Document of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/877901468114548548/pdf/ICR16890P... ·...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00001689

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-53225)

ON A

GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 9.0 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

FOR A

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

April 25, 2011

Environment and Natural Resource Management Unit Sustainable Development Department Southern Africa 1, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland - AFCS1 Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective January 30, 2011) Currency Unit = ZAR

ZAR 1.00 = US$0.146 US$1.00 = Rand 6.851

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABI BCSD BP

Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project Bank Procedure

CAPE Cape Action for People and the Environment (previously Cape Action Plan for the Environment)

CAS CBA CBD

Country Assistance Strategy Critical Biodiversity Area Convention on Biological Diversity

CCC CCF

CAPE Coordination Committee CAPE Conservation Forum

CCU CEPF CFR CIC CN

CAPE Coordination Unit Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Cape Floristic Region CAPE Implementation Committee Cape Nature

COP Conference of PartiesCPS Country Partnership Strategy DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (National) DEAT DEADP DEAET

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (National) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) Department of Economic Affairs, Environment, and Tourism (Eastern Cape)

DoA DWAF

Department of Agriculture Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ECPB ESMF ExCo

Eastern Cape Parks Board Environmental and Social Management Framework Executive Steering Committee for the BCSD Project

GCBC Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective GIS Global Information System GoSA GRI Ha IBRD

Government of South Africa Garden Route Initiative Hectares International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IMP ISR KBR

Integrated Management Plans Implementation Status and Results Report Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve

iii

KZN M&E

KwaZulu-Natal Monitoring and evaluation

MCM Marine and Coastal Management Directorate in DEAT MPA MSP

Marine Protected Area GEF Medium-Sized Project

MoU MTE MTEF MTR

Memorandum of Understanding Independent Mid-Term Evaluation Mid-Term Expenditure Framework Mid-Term Review

NBI National Botanical Institute (later SANBI) NGO OP

Non-Governmental Organization Operational Policy

PA Protected Area PAD PAMETT

Project Appraisal Document Protected Area Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

PDO Project Development Objective PES Payment(s) for Environmental Services PF Process Framework PIP PSR R RAP RPF

Project Implementation Plan Project Status Report Rand (South African currency) Resettlement Action Plan Resettlement Policy Framework

SADC SAMETT

South African Development Community South African Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for protected areas

SANBI SANParks

South Africa National Biodiversity Institute South African National Parks

SDF SMART

Spatial Development Framework Indicators that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely

STEP TER TMF TOR TTL UNDP WCNCB WESSA WF WfW

Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project Terminal Evaluation Report Table Mountain Fund Terms of reference Task Team Leader United Nations Development Program Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (later Cape Nature) Wildlife Society of South Africa Wilderness Foundation Working for Water Program

WWF-SA World Wide Fund for Nature-South Africa

Vice President: Obiageli Ezekwesili

Country Director: Ruth Kagia

Sector Manager: Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough

Project Team Leader: George Ledec

ICR Team Leader: George Ledec

iv

Republic of South Africa

Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

B. Key Dates ................................................................................................................... v C. Ratings Summary ....................................................................................................... v D. Sector and Theme Codes .......................................................................................... vi E. Bank Staff .................................................................................................................. vi F. Results Framework Analysis .................................................................................... vii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ................................................................. viii H. Restructuring (if any) ................................................................................................ ix I. Disbursement Profile ................................................................................................. ix 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design ................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 6 3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 12 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 19 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 21 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 23 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 25 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 27 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 28 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................ 37 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 39 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 41 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 42 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 43 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ...................... 53 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents and Web Sites .............................................. 60 MAP .............................................................................................................................. 62

i

A. Basic Information

Country: South Africa Project Name:

ZA-C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project

Project ID: P075997 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-53225

ICR Date: 04/28/2011 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Original Total Commitment:

USD 9.0M Disbursed Amount: USD 9.0M

Revised Amount: USD 9.0M

Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: B

Implementing Agencies: South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI): Lead Executing Agency Cape Nature (CN) Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) South African National Parks (SANParks) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 02/20/2003 Effectiveness: 08/31/2004 07/26/2004

Appraisal: 12/05/2003 Restructuring(s):

Approval: 05/18/2004 Mid-term Review: 05/16/2007 05/16/2007

Closing: 10/31/2009 10/30/2010 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Global Environment Outcome Low or Negligible

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

ii

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies:

Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance:

Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance:

Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance

Indicators QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

GEO rating before Closing/Inactive status

Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Agricultural extension and research 7 7

Central government administration 21 21

General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 60 60

General education sector 8 8

Sub-national government administration 4 4

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Biodiversity 50 50

Environmental policies and institutions 25 25

Rural non-farm income generation 25 25 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Callisto E. Madavo

Country Director: Ruth Kagia Fayez S. Omar

Sector Manager: Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough Richard G. Scobey

Project Team Leader: George Campos Ledec Christopher James Warner

ICR Team Leader: George Campos Ledec

ICR Primary Author: Kathleen S. Mackinnon

iii

F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved) Project Development Objective: To support the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) and adjacent marine environment by laying a sound foundation for scaling up and replicating successful Project outcomes. The Global Objective is to ensure that the conservation of Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment is secured by 2024. Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications (a) GEO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Number of CAPE signatory institutions that directly support implementation of the Project.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

18 23 23

Date achieved 06/30/2004 10/31/2009 05/07/2009 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Original target was met (100%).

Indicator 2 : Area (hectares) consolidated under formal conservation arrangements within the Baviaanskloof, Cederberg, and Garden Route areas.


1,054,033 ha 1,454,033 ha 1,764,117 ha


Original target was exceeded (121% of target value and 167% of baseline).

Indicator 3 : Number of registered civil society stakeholders participating in the Project increases.


1,850 2,906 (30% increase over baseline)

3,510 (90% increase over baseline)



iv

Indicator 4 : Number of conservation organizations with education strategies. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

4 No quantitative target established at outset

67


Indicator 5 : Number of jobs directly associated with conservation and nature-based tourism in Project intervention sites.


570 684 1,107



Indicator 6 : Number of spatial development frameworks in 6 representative lowland sites that incorporate biodiversity conservation priorities.


0 No quantitative target established at outset

15


15 (out of a total of 18 municipalities in the Project intervention sites) now have biodiversity conservation reflected within their spatial development frameworks.

Indicator 7 : Five-year targets for protected area status (in hectares) for irreplaceable Broad Habitat Units in lowlands and watersheds are met as defined by the CAPE 2000 Strategy.


16,115 ha 56,402 ha 61,603 ha


Original target for placing endangered ecosystems under protected status was exceeded (109% of target value and 350% of baseline).

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Number of collaborating institutions that sign a Memorandum of Understanding.Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

2 20 23

v


Original target was exceeded (115% of target value and 1,150% of baseline).

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived

GEO IP Actual

Disbursements (USD millions)

1 06/29/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/29/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.15 3 06/30/2005 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.24 4 12/16/2005 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.88 5 06/29/2006 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.25 6 01/17/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.57 7 12/14/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.87 8 05/22/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.03 9 11/21/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.43

10 12/29/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.43 11 06/09/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.52 12 12/14/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.49 13 06/28/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.97

H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable

vi

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) is the smallest and richest of the world’s floral kingdoms and entirely contained within a single country, South Africa. The CFR includes more than 9,600 species of plants, many of them endemic to the region. It is a global biodiversity hotspot because of its rich levels of floral diversity and high degree of threat, especially to lowland habitats which are under pressure from conversion for agriculture and urban development. 2. The CAPE 2000 Strategy—also known as the Cape Action Plan for the Environment—was developed as part of the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project, which was South Africa’s first World Bank-GEF project. The CAPE 2000 Strategy identified the key ecological patterns and processes which need to be conserved in the CFR and the key threats and root causes of biodiversity loss. This resulted in a spatial plan identifying the priority areas for conservation intervention and a series of systemic program activities to be undertaken in three phases, over a 20-year period, to conserve the CFR. The Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development (BCSD) Project was designed to support the first phase of the CAPE Program. The BCSD Project included six components and was jointly implemented, financed, and supervised by (i) the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), responsible for Components 1-2 and (ii) the World Bank, responsible for Components 3-6. Close collaboration between the Bank and UNDP, including joint implementation support missions, ensured that the Project was managed holistically. For completeness, this ICR covers all six components, not just the Bank-supported ones. 3. Within the CFR, the BCSD Project was complemented by (i) the UNDP-GEF Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (ABI) Project, focused on the Agulhas Plain; (ii) the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF); and (iii) the Table Mountain Fund (TMF). CEPF and TMF funded a variety of activities supporting civil society and capacity-building in the CFR. CEPF funding also played a critical role in preparation of the BCSD Project and support for the transition period between the first GEF project and the start of BCSD. 4. The BCSD Project was consistent with guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to encourage conservation and sustainable use of threatened habitats and endemic species within vulnerable montane and dryland ecosystems. It fostered the ecosystem approach by promoting improved management and sustainable use in four mega-reserves covering altitudinal gradients from the mountains to the coast. The project was expected to lay a foundation to mainstream biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities and to pilot and adopt new models for biodiversity management, including strengthened management of protected areas and improved biodiversity conservation off-reserve. The whole project was designed with a view to scaling up and replicating successful outcomes across the CFR during, and after, project implementation in line with the CAPE 2000 Strategy. 5. The Project was designed to begin implementation of the CAPE 2000 Strategy, adopted by the Government of South Africa in 2000 to protect the rich biological heritage of the CFR and to ensure that biodiversity conservation was mainstreamed into economic development and poverty alleviation strategies. The primary rationale of the Bank's assistance was to foster social and environmental sustainability and enhance environmental management in line with one of the main objectives of the CAS. As a GEF-funded project, BCSD was designed with the primary focus of conserving globally significant biodiversity. However, from a South African perspective, the Project was also expected to help to reduce poverty and inequality. The Project sought to achieve this by leveraging ongoing government programs to promote the biodiversity economy, including nature-

2

based tourism and other conservation-linked livelihoods, thereby creating jobs for disadvantaged communities. The Project was also expected to contribute to break down traditional barriers of inequality and exclusion through new employment opportunities, enhanced job training, and the involvement of local communities in Project activities.

