن الشركاء المنفذين من العمل بفعالي ة مع وزارةاآلثار؟ لماذا لم يتم تعاون مع وزارة السياحة؟ التعلم ما هي أ هم اإلنجازات التي حققها الموقع في رأيك؟ ما هي العوامل التي ساعدت أو جعلت تلك إلنجازات ممكنة؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهتو ها؟ كيف تم التغلب على تلك التحديات؟ هل تمكن الشركاء المنفذون من استيعاب الدروس المستفادة بشكل فعال وتحويل المعرفة إلى قرارات برامجية؟ )مثالً عدد كافي من مسئولي المتابعة والتقييم، جودة البيانات والمؤشرات، المتابعة( إذا كان من الممكن إعادة تصميم المشروع و/ أو إعادة تنفيذه، ما هي التغييرات التي تقترحها في ضوء ما تعرفهاآلن؟ سؤال التقييماألول: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت المادية األخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ سؤال تقييم 1 )عام(: ما مدى التطورات المادية في المواقعاألثرية بعد عملية الترميم / التنظيف / التخطيطاألثري أو التدخالت الماديةاألخرى؟ )يشير التغيير المادي إلى وضع الموقع قبل المشروع وبعده( اسئلة األداة: ما هي التغييرات التي نفذت في المواقعاألثرية في األقصر أو ممفيس أو الدير ألحمر، سوهاج؟ هل تعتبر تلك التغيرات هي األكثر أ همية؟ هل تعلم بوجود أية أي موضوعات مثيرة للقلق فيما يتعلق بالتغييرات المنفذة؟ - هل كانت هناك أي مناقشات مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية فيما يتعلق باختيار مواقع التدخل؟ - هل هناك أي مواقع مقترحة للتدخالت تم حذفها او تغيير ها؟ سؤال تقييم 1أ: أ( إلى أي مدى تمت مشاورة األطراف المعنية ألخرى حول التطويرات المادية قبل البدء في التنفيذ؟ سؤال تقييم أب: ب( كيف تم تنفيذ تلك المشاورات مع أصحاب األطراف المعنية أو المجتمعات المحلية المحيطة بالموقع/المواقع وكيف تم إعالمهم قبل بدء التدخالت؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 153 هل كان هناك أي اتفاق بين الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية والحكومة المصرية بشأن وصول الزوار إلى مواقع العمل )مثل ممفيس(؟ في رأيك، ما مدى فعالية الشركاء المنفذون في تلك المشاورات؟ ما هي عوامل النجاح في المشاورات؟ ما هي التحديات الرئيسية التي واجهتكم؟ هل كان هناك أي تعاون بينالشريكين المنفذين للمشروع؟ هل هناك مجموعة عمل للسياحة أواآلثار تابعة للوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية تجمع بين الشركاء المنفذون؟ ما مدى فعالية الشركاء المنفذون إشراك المستفيدين وأصحاب المصلحة؟ )على سبيل المثال: المجتمعات المحلية، الجهات العاملة بالسياحة( ما مدى نجاح المشاركة المجتمعية في كل موقع )ممفيس، األقصر، س وهاج(؟ أي منها كان األ ً كثر نجاحا ، ولماذا؟ أي منها مان األ ً قل نجاحا ، لماذا؟ سؤال التقييم :2 ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE) أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. سؤال التقييم 2 )عام(: ما مدى فعالية وفائدة التدريب الميداني في مكون المدارس الميدانية المقدم بالمشروع بالنسبة الحتياجات الطالب واحتياجات الموقع؟ )تقييم البرنامج التدريبي كامالً (.)شمل التدريب إدارة الموقع من قبل AERA، الحفظ والترميم، الجانباألثري، التصوير وليس اجزاءه الفردية الفوتوغرافي الميداني، ومايكروسوفت من ARCE ) أسئلةاألداة: هل تلقيت أي مالحظات حول الدورات التدريبية التي قام بها أي منالشركاء؟ بخصوص الفرضية العامة الي تشير إلى المجل السياحي وإدارته، هل تعتقد أن إدارة السياحة قد تحسنت في المواقع؟ في اي موقع؟ سؤال التقييم 2أ: أ( إلى أي مدى، إن وجد، أثرت عناصر التدريب وبناء القدرات تمكين السيدات المشاركات في التدريب؟ )مثل زيادة الثقة، العمل على متابعة التدريب، العمل على اتخاذ مهام إضافية؛ القدرة علىاالبتكار أو المسا همة بمزيد مناألفكار في وظائفهماألصلية، المشاركة بنشر المعرفة بما تعلموه مع زمالئهم اآلخرين ... إلخ. أسئلةاألداة: هل قام الشركاء بالتعامل مع القضايا المتعلقة بالنوع والمساواة بين الجنسين على نحو كاف؟ هل كان هناك متطلبات نوعية محددة لدى الشركاء المنفذين؟ سؤال التقييم :3 إلى أي مدى أثرت الوظائف المؤقتة المقدمة لعمال على المستفدين المستهدفين من حيث تخفيف أو تقليل أثر تراجع السياحة في المناطق المحيطة بمواقع العمل؟ )قري ة ميت ر هينة بـAERAوالقرنة و سو هاج بـARCE) على سبيل المثال، هل كانت ألجور اليومية عادلة ومناسبة لنوع العمل المقدم؟ أسئلةاألداة: -ال توجد أسئلة محددة للوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية سؤال تقييم :4 ؟ ما هي احتماالت استمرارية المشروع؟ تحديد المكونات التي تبين احتماليات أعلى لالستدامة وللتأثير على السياحة مستقبالً أسئلة ألداة: كيف تظهر هذه المواقع كوجهات سياحية في الخطة الوطنية الرئيسية للسياحة المستدامة؟ أي من أنشطة / مواقع المشروع لديها أفضل فر ة لالستدامة في رؤيتك؟ أي منها سيكون له أكبراألثر على السياحة المستقبلي ة من وجهة نظرك؟ هل المبادرات الحالية لدعم / زيادة التركيز على السياحة التراثية في مصر كافية؟ هل يوجد موضوع لم نناقشه ولكنه ذو أ همية لزيادة تف همنا لهذا النشاط الممول من قبل الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية الدولية؟ USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 154 ANNEX 5: CHTE SITES - EXTENT OF PHYSICAL CHANGE A. Conservation and Consolidation Techniques Evaluation Methodology of Conservation and Consolidation Techniques Since it was not possible to conduct field visits to archaeological sites that have been restored as an evaluation tool, a careful study was conducted of the restoration reports submitted to SIMPLE and the evaluation team on the works carried out. These are supported by photographs of the monuments before, during and after the restoration. The project implementation was discussed in the restoration reports and in many technical observations. The trainees’ views were also discussed with the Ministry of Antiquities and stakeholders. This was done in order to arrive at a final and clear image of the restoration works in these projects, including the materials and techniques used. An evaluation tool was designed for ARCE to evaluate the restoration work carried out in the Red Monastery, the Khonsu Temple and the tombs in the west bank at Luxor; this tool requires the evaluation of all the restoration procedures mentioned above and allows the implementers to measure the quality of their work. Restoration and conservation of monuments in general and wall paintings in particular is a systematic process that contains various procedures that require the use of many materials and techniques. These vary depending on the state of each monument. However, to develop a plan for the restoration and conservation of any monument or murals in particular, the following procedures should be carried out. The same procedures are used to evaluate the restoration and conservation work: - 1- Condition assessment report: includes a precise description of the various deterioration phenomena that have affected the murals and description of defects / structures, defects / services. The report should be supported by the photos and appendices. In follow-up consultations with the implementing partner (IP), it is noted that the technical proposal presented by the IP at the time of 2015 request for proposals (RFP) included the anlysis of existing conditions. This was also reflected in the report of the first survey campaign carried out in the fall of 2015. 2- Preliminary conservation plan: includes a plan for coordinating the work and preparing the site from outside and inside, installation of temperature, humidity, gases and light meters, and installation of a filtration system. It is noted that some of these measures were not taken, because the project, according to the original approved design, was expected to include shading of the exterior walls. 3- Documentation before the restoration: includes many methods of documentation, such as artistic and archaeological documentations, layout situation, architectural documentation, photography documentation and drawing documentation. Some or all these methods are followed to accurately document the monument before restoration. In follow-up consultations with the implementing partner, it is noted that graphic documentation is expected to be delivered by the IP in CAD format to the appropriate authroities by the end of the project scheduled for December 2018. Examination pre-conservation: In this process, many methods of examination should be used, such as visual examination and microscopic examination, to determine the state of the monument accurately in terms of the shape of its granules and the extent of the distortion that has occurred, the size of pores, any presence of crystalline salts between the grains, studying several properties of the components of the monument, the number of layers of imaging and the thickness of each layer. This process requires the sampling and transfer to USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 155 laboratories in order to be examined under microscopes specially chosen for the study; either a scanning electron microscope or a polarized microscope, while there are portable USB microscopes that do not require a sample of the monument. In follow-up consultations with the implementing partner, it is noted that a cleaning test survey campaign had been undertaken. Onsite cleaning tests allowed the experts to understand the nature and thickness of the multiple layer soot and dirt deposits helping conservators avoid performing what would otherwise be distructive analyses. 4- Analysis pre-conservation: This process uses many methods of analysis to identify the components of the monument in the form of compounds such as the X- ray diffraction analysis method or in the form of elements such as the X- Ray florescence analysis method, as well as identify kind of the organic medium which link the grains of color materials, such as used in the Infra-Red (FTIR) analysis method. This process requires the sampling of the damaged parts and their transfer to analytical laboratories. Sometimes portable analyzers can be used on-site and do not require sampling of the monument. In follow-up consultations with the implementing partner, it is noted that, in the case of the Red Monastery, a pre-conservation X-ray flo analysis could not detect the nature of original pigments but just the thick layer of soot present on the surface. In the same way, FTIR was not used as a preliminary investigation tool because its results would be ineffective for characterizing organic compounds. 5- Tests performed pre-conservation: includes study of microbiological deterioration of the monument. The implementing partner notes that microbiological deterioration was not present in the Red Monastery. Determination of physical properties (density- porosity- water absorption). Determination of mechanical properties (compressive strength- abrasion resistance) and determination of pore size). Further, the implementing partner notes that these parameters were studied during the 10-year conservation work on the triconch project; including onsite microscope investigation. 6- Monitoring works: includes monitoring of the cracks and faults in the monument as well as the temperature, humidity, dew point and intensity of light over a 24-hour period. Project documents indicate that a 3D lazer scan was undertaken. 7- Detailed conservation plan/methodology: includes restoration and conservation steps (mechanical cleaning, chemical cleaning, detachment treatment, re-adhesion of flaking, consolidation, and removing repair mortar from a previous intervention, crack treatments, and completion of missing parts). Steps of restoration are arranged according to the status of monument. 8- Implementing conservation action plan: In this process and in accordance with international conventions, no restoration materials and methods of should be applied directly to the monument before ensuring the safety of their results. To ensure this, an experimental study of the restoration materials must be conducted on standard samples that have the same composition of the monument according to the results of analysis. These include experimental study of materials and methods of restoration; i.e., experimental study for mechanical cleaning materials and methods, experimental study for chemical cleaning materials and methods, experimental study for re-adhesion materials, experimental study for consolidation materials and methods. Experimental Study of Consolidation Materials In order to prepare the experimental samples, the stone blocks are cut into cubes 3 cm3 and 125 cm3. The cubic samples are washed with distilled water and dried in an oven at 105°C for at least 24 hours to reach a constant weight and left to cool at room temperature and controlled RH 50%, then weighed again. Their mechanical properties are measured (mechanical resistance, soil resistance) and USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 156 their physical properties are measured (density, porosity, absorption of water) before the consolidation. The consolidation materials should then be applied onto the stone samples by a brush (three applications). Treated samples should be left for sufficient time at room temperature and controlled RH 50% to allow the polymerization process to take place. The samples then should be weighed again. For the evaluation tests, the mechanical properties (mechanical pressure resistance), the physical properties (density, porosity, water absorption) of the treated samples are measured and the results are compared before the consolidation. Consolidated samples are put under the scanning electron microscope to identify the degree of homogeneous propagation of the material and the link of granules or not. The hydrophobicity of the treated and untreated stone samples should be evaluated by measuring the static water contact angle. Evaluation of the appearance of the treated stone samples by visual appraisal, and colorimetric measurements, as well as evaluating the consolidated samples resistance to the effects of deterioration phenomena’s such as salts, acids, ultraviolet, infrared, microbiology deterioration, to reach the appropriate consolidation material should then be carried out. In follow-up consultations with the IP, it is reported that the very simple and compatible lime-based mortar in the Red Monastery did not require a mechanical study and/or test because, as in the past, the mortar is layed in multiple thin layers and in a considerably softer consistency compared to that of the original mortar. Please refer to other studies: Saleh A. Saleh, Fatma M. Helmi, Monir M. Kamal, and Abdel-Fattah E. El-Banna. 1992. “Study and Consolidation of Sandstone: Temple of Karnak, Luxor, Egypt.” Studies in Conservation 37 (2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/1506401. Helmi, Fatma, and Yasser Hefni. 2016. “Using Nanocomposites in the Consolidation and Protection of Sandstone,” International Journal of Conservation Science, 29–40. Helmi, Fatma, and Yasser Hefni. 2016. “Nanocomposites for the Protection of Granitic Obelisks at Tanis, Egypt,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 16 (2): 87–96. Al-Dosari, Mohammad A., Sawsan Darwish, Mahmoud Abd El-Hafez, Nagib Elmarzugi, Nadia Al￾Mouallimi, and Sayed Mansour. "Effects of Adding Nanosilica on Performance of Ethylsilicat (TEOS) as Consolidation and Protection Materials for Highly Porous Artistic Stone." Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A 6, no. 7-8 (2016): 192-204. Experimental Study of the Completion Mortars This study should be conducted in the same way as the consolidation materials. Preparation of many of the selected mixtures of mortars should be studied. They should be mixed well and poured into cubes (5cm3), 3: 5 cubes for each mixture. Afterwards, these tests should be carried out as measuring their mechanical properties (mechanical pressure resistance) and their physical properties (density, porosity, water absorption), color measurement and its suitability with the stone color, and examined under the microscope to determine each sample’s homogeneity. These tests are conducted to reach the appropriate mortar to give good results in terms of suitability with the properties of the material to be used to complete it, whether stone, mud or plaster. An experimental study of cleaning materials and methods: It is applied on standard samples prepared and exposed to artificial weathering to be similar to the case of the monument, while often the experimental studies of the cleaning materials being applied on very small parts on the monument surface in the form of small samples using many solutions, and cleaning materials, after a colors sensitivity test is done to ensure that it is not affected by these solutions. Based on the comparison of the cleaning results of these solutions, one is approved which has the best result of cleaning. Based on USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 157 the results of the experimental study for each process of restoration, and after choosing the best materials and methods suitable for the case of the monument, application on the monument is feasible. Monitoring and post-conservation plan: In order to ensure the safety and sustainability of the monuments after the restoration process, there needs to be a conservation plan in place to protect the monument from environmental and human deteriorations involving a suitable system to absorb excess moisture, light and gases. In addition, there should be suitable ventilation systems and protection systems for walls and ceilings as well as drainage systems for flash floods. In this regard, the implementing partner notes that at the end of the project in December 2018, and in order to meet the scope of the local conservators’ training program, the IP will deliver a Maintenance and Conservation Manual to the appropriate authorities. Evaluation Results of Conservation and Consolidation Techniques 1 - Result of the evaluation (conservation project of Khonsu temple): The conservation works in the Khonsu temple achieved 35 of 50 degrees, or 70%, according to the evaluation tool, which meansthat overall the results of these works were acceptable. However, the loss in the scores reflects the inadequacy of certain aspects of the conservation operations at the Khonsu temple. Analysis and examinations of pre-conservation operations as well as all the experimental studies of the consolidation materials and the mortars are not scientific, and they lack tests to support the use of any consolidation material and mortar. In addition, the application methods of the selected consolidation material Estill 1000 have not been scientifically explored. The protection measures were not applied for murals inside the temple. 2 - Result of evaluating (conservation project of the nave of the Red Monastery): the conservation works in church nave of the red monastery achieves 36.5 of 50 degrees, or 73%, according to the evaluation tool, which means that the final result of these work is acceptable. However, it represents a shortage of conservation operations in the nave regarding analyses related to pre-conservation processes. Moreover, there is no evidence of experimental study of the consolidation materials. According to the implementing patner, protection measures have not been applied to the nave murals because, as in the original design, the project intended to construct a shallow roof shading shelter. 3 - Result of evaluating (conservation project of tomb TT110): The conservation works at the tomb of TT 110 achieves 33 of 50 degrees, 66%, according to the evaluation tool, which means that the final result of these works acceptable. Represents the shortage of conservation operations in the temple at analysis and examinations pre-conservation as well as all the experimental studies of the consolidation materials. The protection measures were not applied for murals in the tomb to guage the effect of weather and flood factors and the impact of visitors to ensure their sustainability and safety. 4 - Result of evaluating (conservation project of tomb Dra Abu El Naga TT 159): The conservation works in the tomb of Dra Abu El Naga TT 159 achieves 22 of 50 degrees, or 44%, according to the evaluation tool. This means that the final result of these works is unacceptable. Represents the shortage of conservation operations in the tomb at there is no evidence of a preliminary conservation plan. There is no evidence of analysis and examinations pre-conservation to study the characteristics of the components of the wall paintings in the tomb, nor were measurements and observations made, of temperature, humidity and crack monitoring. Moreover, all the experimental studies of the consolidation materials and the mortars are not scientific, and they lack many tests that support use of any consolidation material and the mortar. The protection measures were not applied for murals in the tomb to gauge the effects of weather and flood factors and the impact of visitors to ensure their sustainability and safety. 5- Result of evaluating (conservation project of TT 286 - Dra Abu el Naga): The restoration work in the tomb of TT 286 - Dra Abu el Naga dredges achieved 31 of 50 degrees, or 62%, according to the evaluation tool, which means that the final result of these works is acceptable. Represents the shortage USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 158 of conservation operations in the tomb at the lack of analysis and examinations pre-conservation, as well as that the experimental studies of the consolidation materials and the mortars are not scientific, and they lack many tests that support use of any consolidation material and the mortar. In addition, the application method of the selected consolidation material (Estill 1000) is not correct. The protection measures were not applied for murals in the tomb to mitigate the effects of weather and the impact of visitors to ensure the sustainability and safety of the tomb and mural paintings. Detailed Technical Recommendations for Future Projects Recommendation 1: To consolidate the external facades, the consolidation materials must have water repellence, resistance to deterioration by photochemical reactions, superhydrophopic material, self-cleaning, resistance to deterioration by microorganisms, resistance to abrasion and resistance to thermal effects Recommendation 2: Use silicon materials, like alkyl- Trialkoxisilanes, Methyel Trimethoxy Silane for the consolidation of sandstone saturated with moisture because it has many characteristics (according to the international literature). Recommendation 3: Use new materials, such as Nano material, for the consolidation of the plaster and paint layers such as Nano lime, Nano titanium. Recommendation 4: Use rigid gels for cleaning processes. Recommendation 5: Continue monitoring the microclimate for 365 days so that conservators can have a complete view of the environmental conditions inside and outside of the sites. Recommendation 6: Use portable analytical equipment and non-destructive methods for analyzing the archaeological materials. Recommendation 7: Produce the experimental studies for conservation material and application methods (cleaning materials-, consolidation materials, mortars, injection materials, adhesion materials) before restoration and conservation processes. Recommendation 8: Prohibit the use of consolidation materials that are water-based to consolidate stones or painted plaster layers due to the sensitivity of these materials to water. Illustrative Example of the Inappropriate Use of Paraloid B72: At the Seti I Temple in Western Thebes, not an ARCE intervention, Paraloid B72 was used and has led to the loss of the inscriptions because it did not go through the pores of the stone and led to salt crystals forming inside of the stone resulting in forcing the inscriptions in an outward direction as the stone could not move otherwise. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 159 Photographic account of negative effects of the inappropriate use of Paraloid B72. Unlike the tomb of Nefertari, where Paraloid b72 was used to glue the chipped off parts of the plaster, here it was used as a consolidation medium. B. Site Management Component Evaluation Methodology of Site Management Cultural heritage has become the fourth pillar of sustainable development after social inclusion, economic growth and environmental balance based on UNESCO’s universal declaration on cultural diversity in 2001. This new method addresses the relation between cultural heritage and sustainable development through the development the wider cultural heritage consumption through cultural industries, crafts and cultural tourism. The two main regions being evaluated in this project are the Memphite Necropolis and the Theban Necropolis, two sites that are registered on the World Heritage List. This has directed the evaluation to use the different standards used by UNESCO for benchmarking cultural heritage management of the archaeological sites. Based on UNESCO’s guidelines for cultural heritage management • “The purpose of a management plan is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations.” This was devised clearly in the 2005 Operational USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 160 Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention where it reiterated the previous note with more explanation: • “Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means” (UNESCO2005, Para. 108, p. 26). These guidelines directly relate to the first question of the evaluation and reflect on the selection of the tools used to answer the question. The UNESCO guidelines for cultural heritage management are: • a thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders; • a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; • the involvement of partners and stakeholders; • the allocation of necessary resources; • capacity building; • an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions The methodology for the evaluation for has taken in consideration the current state of benchmarks for cultural heritage management as well as previous successful projects that were applied by USAID and the IPs in Egypt. The methodology based its evaluation on the handbook by Prof. Kent Weeks on the site management of Valley of the Kings that was partially funded by USAID and managed by ARCE: • Weeks, Kent R., Nigel J. Hetherington, Dina Bakhoum, Theban Mapping Project, American University in Cairo Press, and N.Y.) World Monuments Fund (New York. 2014. The Valley of the Kings: A Site Management Handbook. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press. • Makuvaza, S. 2018. Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and Practices. Springer International Publishing. The main theoretical framework for the evaluation was built on the corpus of literature of these disciplines: • community archaeology, • post-processual archaeology and • post-colonial heritage practice. The literature consulted (See bibliography list at Annex 3) addressed a myriad of projects carried out previously in Egypt, the region and internationally. The empirical use of the evaluation and the assessment was not to penalize the projects but rather to provide ample guidelines for future projects and enough reference for the USAID evaluate future proposals in the light of the international benchmark practices in cultural heritage management. Rubric Narrative Besides, the KII interviews, group discussions and surveys, a rubric was devised based on the handbook of site management by Kent Weeks and the UNESCO guidelines for the cultural heritage management. The rubric is divided into five levels of achievement and standardizes the process of the evaluation in terms of the quality of the cultural heritage management applied. The rubric mainly unifies the assessment process to a consistent standard that can be replicated. The rubric assesses: • the mapping, • the preliminary studies, • risk assessment, • description of the tourist activity, USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 161 • the stakeholder’s analysis survey and methodology for collaborative work, • infrastructure survey, • visitor management, • site management plan, • publications, • sustainability, • site branding and marketing plan. The rubrics are used for self-evaluation by the various project directors at first, then scores are adjusted based on the desk review and field notes results. They are measured in percentages to provide a tangible score for assessment of the cultural management plans for each project. The ARCE Sohag project has declined the opportunity to self-evaluate. Limitations The Egyptian team was not able to visit the site visits; however, the evaluation of the site management steps was judged on the project design and reports as well as the feedback coming from the KIIs and group discussions in the different areas. Historic Google Earth images were also used to assess the physical changes in Memphis and archival photographs were used for the other sites for comparison. Most of the evaluation and assessment was done on how well-researched and thought the plans for cultural heritage management were devised as there are bigger limitations on the implementation by the ministry and state security at many instances. Evaluation Results and Recommendations Cultural Heritage for Tourism – Sohag Project implemented by ARCE – Detailed Findings Finding 1.a.1: Mutual respect between the monastic community and the ARCE team has been built over several years, and this meant that the physical interventions both were researched and consulted thoroughly, and the wishes of the church community were respected by the conservators. The ARCE project and USAID funding contributed to the preservation not only of an ancient site but also to the living heritage of the Red Monastery. This interaction brings the past to a very present significance and contributes to the palimpsest of history of the site. Conclusion 1.a.1: ARCE has managed over the years to build a strong relation with the monastery in Sohag and this was indispensable for carrying out this project in a quasi-collaborative approach between ARCE’s team and the monastery. However, this has limited any external collaboration beyond the monastery and MOA. Recommendation 1.a.1: In future project designs, a complete stakeholder’s analysis should be carried out to involve a wider audience to collaborate with the Monastery and the MOA. This would be carried out with plans to help with future infrastructure projects at the Monastery or the sites around it as well as start-up businesses and arts and crafts directly related to the cultural heritage component of the monastery. Sohag Finding 1.a.2: There has not been a holistic infrastructure survey for the site with a proper end vision that this project phase would fit into and future projects can build on. This puts the extent of the physical change unclear in terms of site management. The risk assessment procedures are also not clear enough. The cultural heritage management methodologies were done without a clear theoretical framework and without an adequate methodology. Cross reference with rubric. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 162 Conclusion 1.a.2: Although appropriate cultural heritage management practices to promote local and international tourism at the Red Monastery have been observed, there is a need for a broader scope to include adequate planning and surveying. Recommendation 1.a.2: A more detailed strategy of site management should be devised in a larger framework to manage the site in the future; preferably in Arabic. There should be solid studies in which the monastery, local community, MOA and IP contribute to on how they want this site to be in the future and the different action plans that could be devised to reach the cultural heritage management goals. Getting them onboard from day one not only helps with the execution of the project but also provides sustainability reference for future generations, who might not know what took place in the past. Scoring of Site Management Rubric - Sohag Project Title: Cultural Heritage for Tourism - Sohag Implementing Body: ARCE EQI 1. Mapping: This score indicates the availability of maps and accurate plans for the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Mapping No evidence of Maps Generic Maps without Survey Works Partial Survey Archaeological Site Sites are properly mapped, but without spatial analysis Sites are properly mapped with appropriate polygons and some spatial analysis Complete GIS data with maps and spatial analysis Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Detailed mapping should be carried out for the site, its associated landscape as well as future plans. Points Possible: 5 Score 3.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 163 EQI 2. Preliminary studies: This score indicates the quality level of the preliminary studies. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Preliminary Studies No evidence of preliminary studies Inadequate preliminary studies Basic preliminary studies with some visual data Preliminary study with visual data, but insufficient details Preliminary study lacking a few details Full complete preliminary studies with appropriate visuals Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ4 3. Risk Assessment: This score indicates the quality of the risk assessment carried for the site including (pre-risk and post￾risk) Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Risk Assessmen t No evidence of risk assessment Mentioning risk factors in general reporting Minimal risk assessment of the natural and human factors A developing risk assessment plan with some environmental data Risk assessment sheets with some analysis A full risk assessment plan with risk types, zones and future mitigation plans Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: A thorough risk assessment for the site is needed to asses properly the natural and human threats for future accurate decision￾making. Points Possible: 5 Score 5 3.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 164 EQI 4. Description of the Tourist Activity of the Site Prior to Intervention: This measures the tourism trends, tourism rise and fall in numbers and geographic location number specific turnout Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Tourist Activity Description No evidence of a description Little unsubstantiated tourist activity description Minimal tourist activity description with some evidence Meets basic description of the tourist activity with solid examples Developing tourist activity description with assessment of trends A full detailed tourist activity historical description past trends and possible future changes Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Since this project targets cultural heritage for tourism, there should have been enough description on the touristic activity prior to intervention and post-intervention to be able to assess accurately improvements in terms of numbers and tourist satisfaction of the visit. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ4 5. Stakeholder Analysis Survey and Collaborative Work: This score measures the level of detail of the stakeholder analysis survey, the implementation plan and the community engagement methodology Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Stakeholder Analysis Survey No stakeholder survey There is minimal description of the different stakeholders There is a stakeholder analysis survey, but a minor implementation plan of methodology of engagement There is a developing stakeholder analysis survey with a clear methodology, but poor implementation Stakeholder analysis survey provides adequate detail on the various stakeholders, proper methodology, but limited implementation Stakeholder analysis survey provides an efficient detailed survey, adequate methodology and successful implementation Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: There has not been a thorough stakeholder’s analysis for the project and no clear engagement methodology. Points Possible: 5 Score 3.5 2.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 165 EQ4 6. Infrastructure Survey: This evaluates the plans to approach the visitor experience, roads and pathways, types of transport, parking, vendors’ area, visitor center, security entrance, toilets, shelters and rest stops, site utilities and site fabric Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Infrastructure Survey No infrastructure survey included There is some mention of the infrastructure around the site Infrastructure survey data is inconsistent Infrastructure survey data is available, but incomplete Infrastructure survey data is done, but lacking a few details Infrastructure survey is complete Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: shelter, parking, visitor center, implemented by the monastery based on the project’s recommendations. Others were outside the project’s scope. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 7. Visitor Management: This score discusses the carrying capacity, ticketing procedures, and the visitor experience in the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Visitor Management No visitor management Some visitor management plan available Incomplete visitor management plan Developing visitor management plan, but lacking a few aspects such as a clear action plan Adequate visitor management plan, but without a clear methodology A clear visiting management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Fundamentally beyond the scope of the project’s grant agreement. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ3 3 2.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 166 8. Site Management Plan: Overall capacity building plan quality, emergency and disaster plan, accessibility, signage, and maintenance Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Site Management Plan No site management plan Little or ineffective site management planning Low quality site management plan A developing site management plan, but lacks consistency or clarity Accurate and concise site management plan, but with some practical limitations Complete and implemented site management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments:. A Site Management Plan has been completed and submitted to the appropriate authorities. However, as the project is still in implementation, the final aspects of the Visitor Management Plan are currently in development bbut are anticipated to be completed by the December 2018 project end date. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ1, EQ2, EQ4 9. Publications: This score indicates the actual quality of the publications, feasibility of reprints and accessibility. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Publications No publication limited scientific publications Scientific publications and project reports in English only Detailed scientific publication in English and Arabic Detailed scientific publication and visibility material such as brochures and maps in multiple languages Rich publications written collaboratively between the stakeholders and the IP in multiple languages Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: No publications were carried out to provide awareness for the community, visitors and other stakeholders on the project. There was only one publication written for the ARCE bulletin that does not necessarily reach the immediate community and visitors of the monastery. No funds were budgeted for publications in the USAID grant. Nothwithstanding, follow-up discussions with the IP indicate that ARCE has prepared a Chapter and Contributors Plan and has submitted said plan to the National Endowment of the Humanities for funding. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 3 1.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 167 10. Sustainability: This score measures the sustainability of the different activities for the project. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Sustainability All activities ended by the end of the project Little activities continue after the project Project is completed, and has a few ongoing activities, but not for a long time Project is completed, and one of the stakeholders is continuing some activities implemented in the project Project is completed, and some stakeholders are continuing activities and/or building on them other activities Project is complete, and the main stakeholders identified are continuing the different activities and building on them Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: sustainability depends on the monastery and MOA involvement in managing and conserving the site; however, there should have been a manual or a list of future plans to be handed over to the monastery on how the site could be maintained, the number of visitors to be allowed and so on. Perhaps the head of the monastery would change, and the others would not know exactly how to handle it in 5-10 years’ time. According to the IP, a manunal on how the site is to be maintained will be submitted to the appropriate authorities prior to the December 2018 project end date. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 11. Site Branding and Marketing Plan: This score measures the quality and feasibility of the branding strategy and marketing plan of the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Branding and Marketing No branding or marketing plan for the site Some branding and incoherent marketing attempts A developing marketing plan without implementation A complete and coherent marketing plan, but with minimal implementation A solid marketing and branding plan, but limited implementation A professional solid cultural marketing and site branding implemented plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Although the self-evaluation gave a zero for this item, the team sees that there have been some attempts on social media to market the place. There should be a clear site brand and marketing plan that targets the segment of visitors that the stakeholders want to attract for the benefit of the site. However, the IP reports that a Site Branding and Marketing Plan is not part of its grant agreement. Points Possible: 5 Score 4 1.5 Comments: Final points are calculated by a simple summation of the scores obtained in each evaluation aspect. This project has clearly attempted to do some activities with site management, but they were not complete or systematic to be considered a truly holistic plan. However, it had some good elements that can be built on in the future as the project hss not yet ended. This rubric was handed in for the IP for self-evaluation, and the evaluation team has boosted the scores based on the desk￾review and interviews. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 168 Project Ranking Key Exceptional 90-100% Commendable 75-89% Acceptable 60-74% Unacceptable 59% or less Total Score 33.5 Percent 60% - Acceptable Rank: Second USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 169 Cultural Heritage for Tourism – Luxor Project implemented by ARCE – Detailed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. Luxor East Bank Finding 1.b.1: It is noted that the MOA requested and provided permission for the IP to perform conservation and training applications in the Khonsu Temple. We note that there was no evidence of a stakeholder’s analysis for the Khonsu temple work. No community work was carried out with inhabitants of the East Bank as part of cultural heritage management. Although not part of a formal engagement strategy, the IP has engaged select MOA personnel, project trainees and some local press. It is worthy to note that it is now considered a common best practice to conduct conservation and/or archaeological work in conjunction with with community engagement so as to increase the likelihood of its sustainability. Luxor East Bank Conclusion 1.b.1: The current project was built on previous projects that included conservation and training. It is noted that in the current project some tourist-related engagement took place; i.e., some academic publishing in the ARCE Bulletin, some posting to the ARCE website and some papers presented at professional conferences; e.g., ARCE and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Although the IP reports many site visits from U.S. Embassy personnel, both official and private, there was no clear strategy for tourism engagement with the MOT either at the local or national level. Tourism industry interests report very limited awareness of the scope of the interventions or of the project’s implementation status. Luxor East Bank Recommendation 1.b.1: In future project designs, projects related to ‘sustainable investment in tourism’ targeting cultural heritage for tourism should have the MOT on board on equal footing with MOA and wider collaborative community and private enterprises engagement through the different phases of the project. Studies targeting tourism trends and improving the tourist experience in targeted sites as part of the preliminary studies should be done. Future cultural heritage projects should also find local partners from the NGOs, Egyptian local universities and institutes, and local businesses where training activities can be sustained after the termination of the funding. This would create a multiplier effect and training and community awareness would continue even on a lower rate after the project ends. Luxor East Bank Finding 1.b.2: As of this date, there has not been a publication dedicated to the community. However, according to consultantions with the IP, some are planned. It is worthy to note that several reports for the Khonsu Temple have been generated each season and that all such reports are uploaded onto the ARCE database. Conclusion East Bank Finding 1.b.2: The project has not changed its philosophy towards cultural heritage for tourism but, as agreed with MOA, interventions are more focused on training MOA personnel and short-term employment of laborers. As yet, there has not been a significant publication on cultural heritage management activities for distribution to the various project-related stakeholders. Luxor East Bank Finding 1.b.3: MOT and tourism companies were not surveyed for how much the cleaning of the temple of Khonsu would affect the touristic experience in the temple. Although not a standard practice on archaeology projects in Egypt, this is a project which received funds under the rubric of enhancing tourism. These two related disciplines are quite different in terms of approach and implementation. The project, as approved and implemented, did not shift the focus with respect to the funding purpose. Luxor East Bank Recommendation 1.b.3: While previously noted that MOA and MOT agreements in writing is not a common practice in Egypt, there are a number of such joint projects currently underway; e.g., Cairo Citadel. For future funding dedicated to promoting tourism-related USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 170 cultural heritage sites, MOA and MOT should agree in writing to opening project sites upon completion. MOA should ensure in writing that they will make the necessary arrangements, while the MOT would make sure to place the new site on the touristic agenda. In future SITE-like supported interventions, IPs should create enough material for the different stakeholders on how to tell the story of the site and make it worth the tourist’s visit. Luxor West Bank Finding 1.a.1: There has not been an academic authority overseeing the archaeological work and excavation in this phase of the project, which gives less credibility to the site context and objects interpretation. However, it is noted that the IP advises that further assessments and publishing will be derived from an analysis of the objects by the scientific community. The project also lacked an academic authority in cultural heritage management. Luxor West Bank Recommendation 1.a.1: Future cultural heritage management projects should recruit a more multi-disciplinary team and said team should be headed by an academic authority (PhD holder affiliated to an academic institution) with strong demonstrated experience in archaeology or Egyptology projects. Luxor West Finding 1.b.2: The tombs were neither selected after a stakeholders’ survey nor through consultations with MOT to determine which tombs are the most appropriate for tourism. Tombs were selected by the local MOA; the sole authority responsible for the site. Luxor West Bank Recommendation 1.b.3: Future funding should be dedicated to projects that MOA and MOT would agree in writing on opening to the public after completion of the works. MOA should ensure in writing that they will hold the necessary arrangement while MOT would make sure to put this new site on the touristic agenda as part of a narrative for the entire tourist area. Future USAID-funded IPs should create enough publishable material for different stakeholders on how to tell the story of the site and make it worth the visit. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 171 Scoring of Site Management Rubric Luxor Project Title: Cultural Heritage for Tourism - Luxor Implementing Body: ARCE EQI 12. Mapping: This score indicates the availability of maps and accurate plans for the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Mapping No evidence of Maps Generic Maps without Survey Works Partial Survey Archaeological Site Sites are properly mapped but without spatial analysis Sites are properly mapped with appropriate polygons and some spatial analysis Complete GIS data with maps and spatial analysis Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Detailed mapping should be carried out for the site with adequate spatial analysis. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI 13. Preliminary studies: This score indicates the quality level of the preliminary studies. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Preliminary Studies No evidence of preliminary studies Inadequate preliminary studies Basic preliminary studies with some visual data Preliminary study with visual data, but insufficient details Preliminary study lacking a few details Full complete preliminary studies with appropriate visuals Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 2.5 3.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 172 EQI, EQ2, EQ4 14. Risk Assessment: This score indicates the quality of the risk assessment carried for the site including (pre-risk and post￾risk) Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Risk Assessmen t No evidence of risk assessment Mentioning risk factors in general reporting Minimal risk assessment of the natural and human factors A developing risk assessment plan with some environmental data Risk assessment sheets with some analysis A full risk assessment plan with risk types, zones and future mitigation plans Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: A thorough risk assessment for the site is needed to asses properly the natural and human threats for future accurate decision￾making. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI 15. Description of the Tourist Activity of the Site Prior to Intervention: This measures the tourism trends, tourism rise and fall in numbers and geographic location number specific turnout Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Tourist Activity Description No evidence of a description Little unsubstantiated tourist activity description Minimal tourist activity description with some evidence Meets basic description of the tourist activity with solid examples Developing tourist activity description with assessment of trends A full detailed tourist activity historical description past trends and possible future changes Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Since this project targets cultural heritage for tourism, there should have been enough description on the touristic activity prior to intervention to assess accurately improvements in terms of numbers and percentages and tourist satisfaction of the visit of the whole Karnak proper or Theban Tombs. Points Possible: 5 Score 1.5 3 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 173 EQI, EQ2, EQ4 16. Stakeholder Analysis Survey and Collaborative Work: This score measures the level of detail of the stakeholder analysis survey, the implementation plan and the community engagement methodology Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Stakeholder Analysis Survey No stakeholder survey There is minimal description of the different stakeholders There is a stakeholder analysis survey, but a minor implementation plan of methodology of engagement There is a developing stakeholder analysis survey with a clear methodology but poor implementation Stakeholder analysis survey provides adequate detail on the various stakeholders, proper methodology, but limited implementation Stakeholder analysis survey provides an efficient detailed survey, adequate methodology and successful implementation Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: There has not been a thorough stakeholder’s analysis for the project and no clear engagement methodology. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 17. Infrastructure Survey: This evaluates the plans to approach the visitor experience, roads and pathways, types of transport, parking, vendors’ area, visitor center, security entrance, toilets, shelters and rest stops, site utilities and site fabric Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Infrastructure Survey No infrastructure survey included There is some mention of the infrastructure around the site Infrastructure survey data is inconsistent Infrastructure survey data is available, but incomplete Infrastructure survey data is done, but lacking a few details Infrastructure survey is complete Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Shelter, parking, visitor center, toilets and other tourist services should have been described and perhaps improved since this project does not only target the archaeology and conservation but is primarily for cultural heritage for tourism. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 1 2 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 174 18. Visitor Management: This score discusses the carrying capacity, ticketing procedures and the visitor experience in the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Visitor Management No visitor management Some visitor management plan available Incomplete visitor management plan Developing visitor management plan, but lacking a few aspects such as a clear action plan Adequate visitor management plan, but without a clear methodology A clear visiting management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: The IP clarifies that a Vistor Management Plan was not part of the USAID grant agreement. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ3 19. Site Management Plan: Overall capacity building plan quality, emergency and disaster plan, accessibility, signage, and maintenance Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Site Management Plan No site management plan Little or ineffective site management planning Low quality site management plan A developing site management plan, but lacks consistency or clarity Accurate and concise site management plan, but with some practical limitations Complete and implemented site management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Sometimes pending implementation although were planned as part of the project’s scope. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ1, EQ2, EQ4 2.5 3.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 175 20. Publications: This score indicates the actual quality of the publications, feasibility of reprints and accessibility Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Publications No publication limited scientific publications Scientific publications and project reports in English only Detailed scientific publication in English and Arabic Detailed scientific publication and visibility material such as brochures and maps in multiple languages Rich publications written collaboratively between the stakeholders and the IP in multiple languages Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: No publications were carried out to provide awareness for the community, visitors and other stakeholders on the project. There was only one conservation article that does not necessarily reach the immediate community and the future visitors. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 21. Sustainability: This score measures the sustainability of the different activities for the project Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Sustainability All activities ended by the end of the project Little activities continue after the project Project is completed, and has a few ongoing activities, but not for a long time Project is complete, and one of the stakeholders is continuing some activities implemented in the project Project is complete, and some stakeholders are continuing activities and/or building on them other activities Project is complete, and the main stakeholders identified are continuing the different activities and building on them Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: The sustainability of the site management plan will depend on MOA, but all other activities in terms of training, capacity building and jobs stopped with the ending of the project. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 0 2 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 176 Project Ranking Key Exceptional 90-100% Commendable 75-89% Acceptable 60-74% Unacceptable 59% or less 22. Site Branding and Marketing Plan: This score measures the quality and feasibility of the branding strategy and marketing plan of the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Branding and Marketing No branding or marketing plan for the site Some branding and incoherent marketing attempts A developing marketing plan without implementation A complete and coherent marketing plan, but with minimal implementation A solid marketing and branding plan, but limited implementation A professional solid cultural marketing and site branding implemented plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: There have not been any attempts to do any branding or marketing for the project’s destination. Material and targeted audience should have been prepared in advance so when the site is inaugurated there would be a target market coming to visit. It is noted that a Site Branding and Marketing Plan was outside of the scope of the USAID grant agreement. Points Possible: 5 Score Total Score: 21.5 Percent: 39 % - Unacceptable Rank: Third Comments: Final points are calculated by a simple summation of the scores obtained in each evaluation aspect. This project targeting cultural heritage for tourism has engaged in minimal involvement with the MOT and this has reflected on the design and implementation that had minimal contacts with the stakeholders other than MOA as well as the communities and smaller businesses. The project continued to provide jobs like its previous phases but has not changed its methodology from the previous phases that were not necessarily targeting tourism to a tourism focused project. This rubric was also handed to the IP for self-evaluation but refrained from replying. 0 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 177 SUGGESTED CONSOLIDATION MATERIALS KIND MATERIAL COMPANY Sand stone and mud plaster Ahydrosil Z Chemii Przemyslowej Bio estile C.T.S Funcosil – SteinFestiger H Rommers Byasilon Bayer Wacker 550 Wacker VP 1301 Acrisil 201/ON C.T.S DIAL. PMA SIL Texsa company U.S.A Methyl Tri Methoxy Silane M.T.M.O.S (Dow Corning Silane Z6070) + nano silica Dow Corning Ethyl silicate 40 Limestone and lime plaster, gypsum plaster Gevicel M Nanorestore C.T.S Dial PMA Texsa U.S.A Safe - stone Sinco Mec Kolor Plexisol P 550 Aryl-Alkyl-polysiloxane (poly vinyle siloxane in xaylen) Consolidation and protection Bf4 Chem Spac Before using any of these materials, an experimental study of any material must be carried out prior to application to make sure that it is reinforced with the impact state. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 178 ANNEX 6: CHTE – TABULATIONS AND GRAPHS – OUTPUT OF ONLINE SURVEY OF TRAINEES The online survey was for the ARCE project was undertaken through SurveyMonkey and sent to all trainees via their e-mail addresses or WhatsApp accounts. Telephone follow-ups were undertaken to maximize participation. The survey commenced online on August 2, 2018 and was closed on August 20. The ARCE project targeted two sites: Luxor and Sohag. In Luxor, a total of 88 trainees were targeted, 57 males (65%) and 31 females (35%). In Sohag, a total of 24 trainees were targeted, 14 males (58%) and 10 females (42%). In addition, in Sohag, 9 female volunteers were trained. A quantitative tool was conducted to target these trainees with the aim of assessing the training effectiveness, measuring the trainees’ satisfaction levels with the training workshops and exploring different aspects of women empowerment. The quantitative tool (survey) can be found in Annex (9A). In Luxor, it was found that not all of the 88 trainees completed all the modules conducted in the project period from 2015 to 2018. Only 42 trainees have completely attended all the modules; 30 males (71%) and 12 females (29%). Accordingly, we limited our selection to those who attended the full program from 2015 to 2018. Due to the small population size (i.e. 42 trainees), we targeted the whole population to guarantee better insights. A total of 34 trainees from Luxor completed the survey, providing a response rate of 81%. The respondents were divided into 25 males (74%) and 9 females (26%). Hence, the gender distribution of the respondents is almost the same as the gender distribution of the targeted population. Accordingly, the unresponsive trainees didn’t affect the analysis with respect to the population structure. In Sohag, we targeted the whole population (i.e. 24 trainees). All of the 24 trainees from Sohag completed the survey; providing a response rate of 100%. As for the nine female volunteers, only 6 were reached, providing a 67% response rate. The remaining volunteers weren’t reachable as they got married and were currently living outside Egypt with no contact information available for them. Some Background Characteristics A total of 24 respondents in Sohag completed the survey. Their ages ranged from 26 to 42 years with average of 31.17 years. In Luxor, a total of 34 respondents with an age range of 29 - 51 years and average of 35.88 years completed the survey. In Sohag, male and female trainees were almost equally represented in the ARCE training program, with 42% of the trainees being females and 58% males, as shown in Figure 1a. Whereas in Luxor, almost three-quarters (74%) of the trainees were males, as shown in Figure 1b. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 179 In Sohag, the majority of the trainees were university graduates (79%). As showed in Figure 2a, this percentage is higher among females (90%) than males (72%). In Luxor, almost two-thirds of the trainees (68%) were university graduates, and about 21% have an above intermediate education. About two￾thirds of the male trainees and three-quarters of female trainees in Luxor were university graduates, as shown in Figure 2b. Males Females 7% n=1 0 72% n = 10 90% n=9 14% n=2 10% n=1 7% n=1 0 Figure 2a: Educational Attainment by Gender in Sohag Above Intermediate Education University Graduate MSc Holder Other 58% n= 14 42% n=10 Figure 1a: Gender Distribution in Sohag Males Females 74% n=25 26% n=9 Figure 1b: Gender Distribution in Luxor Males Females USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 180 Impact of training on opportunities for further work with international organizations Trainees were asked if the ARCE training program has provided them with the skills needed to work with other international archeological missions. Results show that almost half of the trainees in Sohag (54%) have worked with other international archaeological missions. A slightly higher percentage was observed among females (60% versus 50%, for males); see Figures 3a and 3b. Various international missions were mentioned, including the German mission Sheikh Hmad (Temple of Triphis/ Athribis), which was the most commonly listed mission. Others were also mentioned: • The English mission (Tel el Amarna, the Zawyet Sultan area) • The French mission (Taposiris Magna / Plinthine) • The Japanese mission in the area of Tahna mountain • The Spanish mission (The area of the Tombs of the Nobles west of Aswan) • Luxor Conservation Center | American Research Center in Egypt In Luxor, on the other hand, nearly a quarter of trainees (23%) worked with international missions as a result of the training. There was no significant difference between males and females in this regard. Among the international missions mentioned were the following: Males Females 12% n=3 0 20% n=5 22% n=2 64% n=16 78% n=7 4% n=1 0 Figure 2b: Educational Attainment by Gender in Luxor Intermediate Education Above Intermediate Education University Graduate MSc Holder 54% n=13 46% n=11 Figure 3a: Distribution of Trainees Who Worked with International Missions in Sohag Yes No Males Females 50% n=7 60% 50% n=6 n=7 40% n=4 Figure 3b: Distribution of Trainees Who Worked with International Missions by Gender in Sohag Yes No USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 181 • Mission of the University of Chicago • The German Mission Sheikh Hmad (Temple of Triphis/ Athribis) • The French Mission • The Japanese Mission • The Mexican Mission • The Belgian Mission Employment in the Ministry of Antiquities (MOA) Trainees were asked if they were currently employed by the MOA. In Sohag, results showed that the vast majority of the trainees (96%) confirmed having a full-time job at the ministry. Among them, 83% were working as conservators, as shown in Figure 5. In Luxor, all the trainees were currently full-time employees, and they all worked as conservators. To determine if the training had affected the trainees' job prospects at the MOA, they were asked to state their jobs at the time of training to be compared with the current job. In Sohag, the vast majority 23% 77% n=8 n=26 Figure 4a: Distribution of Trainees Who Worked with International Missions in Luxor Yes No Males Females 24% n=6 22% n=2 76% n=19 78% n=7 Figure 4b: Distribution of Trainees Who Worked with International Missions by Gender in Luxor Yes No 83% n=19 9% n=2 8% n=2 Conservator Inspector Other Figure 5: Distribution of Sohag's Trainees Based on Their Current Job at the MOA USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 182 of the trainees (88%) were working as conservators in the MOA at the time of training, as shown in Figure 6. Only one trainee mentioned that he worked as a conservator at the time of the training, while currently he said he was the “director of the restoration of museum stores in El-Menya”. In Luxor, all trainees (100%) said they were working as conservators in the MOA at the time of training, and so no one had changed his job title after being trained. Trainees were also asked about the time they spent working at the MOA. In Sohag, the vast majority (84%) said they had been working there for 5 - <10 years, as shown in Figure (7a). Only 8% stated that they had been working for less than one year, or for 10 years or more. In Luxor, Figure (7b) shows that 79% of the trainees had been working in the ministry for 5 - <10 years. As for the rest of the trainees (21%), they had been working there for 10 years or more. 88% n=21 8% n=2 4% n=1 Conservator Inspector Other Figure 6: Distribution of Sohag's Trainees Based on Their Jobs in the MOA at the Time of Training 8% n=2 84% n=20 8% n=2 Less than one year 5 years – Less than 10 years 10 years or more Figure 7a: Percent Distribution of Sohag Trainees’ based on the Number of 79% n=27 21% n=7 5 years – Less than 10 years 10 years or more Figure 7b: Percent Distribution of Luxor Trainees based on the Number of USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 183 The Training Workshops Trainees were asked to list all the training workshops that were completed. Figure (8a) and Figure (8b) presents the trainings that the trainees have completed in Sohag and luxor, respectively. In Sohag, the most frequent training (88%) was the conservation, followed by outreach/ community archaeology / public archaeology awareness (38%), cultural heritage management (29%), and site management (25%). As for Luxor, almost all the trainees (97%) completed the conservation workshop. This was expected, as all trainees were conservators. The second-most attended workshop was Photoshop, AutoCAD, and Microsoft office (38%), followed by photography (35%) and site management (35%). Other Photography Site Management Cultural Heritage Management Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness Conservation 4% n = 1 8% n = 2 25% n = 6 29% n = 7 38% n = 9 88% n = 21 Figure 8a: Distribution of Sohag's Trainees Based on the Training Workshops Completed Cultural Heritage Management Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness Photography Site Management Photoshop/ AutoCad/ Microsoft Office Conservation 3% n = 1 12% n = 4 35% n = 12 35% n = 12 38% n = 13 97% n = 33 Figure 8b: Training Workshops Completed by Trainees in Luxor USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 184 Trainees were asked to state only one of the training workshops they attended to be the most relevant to their jobs at the ministry. There was a strong agreement that the conservation workshop was the most relevant in both Sohag and Luxor (88% and 91%, respectively). It is important, however, to highlight that all the trainees in both sites assured their desire to have additional training in similar aspects of the ARCE project’s program. Among the mentioned programs in both Sohag and Luxor were: • Photography • Photoshop /AutoCAD / Computer Programs • Fundraising • Archaeological Art and Architectural Documentation • Language courses • Detecting the falsification of effects An important issue is how the trainees were selected to join the program. Trainees revealed that nearly three-quarters of those in both Sohag and Luxor (83% and 74%, respectively) had volunteered, or applied and were interviewed to join the ARCE project’s training program(s). About 93% of males and 70% of females in Sohag and 64% of males and 100% of females in Luxor confirmed joining the program by this method. Nominated by the project I volunteered/applied/ was interviewed 17% n=4 83% n=20 Figure 9a: Distribution of ARCE Trainees by Selection Method for Training in Sohag USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 185 Trainees' Overall Assessment of the Training Program Trainees were asked to state their satisfaction level with the ARCE project’s training program on a scale from 1 to 5; 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. In Sohag, a total of 96% of the trainees were satisfied (42% very satisfied, and 54% were just satisfied). Figure 11a compares the satisfaction among males and females in Sohag. Nominated by my direct supervisor Nominated by the project I volunteered/applied/ was interviewed 8% n=3 18% n=6 74% n=25 Figure 9b: Distribution of ARCE Trainees by Selection Method for Training in Luxor 4% n=1 54% n=13 42% n=10 Figure 10a: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Training Program(s) in Sohag Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 2% n=1 3% n=1 21% n=7 74% n=25 Figure 10b: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Training Program(s) in Luxor Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 186 In Luxor, a total of 95% of the trainees were satisfied with ARCE’s training program (74% very satisfied, 21% satisfied), with no significant difference between males and females as shown in Figure 11b. Further, respondents were asked to state their level of agreement regarding a set of statements that assessed their satisfaction with various aspects of the ARCE’s training program. More details about these statements are shown in Figures 12a and 12b. In Sohag, all different aspects for the training were highly acceptable, as shown in Figure 12a, except for the aspect measuring the effect of the training program of the trainees’ professional development. This aspect showed the lowest level of agreement among the respondents (59%; 21% strongly agree and 38% just agree). Males Females 7% n=1 0 43% n=6 70% n=7 50% n=7 30% n=3 Figure 11a: Trainees'Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Project’s Overall Training Program(s) by Gender in Sohag Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Males Females 4% n=1 0 4% n=1 0 20% n=5 22% n=2 72% n=18 78% n=7 Figure 11b: Trainee's Level of Satisfaction with the ARCE Project’s Overall Training Program(s) by Gender in Luxor Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 187 As for Luxor, as shown in Figure 12b, trainees have a high agreement levels with the fact that the training program helped in improving job performance and that the Ministry of Antiquities in collaboration with ARCE provided equal training opportunities for both men and women. There was moderate agreement that the training materials were comprehensive and that the trainers were highly knowledgeable about the training subject. Similarly to Sohag, trainees were least satisfied with the fact that the training program helped them in their professional development (68%). Equal training opportunities were provided for both men and women Helped with professional development Helped to improve job performance Training materials were comprehensive Highly knowledgeable trainers 38% 21% 33% 21% 29% 58% 38% 50% 63% 54% 16% 17% 8% 17% 21% 0% 4% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% Figure 12a: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction with Training in Sohag Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Equal training opportunities were provided for both men and women Helped with professional development Helped to improve job performance Training materials were comprehensive Highly knowledgeable trainers 50% n=17 21% n=7 74% n=25 32% n=11 41% n=14 44% n=15 47% n=16 24% n=8 44% n=15 32% 21% n=11 n=7 12% n=4 15% n=5 3% n=1 11% n=4 12% n=4 6% n=2 3% n=1 2% n=1 6% n=2 Figure 12b: Trainees' Level of Satisfaction withh Training in Luxor Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 188 We calculated a score for each respondent based on these five statements/ variables to measure his/ her overall opinion regarding all statements reflecting his/her satisfaction towards the ARCE training program. The scores were computed for each trainee as the average of his/ her scores in these five variables, and males and females were compared. Table 1 presents some descriptive statistics for the scores calculated for Sohag’s and Luxor’s trainees, disaggregated by gender. Results calculated and presented in Table 1 show highly satisfied trainees in both Sohag and Luxor. Generally, trainees in Sohag scored, on average, 3.99 out of 5, while those in Luxor scored, on average, 4.14 out of 5. Table 1 shows as well that there is no significant difference between males and females with respect to their agreement scores in either Sohag or Luxor. Table 1: Descriptive statistics for satisfaction regarding ARCE training by gender* SATISFACTOPN SCORING Sohag Luxor Males Females Total Males Females Total Mean 3.97 4.02 3.99 4.12 4.20 4.14 Median 4.00 3.90 4.00 4.40 4.20 4.40 Mode 3.60 3.80 3.60 4.80 4.20 4.80 Minimum 3.60 3.40 3.40 1.40 3.80 1.40 Maximum 5.00 4.60 5.00 5.00 4.80 5.00 *Score is out of 5 Effect of training on trainees’ professionalism Trainees were asked about their opinion about the effect of the ARCE project’s training program on their professional life. In Sohag, about 88% agreed that the training had increased their motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies, and that was the issue they agreed most on. This was followed by their agreement that the ARCE training had increased their self-confidence (83%) and improved their ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities (83%). As shown in Figures 14b, 14c, 14d, there is no significant difference between males and females in their agreement levels. On the other hand, trainees showed lower levels of agreement when they were asked if the training had improved their technical capability to train colleagues (54%) or increased their ability to innovate and contribute new ideas (50%). With respect to these two training aspects, women were less favorable than men, as shown in Figures 14a and 14e. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 189 Improved technical capability to train colleagues Increase motivation for pursuing additional training,tasks or studies Improve ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities Increase self￾confidence Increase ability to innovate and contribute new ideas 54% n=13 88% n=21 83% n=20 83% n=20 50% n=12 4% n=1 4% n=1 4% n=1 46% n=11 12% n=3 13% n=3 13% n=3 46% n=11 Figure 13: Trainees’ Level of Satisfaction with the Effect of Training on Professional Development in Sohag Yes No To Some Extent Males Females 57% n=8 40% n=4 0 10% n=1 43% n=6 50% n=5 Figure 14a: Trainees’ Level of Satisfaction with Training to Increase Trainee’s Ability to Innovate and Contribute New Ideas by Gender in Sohag Yes No To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 190 Males Females 86% n=12 80% n=8 7% n=1 0 7% n=1 20% n=2 Figure 14b: Trainees’ Level of Satisfaction with Training to Increase Trainee’s Self-Confidence in Sohag Yes No To Some Extent Males Females 79% n=11 90% n=9 0 10% n=1 21% n=3 0 Figure 14c: Trainees’ Opinion as to the Extent to Which Training Has Improved Ability to Effectively Deal with Various Job Responsibilities by Gender in Sohag Yes No To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 191 As for the trainees who are from Luxor, Figure 15 shows that 94% of respondents agreed that the training program(s) received from ARCE project helped them improve their ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities, followed by improving technical capability to train colleagues (91%), increasing self-confidence (88%), increasing motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies (85%), and increasing the ability to innovate and contribute new ideas (82%). This implies that nearly all the trainees were highly satisfied with the training program in all its aspects and with its effect on their professional lives. Males Females 86% n=12 90% n=9 14% n=2 10% n=1 Figure 14d: Trainees Who Believe that Training has Increased their Motivation for Pursuing Additional Training, Tasks or Studies by Gender in Sohag Yes To Some Extent Males Females 64% n=9 40% n=4 36% n=5 60% n=6 Figure 14e: Trainees Who Believe that Training has Improved their Technical Ability to Train Colleagues by Gender in Sohag Yes To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 192 ANNEX 7: CHTE – TABULATIONS OUTPUT OF THE TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH WORKERS The evaluation team was provided with 15 names and contact information of workers on the Luxor sites who received temporary employment through the project. The team conducted a telephone survey with 14 of the targeted 15workers, while one was unreachable. The response rate for all questions in the tool was 100 percent. A few points need to be taken into consideration in this regard: 1- Because of the restrictions posed by MoA on the travel of the Egyptian evaluation team members, a paper-and-pencil survey was not used. To substitute for the lack of quantitative data on temporary employment, a limited number of workers were interviewed through group discussions in Luxor by the SITE Evaluation Team Leader and SIMPLE Senior Evaluation Manager. 2- The targeted number of workers is based on convenience sampling. The workers participating in the group discussions were asked to conduct phone surveys at a later date. The workers provided their names and contact information and agreed to participate in the survey. 3- The project employed a total of 406 skilled and unskilled workers in Luxor. The survey was conducted with 14 workers, which constitutes 3.4% of the total sample population. The results thus are not statistically significant and cannot be generalized. Despite that, the results provided a quantitative insight against which findings related to wage satisfaction and the project’s contribution to the workers’ further employment. The following tables and interpretation describe the results of the conducted phone survey. Table 1: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Age RESPONDENTS' AGE # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS 22 – 26 2 14.29 27 – 30 5 35.71 31 – 40 6 42.86 41 – 45 1 7.14 The highest frequency of respondents (n=14) were within the age bracket 31 – 40 (42.86%, n=6), followed by the age bracket 27 – 30 (35.71%, n=5), while 14.29 percent (n=2) were within the age bracket 22 – 26, and only 1 respondent (7.14%) was within the age bracket 41 – 45. Table 2: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Labor Days in Project NUMBER OF LABOUR DAYS IN PROJECT # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS 500 1 7.14 600 10 71.43 650 1 7.14 700 2 14.29 Note: The workers were not aware of the exact number of days. The responses were presented in years. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 193 Workers were asked about the number of days they were employed on the project. Most of the workers were not aware of the exact number of days and provided information in years instead. An estimate of 300 days of work per year was calculated using the number of years/months that the respondents provided in response to this question. Two respondents (14.29%) reported working on the project for 700 days, one respondent (7.14%) reported working 650 days, while the largest number of respondents (71.43%, n=10) reported working 600 days, and one respondent reported working 500 days. The reason for the difference in the number of days was not clarified. Table 3: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor that Reside on the West Bank RESPONDENTS' PLACE OF RESIDENCE # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS West Bank - Luxor 14 100.00 To gather information needed for calculating the multiplier effect of wages provided and to verify whether the indicator related to local employment opportunities was met, the workers were asked about their place of residence. All respondents (100%) stated that they reside on the west bank of Luxor, in the communities surrounding the project sites (Theban Tombs) on the west bank. On educational attainment, half the respondents (50.0%, n=7) completed preparatory or secondary education, while 14.29 percent were illiterate, another 14.29 percent completed intermediate education (n=2 each), and three respondents (21.43%) completed a university education. Respondents were asked about the reason they joined the project as temporary workers. Most respondents (78.57%) stated that they did not have a job at the time, while 14.29 percent (n=2) stated that they needed to work on more than one job, while only one respondent (7.14%) joined the project to gain experience. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% Illiterate Preparatory/Secondary Education University Education Intermediate Education 14.3% (n=2) 50.0% (n=7) 21.4% (n=3) 14.3% (n=2) Figure 1: Number and Percentage Distribution of Surveyed Workers in Luxor by Educational Attainments (CHTE/ARCE) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 194 Table 4: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Reason for Accepting Job REASONS FOR ACCEPTING JOB # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Needed to work more than one job 2 14.29 To gain experience 1 7.14 Didn’t have a job 11 78.57 As for type of job on site, most respondents (78.6%, n=11) were hired as day workers, mainly for cleaning and removing dirt, while 21.4 percent (n=3) of the respondents were hired as supervisors. No distinction between both workers and supervisors were mentioned regarding wages. Respondents were asked to classify their skill level (based on artisanship and experience). Half the respondents (50.0%, n=7) classified themselves as semi-skilled workers, while four respondents (28.57%) classified themselves as highly skilled workers, and three respondents (21.43%) classified themselves as low skilled. It is worth noting that ARCE did not provide details on different levels of wages provided to workers based on the skills level. 78.6% (n=11) 21.4% (n=3) Figure 2: Number and Percentage Distribution of Surveyed Workers in Luxor by Job on Site (CHTE/ARCE) Workman Supervisor - 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Highly Skilled Semi Skilled Low Skilled 28.57 (n=4) 50.00 (n=7) 21.43 (n=3) Figure 3: Number and Percentage Distribution of Surveyed Workers By Self Classification of Skill Level (CHTE/ARCE) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 195 In addition, most respondents (71.43%, n=10) believed that working on the site improved their work skills, while the rest of the respondents (28.57%, n=4) believed that their skills improved “to some extent” as a result. Table 5: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Opinion on Extent to Which Site Work Improved Their Skills OPINION ON IMPROVED WORK SKILL RESULTING FROM WORKING ON SITE # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 10 71.43 To some extent 4 28.57 No 0 - All respondents (100%, n=14) agreed that the work days were 6 hours long. However, they all acknowledged that they took adequate breaks during workdays. It was not clear whether the breaks were calculated within or in addition to the 6-hour workday. According to the IPs records, the wages that workers received were EGP 32.00 per work day (6 hours/day) (US$ 4.2)38, which increased to EGP 40.00 in the last year of the project. Most respondents (85.71%, n=12) stated that they received EGP 40.00 per day (equivalent to US$ 2.30) 39, while two respondents (14.29%) stated that they received EGP 32.00 (equivalent to US$ 1.80). The data did not reflect whether those two respondents were employed during the last year of the project. Table 6: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Daily Wage on Project Job DAILY WAGE IN PROJECT JOB # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS EGP 32 (US$ 4.2) 2 14.29 EGP 40 (US$ 2.3) 12 85.71 Respondents were asked if they consider the wages they received as fair relative to their efforts. Most respondents (71.42%, n=10) stated that they did not consider them fair wages, while the rest of the respondents (28.57%, n=4) considered them fair wages “to some extent”. None of the respondents (0%) considered them fair wages. 38 Based on the 2015 average exchange rate (US$ 1= EGP 7.6) 39 Based on the 2017 average exchange rate (US$ 1= EGP 17.6) 0.00% 28.57% (n=4) 71.42% (n=10) Figure 4: Number and Percentage of Respondents by Opinion of Fairness of Wages Relative to Effort Exerted (CHTE/ARCE) Yes To some Extent No USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 196 In response to a question on what would have constituted fair wages, responses varied in a range from EGP 60.00 to EGP 100.00 E. The highest frequency of mentions was EGP 100.00 as an estimation of a fair wage, mentioned by 42.86% of respondents (n=6), while the estimations of EGP 80.00 and EGP 90.00 were each mentioned by 21.43 percent of respondents (n=3). Only one respondent (7.14%) considered EGP 60.00 to be a fair wage, and another respondent (7.14%) considered EGP 85.00 to be a fair wage estimation. Table 7: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Respondents Estimation of Fair Wages RESPONDENTS' ESTIMATION OF FAIR WAGES # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS EGP 60 (US$ 3.36) 1 7.14 EGP 80 (US$ 4.48) 3 21.43 EGP 85 (US$ 4.76) 1 7.14 EGP 90 (US $ 5.04) 3 21.43 EGP 100 (US $ 5.60) 6 42.86 Note: 1 US$ = 17.86 EGP (August 2018). Source: https://www.oanda.com/fx-for-business/historical-rates Respondents were asked if the received wages had contributed to a better quality of life for them. All respondents (100%, n=14) agreed that the wages “to some extent” contributed to a better quality of life. Table 8: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Respondents Opinion on Whether Wage Received Contributed To Better Quality of LifeOPINION ON WHETHER RECEIVED WAGE CONTRIBUTED TO RESPONDENTS' BETTER LIFE QUALITY # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes - - To some Extent 14 100.00 No - - While the wages are not considered fair wages in comparison to the official minimum wage level (EGP 1,200 in 2014, US$ 157.9), workers received other benefits, including health insurance. All respondents (100%) stated that they received health insurance under the project. Table 9: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Insurance Status during the Project INSURANCE STATUS DURING THE PROJECT # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 14 100.00 No 0 - Don't Know 0 - Table 10: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Type of Insurance Provided to Respondent by the Project TYPE OF INSURANCE PROVIDED TO RESPONDENTS BY THE PROJECT # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Health Insurance 14 100.00 Social Insurance 0 - Safety Insurance 0 - USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 197 All respondents (100%, n=14) stated that they held jobs prior to the project. This result, however, contradicts with the results of a previous question regarding the workers’ reasons for joining the project as temporary employees, which 78.57 percent of the respondents (n=11) answered by stating that they did not have a job at the time. Table 11: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Those Employed Prior to Project HOLDING A JOB PRIOR TO THE PROJECT # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 14 100.00 No 0 - Most of the respondents (71.4%, n=10) stated that their previous job was not in the tourism industry, while the rest of the respondents (28.6%, n=4) held previous jobs in tourism. The previous jobs held were mostly day jobs (64.29%, n=9). However, four respondents (28.57%) held full-time jobs, and only one respondent (7.14%) was hired on a task-by-task basis. Table 12: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Manner of Payment of Wages in Previous Projects PREVIOUS JOB FORMAT # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS By Task 1 7.14 Daily Basis 9 64.29 Full-time 4 28.57 The reported wages of the previously held jobs varied greatly in a range that started with EGP 35 to EGP 150 per day. Some respondents reported their wages on a monthly basis. To unify the unit of calculation, the monthly salary was divided by 24 days of work per month to calculate the daily wages for each worker. One respondent provided the wages on a weekly basis. The daily wage was calculated based on a six-day week. 28.6% (n=4) 71.4% (n=10) Figure 5: Number and Percentage of Respondents by Previous Job in the Tourism Industry (CHTE/ARCE) No Yes USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 198 Table 13: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Amount of Wages Paid in Previous Job WAGES IN PREVIOUS JOB (Expressed in EGP) # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS 35 1 7.14 50 1 7.14 63 (1500/month, estimated 24 days/month) 1 7.14 67 (400 per week - estimated 6 days/week) 1 7.14 70 2 14.29 80 2 14.29 83 (2000/month, estimated 24 days/month) 2 14.29 100 2 14.29 125 (3000/month, estimated 24 days/month) 1 7.14 150 1 7.14 Most workers interviewed stated that they are holding current jobs (12 of 14, 85.71%), only two of whom (16.67%) are working on a local tourism related job. Table 14: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Employment Status Post Intervention CURRENTLY HOLDING JOB # LUXOR WORKERS (N=14) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 12 85.71 No 2 14.29 Only two workers (16.67%) of the twelve who reported holding current jobs stated that their jobs is related to the tourism industry, while the rest of the workers (83.33, n=10) reported that their current job is not related to the tourism industry. Table 15: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Current Employment Related to Local Tourism Industry CURRENT JOB RELATED TO LOCAL TOURISM INDUSTRY # LUXOR WORKERS (N=12) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 2 16.67 No 10 83.33 When asked if the experience gained through working on the project helped finding their current jobs, most respondents (75.00%, n=9) stated that it did not help, while two workers (16.67%) stated that it did help them find those jobs, and one respondent (8.33%) stated that it helped to some extent. Table 16: Number and Percentage of Telephone Surveyed Workers from Luxor Disaggregated by Opinion as to Whether Experience Gained from Project Helped Find New Job OPINION WHETHER EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM PROJECT HELPED FINDING NEW JOB # LUXOR WORKERS (N=12) % OF LUXOR WORKERS Yes 2 16.67 To Some Extent 1 8.33 No 9 75.00 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 199 Most respondents (75.0%, n=10) estimated their current wages to be the same level as the wages they received from the project, while one respondent (8.3%) stated that their current pay is higher, and two respondents (16.7%) stated that their current wages were lower than those they received from the project. - 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Lower Higher Same Level Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents by Current Job Relative to Project Received Wages (CHTE/ARCE) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 200 ANNEX 8: MSCD SITES - EXTENT OF PHYSICAL CHANGE AND CONSULTATION PROCESSES Methodology for Evaluation of the Site Management Component Cultural heritage has become the fourth pillar of sustainable development after social inclusion, economic growth and environmental balance based on UNESCO’s universal declaration on cultural diversity in 2001. This new method addresses the relation between cultural heritage and sustainable development through the development the wider cultural heritage consumption through cultural industries, crafts and cultural tourism. The two main regions that are being evaluated in this project are the Memphite Necropolis and the Theban Necropolis, two sites that are registered on the World Heritage List. This has directed the evaluation to use the different standards used by UNESCO for benchmarking cultural heritage management of archaeological sites. Based on UNESCO’s guidelines for cultural heritage management, • “the purpose of a management plan is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations.” This was devised clearly in the 2005 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, where it reiterated the previous note with more explanation: • “Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.” (UNESCO2005, Para. 108, p. 26) These guidelines directly relate to the first question of the evaluation and reflect on the selection of the tools used to answer the question. The UNESCO guidelines for cultural heritage management are: • a thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders; • a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; • the involvement of partners and stakeholders; • the allocation of necessary resources; • capacity building; • an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions. The methodology for the evaluation for has taken in consideration the current state of benchmarks for cultural heritage management as well as previous successful projects that were applied by USAID and the IPs in Egypt. The methodology based its evaluation on the handbook by Prof. Kent Weeks on the site management of the Valley of the Kings that was partially funded by USAID and managed by ARCE: • Weeks, Kent R., Nigel J. Hetherington, Dina Bakhoum, Theban Mapping Project, American University in Cairo Press, and N.Y.) World Monuments Fund (New York. 2014. The Valley of USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 201 the Kings: A Site Management Handbook. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press. • Makuvaza, S. 2018. Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and Practices. Springer International Publishing. The main theoretical framework for the evaluation was built on the corpus of literature of these disciplines: • community archaeology, • post-processual archaeology, • post-colonial heritage practice. The literature consulted (See bibliography list at Annex 3) was a myriad of projects carried out previously in Egypt, the region and internationally. The empirical use of the evaluation and the assessment was not to penalize the projects but rather to provide ample guidelines for future projects and enough reference for USAID to evaluate future proposals in light of the international benchmark practices in cultural heritage management. Rubric Narrative Besides the KII interviews, group discussions and surveys, a rubric was devised based on the handbook of site management by Kent Weeks and the UNESCO guidelines for the cultural heritage management. The rubric is divided into five levels of achievement and standardizes the process of the evaluation in terms of the quality of the cultural heritage management applied. The rubric mainly unifies the assessment process to a consistent standard that can be replicated. The rubric assesses: • the mapping, • the preliminary studies, • risk assessment, • description of the tourist activity, • the stakeholder’s analysis survey and methodology for collaborative work, • infrastructure survey, • visitor management, • site management plan, • publications, • sustainability, • site branding and marketing plan. The rubrics are used for self-evaluation by the different project directors at first, then scores are adjusted based on the desk review and field notes results. They are measured in percentages to provide a tangible score for assessment of the cultural management plans for each project. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 202 Limitations The QED International Consultant and SIMPLE Project Senior Evaluation Specialist conducted the fieldwork. The QED Egyptian team members conducted the evaluation based on a desk review of the project design and implementation debriefing mterials provided by USAID and the respective implementing partners as well as the analysis of recorded comments from the KIIs and group discussions. Historic Google Earth images were also used to assess the physical changes in Memphis and archival photographs were used for the other sites for comparison. Most of the evaluation and assessment was done on how well-researched and thought out the plans for cultural heritage management were, as there are bigger limitations on the implementation by the ministry and state security in many instances. Memphis Site and Community Development – Mit Rahina Project implemented by AERA – Detailed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Finding 1.a.1: The solutions to the conservation problems of the high-water table, salination and flora are temporary. Conclusion 1.a.1: The sustainability of the activities of cleaning the site were temporary and did not lead to a physical site improvement Recommendation 1.a.1: There should be a multi-disciplinary team that works with the different stakeholders in Mit Rahina to lower the water table and improving the sewage to preserve the archaeological remains on the site. Finding 1.b.1: The new labels and explanations at the Memphis Museum are very good. Conclusion 1.b.1: The display and exhibition information were done according to international benchmark standards. Recommendation 1.b.1: In the future, there should be an app created for the museum that allows visitors to connect museum objects with more data and lateral research as well as comparison with objects in international museums. Finding 1.c.1: The pathways created are nonintrusive and integrate into the Memphite landscape, as it was built on the existing routes used by the inhabitants. Conclusion 1.c.1: The work on the site was done with sensitivity to the community despite prohibition of community engagement. Finding 1.d.1: The circuit composed of the rest stops and the signage has taken into account so￾called museum fatigue, which is why the ration between the information, walking and rests is done for tourists to have adequate time to comprehend the archaeological landscape and reflect on the information. Conclusion 1.d.1: Visitors do not have an archaeological imagination and might need further spatial explanation. Recommendation 1.d.1: 3D reconstruction of the site could be a solution. It could be accessed with augmented reality technology to provide a different experience than the 2D signs for visitors who cannot spatially imagine how the temples looked. Finding 1.e.1: The project had ample baseline studies and a GIS archive, infrastructure survey and visitor survey. Its design has followed international standards for cultural heritage management. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 203 However, there should have been more specific prior written agreements with MOA on a) the timing for opening to the public and b) a level of community involvement so as to improve the likelihood of proper long-term site maintenance. Conclusion 1.e.1: There isn’t a published national strategy for prioritizing sites that are a) to be opened to the public and b) to remain closed to the public for preservation purposes. Some completed projects are not opened and have remained inaccessible for some time. Recommendation 1.e.1: Future funding should be dedicated to projects that MOA and MOT would agree to in writing on opening after completion of the works. MOA should ensure in writing that it will hold the necessary arrangement while MOT would make sure to put this new site on the touristic agenda as part of a narrative for the entire tourist area. Finding 1.f.1: The publications of the project allow access to the knowledge about the site to the various stakeholders and provide a perfect model for community awareness; however, a close collaboration with schools and NGOs would have had a multiplier effect. The IP has advised that the MOA Permanent Committee denied permission for community outreach activities by the IP because it was not in the MOA’s purview to grant such permissions. . It was the IP’s understanding from the MOSS that it was not allowed to conduct business with any other NGO, or government ministry other than the MOA. Finding 1.g.1: The risk assessment and environmental impact studies are quite thorough and show a clear understanding of the natural and human threats to the site. However, there is not a clear strategy on communicating to the stakeholders how these threats can be mitigated sustainably. Conclusion 1.g.1: The work done by AERA in terms of stakeholder’s analysis, risk assessment and environmental impact assessment provides an indispensable baseline study for future work in the area. This should be the basis for a future project on lowering water table, solving sewage issues and encroachment. Recommendation 1.g.1: Memphis is at a real risk from the natural and human threats in the area, and without proper community involvement and stakeholder synergy, projects on the site infrastructure, some of the sites will completely disappear in the next few decades. Finding 1.h.1: The solid waste management procedures of the site were good for the duration of the project, but all efforts appear to have stopped when the project was completed. In addition, most of the solid waste goes to another archaeological site (Abusir), which is used as a dumpsite by the governorate. Conclusion 1.h.1: Regular solutions for solid waste management will not work in Mit Rahina. The area needs more creative solutions, such as recycling and biogas, to guarantee the sustainability of keeping the sites clean. Recommendation 1.h.1: Synergize future projects with strong sustainable environmental, archaeological and community development components working together. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 204 Scoring of Mit Rahina Site Management Rubric Project Title: Memphis Site and Community Development – Mit Rahina Implementing Body: AERA EQI 1. Mapping: This score indicates the availability of maps and accurate plans for the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Mapping No evidence of Maps Generic Maps without Survey Works Partial Survey Archaeological Site Sites are properly mapped, but without spatial analysis Sites are properly mapped with appropriate polygons and some spatial analysis Complete GIS data with maps and spatial analysis Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: benchmark mapping and spatial analysis Points Possible: 5 Score EQI 2. Preliminary studies: This score indicates the quality level of the preliminary studies. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Preliminary Studies No evidence of preliminary studies Inadequate preliminary studies Basic preliminary studies with some visual data Preliminary study with visual data, but insufficient details Preliminary study lacking a few details Full complete preliminary studies with appropriate visuals Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: very detailed and thorough preliminary studies for the site Points Possible: 5 Score 5 5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 205 EQI, EQ2, EQ4 3. Risk Assessment: This score indicates the quality of the risk assessment carried for the site including (pre-risk and post-risk) Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Risk Assessme nt No evidence of risk assessment Mentioning risk factors in general reporting Minimal risk assessment of the natural and human factors A developing risk assessment plan with some environmental data Risk assessment sheets with some analysis A full risk assessment plan with risk types, zones and future mitigation plans Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: the risks for the site were properly assessed, however, there were no risk mapping and possible future mitigation plans. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI 4. Description of the Tourist Activity of the Site Prior to Intervention: this measures the tourism trends, tourism rise and fall in numbers and geographic location number specific turnout Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Tourist Activity Descriptio n No evidence of a description Little unsubstantiated tourist activity description Minimal tourist activity description with some evidence Meets basic description of the tourist activity with solid examples Developing tourist activity description with assessment of trends A full detailed tourist activity historical description past trends and possible future changes Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: since this project targets cultural heritage for tourism, there should have been enough description on the touristic activity prior to intervention and post-intervention to be able to assess accurately improvements in terms of numbers and tourist satisfaction of the visit. Points Possible: 5 Score 2.5 4.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 206 EQI, EQ2, EQ4 5. Stakeholder Analysis Survey and Collaborative Work: this score measures the level of detail of the stakeholder analysis survey, the implementation plan and the community engagement methodology Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Stakeholder Analysis Survey No stakeholder survey There is minimal description of the different stakeholders There is a stakeholder analysis survey, but a minor implementation plan of methodology of engagement There is a developing stakeholder analysis survey with a clear methodology, but poor implementation Stakeholder analysis survey provides adequate detail on the various stakeholders, proper methodology, but limited implementatio n Stakeholder analysis survey provides an efficient detailed survey, adequate methodology and successful implementatio n Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: there has not been a thorough stakeholders’ analysis for the project and no clear engagement methodology. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 6. Infrastructure Survey: This evaluates the plans to approach the visitor experience, roads and pathways, types of transport parking, vendors’ area, visitor center, security entrance, toilets, shelters and rest stops, site utilities and site fabric. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Infrastructure Survey No infrastructure survey included There is some mention of the infrastructure around the site Infrastructure survey data is inconsistent Infrastructure survey data is available, but incomplete Infrastructure survey data is done, but lacking a few details Infrastructure survey is complete Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Points Possible: 5 Score 4 3.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 207 EQ4 7. Visitor Management: This score discusses the carrying capacity, ticketing procedures, and the visitor experience in the site. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Visitor Managem ent No visitor managem ent Some visitor management plan available Incomplete visitor management plan Developing visitor management plan, but lacking a few aspects such as a clear action plan Adequate visitor management plan, but without a clear methodology A clear visiting management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Mostly beyond the project’s scope as will further be managed by MOA. However, future projects in the area can aim at setting policies and plans in writing with MOA and MOT to be further developed after the project’s end date. Points Possible: 5 Score EQI, EQ2, EQ3 8. Site Management Plan: Overall capacity building plan quality, emergency and disaster plan, accessibility, signage, and maintenance Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Site Managem ent Plan No site managemen t plan Little or ineffective site management planning Low quality site management plan A developing site management plan, but lacks consistency or clarity Accurate and concise site management plan, but with some practical limitations Complete and implemented site management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Sometimes pending implementation for MOA’s opening of the site. Points Possible: 5 Score 3.5 4 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 208 EQ1, EQ2, EQ4 9. Publications: This score indicates the actual quality of the publications, feasibility of reprints and accessibility. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Publication s No publication limited scientific publications Scientific publications and project reports in English only Detailed scientific publication in English and Arabic Detailed scientific publication and visibility material such as brochures and maps in multiple languages Rich publications written collaboratively between the stakeholders and the IP in multiple languages Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: Excellent model for cultural heritage publication in terms of design, accessibility and ease of replication. Points Possible: 5 Score EQ4 10. Sustainability: this score measures the sustainability of the different activities for the project Indicat or Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Sustain ability All activities ended by the end of the project Little activities continue after the project Project is complete, and has a few ongoing activities, but not for a long time Project is complete, and one of the stakeholders is continuing some activities implemented in the project Project is complete, and some stakeholders are continuing activities and/or building on them other activities Project is complete and the main stakeholders identified are continuing the different activities and building on them Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: The project’s physical works on the walking circuit have very little sustainability because of the high￾water table, the plants rising again and because of the inability to conduct proper community engagement. The project’s sustainable resources include the visitor signage, the website, the completed works in the Open-Air Museum, and the training curriculm and methodology. Points Possible: 5 Score 5 1.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 209 Project Ranking Key Exceptional 90-100% Commendable 75-89% Acceptable 60-74% Unacceptable 59% or less EQ4 11. Site Branding and Marketing Plan: This score measures the quality and feasibility of the branding strategy and marketing plan of the site. Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Branding and Marketing No branding or marketing plan for the site Some branding and incoherent marketing attempts A developing marketing plan without implementation A complete and coherent marketing plan, but with minimal implementation A solid marketing and branding plan, but limited implementatio n A professional solid cultural marketing and site branding implemented plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: The website is not a bad tool for marketing, but wider marketing plans should have been devised with MOT and other stakeholders. Points Possible: 5 Score Total Score 40 Percent 72 % - Acceptable. Rank: First Comments: Final Points are calculated by a simple summation of scores obtained in each evaluation aspect. Despite the inability of the project to work with the community directly and the shortcoming of implementing all the community engagement activities, the real contribution of this project is in the material it had produced in terms of stakeholders’ analysis, infrastructure surveys, publications and training. This is setting a new benchmark for projects on cultural heritage and this material will help future projects targeting this area or other areas. The quality of the training will also help inspectors further improve community engagement attempts. The project in the future should partner with local NGOs or Egyptian Universities to be able to carry out the community engagement through these entities. 1.5 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 210 ANNEX 9: MSCD - TABULATIONS AND GRAPHS – OUTPUTS OF ONLINE SURVEY OF TRAINEES The online survey for the AERA project was undertaken through SurveyMonkey and sent to all trainees via their e-mail addresses or WhatsApp accounts. Telephone follow-ups were undertaken to maximize participation. The survey commenced online on August 2, 2018 and was closed on August 20. AERA project targeted a total of 77 trainees, among which there were 48 females (62%) and 29 males (38%). A quantitative tool was conducted to target these trainees with the aim of assessing the training effectiveness, measuring the trainees’ satisfaction levels with the training workshops, and exploring different aspects of womens’ empowerment. The quantitative tool (survey) can be found in Annex (14). Due to the small population size (i.e. 77 trainees), we targeted the whole population to guarantee better insights. The survey tool was designed on the website SurveyMonkey and sent to all trainees via their e-mail addresses or WhatsApp accounts. A total of 61 trainees took the survey, providing a response rate of 79%, 59 individuals having fully completed it. The respondents were divided into 21 males (34%) and 40 females (66%). Hence, the gender distribution of the respondents is almost the same as the gender distribution of the targeted population. Accordingly, the non-responsive trainees did not affect the analysis with respect to the population structure. Some Background Characteristics The age range of the respondents was 28 to 49, with an average of 32.8 years. As shown in Figure (1), almost two-thirds (66%) of the trainees were female. As for educational attainment, it was found that they were either university graduates or MSc holders. Slightly above half of respondents (57%) were university graduates while 41% were MSc holders. The educational attainment among males and females differed to some extent. As shown in Figure (2), females were almost equally university graduates or MSc holders. As for males, a higher percentage were university graduates (about two￾thirds). 34% n = 21 66% n = 40 Figure (1): Gender Distribution in Mit￾Rahina Males Females USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 211 Impact of training on further work with international organizations Respondents were asked if they had worked with any other international archaeological missions as a result of being trained by the AERA project. Figure (3) indicates that about half of the trainees got the benefit of working with other international missions due to their training. Figure (4) shows that males benefited more than females (76% for males versus 37% for females). Different international missions were mentioned, including the German mission (e.g. Mount Assiut West/ Sakkara/ The Great Gulf area) and the French mission (e.g. Saqqara/ Ain al-Asil area/ The area of Douch/ Taposiris Magna/ The village of Bahij/ The French Institute of Oriental Archeology) were the most cited missions. Others included: • The Dutch mission • The Polish mission (Tell el-Farkha) • The Spanish mission (Madrid university/ The Temple of King Amenhotep III) • The Australian Mission (The area of Mout Kharab) • The Italian mission (Farafra Oases) Males Females 62% n = 13 55% n = 22 33% n = 7 45 n = 18 5% n =1 0% n = 0 Figure (2): Educational Attainment by Gender in Mit-Rahina University Graduate MSc Holder Other 51% n = 31 49% n = 30 Figure (3): Distribution of trainees that worked with international missions in Mit-Rahina Yes No Males Females 76% n = 16 37% 24% n = 15 n = 5 63% n = 25 Figure (4): Distribution of trainees that worked with international missions by gender in Mit-Rahina Yes No USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 212 • The English mission (Tal el Amarna/ the Zawyet Sultan area/ Marmida Bani Salamah village) • The Japanese mission (The area of Tahna mountain/ The University of Tsukuba) • The Czech mission • The Egyptian-French mission (The Ramessium temple) • American Research Center in Egypt (Tomb TT110 in the West Bank of Luxor) • The mission of the University of New York (The Temple of Ramses II in Abydos) • Mission of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago • The Saudi - Italian - French mission • Macquarie University in Australia Employment Status with MOA Trainees were asked if they were currently employed by the MOA. Results showed that the vast majority of respondents (93%) confirmed that they work on a full-time basis in the ministry, with no significant difference among males and females with this regard (95% and 93%, respectively). About 88% of those who currently work on a full-time basis are inspectors, as shown in Figure (6). It is worth noting that 10% of respondents (representing 6 trainees) mentioned “other” jobs in addition to being inspectors or conservators. Four out of these six mentioned that they are currently working as museum secretaries. 93% n = 57 5% n = 3 2% n = 1 Figure (5): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on their current job in the MOA Yes, full time Yes, but currently on leave No USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 213 In order to assess whether the training has any effect on the trainees’ jobs in the MOA, they were asked to state their job at MOA at the time of training, such that it would be compared with their current position. Figure (7) shows that the highest percent of respondents (85%) were working as inspectors in the MOA at the time of training. Eight of the trainees mentioned working other jobs in addition to being inspectors or conservators. Six out of these eight also said they worked as museum secretaries. By comparing the current trainees’ jobs with their jobs at the time of training, two of who were currently working as “inspectors” worked as a trainer or an “Egyptian Museum Secretary” at the time of training. One of those who mentioned having a current job as a conservator, stated that he/she was an inspector at the time of training. As for the working period at the MOA, according to the results presented in Figure 8, a significant majority (84%) have been working in the ministry for 5 - < 10 years, while the rest (16%) worked there for 10 years or more. No significant difference was observed between male and female trainees; 81% and 85%, respectively worked for 5 - <10 years. 2% n = 1 88% n = 50 10% n = 6 Figure (6): Distribution of full-time Mit-Rahina's trainees based on their current job in the MoA Conservator Inspector Other 2% n= 1 85% n = 52 13% n= 8 Figure (7): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on their jobs in the MoA at the time of training Conservator Inspector Other USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 214 The Training Workshops More than three-quarters of the trainees (80%) have either volunteered, applied, or were interviewed to join the AERA project’s training program(s). Trainees were asked to list all the training workshops that they had completed. As shown in Figure (9), site management was the most commonly listed workshop (92%). This was followed by outreach/ community archaeology / public archaeology awareness (71%), cultural heritage management (69%), and photography (69%). About 13% of the trainees mentioned completing other training workshops such as documentation, Photoshop, AutoCAD, some advanced computer programs like Google Earth and Sketch Up. The site management workshop was the most relevant training workshop to the trainees’ jobs, from their point of view (54%), with no significant difference between males and females with regard to this opinion. As shown in Figure 10, about 17% of the trainees saw cultural heritage management as the most relevant (33% of males and 8% of females), 13% for the outreach/ community archaeology / public archaeology awareness (5% of males and 18% of females), and 10% for the photography workshop (0% of males and 15% of females). One can note from Figure 11 the difference between males and females in listing their most relevant workshop to their jobs at MOA other than the site management. 84% n= 51 16% n= 10 Figure (8): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees according to time spent working in the MOA 5 years – Less than 10 years 10 years or more Other Conservation Cultural Heritage Management Photography Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness Site Management 13% n = 8 15% n = 9 69% n =42 69% n = 42 71% n = 43 92% n = 56 Figure (9): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on the training workshops they completed USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 215 Almost all the trainees (98%) would like to have additional training in similar aspects of the AERA project’s training program. Among the preferred workshops mentioned were: • Archaeological site/ museum management • Preserving antiquities • Photography • Community Engagement/ communication • Archaeological documentation • Heritage marketing/ Advertising/ E-Marketing • Some programs such as GIS/ site blogs • Archaeological art Other None Photography Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness Cultural Heritage Management Site Management 3% n= 2 3% n= 2 10% n= 6 13% n= 8 17% n= 10 54% n=32 Figure (10): Percent Dsitribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on the most relevant workshop to their jobs Males Females 57% n= 12 51% n= 20 33% n= 7 8% n= 3 5% n=1 18% n= 7 0 15% 5% n= 6 n= 1 3% n= 1 0 5% n= 2 Figure (11): Percent Dsitribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on the most relevant workshop to their jobs by gender Site Management Cultural Heritage Management Outreach/ Community Archaeology / Public Archaeology Awareness Photography None Other USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 216 Trainees' Overall Assessment of the Training Program First of all, trainees were asked to state their satisfaction level with the AERA project’s training program on a scale from 1 to 5; 1 = Very Unsatisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. All the trainees were satisfied with the training (53% very satisfied, 47% just satisfied), as shown in Figure 12. Further, respondents were given five different sentences measuring different training aspects and were asked to state their opinion on a scale from 1 to 5; 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. As shown in Figure 13, all different aspects were reported highly satisfactory by the trainees except for whether the training program had helped them in their professional development, which had relatively the least level of agreement (68%; 25% strongly agree, and 43% just agree). 47% n= 28 53% n=32 Figure (12): Trainees' level of satisfaction with the AERA training program(s) in Mit￾Rahina Satisfied Very Satisfied 48% n= 29 25% n= 15 53% n= 32 28% n= 17 25% n=15 43% n= 26 43% n= 26 37% n= 22 65% n= 39 55% n= 33 7% n= 4 25% n= 15 8% n= 5 5% n=3 15% n=9 2% n= 1 7% n= 4 2% n= 1 2% n= 1 5% n= 3 Figure (13): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on their level of agreement towards some training aspects Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 217 A score was further calculated for each respondent based on these five statements/ variables to measure his/ her overall opinion regarding all statements reflecting his/her satisfaction towards the AREA training program. The scores were computed for each trainee as the average of his/ her scores in these five variables, and then males and females were compared. Table 1 presents some descriptive statistics for the scores of calculated trainees; disaggregated by gender. According to the results presented in Table 1, we can deduce that trainees are very highly satisfied. Generally, the average agreement score is 4.17 out of 5. Females are slightly higher than the males in terms of this score, where females scored 4.24 out of 5, while males scored 4.05 out of 5. Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the agreement score of the trainees regarding AREA training by gender STATISTIC* MALES FEMALES TOTAL MEAN 4.05 4.24 4.17 MEDIAN 3.80 4.40 4.20 MODE 3.80 4.40 4.40 MINIMUM 3.40 3.20 3.20 MAXIMUM 4.80 5.00 5.00 *Score is out of 5 Moreover, AERA conducted an assessment tool for the training program and distributed on the trainees to measure their overall opinion regarding its efficiency. Their survey included four main open￾ended questions; which are: 1. How have you used the knowledge you gained from the MSCD field school to improve the management of other sites in Egypt? 2. What are the most important things that you learned on the MSCD field school? 3. If you could add more to the MSCD training program, what topics or skills would you include? 4. If you had to describe your MSCD field school experience in a few words, what words would you choose? This assessment tool was used as a further evaluation method for the training program, allowing analysis and quantification of these four questions. By quantification we mean to change the dialogs provided by the respondents into categories. Categories are identified by the most frequent answers. Each category was binary-coded; 0 = category was not mentioned, 1 = category was mentioned. Each of these questions was considered of a multiple response type, and quantitatively analyzed. Generally, agreement can be observed between the result of our online survey results and AERA’s assessment results. Both confirm the high satisfaction level of the trainees towards the program provided, and both also agree on the effectiveness of the training on the trainees’ job performance and career development. Figures 14 - 17 shows the percent distribution of trainees’ responses on each of the above four questions, respectively. The main highlights from this analysis can be listed as follows: • The major usages and benefits trainees got from the knowledge gained from the training program were mainly learning how to make good plans and creating visions for improving/ developing other sites. A secondary benefit is improving their presentation skills and learning on how to provide good interpretations of archaeological sites in an attractive way (writing panels, signage, videos, photos, films, guide books and improved presentation skills). These two points mainly draw the conclusion that AERA’s training program contents highly supported the required aspects for guaranteeing the sustainability of similar activities on other sites. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 218 • Another agreement with our online survey was that trainees suggested future recommendations for other training that they would like to be provided with; among which the highest request was for advanced computer programs such as GIS, GPS, Google Maps, Google Earth, and modeling with Sketch Up. This training program was one of the frequently recommended future training options mentioned by the online survey respondents. Making good plans/ visions for improving/… Good representation such as Writing panels,… Teamwork/ Sharing my experience with my… Marketing the heritage to the community I haven't gotten the chance yet to use it A better site interpretation like Google sketch… Assessment Questionnaire development Finding a job that is suitable to what have been… 45% n= 22 35% n= 17 22% n= 11 20% n= 10 16% n= 8 12% n= 6 8% n= 4 8% n= 4 Figure (14): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on how they used the knowledge gained from the MSCD field school to improve the management of other sites in Egypt Teamwork Design and understanding of image making, Writing … Some programs such as GIS, GPS, Google maps, … Presentation and communication skills Local community Engagement, communicaton with… Site Management Generation of social media content Observation (Analysis/ Evaluation/ critique) Hot interpretation Improving archaeological sites using well-prepared… Time, Life, Job management skills Raising archaeological awareness Generation and expression of ideas 35% n= 17 31% n= 15 27% n= 13 27% n= 13 25% n= 12 25% n= 12 18% n= 9 16% n= 8 16% n= 8 14% n= 7 10% n= 5 10% n= 5 10% n= 5 Figure (15): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on the most important things they learned from the MSCD field school USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 219 Effect of training on trainees’ professionalism Finally, the AERA project’s training program was assessed in terms of supporting trainees’ professional lives. Five sentences measuring this effect were given to the trainees, and they would respond to it with either “Yes”, “No”, or “To Some Extent”. Results revealed that increasing motivation to pursue additional training, tasks or studies was the statement with the highest agreement (92%), followed by improving the ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities (90%), and increasing self-confidence (86%). Figures 19 – 23 shows that there is no significant difference between males’ and females’ opinions. Some programs such as GIS, GPS, Google maps, Recording, .. More Practical training workshops in other sites and museums Design and understanding of image making, Writing panels, guide books, labels, Making videos and films General skills such as: Communication and presentation skills, Human resources skills, writing… Interaction programs with local community to be more engaged with heritage Marketing and Advertising Fundraising skills Generation of social media content 33% n= 16 22% n= 11 22% n= 11 16% n= 8 14% n= 7 10% n= 5 10% n= 5 8% n= 4 Figure (16): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees based on topics/skills suggested to be added to the MSCD training programme Amazing and useful experience Informative, Motivating, Creative, Powerful, Inspirational Great and excellent team work/ trainers Co-operative trainers, Good planning, Serious, Successfull, Organized, Realistic Improving skills and developing new ones (e.g. Creating independent understanding) 57% n= 28 29% n= 14 25% n= 12 14% n= 7 12% n= 6 Figure (17): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees description for their MSCD field school experience USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 220 Dd training improve technical capability to train colleagues? Did training increase motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies? Did training improve ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities? Did training increase self-confidence? Did training increase ability to innovate and contribute new ideas? 70% n= 41 92% n= 54 90% n= 53 86% n= 51 78% n= 46 1% n= 1 29% n= 17 8% n= 5 10% n= 6 14% n= 8 22% n= 13 Figure (18): Percent distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees on Whether the training has affected their professional life Yes No To Some Extent Males Females 81% n= 17 76% n= 29 19% n= 4 24% n= 9 Figure (19): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees who think training increased their ability to innovate and contribute new ideas, by gender Yes To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 221 Males Females 86% n= 18 87% n= 33 14% n= 3 13% n= 5 Figure (20): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees who think training increased their self-confidence, by gender Yes To Some Extent Males Females 100% n= 21 84% n= 32 0% n = 0 16% n= 6 Figure (21): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees who think training improved their ability to effectively deal with different job responsibilities, by gender Yes To Some Extent Males Females 86% n= 18 95% n= 36 14% n= 3 5% n= 2 Figure (22): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees who think training increased their motivation for pursuing additional training, tasks or studies, by gender Yes To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 222 Males Females 67% n= 14 71% n= 27 0 3% n= 1 33% n= 7 26% n= 10 Figure (23): Distribution of Mit-Rahina's trainees who thinks training improved their technical capability to train colleagues, by gender Yes No To Some Extent USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 223 ANNEX 10: MSCD – TABULATIONS FROM THE TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH WORKERS RESPONDENTS' AGE # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS 22 - 26 0 - 27 - 30 2 13.33 31 - 40 7 46.67 41 - 50 3 20.00 50+ 3 20.00 NUMBER OF LABOUR DAYS IN PROJECT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS 900 8 53.33 300 5 33.33 30 1 6.67 45 1 6.67 Note: The workers were not aware of the exact number of days. The responses were presented in years. RESPONDENTS' PLACE OF RESIDENCE # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Giza - El Badrashein 15 100.00 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Illiterate 8 53.33 Reads and Writes 1 6.67 Primary Education 1 6.67 Preparatory/Secondary Education 3 20.00 University Education 2 13.33 REASONS FOR ACCEPTING JOB # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Needed to work more than one job 5 33.33 To gain experience 2 13.33 Didn’t have a job 6 40.00 Worked in the same field 2 13.33 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 224 JOB ON THE SITE # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Workman 12 80.00 Guard 1 6.67 Driver 1 6.67 Craftsman (Ceramic) 1 6.67 SKILL LEVEL - SELF CLASSIFICATION # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Highly Skilled 10 66.67 Semi Skilled 1 6.67 Low Skilled 4 26.67 OPINION ON IMPROVED WORK SKILL RESULTING FROM WORKING ON SITE # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 10 66.67 To some extent 0 - No 5 33.33 AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORKING HOURS PER DAY # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS 5 2 13.33 6 7 46.67 7 5 33.33 8 1 6.67 DAILY WAGE IN PROJECT JOB # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS EGP 30 1 6.67 EGP 70 4 26.67 EGP 75 6 40.00 EGP 80 1 6.67 EGP 85 1 6.67 EGP 90 1 6.67 EGP 450 1 6.67 Note: The worker stating receiving a 450 EGP daily wage was working on the project as a driver. OPINION OF FAIRNESS OF WAGES RELATIVE TO EFFORT EXERTED # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 9 60.00 To some Extent 1 6.67 No 5 33.33 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 225 RESPONDENTS' ESTIMATION OF FAIR WAGES # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=6) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS EGP 100 5 83.33 EGP 300 1 16.67 * responding with a "no" to the previous question OPINION ON WHETHER RECEIVED WAGE CONTRIBUTED TO RESPONDENTS' BETTER LIFE QUALITY # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 7 46.67 To some Extent 3 20.00 No 4 26.67 No Answer 1 6.67 INSURANCE STATUS DURING THE PROJECT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 6 40.00 No 8 53.33 Don't Know 1 6.67 TYPE OF INSURANCE PROVIDED TO RESPONDENTS BY THE PROJECT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Health Insurance 1 6.67 Social Insurance 1 6.67 Safety Insurance 2 13.33 Rejected the insurance 2 13.33 Was insured with another organization 3 20.00 Don't Know 2 13.33 No Answer 4 26.67 HOLDING A JOB PRIOR TO THE PROJECT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 14 93.33 No 1 6.67 PREVIOUS JOB RELATED TO LOCAL TOURISM INDUSTRY # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=14) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS No 8 57.14 Yes 6 42.86 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 226 PREVIOUS JOB FORMAT # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=14) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS By Task 0 - Daily Basis 12 85.71 Full-time 2 14.29 WAGES IN PREVIOUS JOB # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=14) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS EGP 20 1 7.14 EGP 25 1 7.14 EGP 30 1 7.14 EGP 80 2 14.29 EGP 90 1 7.14 EGP 100 1 7.14 EGP 150 1 7.14 EGP 450 1 7.14 EGP 56.25 (EGP 1350/month) 1 7.14 EGP 125 (EGP 3000/month) 1 7.14 No Answer 3 21.43 Note: Some workers received and provided information on wages by week or month. To unify the Qty, weekly wages were calculated on a 6 day/week basis and monthly wages were calculated based on a 24 day/month basis CURRENTLY HOLDING JOB # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=15) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 10 66.67 No 5 33.33 CURRENT JOB RELATED TO LOCAL TOURISM INDUSTRY # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=10) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 3 30.00 No 7 70.00 OPINION WHETHER EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM PROJECT HELPED FINDING NEW JOB # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=10) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Yes 3 30.00 No 7 70.00 LEVEL OF NEW JOB WAGE IN RELATION TO PROJECT RECEIVED WAGES # MEMPHIS WORKERS (N=10) % OF MEMPHIS WORKERS Lower 2 20.00 Higher 6 60.00 Same Level 2 20.00 USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 227 ANNEX 11: CASE STUDIES Case study 1: Sustainable Cultural Heritage through Engagement of Local Communities Project Picture: The USAID/Jordan Sustainable Cultural Heritage through Engagement of Local Communities Project (USAID SCHEP), is a four-year USAID project implemented by the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) that uses a unique methodology for preserving, managing and promoting cultural heritage resources in Jordan through a community-first approach. The project is implemented in close cooperation with Jordan’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and in particular the Department of Antiquities. SCHEP works to build skillsets, knowledge, and tools that adhere to best practices in site preservation and presentation, sustainable promotion, and management. The intervention employs a holistic approach for conducting cultural resource management by utilizing a grassroots social engagement model that emphasizes the local communities as the primary stakeholders in the cultural and archaeological heritage of Jordan. It works to build a community of practice with academic, government, and tourism professionals to support effective and sustainable cultural heritage resources preservation and management. Activities include updating technologies, educating key stakeholders on best practices, and investing in the next generation of cultural heritage enthusiasts and professionals. SCHEP is upporting nine sites including Ghawr as-Safi (Karak), Busayra (Tafila), Umm al-Jimal (Mafraq), Bir Madhkur (Wadi Araba), the Temple of the Winged Lions (Petra), Bayt Ra’s (Irbid), Al Khaz’ali (Wadi Rum), Ayla (Aqaba), and Madaba. Apart from the sites within Petra and Wadi Rum, these are secondary sites in terms of visitor numbers and some are being prepared for visitation. Impact indicators are as follows: • Engaging host community members in CHR promotion and management. Nearly 136 individuals, including local youth, have received hands-on training in CHR best practices across the nine SCHEP sites. • Creating jobs and improving the type and quality of employment for CHR host communities. Thus far, SCHEP sites have generated 78 employment opportunities in rural areas. By 2018, USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 228 SCHEP expects to create 650 community-based job opportunities around CHR sites, with a focus on youth (75%) and female (47%) employment. • Creating the Jordan Heritage Consortium (JHC) to facilitate communication and collaboration among Jordan’s cultural heritage professionals. The JHC’s initial meeting brought together representatives from the government, universities, and foreign institutes to discuss key challenges and areas of cooperation. The JHC will be officially launched during 2017. • Completing comprehensive assessments to support cultural heritage capacity-building and training for the staff of the Department of Antiquities, as well as the faculty members and students of Jordan’s five public universities. • Supporting the establishment of Sela for Vocational Training and Protection of Cultural Heritage, the first community-based nonprofit of its kind, focusing exclusively on local training in cultural resource management. • Launching the Training Diploma in Archaeological Surveying in cooperation with the Hashemite University, an accredited and intensive vocation training program to bolster capacity within the Petra Archaeological Park and the Department of Antiquities. • Organizing a cultural heritage curriculum for more than 450 students across Jordan in cooperation with HM Queen Rania’s Madrasati Initiative and the Department of Antiquities. The students, who were 30% female ranged from 4th to 6th grade in nine schools in Ghawr as-Safi, Karak, Amman, and Irbid. • Awarding 15 scholarships to high-achieving students in Jordanian universities and 8 SCHEP Site Stewards to attend the prestigious 13th International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan. The students, who are majoring in archaeology, tourism-management, and related fields would be able to network and learn from leading professionals in their respective fields. SCHEP also supported the efforts of the Department of Antiquities to host the week-long international conference in May 2016. The Amman-based IP is the American Center for Oriental Research (ACOR) which promotes research and publication across disciplines with a special emphasis on archaeology in the Middle East. ACOR’s main activities include archaeological excavation, conservation and restoration projects, a fellowship program for scholars, hosting public lectures, academic programs, and engaging local communities in cultural resource management through the implementation of USAID's SCHEP program. Case Studies 2-3-4: Cultural Heritage Site Management through Public Private Partnerships in Italy The cultural heritage sector in Italy is regulated by the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (D.L. 22.1.2004, No. 42), which defines “cultural property” and, following the principles of the constitution, sets roles and competences of all entities involved in the management of cultural property, including interventions by privates. On one side, the public intervention in the sector of cultural heritage is particularly extensive and operative at all levels, with significative investment – in increasing order – by the provinces, regions, the ministry and the local units up to 3% of the budget.40 The law puts under state supervision an impressive number of “monuments,”with the state owning and protecting a large part of the country’s cultural heritage. Enhancement and management of cultural heritage, on the other hand, can be by public or private initiative. Legislation offers some benefits for those who want to contribute, such as publicity, administrative simplifications, and tax exemption/refund, with a tax credit 40 Filippo Cavazzoni, “Il ruolo dei privati della conservazione e nella valorizzazione dei beni culturali,” Astrid, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/protected/ella/ella-conservazione-e￾nella-valorizzazione-dei-beni-culturali.pdf USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 229 equal to 65% of the donation. Some recent examples include the sponsorship of the restoration of the Colosseum in Rome by Italian businessman Diego della Valle for 25 million euros41 or the restoration of the Pyramid of Gaius Cestius, also in Rome, by Japanese businessman Yuzo Yagi for 2 million euros.42 Pyramid of Gaius Cestius (By Jimmy P. Renzi - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1366136) The most dynamic of the private actors in the country are bank foundations (which by law intervene in the art, cultural activities and cultural heritage sectors), but many other subjects are involved at different levels, such as businesses that sponsor events and restorations as an effective reputational benefits policy, patrons, and for-profit businesses involved in the “additional services” linked to cultural heritage. The latter have been regulated since the so-called Ronchey Law (L. 14.1.1993, No. 4) and later modifications to allow private businesses to run services connected to cultural heritage sites, such as merchandising, booking, ticketing, events organization, catering, publication of catalogues and guides, guided visits, audioguides, etc. Despite some set-backs, in particular the low income of some minor, provincial museum, the system has the benefits of having no costs for the state and posing no financial risk. Some paybacks include, nevertheless, a chance for publishers to showcase and sell their products and a chance for heritage sites to have an all-new catalogue or guide book. So, in most cases, benefits are mutual.43 41 “Iniziative di partenariato pubblico-privato nei processi di valorizzazione dei beni culturali,” Corte dei Conti, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.corteconti.it/export/sites/portalecdc/_documenti/controllo/sez_centrale_controllo_amm_stato/20 16/delibera_8_2016_g.pdf. 42 “COMPLETATO IL RESTAURO DELLA PIRAMIDE DI CAIO CESTIO A ROMA. UN CASO ESEMPLARE DI COLLABORAZIONE PUBBLICO-PRIVATO,” MINISTERO PER I BENI E LE ATTIVITÀ CULTURALI, ACCESSED SEPTEMBER 11, 2018, HTTP://WWW.BENICULTURALI.IT/MIBAC/EXPORT/MIBAC/SITO￾MIBAC/CONTENUTI/MIBACUNIF/COMUNICATI/VISUALIZZA_ASSET.HTML_21005101.HTML. 43 “Un confronto con alcuni sistemi europei e statunitensi: i risultati di una recente ricerca,” Notiziario XX 77- 79 (2005): 53-61. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 230 Legislation also allows for the creation of no-profit foundations with mixed capitals, mainly public with some private intervention. The first such was the Fondazione delle Antichità Egizie di Torino in 2004, now running the Egyptian Museum. Some of the private entities part of this very foundation are also involved with running the many royal residences of the region, in particular the famous Reggia di Venaria Reale, in the outskirts of Turin. This UNESCO World Heritage Site was built starting 1675 and developed into a major royal residence in the 18th century. In the 19th century it was turned into military barracks, until 1978, when it was purchased by the Ministry of Culture. By 1950 it was anyway in complete ruin.44 During the 1980s, thanks to the Investment and Occupation Fund of the Ministry of Finance, some restorations took place in order to reach out to public opinion; part of the palace was rented out for events in order to collect more funds for a complete restoration and there was even a partial opening to the public thanks to volunteers. The involvement of the community was great as the locals saw a huge potential for revenues connected to the opening of the monument to the public. In 1997, the “Progetto La Venaria Reale” was launched, to be the largest European project for the restoration of a building and its environment.45 It was indeed an exceptional intervention for surface, complexity, methodology and cost containment, and it included the restoration of the palace, of the nearby village, of a smaller hunting lodge, of the gardens and of the park (respectively 240,000 m2 and 800,000 m2 of green). The funds were divided between the Ministry of Culture (50 millions), the Regione Piemonte (80 millions), and the European Union (170 millions). The complex is now run by the Consorzio delle Residenze Reali Sabaude (Consortium of the Royal Savoy Residences), which includes public partners (Ministry, Region, City Council) and private partners (Compagnia di San Paolo, Fondazione 1563 per l'Arte e la Cultura).46 Another good example of the partnership between public and private is the Archaeological Museum at the Centrale Montemartini.47 This was the first public thermal power station of the city of Rome (1912). It was closed in 1963 as the diesel plant became obsolete. The owner, ACEA (City Company for Water and Electricity), decided to restore the building and reconvert it for the tertiary. In 1997, it hosted a temporary exhibition of Classical sculpture from the Musei Capitolini of Rome, one of the largest public institutions for Roman art in Italy. At the end of the loan in 2005, the power station continued to host a permanent display, stunningly combining Classical and Industrial Heritage, as well as public and private synergies, which continued long after: in 2017 ACEA funded the restoration of the monumental access staircase of the Museo Centrale Montemartini. 44 Francesco Pernice, “La Venaria Reale: dalla decadenza del XIX secolo all’attuale rinascita, un percorso di duecento anni,” in La Reggia di Venaria e i Savoia, ed. Enrico Castelnuovo (Torino: Umberto Allemandi, 2007), 199-208. 45 “Restauro,” La Venaria Reale, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.lavenaria.it/it/esplora/saperne￾pi/restauro. 46 “Consorzio delle Residenze Reali Sabaude”, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.lavenaria.it/web/it/consorzio.html. 47 “Storia del Museo,” Centrale Montemartini, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.centralemontemartini.org/it/il_museo/storia_del_museo. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 231 (By Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany - The Engine Room, Centrale Montemartini, Rome, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45895287) In more recent years, Italy has taken a path of public-private partnership which involves also lesser entities, both in the sense of smaller monuments and smaller investors. In 2015-16, the State Property Agency and the Ministry of Defence launched “Valore Paese - Fari” (Country Value: Lighthouses),48 offering eleven lighthouses in 2015 and twenty between lighthouses, towers and coastal defence buildings in 2016, to be awarded through public tender for a 6- to 50-year concession. The formula was so successful that in 2017 it was rerun under the name of “Valore Paese - Cammini e Percorsi”49 (Country Value: Walkways and Tours): the target were cyclo-pedestrian roads or religious routes, the redevelopment and re-use of public buildings for eco-tourism through a free concession or tender and businesspeople under 40, cooperatives and associations. In 2018 the call for applications is titled “Country Value: Residences”. In a similar fashion, in 2016 the National Autonomous Company for Roads (ANAS) offered thirty dismissed houses for redevelopment projects involving sustainable tourism (hospitality and catering). A call for application, “Case Cantoniere (Roadman‘s Houses),50 gathered projects and awarded a 10-year concession through a tender offer for renting and running the activity, while ANAS covered the costs of restoration. 48 “Valore Paese – Fari’” Agenzia del Demanio, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.agenziademanio.it/opencms/it/progetti/fari/. 49 “Valore Paese – Cammini e Percorsi” Agenzia del Demanio, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.agenziademanio.it/opencms/it/progetti/camminipercorsi/. 50 “Case Cantoniere,” ANAS, accessed September 11, 2018, http://www.stradeanas.it/it/lazienda/chi-siamo/le￾nostre-iniziative/case-cantoniere. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 232 Reggia di Venaria Reale Expert Team Member Photo Case Study 5: The Çatalhöyük The Çatalhöyük project of the 9000 BCE Neolithic site was able to excavate the site, conserve and present it through collaborative approaches with the stakeholder communities. The site is composed of mud brick houses with streets and plastered walls. Due to the long excavation periods on this important site, it also suffered serious deterioration when it was closed in 1964 (Matero 2000). It was overgrown by vegetation, and the Turkish government changed the irrigation system for the neighboring fields to lower the water table, which led to the deposition of salts and chlorides in the mud brick structures that were previously in a waterlogged condition (Atalay et al., n.d.). This also caused moisture to be trapped inside the structures, causing the mud brick walls to crack, while their plasters started to detach (Atalay et al., n.d.). The site is the oldest adobe mudbrick site in the Middle East and could tell a lot to archaeologists but very little to visitors. The site attracted little tourism or hence the economic development of the neighboring villages(Atalay et al., n.d.). A new project started in 1993 and 1995 by Ian Hodder and his team aimed to start conserving the site and build shelters around it through the local community. This was carried by constructing visitor/tourist facilities resembling the house models of the Neolithic period, so tourists can imagine how the site looked without damaging it. As a result, tourism to Çatalhöyük increased from 0 to 13,000 in a year, mostly locals from the same Turkish region, leading to a small economic improvement in the neighboring village (Atalay et al., n.d.). The key to making Çatalhöyük a famous site today was that archaeological excavation and conservation was carried out parallel to community development and site presentation to the wider public (Atalay et al., n.d.). The exhibiting of findings from its excavation and the conservation was carried out through a collaborative approach with the local community as well as the data processing procedures. The main philosophy of the site management plan was that the sites would be conserved in order to attract enough visitors for the local communities to benefit. The project started with the development of a site management plan with responsibilities for “long term governance” through multiple stakeholders. The plan was adopted by the government and the European Union Euromed Heritage II program (Atalay et al., n.d.). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 233 To devise the management plan that was followed and developed late, the team and the stakeholders spent about 18 months getting all the stakeholders, including the local community, on board, and was done according to international best practices (Atalay et al., n.d., 10). The plan itself can be found on www.catalhoyuk.com, where the main focus was to recognize the intangible heritage of prehistoric remains and the social history of the site and how the modern human and value and relate to it (Atalay et al., n.d.). The site’s project also created a clear media and marketing campaign through regular appearances in the Turkish press about the site, creating a wider range of stakeholders that then became partners and had input to the management planning process. This local, public, investor and scientific interest of the site brought a wide array of stakeholders that many of the times had different or even conflicting interests in the site; however, the project directors managed to bring them all on board to work collaboratively for the long-term sustainability of their shared heritage. The project also focused on the different meanings of the site and how each stakeholder had their own interpretation and how all those would be part of the decision-making process in terms of site tourism, agriculture around the site, protecting the site’s cultural landscape and conservation. The site management plan process paved the way for a management plan for long-term maintenance, in which all the teams worked together to “conserve the cultural significance of the site through appropriate management policies” (Atalay et al., n.d., 11). This helped Çatalhöyük set a precedent in Turkey and provided a blueprint for “the management planning legislation (No 2861) that was approved in 2005.” P11 (Atalay et al., n.d., 11) Every five years, there is a revision of the management plan, with the same stakeholders not only formulating policies but also setting long term objectives that are carried through action plans and implementation stages(Atalay et al., n.d., 11). “Day-to-day, year-to-year monitoring and managing responses to conservation problems are best achieved if local communities take some degree of responsibility for ownership of the site and the region.” (Atalay et al., n.d., 12) The project also focused on archaeological education programs that attracted different groups to the site; the first was the TEMPER program (Training, Education, Management and Prehistory in the Mediterranean) that was funded by the EU. It produced a series of educational materials related to the site and was tested and validated in local schools. It was developed for the villages around the site and is now adopted by teachers throughout Turkey. The program also created summer workshops for children in the Konya region and others in which they attend workshops to learn in detail about Catalhoyuk. The aim was for the children to learn about cultural heritage preservation and its importance. The workshop also extended to bring orphanage children and by the end had catered to more than 600 children from the region (Atalay et al., n.d., 12). In 2006, a community archaeology project was started through a participatory research methodology (Atalay 2006; 2007; 2010). “This approach involves two primary components: 1) It is community driven and involves locals as partners in developing and carrying out research that is of interest and benefit to their community; 2) It is participatory and engages members of a community fully at all stages of the research process.” (Atalay et al., n.d., 12) This research partnership with local residents made the site academically accessible and made the locals’ full partners that were active in the scientific production of the site. The first project output was a series of comics based themed with the excavation and future management plans (Atalay et al., n.d., 12). The community also wanted a regular free newsletter for all the towns to keep them updated on work to the site. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 234 This came after the community complained that they felt that their knowledge about the excavation and archaeology was too little for them to feel that they were equal partners in the research and sustainable care and management of the site. In addition, locals also were allowed their own displays of crafts and local industries in the visitor center and special displays of their local social history (Atalay et al., n.d., 12). The locals felt that the comic series and newsletter would break this imaginary wall between them and the site. The CBPR methodology worked successfully in presenting a sustainable model through building capacity in the community that further strengthened the sense of ownership of the site. Works Cited: • Atalay, Sonya, Duygu Camurcuoglu, Ian Hodder, Stephanie Moser, Ian Orbasli, and Elizabeth Pye. 2010. “Protecting and Exhibiting Catalhoyuk,” Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Cultural Inventory, 8: 155–66. • Atalay, Sonya. n.d. “Community Archaeology at Çatalhöyük 2006.” Catalhoyok. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/. • Atalay, Sonya. 2007. “Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey,” Archaeologies, 3 (3): 249–70. • Atalay, Sonya. 2009. “Atalay, S., 2009. Building a Sustainable Archaeology at Çatalhöyük.” 2009. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/. • Atalay, Sonya. 2010. “‘We Don’t Talk about Çatalhöyük, We Live It’: Sustainable Archaeological Practice through Community-Based Participatory Research”.” World Archaeology 42 (3). • Matero, Frank. n.d. “The Conservation of an Excavated Past”,.” In Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example of Çatalhöyük, edited by Ian Hodder. University of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Case Study 6: Al-Quseir al-Qadim in Egypt The Community Archaeology Project at al-Quseir, a Red Sea archaeological site, began in 1999 on the ancient harbor site known in the Roman Period as Myos Hormos. The project, headed by Stephanie Moser, focused on putting community archaeology theories into action by involving the people and tourists of al-Quseir. That project was the first of its kind in Egypt where the modern Egyptians and their ancient counterparts were considered to be two hermetically sealed entities that were walled out of each other by physical walls. After the depleted phosphate industry that had been led by Italians for years, al-Quseir needed to attract a different source of revenue. USAID included al-Quseir in its environmentally sustainable tourism project because its cultural and natural resources offered potential for development’ (Salam 1997:3). Prof. Stephanie Moser of University of Southampton believed that the residents of al-Quseir should be involved in the study of their own heritage because they have always been neglected from western scholarship. The methodology devised by Moser was to empower the Egyptian community to be involved in the archaeological research and the heritage industry. She also believed that her approach would have an added value to the archaeological interpretation of the site and the remains. The USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 235 community of al-Quseir is composed of diverse groups such as Ababda Bedouins, Nile Valley residents mostly coming from Qena, Sohag and Luxor and some Nubian communities as well. Moser wanted to not only tick the box of community involvement through hiring and training locals but also to provide a continuum from the Roman and Mamluk times to today. Moser documented all meetings with stakeholders and with the governor on the publication, showing their interest as well as concerns about marketing Quseir’s heritage (Moser et al. 2002, p. 225) and bringing multiple stakeholders that were outside of the MOA on board. The methodology for Moser’s collaborative practice was: 1. communication and collaboration 2. employment and training 3. public presentation 4. interviews and oral history 5. educational resources 6. photographic and video archive 7. community-controlled merchandising.’(Moser et al. 2002) Moser’s collaboration with the local community lead to the creation of the Quseir Heritage Preservation Society, which has now become an NGO called ‘منفاتقديمهتاه and is continuing the work, recently receiving funding from Dedi (the Dutch cultural center). This local initiative worked in close collaboration with the mayor and informed him of the progress of the excavation as well as receiving his feedback on future development of the site and the area. The work updates and strategies focused on the annual production of reports with images of the activities that were not only delivered to the MOA but also distributed to local organizations and individuals as well as published on the internet. This dissemination of information gave people a sense of keeping up with the development of the project and also helped the team with feedback from people. The Quseir Heritage NGO also commented and revised these reports (Moser et al. 2002, 230). These reports were annual and bilingual in Arabic and English. Prior to the distribution, a draft was presented to the mayor and the members of the community for commentary, and their comments were further incorporated, such as wanting less detail and analysis as well as peopling the story and making it more interesting (Moser et al. 2002, p. 230). The team has also maintained a solid open-door policy in which everything was discussed with the multiple stakeholders. The local community also was involved in how the site should be presented. However, a major setback was that the artifacts excavated were stored in Qift, 200 kilometers from the site, which limited the community’s accessibility to these objects. The project remedied this by putting high resolution images of the project in the local NGO exhibition hall. These temporary exhibits ensured that the residents of al-Qusier could keep up with the excavation progress and provided the mission with feedback from the community. The project also provided temporary employment via excavation and heritage tourism; however, the skills were not easily transferable. In addition, there were interviews and oral history of the project intermingled with ideas of modern identity construction. There was also a strong educational component, in which 20 teachers from local schools were employed and developed archaeology-related teaching materials to use in classes as well as extensive site visits for the schools. Two books aimed at children of primary school age were also devised called “Salma and Semir in Islamic Quseir.” The community was also involved in the branding and marketing plan: Together with the team, they drew a logo to represent both ancient and modern al-Quseir (Moser et al. 2002, 241– 42). Moser et al. stressed that “it is no longer acceptable for archaeologists to reap the intellectual benefits of another’s society’s heritage without providing the society with the opportunity to benefit equally from the endeavor.” She also stressed that community archaeology is the basis for the ethical code of archaeology in any given society (Moser et al. 2002, 243). Moser et al. also explained that USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 236 “archaeological investigation also gives access to the considerable amount of knowledge concerning archaeological sites” (Moser et al. 2002, 243). Moser et al. concluded that “Quseir al-Qadim is not simply a Roman or Mamluk harbor, it is a place with much wider cultural meaning. The wealth of folklore that relates to the site provides us with further insights on how the past is experienced, and how it is negotiated and understood in the present (Moser et al. 2002, 243). Works Cited Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohammed Saleh Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiesh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner, and Michael Seymour. 2002. “Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt.” World Archaeology 34 (2): 220–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0043824022000007071. Salama, A. M. 1997. Proposed action plan for Quseir. Final draft. The Promotion of Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Project and the United States Agency for International Development. Case Studies 7: Valley of the Kings Case Study In 2004, the Theban Mapping Project (TMP), an ARCE, AUC and USAID project, was commissioned by the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) to produce a site management plan for the Valley of the Kings in Luxor. Kent Weeks, the director of the TMP, has always advocated that KV needed a strong visitor management plan. KV is among the most visited cultural heritage destinations, with people coming from around the world to visit the tombs of the kings of the New Kingdom. KV has around 63 tombs that are rock-cut, plastered with mural paintings or carvings in the most spectacular quality and techniques of ancient Egypt. The site management plan started with identifying the natural and human threats pertaining to the site, such as flash floods, pollution and excess visitors. The number of visitors to KV could surpass 5000 per day (Weeks & Hetherington 2006, 69). The methodology of the site management was built on the ICOMOS recommendations for protecting archaeological sites from the visitor impact. The master plan methodology was as follows: • To protect the interests of the site and safeguard its dignity and potential for research • To protect and enhance the natural environment of the valley and its surroundings • To provide a safe, comfortable, informative and enjoyable visitor experience • To maintain and enhance commercial opportunities in balance with the other interest above • To implement initiatives that are practical, sustainable and cost effective as part of an ongoing system of site management • To ensure that any initiatives are compatible with and exportable to the wider Theban Necropolis.” Weeks & Hetherington 2006, P#) The masterplan planning process involved: • Assessment of the significance of the site • Historical data review • Identification of risk factors and review of their impact • Review of the role of tourism in Egypt, Luxor and KV • Assessment and consultation of site stakeholders • Physical site surveys • Condition surveys • Site surveys • Infrastructure review • Visitor management review • Site management review USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 237 • Security review • Proposals • -Presentation of plan and implementation” (Weeks and Hetherington 2006, 23). They used this workflow for their project that has proved very effective by Figure II Masterplan Planning process after Demas (Demas 2002, 30) (Weeks and Hetherington 2014) Documentation and Collection of Information Historical Archaeological Condition Surveys Tourism Formation of Aims of Planning Process Involvement of Stakeholders Academics Local Community Tourist Bodies International Bodies Management Analysis of Data Protection Conservation Infrastructure Tourism Research Excavation Proposals Policies Objectives Strategies Finalise Site Management Plan Implementation Review and Monitoring USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 238 The Masterplan Stages were: 1) Defining the site: legally, historically, geographically, politically, socially and culturally; 2) Data collection: a historical survey including published works, diaries and travel journals; an archaeological survey of previous excavations and interventions; the sourcing of maps and photography of the site; physical surveys of geology, topography and natural environment; 3) Assessment of risk factors: geological risks e.g. landslides; topographical and metrological risks e.g. flash floods; the effect of flora and fauna e.g. animal intrusion; human interventions e.g. theft, vandalism, visitation, excavation and conservation; 4) Tourism research: economic effects, internationally, nationally and locally; the level of direct investment in the site; degradation of the site; security of visitors and promotion of the site. 5) Regional planning; 6) Stakeholder consultation: Egyptian governmental and administrative bodies; academic and educational bodies; visitors; tourism professionals; traders; KV employees; local community; international bodies and donors. The main results received from the survey are as follows: • The provision of a cafeteria • Improved toilet and shelter facilities • The night opening of the site • Improvements to the retail facilities • Improved conservation of the tombs • Improved cleaning of the site • Amendment of ticketing procedures • Improvement to visitor flow 7) Condition assessment focused on the conservation of the tombs opening to the public. 8) Environmental monitoring 9) Infrastructure survey: landscaping, parking, passenger loading and retail area; visitor center; internal traffic flow; auxiliary buildings; visitor facilities e.g. toilets, rest stops and shelters; protection of tomb fabric; site utilities. 10) Visitor management: site and tomb carrying capacity, visit duration and visitor flows, ticketing and visitor experience. 11) Site management review: administration and management of site: administration and management of site; training and disaster planning; maintenance and safety. 12) Presentation of the plan. 13) Implementation and schedule of works (Weeks and Hetherington, 2014) USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 239 Figure III, KV Masterplan critical pathway (Weeks and Hetherington 2014) Conclusions The KV site management has created the first solid benchmark for proper cultural heritage management in Egypt and has transformed the site of Valley of the Kings for more than 15 years now. Site Assessment Tomb Condition Geology Hydrology Archaeology Define, Design, and Site all new Structures Destruction and Removal of Existing Structures Install Infrastructural Needs Electricity Water Telephone Sewage Install Tomb Safety Controls Environment Visitor Numbers Lighting Access Exterior Changes Lighting Trams Roads/Pathways Monitoring USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 240 Works Cited Demas, M. 2002 “Planning for Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites: A Values-Based Approach” in Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: Proceedings from the International Workshop. J. Teutonico and G. Palumbo (Eds). Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles Teutonico, Jeanne Marie., Gaetano. Palumbo, Getty Conservation Institute, and Loyola Marymount University. 2002. “Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, 19-22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece.” In Getty Conservation Institute. Weeks, Kent R., Nigel J. Hetherington, Dina Bakhoum, Theban Mapping Project, American University in Cairo Press, and N.Y.) World Monuments Fund (New York. 2014. The Valley of the Kings: A Site Management Handbook. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 241 ANNEX 12: EVALUATION TEAM TEAM LEADER AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERT IN CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM Robert Travers holds a Masters’ degree in Responsible Tourism Management from the International Centre for Responsible Tourism at Leeds Beckett University. His USAID experience includes assignments with MSI in Jordan, Chemonics in Jordan, the Philippines and Moldova, with JE Austin in Montenegro and with ACDI-VOCA in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste. Relevant experience of monitoring and evaluation in the region includes the following assignments: Team Leader, midterm evaluation of the USAID BEST activity, Jordan (Oct 2017-Jan 2018); Team Leader, final evaluation of the EU ASEZA program in Aqaba, Jordan (December 2008); and Team Leader, final evaluation of the EU Protection and Promotion of Cultural Heritage in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan program (December 2009). He has also undertaken monitoring and evaluation assignments for the UNDP, UNESCO, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, Concern Worldwide and New Zealand Aid. He has worked on UNESCO world heritage projects in Indonesia, Myanmar, the Lao PDR and Turkey; and he developed a national cultural heritage marketing strategy for Albania. He is an advisor to the UNWTO on the Silk Road and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In Egypt, he has been a key team member for the following projects: Green Star Hotels in Egypt (2013); EU-Egypt TVET program (2012); EU study of wellness tourism in Egypt (2008); medical tourism study for Egypt (2009); and the Egypt Sustainable Tourism Master Plan (2008) for the Ministry of Tourism. His other Middle East experience includes consultancy assignments Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Email: robert_trav@hotmail.com.Website: https://www.linkedin.com/in/traversrobert. SENIOR CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST Monica Hanna holds a PhD from the University of Pisa with a dissertation on the “Problems of Preservation of Mural Paintings in the Theban Necropolis: A Pilot Study on the Theban Tomb 14 using 3D Scanning Techniques.” Throughout her studies and especially since completing her PhD, she has been actively involved with protecting Egypt's archaeological sites and with issues of cultural identity and education on these important issues. She has been a member of archaeological expeditions at Saqqara and Thebes as well as several cultural resource management projects around Egypt, notably at Serabit el-Khadim. She furthered her research and engagement through a post-doctoral fellowship at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin at the Topoi Cluster of Excellence in the Department of Egyptology and North African Studies with her project titled “Contemporary Communities and Archaeology: Investigating the Relationship Between the Inhabitants of Modern al-Quran and Local Archaeological Sites (Thebes, Egypt).” She was appointed Associate Professor and Founding Dean of the newly founded College of Archaeology of Cultural Heritage at the Arab Academy of Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport. During her post-doc in Berlin, she decided to return to Egypt to document the looting situation there in light of the 2011 uprising. Making use of the power of social media, Dr. Hanna created and maintains Egypt's Heritage Task Force, which documents these losses of cultural heritage around the country and highlights them on the world stage. She has worked tirelessly to reduce the illicit trade in antiquities and cooperated with government officials to protect Egypt's cultural heritage. For her work, she received the 2014 SAFE Beacon award and has also been named a Monuments Woman. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 242 SENIOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION SPECIALIST Nivine Ramses has more than 22 years of experience in the field of development and humanitarian work. She has built strong expertise in various levels of organizational development and program implementation and review. In particular, she has a proven record of accomplishment in conducting project evaluations, designing programs, building monitoring and evaluation systems, conducting baseline and end line surveys, leading impact evaluations, writing proposals, conducting organizational assessments, building capacities in results-based management, data collection, and monitoring and evaluation. She has experience managing evaluations with a list of international organizations in Egypt, the Middle East and Africa including CARE International, Plan International, Save the Children, Drosos, UNICEF, UNWomen, Catholic Relief Services, World Food Program, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Raoul Wallenburg Institute for Human Rights, and FACE. Her areas of expertise include women’s rights, gender analysis and gender transformative strategies, violence against women and gender-based violence, child rights and child protection, social accountability, non-formal education, behavioral change, disability and rights of children and persons with disability, inclusion, refugees’ inclusion and mitigation interventions. FRESCO CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION SPECIALIST Ahmed Ibrahim is a Cultural Heritage Specialist/Murals and has obtained Masters and PhD degrees in conservation and restoration of murals paintings from Cairo University. Dr. Ibrahim has thorough knowledge of the excavation field and has worked in companies of restoration such as Arab Contractors, Orascom, Aswan, Heritage, Megahed Sons, Hasan Allam Sons, Baca. Dr. Ibrahim has participated in the restoration of around 18 archaeological sites in Egypt. ECONOMIST Soheir El Sherif is an economist with 35-years’ experience in socioeconomic research, capacity building and project evaluation. She holds a Ph.D. in project evaluation methodologies and empirical analysis. Her professional record demonstrates expertise in applying national and sector-level cost￾benefit (CBA) and cost-effectiveness (CEA) analyses. Both approaches are applied in the framework of result-based monitoring and evaluation and aimed at concluding evidence-based policy recommendations. She worked on several projects sponsored by bilateral and multilateral development organizations, including: USAID, CIDA, DFID, GIZ, Netherlands Development Agency, SDC, KfW, JETRO, EC, WB Group, UNDP & UNIDO. She is certified by UNIDO as an advisor/instructor in project evaluation (ex-ante & ex-post), using the COMFAR III Expert software. Evaluation assignments covered several sectors, including: manufacturing, agribusiness, education, tourism, energy, water and wastewater, trade and real estate. (soheir50@gmail.com) STATISTICIAN Nesma Saleh is assistant professor of statistics, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Department of Statistics, Cairo University. She holds a PhD in 2016 in Statistics from Cairo University. Her primary area of interest is statistical quality control and improvement. She serves as a referee for several international scientific journals. Her publications have appeared in Quality and Reliability Engineering International, the Journal of Quality Technology and others. She has participated in a number of research activities for national and international organizations for research related to child and domestic abuse, maternal and child health, women’s health-related issues and small- and medium￾enterprises (SMEs). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 243 LOGISTICS COORDINATOR Hanan Shawky is an admin, human resource (HR) and logistics coordinator. She has more than 15 years of experience with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), donor-funded projects (USAID, EU, GIZ) and governmental organizations. She has solid experience in providing administrative and logistical support for the implementation of training/workshops and study tours. Also, she has good experience in overseeing the daily implementation of project activities and management of budgets/expenditure, coordinating and following-up on actions related to the administration of HR activities and handling all procurement actions necessary for purchasing goods and services in accordance with donors' procedures and regulations. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 244 ANNEX 13: ARCE STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES AND SIMPLE RESPONSE ARCE Statement of Difference on Specific Findings and Conclusions Body/Annex Comment in Documentation Response to QED Response Body Page V: Second Paragraph in Findings Archaeology – The Archaeology Manager is well qualified as an expert in Archaeological techniques and recording. As part of USAID’s “Capacity Building” it has been shown that USAID funds spent on training MoA archaeologists have shown to be very effective. The Conservation manager has over 25 years field experience and is currently completing a Ph.D. Body Page V, Page VII Conservation comments Over 20 material tests had been performed prior to conservation activities following ICOMOS and Getty principles for the preservation and conservation of wall paintings. Included in the reports are multiple site/field tests. Body Page 13, 4th Paragraph Over 20 third party tests are detailed in the technical reports and are in the data base. Many of the field tests are also in the reports. Including the results of tests in a report is not incorrect. ARCE has portable microscopes and were used when necessary. The site conditions dictate the methods, methodology and materials used. Body Page 13, 5th Paragraph The materials in question were used to isolate the plaster from the mortar not re-adhesion. Annex 7 Page182, Point 6, compressive strength Mortars were extensively tested both by third party testing laboratories and field tests. Compressive, tensile, porosity as well as other properties were tested. Annex 7 Page 183, experimental study of mortars See above. Annex 7 Page 201 The rubric for site management is problematic in that it considers and scores items beyond the project scope of work (SOW). The rubric should have reflected the actual SOW. ARCE is very well aware of the best practices for site management both by what UNESCO and ICOMOS recommends. ARCE is also aware that the field of site management is constantly evolving as are the priorities of both the Ministry of Antiquities and Tourism as well which can have an effect on what can be given permission. This is why ARCE feels that it would have been more appropriate to evaluate the site management based on the agreed upon SOW at the time of the grant award. USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 245 SIMPLE Response on ARCE Statement of Differences on Specific Findings and Conclusions of SITE End-of-Term Performance Evaluation In response to ARCE’s request to file a Statement of Differences on specific evaluation results of the SITE end-of-term performance evaluation, please find below SIMPLE’s response to each comment raised. SIMPLE has included text from the evaluation report and annexes in text boxes, where appropriate, and used bold text to indicate pertinent language. We note that these comments had been raised before and had already been addressed by the Evaluation Team. 1. Page V: Second Paragraph in Findings, SITE Evaluation Report ARCE Comment: Archaeology – The Archaeology Manager is well qualified as an expert in Archaeological techniques and recording. As part of USAID’s “Capacity Building” it has been shown that USAID funds spent on training MoA archaeologists have shown to be very effective. The Conservation manager has over 25 years field experience and is currently completing a Ph.D. SIMPLE Response: Assessing the qualifications of the implementing partners staff is out of the evaluation scope of work. Consultations with higher academic authority referred to above was meant to emphasize the importance of conducting consultations with academic institutions such as universities to ensure consideration of different technical and up to date views, expertise and best practices. Academic supervision is necessary in archeological projects and is considered a usual practice. 2a. Page V Conservation Comments, SITE Evaluation Report ARCE Comment: Over 20 material tests had been performed prior to conservation activities following ICOMOS and Getty principles for the preservation and conservation of wall paintings. Included in the reports are multiple site/field tests. SIMPLE Response: Raised concerns are specifically related to the unclear description and documentation of the methodology of the experimental studies conducted on the conservation materials, in the project documents which in turn does not reflect meeting the necessary required specifications, namely, transparency and colorless, homogeneity with the composition of consolidated monuments and reversibility, suitable viscosity and ability to penetrate within the pores, water Extract from the Report: In Luxor (East Bank), extensive conservation work on the Khonsu Temple chapel murals has been undertaken. On the West Bank, access and site lines have been improved in the Tombs of the Nobles area. Three tombs in Luxor have been added to MOA’s inventory of possible tombs to visit, one of which is currently open to tourists (Thebes Tomb [TT] 110). Detailed records of finds during the Luxor projects have been kept and are currently being digitized by ARCE. Some innovative eco-friendly lighting has been introduced in Luxor. Most consultation in planning interventions was with MOA (both central and local); Qurna and Al Boarat communities were consulted through the site foreman following project approval. At the Red Monastery, there was continuous consultation with the religious community and some of their congregation. Consultation with tourism interests did not take place before the intervention, and throughout at all sites it was very limited. Some concerns were raised in consultations that the Luxor project needed a higher academic authority because of the importance of the site and the restoration methods that were applied. Extract from the Report: Some of the conservation procedures at Khonsu Temple and the Theban Necropolis tombs were not in accordance with current international best practices. USAID.GOV SUSTATINABLE INVESTMENT IN TOURISM IN EGYPT (SITE) EVALUATION | 246 repellence and resistance to air pollution, close refractive index to that of the monument and suitable setting time with its working time. In order to ensure that the consolidation materials are used for impact enhancement, they should have these specifications and should be subject to experimental study and several tests that confirm this, such as color change testing, testing resistance to biological damage, and Microscopic examination to ascertain the degree of spread of the material and the degree of homogeneity with the monument. 2b. Page VII Conservation Comments, SITE Evaluation Report ARCE Comment: Over 20 material tests had been performed prior to conservation activities following ICOMOS and Getty principles for the preservation and conservation of wall paintings. Included in the reports are multiple site/field tests. SIMPLE Response: This comment relates to the conservation methods and materials testing taught and applied during the experimental studies of the treatment materials and its methods of application (including cleaning, consolidation, and completion) prior to conservation. Clarification on specific concerns raised by trained conservators were added to the evaluation report in response to ARCE’s previous round of comments, specifically the following sentence was added: “dissatisfaction with training on experimental studies of the treatment materials and methods of application.” 3. Page 13, 4th Paragraph, SITE Evaluation Report ARCE Comment: Over 20 third party tests are detailed in the technical reports and are in the data base. Many of the field tests are also in the reports. Including the results of tests in a report is not incorrect. ARCE has portable microscopes and were used when necessary. The site conditions dictate the methods, methodology and materials used. SIMPLE Response: The conservation reports received by the evaluation team lacked the documentation of the analysis and the examination processes pre- conservation in all sites, except for the tombs TT110 and TT286. Though the documentation of the examination and the analysis process is relatively better for the tombs TT110, and TT286, still it had some inadequacies. For the TT110, the Implementing Partner provided a website for a published research on the conservation process of the tomb which included the results of the analysis and the examination of the components of the wall paintings in the tomb. For the TT286, the conservation report of the tomb included only the results of the analysis of the components of the wall paintings and did not mention the method or the data used in the analysis. Generally, the documented process and its results are incomplete as it does not mention the type of the color medium used. Additionally, the examination processes are very preliminary and was confined to using the scanning electron microscope to examine the mud sheet-only. There is no evidence in Extract from the Report: The training had a positive impact on the trainees’ knowledge and performance, although impact on career development is dependent on availability of resources and opportunities, and there are concerns regarding some conservation methods being taught; e.g., dissatisfaction with training on experimental studies of the treatment materials and methods of application. Extract from the Report: Detailed records of archaeological finds during the Luxor West Bank projects have been kept and are currently being digitized by the IP. In terms of conservation methods applied, in some cases, standard international conservation procedures were not followed/documented in the project conservation reports (e.g. experimental studies, analysis and examination processes). USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 247 the project documents provided by ARCE to the evaluation team that the portable microscope or polarized microscope were used in the examination of mural paintings in this tomb. 4. Page 13, 5th Paragraph, SITE Evaluation Report ARCE Comment: The materials in question were used to isolate the plaster from the mortar not re￾adhesion. SIMPLE Response: Concerning the use of Paraloid B72 3% dissolved in acetone, according to the project documents it was used to isolate the edges of the plaster layer pre-application of modern mortar to protect these edges, see the following report: (Conservation field school, 2014- 2015- final report- Qurna Theban tomb 110- passage. P. 20). The way the material is used provides a buffer layer that prevents the bonding of modern mortar with the edges of the plaster. If the dilute solution of that material achieves penetration and good bonding in the pores, then there is no justification of using this material with such a low concentration to isolate the plaster edges before applying the mortar to prevent the water from affecting the edges. Accordingly, the use of the substance with this concentration confirms that it is used as a Re-adhesion material and does not achieve penetration even in dilute concentrations. Regarding the use of Paraloid 44 3% dissolved in acetone and xylene, according to the project documents, it was used to isolate the edges of the plaster layer after consolidation with Estil 1000 and before applying the modern mortar layer to protect the edges of the mural pictures, see the following report: (Conservation project TT286- Draa Abu el Naga –Season 2015- 2016-p. 67-77). The use of this material in this way provides a buffer layer that prevents the bonding of modern mortar with the edges of the plaster. Regarding the use of Acrill AC 33 at a concentration of 5% in distilled water, it was used to consolidate the old bonding mortars, as stated in the following conservation report: (The External East Wall of Khonsu Temple at Karnak – final Report- Season 2015- 2016- P. 27). The evaluators confirm that this material is used internationally for conservation works, but as adhesion material not as a consolidation material. The water used to dilute the Acril AC 33 to achieve effective penetration in the pores, leads to salts solubility. This results in re-crystallization on the surface or between the pores causing severe damage and fragmentation of this old mortar. Additionally, this material does not achieve the good penetration even in the concentration of 5% but remains on the surface in form of insulation layer. Regarding the usage of the material Estill 1000, we agree that the material is used to consolidate silicide materials such as sandstones, mud sheet, bricks, etc., as it is a suitable material for this type of monuments. However, in terms of chemical composition, this material is used to consolidate the silicate materials which is saturated with moisture, because it depends on the moisture in the polymerization reactions to connect the weak parts. Regarding Lime water, it is quite inappropriate for consolidation as it does not achieve good penetration and leaves a pale layer on the surface being treated due to the interaction with the CO2 gas resulting in calcium carbonate as a pale layer on the surface. It also interacts with air pollution gases turning into salts on the surface of the monuments (such as interaction SO2 gas which converts Extract from the Report: A review of the project documents and reports in comparison to international standards (a full list of references is provided in Annex 3), some materials used for consolidation and their combination with other materials as listed in the project reports may have been unsuitable for application to the murals, especially given the sensitive conditions of the sites (e.g. limewater, Paraloide 44, Paraloide B72, Acrill 33, Plextol P500, Estil 1000). In addition, project documentation and observations of the evaluation team provide no evidence of a protection system inside Khonsu Temple to protect mural paintings from visitors, e.g. glass panels, protective walkways, handrails. According to follow-up consultations with the IP, ARCE proposed protections system to the MoA but they were rejected. USAID.GOV SUSTATINABLE INVESTMENT IN TOURISM IN EGYPT (SITE) EVALUATION | 248 calcium carbonate to calcium sulfate different from the stone composition). Furthermore, this material provides the monument with water that activates the damage caused by salt. 5. Page182, Point 6, compressive strength, Annex 7 ARCE Comment: Mortars were extensively tested both by third party testing laboratories and field tests. Compressive, tensile, porosity as well as other properties were tested. SIMPLE Response: This has already been noted in the report. These tests are not related to mortars of the Red Monastery Nave. The recommendation provided later in the report is related to testing the mortars to be used to complete the Khonsu Temple. Added text in consideration to ARCE’s comment is as follows: “The implementing partner notes that microbiological deterioration was not present in the Red Monastery. Further, the implementing partner notes that these parameters were studied during the 10-year conservation work on the triconch project; including onsite microscope investigation.” 6. Page 183, experimental study of mortars, Annex 7 ARCE Comment: Mortars were extensively tested both by third party testing laboratories and field tests. Compressive, tensile, porosity as well as other properties were tested. SIMPLE Response: Noted in the Report. These tests are not related to mortars of the Red Monastery Nave. They are related to the mortars to be used in the completion of the sandstone walls of Khonsu temple, which suffer from heavy and deep losses. These tests are therefore conducted on the mixtures of the selected mortars to reach the appropriate mortar mix that is consistent with the characteristics and nature of the stone in the temple in terms of color and mechanical resistance. Extract from the Report: Tests performed pre-conservation: includes the study of microbiological deterioration of the monument. The implementing partner notes that microbiological deterioration was not present in the Red Monastery. It also includes the determination of physical properties (density- porosity- water absorption), determination of mechanical properties (compressive strength- abrasion resistance) and determination of pore size. Further, the implementing partner notes that these parameters were studied during the 10-year conservation work on the triconch project; including onsite microscope investigation. Extract from the Report: “Experimental Study of Consolidation Materials: In order to prepare the experimental samples, the stone blocks are cut into cubes 3 cm3 and 125 cm3. The cubic samples are washed with distilled water and dried in an oven at 105°C for at least 24 hours to reach a constant weight and left to cool at room temperature and controlled RH 50%, then weighed again. Their mechanical properties are measured (mechanical resistance, soil resistance) and their physical properties are measured (density, porosity, absorption of water) before the consolidation. The consolidation materials should then be applied onto the stone samples by a brush (three applications). Treated samples should be left for sufficient time at room temperature and controlled RH 50% to allow the polymerization process to take place. The samples then should be weighed again. For the evaluation tests, the mechanical properties (mechanical pressure resistance), the physical properties (density, porosity, water absorption) of the treated samples are measured and the results are compared before the consolidation. Consolidated samples are put under the scanning electron microscope to identify the degree of homogeneous propagation of the material and the link of granules or not. The hydrophobicity of the treated and untreated stone samples should be evaluated by measuring the static water contact angle. Evaluation of the appearance of the treated stone samples by visual appraisal, and colorimetric measurements, as well as evaluating the consolidated samples resistance to the effects of deterioration phenomena’s such as salts, acids, ultraviolet, infrared, microbiology deterioration, to reach the appropriate consolidation material should then be carried out.” In follow-up consultations with the IP, it is reported that the very simple and compatible lime-based mortar in the Red Monastery did not require a mechanical study and/or test because, as in the past, the mortar is layed in multiple thin layers and in a considerably softer consistency compared to that of the original mortar.” USAID.GOV END-OF-TERM EVALUATION OF SITE | 249 Further clarification was added in the report specifically “In follow-up consultations with the IP, it is reported that the very simple and compatible lime-based mortar in the Red Monastery did not require a mechanical study and/or test because, as in the past, the mortar is layed in multiple thin layers and in a considerably softer consistency compared to that of the original mortar.” 7. Page 201, Annex 7– SITE Management Rubric Cultural Heritage for Tourism Luxor Extract from the Report: 23. Visitor Management: This score discusses the carrying capacity, ticketing procedures and the visitor experience in the site Indicator Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Visitor Management No visitor management Some visitor management plan available Incomplete visitor management plan Developing visitor management plan, but lacking a few aspects such as a clear action plan Adequate visitor management plan, but without a clear methodology A clear visiting management plan Circle one 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Comments: The IP clarifies that a Visitor Management Plan was not part of the USAID grant agreement. Points Possible: 5 Score ARCE Comment: The rubric for site management is problematic in that it considers and scores items beyond the project scope of work (SOW). The rubric should have reflected the actual SOW. ARCE is very well aware of the best practices for site management both by what UNESCO and ICOMOS recommends. ARCE is also aware that the field of site management is constantly evolving as are the priorities of both the Ministry of Antiquities and Tourism as well which can have an effect on what can be given permission. This is why ARCE feels that it would have been more appropriate to evaluate the site management based on the agreed upon SOW at the time of the grant award. SIMPLE Response: The rubric was approved by USAID for the evaluation. The site management rubric has been developed based on the benchmark followed by the cultural heritage management international best practices (specifically UNESCO guidelines). It is also consistent with other projects done by ARCE in Egypt such as the Valley of the Kings. The rubric is a comprehensive assessment that includes all the parameters that should be considered in cultural heritage management which is different from archeology. For the conservation rubric, it was developed based on the ICOMOS and the circumstances of each site and its status before the intervention were considered while applying the rubric. The development of the rubric also aimed to help USAID in future activities design. Accordingly, it was developed in a comprehensive manner and based on international best practices as a benchmark for the assessment as clarified in the narrative of the methodology in Annex 7. In consideration of ARCE’s feedback, it was clarified in the comments section that the visitor management plan was not part of the project grant agreement. 2.5