1.2 Original Global Environment Objective (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) 6. As stated in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the BCSD Project’s Global Environmental Objective (GEO) was to ensure that the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment is secured by 2024. This GEO reflected the overall goals of the longer-term CAPE 2000 Strategy and CAPE Program, although it did not accurately reflect what was achievable through the shorter-term BCSD Project itself--which closed in 2010 and thus could not ensure an outcome in 2024. However, the Project Development Objective (PDO) had a more appropriate focus for the Project’s time horizon. As stated in the PAD, the PDO was to support the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment by laying a sound foundation for scaling up and replicating successful Project outcomes. The PDO was to be achieved through the two Project sub-objectives of (i) laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy and (ii) undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations in selected biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts with a view to scaling these up. The project objective stated in the GEF Grant Agreement (Schedule 2) was identical in substance to the PDO in the PAD, though with slightly different wording: “to catalyze and drive the implementation of the CAPE Program (i) through laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy and (ii) by undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations with a view to scaling up selected biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts.” 7. The Key Indicators to measure overall project performance were: a. All CAPE signatory institutions directly support implementation of the Project. b. The number of registered civil society stakeholders participating in the Project increases by 30% (over the October 2002 baseline). c. A CFR-wide conservation education strategy is successfully designed and implemented across the Project area. d. The Baviaanskloof, Cederberg, and Garden Route protected areas are consolidated. (Although not explicitly defined in the PAD, “consolidated” in this context is understood to mean both (i) strengthening the management of existing protected areas and (ii) ensuring the conservation of nearby high-priority ecosystems and corridors, through protected area expansion as well as promoting conservation stewardship by private landowners.) e. The number of jobs directly associated with conservation and nature-based tourism in Project intervention sites increases by 20% (over the 2004 pre-Project baseline). f. Spatial development frameworks in six representative lowland sites incorporate conservation priorities. (These lowland sites would contain highly threatened lowland ecosystem types characteristic of the CFR.) g. Five-year targets for protected area status for irreplaceable Broad Habitat Units in lowland areas and watersheds are met, as defined by the CAPE 2000 Strategy.

3

1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification

8. The original GEO and Key Indicators were not formally revised, but the PDO project indicators provided in the PAD Logical Framework (log-frame) were refined to be more measurable and otherwise satisfy better the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely). At the MTR, as part of adaptive management, some changes were also agreed with respect to activities under specific components to attain more realistic targets, most notably regarding new freshwater and estuarine protected areas. All changes made to the project log frame/design and indicators were agreed to in project Executive Steering Committee (ExCo) meetings and during implementation support missions. These decisions are all captured in the minutes of the meetings or Aide Memoires. Most changes took place at the MTR and are captured in the Aide Memoire of the November 2007 mission. The Annual Work Plans and Quarterly Reports that were prepared for each component and sub-component clearly outlined planned approaches, and were approved by the World Bank and UNDP task team leaders.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries 9. The main beneficiaries from conservation in the CFR were expected to be the global community (hence the GEF grant to protect global biodiversity) and the people of South Africa, especially those living within the CFR. The primary target groups identified in the PAD were the government agencies responsible for biodiversity conservation and watershed management, who were expected to benefit from institutional strengthening and enhanced capacity and new institutional mechanisms to manage natural resources. 10. Although not primarily designed for poverty reduction, the Project was also expected to benefit local communities, including disadvantaged groups, by creating a number of socio-economic opportunities for communities and businesses, with a targeted net gain in jobs of 20% associated with conservation-based livelihoods including nature-based tourism. Communities and disadvantaged groups were expected to benefit from the Project-supported expansion of existing, government-funded poverty relief programs, such as Working for Water. The BCSD Project re-oriented the activities of these existing programs, so that they would be biodiversity-friendly and supportive of CAPE Program priorities, such as by supporting environmental rehabilitation within protected areas and targeted watersheds. In this manner, the Project sought to create much-needed employment and micro-enterprise development opportunities. Other benefits for local populations would include conservation education; training and capacity-building opportunities for targeted communities, schools, and NGOs; and greater involvement of local communities in the management and governance of terrestrial and marine reserves. At least two poor communities were expected to benefit from co-management models for marine resource management, while others would benefit from improved anti-poaching and management of marine resources. 11. The Project was also expected to provide benefits to local landowners and the private sector, especially where landowners contract land into protected areas, and to lay the initial foundation for the establishment of the biodiversity economy. The main benefits for landowners were expected to include (i) opportunities for the private sector in four targeted mega-reserves (large protected area complexes with different land use zones under a common management plan)--Baviaanskloof, Cederberg, Gouritz, and Garden Route--through tourism-related services and accommodation; (ii) benefits to a number of landowners and farmers located in sensitive lowland areas through tax incentives and payments for environmental services; and (iii) extension services to landowners to improve environmental management as part of Stewardship Agreements.

1.5 Original Components

4

12. The Project was designed to establish a foundation to catalyze and drive the first phase of implementation of the CAPE Program. The Project had six components, two implemented through UNDP (Components 1 and 2) and four through World Bank (Components 3-6), but was managed and supervised as one project. Coordination through the CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU) was supported under Component 3. 13. Component 1: Institutional Strengthening (GEF: US$1.4 million, financed through UNDP). This component was executed by the National Botanical Institute (NBI, later the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, SANBI) for priority institutions, including the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB), later Cape Nature (CN) and for five new Catchment Management Agencies. The objective of this component was to align and strengthen institutions to conserve the CFR through (i) enhanced inter-agency cooperation and strategic planning for conservation management in the CFR, including the five catchment management agencies which were to be established; (ii) building capacity for effective conservation management; (iii) developing and appraising strategies for financial sustainability across the suite of project executing agencies; and (iv) establishing a shared and comprehensive information management system to share the most important knowledge requirements. 14. Component 2: Conservation Education (GEF: US$0.6 million, financed through UNDP). This component was executed by SANBI, in partnership with Rhodes University (Eastern Cape). The component was designed to develop a conservation education and awareness program to conserve the CFR. It was designed to: a. Facilitate coordinated environmental education about the CFR by establishing (i) a focal point and mechanism for coordination and (ii) technical support to site-specific interventions at the level of each sub-component and activity across the Project; and b. Develop and disseminate materials focused on CFR biodiversity, supportive of informal and formal education curricula, including training of educators to capitalize on the favorable education policy environment. 15. Component 3: Program and Project Coordination, Management, and Monitoring (GEF: US$1.10 million, financed through the World Bank). This component was executed by SANBI for all beneficiary institutions to the Project. The component was designed to support the CAPE Coordination Unit at SANBI to undertake (i) program coordination and management; (ii) financial management of the overall project; (iii) program portfolio management and coordinated monitoring and evaluation to assess lessons learned and support and develop a replication plan, based on cost-benefit analysis; and (iv) a communications program to disseminate information about Project-supported activities and promote participation in them. 16. Component 4: Protected Areas (GEF: US$4.12 million, financed through the World Bank). This component was executed by (i) South African National Parks (SANParks) for the Garden Route and adjacent marine protected areas; (ii) Cape Nature for protected areas in the Western Cape, including the Cederberg Mega-Reserve and Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve; and (iii) Wilderness Foundation for the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve, in collaboration with the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment, and Tourism (DEAET). The component was designed to expand the protected areas of the CFR through (i) planning and consolidation of three large protected area complexes (mega-reserves) involving private landowners and inhabitants as beneficiaries (Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, and Garden Route), including highly threatened lowland habitat, using different models for public-private sector management; (ii) establishment of two freshwater, two estuarine, and two clusters of marine protected areas; (iii) developing sustainable management effectiveness of

5

protected areas through implementation of a Strategic Performance Management System, based on the models developed in the Cape Peninsula National Park and rapid assessment techniques for management effectiveness developed by the World Bank, WWF, and IUCN; and (iv) developing harmonized protected area information management systems, plans for responsible tourism investment, and visitor impact mitigation in four protected areas, as well as protected area business plans and mechanisms for financial sustainability in four protected areas. 17. Component 5: Biodiversity Economy and Conservation Stewardship (GEF: US$2.45 million, financed through the World Bank). This component was executed by SANBI and by Cape Nature for the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP), Department of Agriculture (DoA), and key municipalities. The component was designed to mainstream biodiversity considerations into economic growth and development, including demonstrations in key areas. It would (i) integrate fine-scale conservation plans in five priority target areas into government spatial planning and regulations at municipal level; (ii) increase landowner commitment to conservation through coordinated extension services and cooperative management schemes (including Stewardship Agreements) in priority target areas; and (iii) develop and pilot financial incentives to conserve biodiversity in threatened lowland habitats, including tax incentives and payments for environmental services. 18. Component 6: Watershed Management (GEF: US$1.32 million, financed through the World Bank). This component was executed by SANBI for estuarine and freshwater protected areas, and by Cape Nature for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) for watersheds. The component was designed to address watershed management and freshwater and estuarine protected areas in key intervention sites. It was intended to increase the effectiveness of the “Ecological Reserve”, a feature of South African water law that is intended to ensure that rivers retain the quantity of water they need to maintain their biodiversity and ecological functions. Component 6 also was intended to (i) incorporate biodiversity concerns into new fire management systems; (ii) create a non-native invasive species management strategy and business plan for the entire CFR and pilot the control of invasive non-native species in priority ecosystems; and (iii) design and test a CFR estuarine management program, based on relevant case studies.

1.6 Revised Components 19. The original Project components were not revised, but some sub-components were dropped and activities were re-designed as a result of discussions during the Mid-term Review. The original design envisaged that the Project would support the establishment and management of two marine, two estuarine, and two freshwater protected areas under Component 4 (Protected Areas). At the MTR it was agreed that this was unrealistic, particularly given institutional and budget constraints at Cape Nature and at MCM. As a result, instead of creating new freshwater, marine and wetland reserves, it was agreed that this sub-component would focus on improved planning and establishing participatory processes to improve the management of existing marine protected areas adjacent to the Kogelberg and Garden Route. This was complemented by the preparation of detailed Estuary Management Plans for six critical estuaries in the CFR under Component 6, including the Knysna Estuary already under management by SANParks. Thus, although the Project was never formally re-structured, the activities involving aquatic ecosystems were substantially revised at the MTR stage, to make implementation more feasible. 1.7 Other Significant Changes 20. The Project’s design, scope, and implementation arrangements remained substantially unchanged, even though several of the key institutions underwent substantial reorganization during the life of the Project. The project was designed with the National Botanical Institute (NBI) as the

6

grant recipient with the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB), South African National Parks (SANParks) and the Wilderness Foundation (WF) acting as Sub-Executing Agencies for specific sites and sub-components. Early in the Project, the NBI became the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) with national responsibility for biodiversity country-wide and a greatly expanded mandate and work program. The WCNCB was restructured to form Cape Nature (CN) but also suffered budgetary cuts. Reductions in CN budgets were offset to some extent by BCSD Project and CEPF support for some key positions at CN, including for the Stewardship Program and Project Coordinator, which helped to maintain effective Project implementation. In the Eastern Cape, the Wilderness Foundation (WF), an NGO, took initial responsibility for the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve, but in 2007 this role was taken over by the newly-formed Eastern Cape Parks Board, with additional technical support from WF. Despite these institutional changes, the project functioned well, thanks to the strong coordination and facilitation role played by the Cape Coordinating Unit (CCU) and the commonly shared CAPE vision of the various executing agencies. 21. At the time of Project preparation the expectation was that five new Catchment Management Authorities would be established and that Components 1 and 6 would work with these new institutions to promote effective catchment management. This process was much delayed; to date, only four authorities have been established and only one is effectively operational. Nevertheless, activities undertaken under Component 6 have been effective in building on existing partnerships and responsibilities to improve catchment management, including planning and prioritizing for water management and environmental water allocations (known in South Africa as the ecological reserve), invasive species removal, and fire management to improve biodiversity benefits. Similarly, MCM and Cape Nature proved to have neither the capacity nor the resources to effectively manage the marine reserves. This shortfall ideally would have been anticipated during preparation and appraisal, with appropriate adjustments made in Project design. As the limited capacity of MCM and Cape Nature for marine conservation became evident during Project implementation, the World Wide Fund for Nature-South Africa (WWF-SA) was engaged (through the CCU) to undertake participatory management planning with fishing communities in the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area (MPA); this planning laid a good foundation for subsequent establishment and co-management of this MPA. 22. The Project was originally designed for a time span of five years. It became effective in 2004 with an expected closing date of October 31, 2009; it was extended for a year until October 30, 2010, with funds fully disbursed and most targets reached and often exceeded. The extended duration of the Project was invaluable in allowing effective completion of certain planning processes and implementation of sustainability measures. The one-year extension also enabled the replication and roll-out of guidelines and best practices to take place as originally planned, both within the CFR Project area and nationally. One such example is biodiversity conservation on private lands: The Project developed four different categories of land stewardship options in which landowners could choose to participate (Conservation Areas, Biodiversity Agreements, Protected Environments, and Nature Reserves), each with a different bundle of rights and responsibilities. By providing such differentiated options, the Project encouraged more landowners to carry out biodiversity-friendly land stewardship than if there were only one (or zero) options. The demonstration effect for promoting land stewardship has been country-wide, and realized largely during the last year of Project implementation.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry 23. The BCSD Project was designed to provide funding for the first-phase, five-year time slice and targeted activities prioritized under the 20-year vision of the CAPE Action Plan. It was

7

developed through a highly participatory process that included government agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, local landowners, and communities. BCSD Project design built on outcomes from the previous Cape Peninsula Conservation Project, and on lessons learned and collaborative partnerships established during that earlier project. The overall design of the BCSD Project was highly ambitious, to establish a foundation of planning, partnerships, and pilot activities which could then be rolled out under later phases of the CAPE Program. About half of all Project expenditure was focused on protected areas, especially in four key biological corridors (Baviaanskloof, Cederberg, Garden Route, and Kogelberg) identified as priority sites under the CAPE Action Plan. These sites cover a range of institutional and sectoral challenges, which required institutional change and cooperation between different government agencies and stakeholders. Within the CFR, these corridor efforts were complemented by (i) a sister UNDP-GEF project for the Agulhas Plain (Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, ABI) and by (ii) support for the Gouritz and Namaqualand initiatives through the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) investment plan for the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karoo Hotspots; these complementary efforts were also designed in line with the CAPE Action Plan. 24. The Project also benefited and built on experiences from a series of GEF medium-sized projects (MSPs), including a targeted research project on biodiversity-friendly farming and the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project (STEP) that piloted integration of biodiversity considerations within municipal spatial planning. Project activities were designed to be incremental to ongoing government activities and catalytic in bringing about more cost-effective collaboration across a partnership network to ensure more efficient use of existing government and conservation budgets. Project activities were closely linked to those of the CEPF and the Table Mountain Fund--both established with earlier Bank-GEF contributions--which provided supplemental funding to support complementary civil society activities and additional agency positions that often contributed to the success of BCSD Project investments.

25. The Project concept was catalytic, seeking to leverage partnerships and influence and re-align regular government budgets in a way that would promote and mainstream biodiversity conservation. The GEF budget was modest and not all expected co-funding materialized. The Project was able to achieve most of the first-phase targets of the CAPE 2000 Strategy within the available time scale (especially when extended to six years) and budget. At entry, the Project was assessed as Low to Medium Risk, even though the design was complex with four executing agencies--SANParks, Cape Nature, Wilderness Foundation, and SANBI. Creation of a dedicated CAPE Coordinating Unit (CCU) in SANBI and representation of key agencies on CAPE steering committees were designed to build strong collaboration and information exchange among the partners. The CEPF provided bridge funding to support establishment of the CCU within SANBI. This enabled Project partners to build on the collaboration established around the development of the CAPE Action Plan and to test some pilot activities, which were then expanded and rolled out under the BCSD.

26. The Project built on the strong partnerships and enthusiasm generated by preparation and adoption of the Cape 2000 Strategy. As a result, the Project included activities focusing on all key conservation priorities and habitats within the CFR, including ambitious targets to establish new marine, freshwater, and estuarine protected areas. Although improved conservation of aquatic ecosystems was much needed, these original Project targets were overly ambitious, given the limited human and financial resources of Cape Nature and MCM; these targets were thus revised during the MTR. In the case of the Catchment Management Authorities as well as the aquatic ecosystems, the institutional and budgetary constraints that later proved problematic were not adequately taken into account during Project preparation and appraisal. The Project’s Quality at Entry is therefore rated as Moderately Satisfactory.

2.2 Implementation

8

27. The Project was complex, with many components and sub-components implemented by different partners and stakeholders. Arguably, this diversity and complexity actually contributed to its strengths and success, by engaging a wide range of players and linking to many other government programs and NGO initiatives. The original Project design identified four executing agencies: SANParks, WCNBC (hereafter Cape Nature), and Wilderness Foundation were all responsible for site-based interventions, while NBI (hereafter SANBI) was the lead agency responsible for the CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU) and supporting activities such as bio-regional planning, institutional support, and conservation education. In 2007, the new Eastern Cape Parks Board took over responsibility for the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve from the Wilderness Foundation. Although several of the executing agencies underwent institutional change, all were able to deliver on project responsibilities. The fact that SANBI passed on resources to the other agencies helped to strengthen partnerships. However, it placed an additional management burden on SANBI, especially when the CCU was required to assist other executing agencies with procurement and financial management. 28. The World Bank’s Mid-Term Review (MTR) and the UNDP-supported, independent Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) both identified Cape Nature as a crucial player in biodiversity conservation within the CFR, but found its contribution to be weaker than expected because of management changes and budget and staffing constraints; these had not been anticipated at appraisal. In response, the CCU provided additional support to Cape Nature for component development, drafting of TOR, and financial management and procurement matters, as well as operating costs for staff in the Kogelberg and Gouritz conservation areas. In recognition of limited Cape Nature capacity, the MTR recommended (i) restructuring of the Kogelberg and Marine sub-components and (ii) deferring the establishment of two new estuarine and freshwater protected areas. WWF-South Africa was engaged to undertake participatory planning and zoning of the Kogelberg MPA; funding was also found for the implementation of the Kogelberg Integrated Coastal Management Plan and the Co-Management Plan. With Project assistance, a Business Plan was developed for CN and the position of Technical Advisor was created. Many of the posts created through the project have now been absorbed into the CN staff complement and there is also a stated intention to absorb the balance, dependent on increased Mid-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) funds for Cape Nature. 29. The high level of cooperation and partnerships was a notable Project feature, building on and further strengthening a long history of inter-agency collaboration to promote conservation in the CFR. The leadership and professionalism of the dedicated Cape Coordination Unit at SANBI was critical in building strong collaboration and driving information exchange among the partners. Governance of the project was complex and multi-layered, but worked quite well, through frequent meetings of the Executive Steering Committee (ExCo) and task teams where annual and other operational plans were discussed and agreed. Additional resources were leveraged for conservation activities through these partnerships, particularly through re-alignment of government budgets from regular work programs, such as the Working for Water Program, which contributed over US$25 million for clearing of invasive, non-native vegetation in high-biodiversity watersheds. Although a number of the original pledges turned out to be smaller than expected, this was more than balanced by the support provided by the universities, municipalities and Provincial Government organizations who became involved in BCSD activities. Overall, the amount of co-funding leveraged by the Project was Highly Satisfactory, with more than $4 of co-funding for every $1 from the GEF. 30. The updated Stakeholders Participation Plan shows that stakeholders at all levels from government agencies, NGOs, private sector and local communities were meaningfully involved in Project implementation. Many stakeholders benefited from capacity-building activities, while others participated in governance groups such as Steering Committees and Task Forces. The CCU and other Project partners were closely involved in the identification, development, and implementation of a suite of sub-projects, including small grants for livelihoods enhancement, where rural communities

9

were implementers and/or beneficiaries. Although funded through CEPF and TMF, these activities were deliberately designed to complement the BCSD. The role of the CCU as the local coordinating unit for (i) CEPF grants in the CFR and (ii) representation of the TMF on the Project Steering Committee enabled close alignment and synergies between the BCSD Project and the CEPF and TMF programs. Annual stakeholder forums and other events strengthened stakeholder ownership and enabled effective dissemination of information and best practices. The Project developed and disseminated an impressive list of publications documenting these lessons (Annex 9). 31. Within the GEF, the BCSD Project is regarded as an excellent example of mainstreaming biodiversity and has repeatedly been showcased internationally, such as at the GEF Assembly in Uruguay in May 2010.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation, and Utilization 32. Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) design, implementation, and utilization are considered to be moderately satisfactory. Of the seven Key Indicators identified in the PAD Log frame, four satisfy the SMART criteria. During Project implementation, the CCU developed a revised monitoring matrix with more measurable indicators, both for the BCSD Project and for the broader CAPE Action Plan, with agencies reporting annually against specific indicators and targets. Changes to indicators were made as an improvement to the original Log Frame, whereas the changes to component scope and focus (such as for marine conservation) were made as an adaptation to changing circumstances or in the light of new experience, consistent with adaptive management. Most changes took place following the MTR and all were agreed in Executive Steering Committee (ExCo) meetings and during implementation support missions. A comprehensive, updated Log Frame was produced and attached to the World Bank’s MTR Report. Project monitoring was used effectively to inform management and take corrective actions where appropriate. 33. The PDO and support for the first phase of the CAPE 2000 Strategy have largely been achieved; this conclusion is supported by the UNDP Terminal Evaluation, CCU’s Close-Out Report, Project Implementation Reviews, mission Aide Memoires, stakeholder consultations, and field visits. Most of the targets set by the Project have been met and in some cases exceeded. The Project is recognized internationally as a good source of lessons for mainstreaming biodiversity in other GEF projects. These include the Biodiversity GIS information system and approaches to learning networks, corridor conservation, stewardship, payments for environmental services (PES), estuary management, fire and invasive species management, standards for fine-scale planning, and mechanisms to influence land use planning and decision making. The Project has laid a foundation for scaling up and replicating its outcomes; this has broadly contributed to the generation of support for conservation in the CFR and even at the national level (such as in the case of private lands stewardship). 34. Protected Area Management Effectiveness. In line with GEF requirements, all existing protected areas within the four Project-supported mega-reserves and new replication sites used the GEF’s Protected Area Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (PAMETT) on a regular basis. The PAMETT rates overall protected area management according to a large number of measurable criteria, on a 0-100 scale. Overall protected area management effectiveness improved for Project-assisted protected areas; for example, the PAMETT scores between 2005 and 2010 increased from 37 to 47 for the Groot Winterhoek Wilderness Area (Cederberg) and from 46 to 70 for Knysna Lake National Park (Garden Route). However, since many existing protected areas in the CFR already had a reasonably high standard of on-the-ground management, the Project’s more important contribution was to increase the total area under protection, particularly in the case of highly threatened ecosystems. As an outgrowth of the Project, SANParks has adapted and strengthened the PAMETT tracking tool to look in more detail at biodiversity status, threats, and infrastructure, and has rolled

10

out the South African Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas (SAMETT) to all South African national parks. The SAMETT has also been adopted for use in other South African protected areas, including the metropolitan protected areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Cape Town. Another noteworthy Project outcome is that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has expanded use of the PAMETT to all protected areas in South Africa and will be using the data on management effectiveness in its national report on the Protected Area program of work of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 35. Environmental Safeguards. Project compliance with the World Bank’s environmental and social Safeguard Policies was Satisfactory. The Project’s environmental classification was Category B. During Project preparation, the following World Bank Safeguard Policies were triggered (found to apply): Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01, Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04, Forests OP 4.36, Cultural Property OPN 11.03 (now Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11), and Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12. To help ensure compliance with the above-mentioned environmental Safeguard Policies, NBI (now SANBI) prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the Project (NBI 2003a). ESMF preparation included formal consultation by SANBI with the other Project executing agencies, as well as with other stakeholders. Throughout its implementation, the Project did not produce any significant, adverse environmental impacts. This finding is not surprising, since the Project was designed to be entirely beneficial from an environmental standpoint. Nonetheless, the World Bank’s Operational Policies on Natural Habitats, Forests, and Cultural Property were applicable to the Project because these policies promote environmentally positive measures (in the sense of “do good”) as well as restricting potentially damaging activities (in the sense of “do little or no harm”). 36. Social Safeguards. To help ensure compliance with the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP/BP 4.12), NBI prepared a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Process Framework (PF) within a single document (NBI 2003b). The RPF was prepared in case any involuntary taking of land under the Project would cause people to be physically relocated or to lose any land, other material assets, or livelihoods. The PF was prepared in case any new restrictions of access to natural resources within Project-supported protected areas would adversely affect existing livelihoods. For the most part, these issues did not emerge during Project implementation. During implementation of Component 4 (Protected Areas), most expansion of terrestrial protected areas came from the re-assignment of state-owned forestry lands and/or voluntary stewardship agreements with private landowners and communities. Plans to establish new marine, freshwater, and estuarine protected areas were shelved, but the Project did support the zoning of particular natural resource uses within existing marine protected areas. Such zoning took place in accordance with the criteria and procedures established under the PF. For example, zoning in the Betty’s Bay MPA was agreed in a fully participatory manner in consultation with local stakeholders. 37. Coleske Community at Bavianskloof. The one Project activity that most notably involved the application of OP/BP 4.12 was the proposed resettlement of resident farm workers (comprising 35 households) away from the former Coleske Farm area within the core zone of the Bavianskloof Mega-Reserve. The Coleske Farm was purchased by the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment, and Tourism (DEAET) in 2001 to increase the area of ecologically important lowland riverine habitats and strengthen a wildlife corridor within the Baviaanskloof Reserve; less than 1% of the reserve currently protects lowland riverine corridors. The farm purchase, completed well before the start of the BCSD project, was between willing buyer and willing seller—however, no provision had been made for the agricultural workers employed on the farm. None of these workers have land ownership rights under South African Law. The Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB), presently responsible for the management of Bavianskloof, has sought to reach agreement

11

with the Coleske community on resettlement to an area outside the Reserve’s core zone, with improved housing and access to services. As of this writing, a segment of the Coleske community has continued to decline ECBP’s resettlement offers. Without the community’s voluntary agreement to resettle, ECBP has not yet moved forward with the option of seeking a court order that would require the resettlement to take place. Although involuntary resettlement--with the appropriate conditions--is allowed under South African law as well as the Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy, it is considered politically quite sensitive. 38. When the GEF Grant Agreement for the BCSD Project was approved in 2004, it referenced a Process Framework (PF) and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), prepared in accordance with the Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12. The PF outlines a process for assisting the Coleske residents in their efforts to maintain or improve their livelihoods, for as long as they remain within the Bavianskloof Reserve. Implementation support missions included World Bank social safeguards specialists who regularly reviewed the situation at Coleske and ECPB efforts to resolve the issue. The final World Bank implementation support mission visited the Coleske site, met with many of the residents, and concluded that the BCSD Project has adequately addressed livelihood-related concerns for the Coleske population, in a manner consistent with the PF. To help sustain the livelihoods of the Coleske residents, ECBP has agreed to specific uses of natural resources within the Reserve, as well as providing preferential employment opportunities to Coleske residents, including 10 staff jobs. The Coleske residents have thus been able to maintain or improve their livelihoods, while awaiting the outcome of the Government’s decision-making process as to their proposed resettlement outside the Reserve. 39. The RPF provided for the preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), in the event that ECPB (and Government in general) would decide to relocate the Coleske residents outside the Reserve. The BCSD Project did not include funding for any such resettlement, which was not considered essential for achieving the Project’s GEO or PDO. Nonetheless, ECPB prepared a draft RAP (CES 2008), upon which the Bank provided technical comments in June 2009. In response to the Bank’s comments and to update the situation on the ground, ECPB prepared (i) an Addendum to the RAP and (ii) an Action Plan for the next steps that Government would need to take in order to conclude the political and legal decision-making process for proceeding with the planned resettlement of the Coleske residents to the Bosdorp site identified in the RAP. The final Bank implementation support mission visited this site and found it to be a suitable area that would enable the provision of improved primary education, water, electricity, waste disposal, and other services to the resettled population, in accordance with the provisions of the RAP. Thus, the key elements for a successful resettlement are in place, awaiting either the community’s voluntary agreement or Government’s decision to proceed with involuntary resettlement, based on the legal and political process. If and when it takes place, this resettlement would be funded with the Government’s own resources. 40. Fiduciary Compliance. Under the Project, both procurement and financial management were Satisfactory. Early in the Project, World Bank procurement specialists provided training on the Bank’s required procurement procedures. CCU staff proved to be very capable in procurement and financial management, often providing assistance to other executing agencies on these matters. Independent financial audits, along with recruitment and contracting, have been carried out in accordance with World Bank, UNDP, and/or GEF (as applicable) procedures and requirements. Progress reports, evaluation reports, and annual financial reports have been posted on the Project website www.capeaction.org.za and have been made publicly available in the interest of transparency.

2.5 Post-Completion Operation/Next Phase

12

41. Although the overall design was highly ambitious, the Project successfully achieved its targets and has provided a solid foundation of planning, partnerships, and good practice which is already being rolled out more broadly and will influence implementation of the next phase of the CAPE program. The BCSD Project contributed to several national and provincial policy interventions, including the National Biodiversity Act (2004); environmental assessment and guidelines for biodiversity offsets developed under the National Environmental Management Act; guidelines for bio-regional planning; and land use planning and management guidelines under the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework. These policy interventions can be expected to have long-term positive impacts for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation within development activities in the CFR and more widely throughout South Africa. 42. The project demonstrated the value of tools, such as fine-scale planning and working with multiple partners, to integrate biodiversity considerations into municipal spatial development frameworks; fine-scale maps are already being used by 31 out of 34 CFR municipalities. Further mainstreaming of biodiversity into municipal planning is likely to be a key area for follow-up in later, post-Project phases of the CAPE Program. The project also demonstrated the value of working with private landowners through stewardship arrangements and good biodiversity practice in business, especially the agriculture sector. Although SANParks will not be continuing its stewardship program because of an internal policy decision to focus more exclusively on its own protected areas, Cape Nature is firmly committed to sustain and expand its stewardship agreements. Best practice guidelines for stewardship developed in Western Cape are now being rolled out and further developed in other provinces (Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape). 43. Many activities piloted under the BCSD are already influencing other programs, such as participatory management planning for marine and coastal areas nationally under the privately-funded WWF-Honda Marine Program; tax incentives for landowners under stewardship agreements being applied nationally; piloting of payments for environmental services; educational outputs and capacity building, influencing national curricula; and follow-on skills development programs. Many of the stakeholder groups formed under the project will continue beyond project closure; these include the national-level Green Economy Think Tank and Stewardship Technical Working Group, among others. Site-based interventions are likely to be continued and expanded, especially by Cape Nature and Eastern Cape Parks Board, although potential future budgetary constraints may slow these agencies’ rate of progress. 44. It is difficult to separate out all the activities and outcomes attributable to the BCSD from the other activities supported under the CAPE Partnership. The strategic inter-mingling of Project and co-funding resources for activities from both government and non-government sources is itself a form of mainstreaming that is likely to lead to replication of Project-promoted good practices. Long-term sustainability and impact of the replication strategy will depend critically on such mainstreaming into the public expenditure program and institutional processes. This process has already begun, with key partners committing to a second phase with local funding. This will require continued leadership at the national and provincial levels to ensure that annual work plans, budgets, and staffing arrangements continue to support implementation of the overall CAPE 2000 Strategy. In this regard, there are already renewed commitments of agencies at the chief executive level and revitalization of the Cape Coordinating Committee (CCC). There is no plan for a “Phase 2” GEF-funded project as was envisaged when the BCSD Project was designed, since the Project has achieved its mainstreaming objective with considerable success, so that future CAPE Strategy implementation will rely upon regular governmental processes and budget lines.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

13

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design, and Implementation 45. As noted above, the BCSD Project Development Objective (PDO) was to support the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment by laying a sound foundation for scaling up and replicating successful Project outcomes, to be achieved through the two Project sub-objectives of (i) laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy and (ii) by undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations in selected biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts with a view to scaling these up. The PDO, design of components, and implementation activities remained fully consistent with--and indeed helped to shape--South African provincial and national environmental management priorities. The Project has made a substantial contribution to natural resources and biodiversity conservation in South Africa. It has helped to raise public awareness and understanding of the importance of nature conservation. It has also strengthened national and provincial institutional capacity and cooperation between different government agencies and with other partners. The Project was successful in meeting its objectives and it has established a sound foundation and enabling environment for strengthened management of biodiversity conservation, both within and outside of protected areas. The Project has also successfully piloted initiatives to mainstream biodiversity issues into (i) government policy, through tax incentives and (ii) development activities, through spatial development plans and biodiversity-friendly businesses and production systems (see Annex 2 for some examples). 46. The Project reflected strategic objectives and activities identified in the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) at the time of preparation. It remained highly relevant for the actual Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) priorities for the period 2008-2010 with regard to (i) environment and natural resource management; (ii) eradication of poverty; (iii) overcoming the legacy of the apartheid regime and the reduction of inequality in South Africa and the region; and (iv) increasing the capacity and efficiency for public service delivery. In addition to improving natural resource management, both within and outside protected areas, the project was able to engage a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities and disadvantaged groups to broaden the conservation community. Successful partnerships and linkages to local municipalities (such as the City of Cape Town) and government programs (such as Working for Water) have helped to mainstream biodiversity issues into regular development programs and planning.

3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives 47. The Project has been Satisfactory in achieving its Project Development Objective (PDO) and has made a major contribution towards achieving the longer-term Global Environmental Objective (GEO). It has established a solid foundation for the long-term conservation of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) and adjacent marine environment, in line with the CAPE Program. The GEF investment has been used effectively to put in place policies and pilot programs that catalyze and drive implementation of the CAPE Program to promote the conservation of globally important biodiversity by emphasizing the linkages between healthy ecosystems and economic development. The Project has laid the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy through the development and application of tools for sustainable land use, along with piloting of small-scale projects that deliver social benefits through biodiversity-friendly activities (see Annex 2 for examples). These activities build a secure foundation for further implementation of the overarching 20-year conservation and development strategy for the CAPE Program, with the next phase of consolidation expected to be implemented and resourced primarily through regular government programs and budgets. Although some activities involving aquatic (freshwater, estuarine, and marine) ecosystems and watershed catchments were substantially revised at the MTR to make them more feasible to implement, the Project nonetheless managed to attain tangible progress in these areas and the overall PDO was still achieved to a Satisfactory extent.

14

48. Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Economy. The Project was successful in establishing a foundation to mainstream biodiversity through strengthening institutional capacity and building partnerships between traditional conservation agencies and other sectors, including local governments (particularly municipalities) and planning agencies (such as DEADP). Improved management of biodiversity information and fine-scale biodiversity planning have been incorporated into spatial development planning at the municipal level and are thus successfully inserting biodiversity considerations into local development plans. Outside of protected areas, partnerships and collaboration with private landowners are reducing the impact of intensive agricultural activities, such as potato farming and vineyards, and are thus helping to protect the remaining pockets of endangered natural habitats, such as unique sandveld vegetation. Strategic partnerships between BCSD and other sources of conservation funding, such as the Table Mountain Fund and CEPF, have helped to promote new initiatives such as Biodiversity and Business (Annex 2). These initiatives have provided new livelihood opportunities for local communities linked to the biodiversity economy, including more sustainable tourism and natural resources harvests. 49. New Models for Biodiversity Management. The Project was successful in expanding the area of terrestrial habitats under conservation management through expansion of traditional protected areas and establishment of three mega-reserves (Bavianskloof, Garden Route, and Cederberg) with connecting corridors between the mountain and lowland habitats to the sea. Component 4 (Protected Areas) was allocated almost half of the Bank-GEF resources and supported site-based interventions in the four mega-reserves through different project partners: Wilderness Foundation and Eastern Cape Parks Board for Bavianskloof, SANParks for Garden Route, and Cape Nature for both Cederberg and Kogelberg. These initiatives were complemented by additional support from CEPF for the Gouritz Initiative. All of these areas have very high biodiversity conservation value. The total number of hectares under formal conservation agreements in the Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz, Garden Route, and South West Lowlands almost doubled from 1,054,033 ha to 1,953,246 ha--exceeding the original target of 1,854,033 ha. 50. Although originally the Project proposed to establish two freshwater, two estuarine, and two clusters of marine protected areas, this objective was revised at the MTR to (i) drop establishment of the freshwater and estuarine reserves and (ii) focus on improved participatory planning to manage two clusters of marine reserves, off the Kogelberg and Garden Route. WWF-South Africa was engaged to undertake participatory planning and zoning of the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area (MPA); the declaration and full co-management of this important marine park is now expected in 2011, with support from the WWF-Honda Marine Program. The framework developed under the Project to prepare the Integrated Coastal Management Plans for the Kogelberg and Garden Route MPAs is now being used as the minimum requirement for preparing other MPA proposals around the South African coastline. 51. Off-reserve conservation stewardship programs with private landowners and communities were supported both through Cape Nature and SANParks in Western Cape. Under the Project, best practice guidelines for stewardship arrangements were developed with involvement from a large number of stakeholders and are now being adopted in Eastern Cape and other South African provinces. Significant additional conservation outcomes have also been achieved through the development and implementation of best practice guidelines for the management of fire and non-native species in high-biodiversity watersheds in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape provinces. 52. The BCSD Project met most of its targets and exceeded many of them, with significant increases in land under conservation management, within governmental protected areas as well as private lands under conservation stewardship arrangements. In addition to specific project-level deliverables, it has also contributed to a number of national and provincial policy interventions,

15

including environmental impact assessment regulations, biodiversity offset guidelines, land use planning and spatial development guidelines, bio-regional planning, stewardship guidelines, and tax incentives linked to conservation. These policies and supporting tools are likely to have long-term impacts for conservation, both in the CFR and more widely in South Africa. 53. Governance of the Project was complex and multi-layered, but nevertheless worked satisfactorily. The fact that the project was embedded in the wider CAPE Program ensured a high level of involvement by many stakeholders at both the provincial and national levels. Partnerships and collaboration have been a hallmark of the project--between different government organizations, between government and NGOs, between the World Bank and UNDP as the GEF Implementing Agencies, between SANBI as Executing Agency and the sub-Executing Agencies (CN, ECPB, and SANParks), between the national and local governments, and between the other stakeholders involved (including local communities, private landowners, and NGOs). This cooperation bodes well for the future sustainability of Project outcomes; many Project activities, including bio-regional planning and private land stewardship, have already been institutionalized into regular government programs, within the CFR and extended to other regions of South Africa.

3.3 Efficiency 54. The Project was a stand-alone GEF project with two GEF grants (US$9 million through World Bank and $2 million through UNDP), along with counterpart funding from several national government agencies and co-funding from other organizations including NGOs. The GEF funds implemented through both the World Bank and UNDP were fully disbursed, mostly as planned for each component. As Annex 1 shows, the actual GEF funding for each of the six project components was very close to the amounts estimated at appraisal. The largest variation was that the GEF funds actually spent on Component 3 (Program Management and Coordination) were 15 percent greater than the appraisal estimate (1.27 million spent vs. 1.10 million planned). This increase in project management costs can be attributed to the higher-than-expected demand for CCU assistance from the executing agencies as well as other participating governmental and non-governmental entities; this high demand is viewed as a positive indication of strong interest among national and local government agencies, NGOs, and landowners in carrying out specific Project-promoted activities. Even so, Project management and coordination costs amounted to only 11 percent of total GEF (World Bank and UNDP) Project costs.

55. The available data strongly suggest that implementation of the BCSD Project was (i) efficient in terms of leveraging GEF funds and (ii) cost-effective in terms of achieving the PDO in general and specific biodiversity conservation targets in particular. With respect to the leveraging of available GEF funds, this was expected at appraisal to be at a ratio of 4:1—specifically, Government assembling a total of US$44.13 million in counterpart (SANBI, CN, ECPB, and SANParks) and other co-funding (from other sources), in addition to the $11 million from GEF. Although not all of the originally expected sources of co-funding came through, the Project nonetheless succeeded in leveraging nearly double the originally planned amount of co-funding: $51.40 million was actually obtained versus $44.13 million planned. Much of this co-funding came from regular government budgets, where programs were re-aligned to target BCSD priority areas, from a thematic as well as geographical standpoint. In addition to the Project co-funding obtained from national, provincial, and local governments and public universities, some $12 million came from NGOs and the private sector (Tortell 2010). From a GEF resource mobilization perspective, the Project was highly efficient with a relatively modest GEF contribution leveraging substantial co-funding, much of it from regular government budgets and programs that are expected to continue implementing further the CAPE Strategy.

16

56. With respect to achieving Project objectives, the overall PDO was achieved to a Satisfactory extent, as noted above. Moreover, most component-specific targets were achieved and many were exceeded, as detailed in Annex 7. Since these targets were achieved and exceeded with the level of GEF funding available at appraisal, this indicates that the Project was cost-effective relative to expectations. In terms of incremental land area conserved, some 71,000 hectares under formal conservation arrangements (on public and private lands) in the Kogelberg, Cedarberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz, Garden Route, and South West Lowlands were added under the Project, exceeding the target of 40,000 ha. For the endangered and critically endangered habitat types (the highest terrestrial biodiversity conservation priority), the incremental area brought under conservation through the Project was 45,488 ha, exceeding the target of 40,287 ha. Considering that only a portion of the total Project investment of US$62.4 million (including $11 million from GEF) was directed towards terrestrial conservation areas, the Project appears to be quite cost-effective in terms of hectares conserved per dollar. The aquatic biodiversity conservation results were less impressive, though nonetheless tangible in terms of the improved management of estuaries and Marine Protected Areas.

57. In accordance with GEF requirements, Project preparation included an Incremental Cost Analysis to assess the incremental GEF costs of achieving global biodiversity benefits. These incremental costs were calculated to be US$11 million (World Bank 2004). The biodiversity-related global environmental benefits identified for each component in the Project Appraisal Document have mostly been fully achieved (details in Annex 2).

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 58. In accordance with the PDO, the Project succeeded in laying a sound foundation for implementation of the first phase of the Cape Strategy by (i) mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy and (ii) undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations in selected biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts with a view to scaling these up. The implementation of an overarching 20-year conservation and development strategy has started and is linked to national and provincial policies adopted as a result of the CAPE Strategy and the BCSD Project. Through development of plans, strategies, methodologies, and pilots, the Project has developed useful and accessible tools and guidelines to direct biodiversity conservation in the CFR, including for the next phase of implementation of the Cape Action Plan. Many of these activities are now being replicated, both within the CFR and at the national level. Project results are still often intermediate at this stage, but impacts are expected to accrue through the use of Project products and the enhanced capacity and partnerships between the executing agencies, other government agencies, local municipalities, and participating NGOs. By emphasizing the linkages between healthy ecosystems and economic development, the BCSD Project has laid a sound foundation to maintain and enhance the conservation of globally important biodiversity in the CFR. 59. The Project strengthened collaboration and synergies between agencies to better define roles and responsibilities for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It created an enabling environment which allowed realization of long-term policy changes now being applied throughout South Africa. The project was able to leverage considerable funding for activities that enhanced biodiversity conservation from government agencies whose primary focus is not biodiversity, including the national Department of Water Affairs and Forests (DWAF) and local municipalities. This served further to mainstream biodiversity considerations within regular government programs and planning. Many of the activities initiated under the project have already been institutionalized within regular government programs and are likely to be sustained post-project. For example, as an outgrowth of the BCSD Project, the Province of Eastern Cape recently approved a Bio-regional Plan as the framework for future spatial development. The BCSD executing agencies have already committed to a second-phase, 5-year Action Plan for further implementation of the CAPE Program. The next 5-

17

year Action Plan is expected to be carried out and funded primarily through ongoing government programs and budgets. Given the (considerable, though not unlimited) resources available, along with the generally strong South African commitment to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources as a necessary underpinning for sustainable development, it seems reasonably likely that project outcomes will be sustained and expanded. 60. Based on the analysis and evidence in this report, the overall Project Rating is considered to be Satisfactory. An independent Terminal Evaluation of the BCSD Project (Tortell 2010), undertaken to meet UNDP requirements, confirms the main findings of this ICR and the overall rating of Satisfactory (details in Annex 8).

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes, and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 61. The Project was funded though GEF resources with an explicit emphasis on global biodiversity benefits. Nonetheless, it was always anticipated that government co-funding would provide poverty reduction, gender, and social development benefits. The judicious use of other government funds (Extended Public Works Programs including Working for Water and Working for Wetlands) created additional employment opportunities. Local and disadvantaged communities have also benefited from income generation activities based on nature protection and the biodiversity economy. Mobilization of complementary small grants through the CEPF and Table Mountain Fund promoted (i) public awareness-raising, such as educational materials and NGO activities and (ii) biodiversity-friendly income-generating activities such as bee-keeping, sustainable harvesting of native rooibos (used to make rooibos tea, a popular beverage in South Africa and even internationally), donkey cart tourism, and small ecotourism initiatives. These associated activities, leveraged through the Project, played an important role in local social development and poverty reduction and promoted strong local support. Over the Project period, some 181,276 person-days per year of employment created were associated with conservation. Annual stakeholder gatherings encouraged sharing of experiences and built a strong constituency for conservation between local communities, NGOs, and government agencies. 62. From a gender perspective, Project operations have mirrored national conditions in South Africa. Women have been prominent in Project management and implementation at all levels, from the CCU to executive roles in implementing agencies and community-related activities, training, and institutional development. Women have a significant voice in local and national decision-making related to all aspects of the CAPE Program. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 63. South Africa’s conservation agencies are generally regarded as some of the most advanced on the continent but changing social, political, and economic realities have presented new challenges for land management and conservation. Accordingly, the Project invested in institutional strengthening for all involved agencies to enhance cooperation and strategic planning for broad stakeholder engagement and effective conservation in the CFR. The Project provided significant resources for institutional strengthening and collaboration including capacity-building programs aimed at all level of stakeholders, from executing agencies to training for local government staff, private landowners, and communities. Project support for key staff in SANBI and other executing agencies, including bio-regional planning and biodiversity information in SANBI, and stewardship positions at Cape Nature and SANParks, enabled these programs to succeed. Dedicated support for staff to work with local government agencies, municipalities, and environmental consultants to provide training and ensure dissemination of products such as fine-scale planning were also critical to the uptake of these

18

products and their widespread adoption in spatial development frameworks and environmental assessments. The Project was also successful in brokering partnerships and consensus on complex issues between different institutions across the CFR. The culture of cooperation that has emerged is likely to be sustained long after Project closing. 64. There have been significant institutional changes during the course of the Project. The NBI has become SANBI, with a greatly expanded national mandate for biodiversity conservation which builds on SANBI’s experience in executing the BCSD Project. 65. WCNCB has become Cape Nature (CN) and has weathered some critical institutional restructuring and tough budgetary challenges. The BCSD program has been pivotal in CN’s realignment of responsibilities; even with more limited resources than originally expected, CN has built up an effective program to strengthen conservation practices, both within public protected areas and in the surrounding production landscape through stewardship agreements with private landowners and local communities. The stewardship program pioneered by CN during the Project is now being rolled out by DEAT as a national program. CN has retained core trained staff from the Project, even when they are assigned to new responsibilities. It has also institutionalized responsibilities for estuaries and coastal management under a new Estuaries, Islands, and Marine Program, even though this program is still under-funded. However, a key question mark remains over the institutional home for the fine-scale planning that was with CN during the Project. 66. Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) was formed in 2007 and has taken over from Wilderness Foundation the role of managing the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve as well as other provincial protected areas. ECPB has enthusiastically adopted the management of the Mega-Reserve and the stewardship program piloted under BCSD and has allocated dedicated staff resources to this program; it plans to roll out the stewardship program to the rest of Eastern Cape. ECPB has made substantial progress since its establishment and the BCSD appears to have contributed significantly to the creation of an emerging efficient conservation agency in Eastern Cape. Support from the Wilderness Foundation during the early years of the BCSD and after the handover of management responsibilities has been pivotal to the success of the Baviaanskloof initiative and is an excellent example of a successful public-private partnership. 67. South African National Parks (SANParks) has shown the least institutional change as a result of the BCSD Project, with its primary focus still remaining within protected area borders. Pursuant to a recent internal policy decision, SANParks has dropped the stewardship program that was initiated and supported as part of the Project, in order to focus more exclusively on its protected area network rather than conservation more broadly. This is disappointing in terms of the Project’s focus on promoting biodiversity conservation at the landscape level, rather than only within the protected areas system; much of the threatened biodiversity within the CFR still occurs largely or exclusively outside of public protected areas. Nonetheless, SANParks is continuing to work outside its protected areas through other institutions such as the Fire Prevention Authorities; it will also pay extra attention to off-park activities as prescribed through the Buffer Zone Act (recent, national-level legislation that was not directly linked to the BCSD Project). (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 68. The strengthened partnerships and collaboration fostered through the BCSD Project have helped to rescue and turn around some of the weaker sub-components. For example, the engagement of WWF-SA to support participatory planning in marine protected areas has contributed to progress at the Project sites, while also influencing coastal management planning nationwide. Similarly, the delay in establishing estuarine protected areas has been partly compensated by the preparation of 11 Estuary Management Plans (almost twice the project target), which focus on improved management

19

and conservation. These were prepared with the strong participation of local stakeholders and already have some municipality support for implementation. 69. The BCSD Project has had far-reaching policy implications beyond the CFR. Several programs and planning initiatives tested under the Project have now been adopted nationally, including the stewardship program for private landowners, tracking of management effectiveness in the entire national protected area system, and bio-regional planning as a basis for spatial development planning. The experience gained by SANBI as an executing agency for the Project have enabled it to become a strong national institute, promoting biodiversity conservation across the whole country. SANBI is now also engaged in land use planning and resource management in other biomes outside the CFR, as well as in new initiatives linked to ecosystem-based approaches to climate change.

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 70. A final Project Workshop to discuss outputs, outcomes and next steps was held in May 2010, in conjunction with the preparation of this ICR. Proceedings have been published in the document Celebrating Conservation, produced by the CCU. During the course of the Project, many stakeholder workshops were supported on a wide range of topics, from discussions on resource management and legislation to zoning of particular conservation areas. Annual stakeholder meetings also helped to disseminate good practice and lessons learned. A wide range of stakeholders has benefitted from the Project, ranging from national and local government staff and academics to tourism-based businesses and local communities. Meetings with stakeholder groups during the ICR assessment revealed a high level of community awareness with very active local groups confirming the importance of the Project for these groups.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Low 71. The BCSD Project was somewhat unusual for a GEF-funded biodiversity conservation project. Rather than focus on strengthening management at one or a few sites, the Project took a much broader approach to biodiversity conservation, working with multiple institutions and partners to impact policies, programs, and practices to protect biodiversity across the whole CFR, both within formal protected areas and the broader production landscape. The Project has been a cutting-edge initiative in both the World Bank and GEF portfolios, serving as a good example of mainstreaming biodiversity issues into regular government development programs and planning. It has demonstrated how relatively modest GEF resources can leverage effective outcomes when building on strong partnerships and shared priorities. The priorities establishing during preparation of the Cape Strategy have provided a common framework that enabled multiple entities to align their work plans during Project implementation. The main executing agencies (including SANBI, CN, and ECPB have already committed to a second phase of support for the CAPE Strategy and integrated such activities in their future work plans and budgets. 72. The Project has laid a sound foundation for maintaining the unique biodiversity characteristic of the CFR. Some problems still remain, such as with (i) staffing issues at a few individual sites (such as the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area) and (ii) less than full institutionalization of key functions (such as fine-scale land use planning). However, there has been strong adoption overall of Project-promoted good practices by government agencies, landowners, and other decision-makers within the CFR. Indeed, some of guidelines and good practices developed under the Project are already (i) being replicated in other provinces of South Africa (such as private land stewardship in Kwa-Zulu Natal) and (ii) informing new biodiversity conservation projects outside the CFR, such as

20

the UNDP-GEF supported bio-regional planning in the South African grasslands biome. Overall, the likelihood of sustainability and replication of Project-initiated activities is considered to be high and the risk to the development outcome is therefore assessed to be Low. 73. Institutional Sustainability. All executing agencies and partner institutions, including associated NGOs, were actively involved in the Cape Implementation Committee that steered Project implementation, signaling strong institutional support. Staff from different institutions have also been actively engaged as members of task teams for specific themes. The vast majority of task teams are expected to continue with their program of collaboration following BCSD closure. The Project has helped to strengthen and rationalize Cape Nature and was pivotal in helping to support the new Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) to become an effective conservation agency, working both in protected areas and off-reserve through stewardship agreements. The Project supported some key staff positions and activities. Many Project activities have now been internalized, institutionalized, and mainstreamed as core activities of key agencies, and institutional sustainability appears likely. SANBI has absorbed key staff positions and committed to maintain the core CCU to initiate the follow up phase of implementation of the Cape Strategy. Other responsible agencies have proven technical capacity and staff in place for conservation and natural resource management, and are thereby able to replicate successful interventions. The learning network approach has also been institutionalized in many partner organizations. However, some activities, such as fine-scale biodiversity planning and further expansion of the stewardship program in Western Cape, are still dependent on funds becoming available and their financial sustainability is not yet fully secure. 74. Ecological Sustainability. This Project built on the first GEF Biodiversity project in South Africa—the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project--which was critical in identifying conservation priorities in the CFR and for developing and socializing the Cape Action Plan. The BCSD Project has further refined conservation planning, promoting biodiversity considerations in spatial planning and water resource management. It has also leveraged the alignment of normal government budgets with CAPE objectives. The prospects for ecological sustainability are good with the Project-supported private lands stewardship program, adoption of protected area management plans, the widespread use of the PAMETT to promote effective management of protected areas, and new models for biodiversity conservation that include the management of marine resources. Strong partnerships with other government agencies, especially Water Affairs, have contributed to mainstreaming by promoting the key role that natural habitats play in securing water supplies and sustainable development. Ecological sustainability therefore appears likely. 75. Social Sustainability. The economic benefits from conservation have been well documented from various Project-supported publications (see Annex 9). Effective pilots are already in place promoting livelihoods under the biodiversity economy. In particular, the alignment of employment opportunities through governmental poverty relief programs and small grants with BCSD conservation priorities has emphasized the synergies between conservation and social welfare. The project succeeded in establishing and strengthening partnerships with private landowners and civil society, through regular stakeholder forums, capacity building, stewardship arrangements and local management committees, as well as through economic benefits and livelihood activities. Successful pilots on participatory management of marine resources and local stakeholder involvement in management of watersheds and estuaries are all likely to encourage local ownership and social sustainability. The enthusiastic adoption of fine-scale biodiversity planning into spatial development frameworks at the municipality level bodes well for furthering local ownership to promote conservation and restoration of the CFR. 76. Financial Sustainability. One of the original Project activities was to devise mechanisms for the financial sustainability of individual protected areas. BCSD-funded business plans for invasive species and fire management have helped to leverage additional resources from national programs

21

such as Working for Water, Working on Fire, and expanded public works to target resources to critical biodiversity sites and high-value water catchments. Strong collaboration between agencies and priority-setting through thematic task teams has helped to better target resources from government employment programs to areas that serve conservation, as well as the water catchment and employment agendas. The BCSD was already highly successful in leveraging other non-governmental resources; a CEPF consolidation grant ($1.65 million over three years) and TMF will continue to support some key activities. The BCSD provided seed funding to WWF-South Africa for a MPA program which provided the impetus for a major WWF-Honda Marine Program that will continue to provide support to some project MPAs. Prior to project closure, a Conservation Marketplace was organized to enable project participants to “market” their project concepts for new funding to continue activities beyond the project. A new Dryland Fund established by the Development Bank of South Africa (R50 million) is expected to provide resources for additional small grants programs at the national level. 77. Government and other Stakeholder Ownership and Commitment. The RSA Government shows a strong commitment to continue with the implementation of the 20-year Conservation Strategy. There is strong interest among a large number of government agencies and other stakeholders (including SANBI, CN, ECPB, and TMF) to participate in the next phase of the CAPE Program. In 2008, the CAPE Partnership Program, within which the BCSD Project was nested, carried out a pathfinder study (Steyn 2008) to ascertain how it intends to sustain the conservation gains made in the CAPE Program. Cape Nature has developed a detailed business case and Mid-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) submission, seeking substantive additional human and financial resources to fulfill its mandate into the future. The ECPB has started a similar process, while SANBI had already included many aspects of the CAPE Program into its MTEF cycle. The sister UNDP-funded ABI project with SANParks’ leadership has been spearheading a process to develop a district-level collaborative governance system. The City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality have both taken steps to mainstream CAPE work within their municipalities. Civil society organizations have taken steps to diversify funding sources to secure their ability to continue future work. TMF has played a key role in this regard. Pathfinder discussions have resulted in signatory partners committing to the next phase of CAPE, with an emphasis on local rather than international funding.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 78. The BCSD Project design was based on the Cape Action Plan, which, in turn, had been developed under the previous GEF-supported Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project. The BCSD Project was complex in design, with six components and four executing agencies (SANBI, CN, ECPB, and SANParks). Given the high level of capacity within SANBI and particularly the CCU, this complexity turned out to be quite manageable; it also contributed to Project success by drawing on a wide spectrum of partners and increasing ownership of the CAPE Strategy among a broad range of stakeholders, including sectoral government agencies and municipalities. Project targets were ambitious and not always realistic, particularly with respect to the rapid establishment of so many new freshwater, estuarine, and marine protected areas. The World Bank’s assessment of the required institutional and financial capacity of the relevant agencies to achieve this target proved overly optimistic; the targets for the aquatic protected areas were thus revised downward during the MTR. This stands out as the main design shortcoming of an otherwise highly successful project. Accordingly, the Bank’s performance in ensuring the Project’s Quality at Entry is rated as Moderately Satisfactory.

22

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 79. World Bank staff provided regular (generally twice per year) supervision inputs during Project implementation, with additional support from the Pretoria office on financial management and procurement matters as needed. At the beginning and during the main implementation phase of the Project, the World Bank’s Task Team Leader (TTL) was located in the Country Office; later, the TTL was based in Washington but field supervision continued on a regular basis and the TTL maintained strong contact with the CCU. Findings and recommendations from supervision missions have been documented in detailed Aide Memoires throughout Project implementation. The Bank and UNDP engaged in joint supervision missions so that Project components were closely coordinated. The Project benefited from constructive criticism from the independent Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) required for UNDP-supported projects, as well as the Bank’s own MTR. Recommendations from both were incorporated into project revisions at the MTR. The MTR offered an opportunity to re-focus on components that were lagging and put in place new institutional arrangements to ensure delivery, such as the engagement of WWF in the MPA sub-component. 80. Fiduciary aspects of the Project were supervised partly in conjunction with routine supervision missions and partly by regional procurement and financial management staff conducting separate visits to the CCU on an as-needed basis. Supervision missions included experienced social safeguards specialists to follow up on the resettlement issue at Coleske. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 81. Overall Bank performance is rated as Satisfactory. The Bank had a strong and responsive relationship with the responsible government agencies, CCU, and UNDP, which facilitated project implementation. After the MTR, the Bank and UNDP teams worked proactively with the executing agencies and the CCU to focus the Project on implementing a number of lagging activities, for example marine conservation, and on the consolidation of key outcomes. The project was an excellent example of collaboration and partnerships, including partnerships between the Bank and UNDP and the Bank and executing agencies.

5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 82. By adopting the Cape Action Plan and undertaking its implementation, the Government of South Africa recognized the high biodiversity value of the CFR and the essential inter-institutional collaboration necessary to mobilize resources for effective and strategic conservation action. Government commitment has remained strong with expansion of the biodiversity mandate of SANBI and additional bio-regional planning exercises initiated within South Africa during the life of the project. At the sub-national level, various municipal government bodies have become active participants in CAPE Program activities. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory

23

83. The overall performance of the implementing agency, SANBI, and especially its CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU), was highly satisfactory. The leadership, cohesion, and professional skills displayed by the CCU were integral to the successful implementation of the Project. The CCU successfully (i) coordinated the participation of four executing agencies and numerous other participating entities (governmental and non-governmental) in a complex and multi-layered Project; (ii) mobilized co-funding from diverse sources, well in excess of Project targets; and (iii) maintained seamless continuity of functions, even when key staff moved on or took extended leave. The performance of the other sub-executing agencies (Cape Nature, Eastern Cape Parks Board, and SANParks) was satisfactory, with most Project activities delivered and targets often exceeded. The Project assisted in improving the capacity of Eastern Cape Parks Board; as a result, Project activities undertaken by the NGO Wilderness Foundation in the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve were later transferred to ECPB. Despite suffering some unforeseen budget cuts, Cape Nature successfully implemented a broad range of Project activities, even though the overly ambitious marine conservation activities needed to be scaled back somewhat. SANParks displayed high capacity in implementing the Garden Route and other Project activities, although (counter to initial expectations) it did not continue to promote private lands stewardship outside of formal protected areas. Taking into account all four agencies, the overall rating of executing agencies’ performance is Satisfactory. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 84. The performance of the Borrower is rated Satisfactory, in recognition of the satisfactory performance of Government and executing agencies, including the highly satisfactory performance of the CCU within SANBI. Moreover, key Government agencies have taken important, positive steps to follow up with the next phase of the CAPE Program and thereby to sustain and consolidate Project achievements.

6. Lessons Learned 85. The Project provides many useful lessons from both a World Bank and a GEF perspective. The main lessons include: a. Building on Partnerships. A key ingredient to success was the fact that the Project built on partnerships, including (i) conservation planning and stakeholder support built through the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project (South Africa’s first GEF-funded project) and (ii) a strong conservation constituency fostered over the years by regular meetings of the conservation community at the Fynbos Forum. The Project also benefited enormously from partnerships with other World Bank- and GEF-supported initiatives, such as CEPF and the Table Mountain Fund (small grants program). For example, CEPF resources were used to support the establishment and operation of the Cape Coordinating Unit at NBI (later SANBI) in the transition phase between the Cape Peninsula and the BCSD projects. This enabled immediate follow-up and the piloting of some activities which were then expanded under the BCSD. The close linkages and alignment of these various programs enabled rapid mobilization of additional resources to key areas of need, such as support to civil society and capacity building; they will contribute to further consolidation of good practices and scaling-up of successful activities following Project closure. b. Catalytic Role of GEF. The Project demonstrated the catalytic effect that strategic use of incremental GEF resources can have in bringing about substantial change. Although the total Project budget was relatively small (US$9 million of GEF funding through the World Bank and another $2 million through UNDP), it was able to leverage considerable co-funding and support from government and NGO sources through collaborative partnerships and representation of different

24

agencies on coordinating committees. The Project was designed and implemented with the donor and governmental financing situation in mind, so that it could focus on incremental benefits that otherwise would not likely be attained. Close collaboration and synergies with the CEPF and TMF leveraged small grants for civil society, capacity building, and key positions with executing agencies. Effective mobilization of co-funding to support the CAPE 2000 Strategy was enhanced by the CCU acting as the local coordinating unit for the CEPF Cape Floristic Region Hotspot; also by representation of WfW and TMF on the CAPE Implementation Committee. Government agency buy-in and ownership of the CAPE Program enabled effective alignment of earmarked government budgets against priority CAPE activities. c. Adaptive Management. Project implementation involved considerable use of adaptive management to adjust to changing conditions, unforeseen constraints, and new opportunities. For example, the originally planned activities for freshwater, estuarine, and marine conservation were re-adjusted at MTR to reflect institutional and budgetary constraints, as well as realities on the ground. Following the MTR, the newly-defined activities were implemented with considerable success. The willingness to embrace adaptive management of Project activities was evident in the CCU and Project executing agencies, as well as among the World Bank and UNDP task teams and management. d. Consistent Implementation Support. The CCU provided steady Project leadership, enabling the four executing agencies and multiple partners and stakeholders to carry out their roles successfully. The Project also benefited greatly from the consistent implementation support that was provided by both the World Bank and UNDP. These two GEF Implementing Agencies worked together very closely during Project preparation and implementation, with joint project visits and aide memoires, as well as fully shared objectives. The strong and steady implementation support helped the Project to overcome key challenges, such as the need to re-focus the aquatic biodiversity and watershed management activities during the MTR. e. Managing Project Complexity. Although the Project design was ambitious and complex, by engaging multiple agencies around the core objectives of the CAPE Action Plan, the Project was able to bring multiple partners together and enhance stakeholder ownership, collaboration, and efficiency. The complex Project design and implementing arrangements would not have worked without a strong and effective coordinating unit. The CCU within SANBI played a critical role in building strong collaboration and driving information exchange among the partners. One of the greatest strengths of the CCU was that it maintained its role as a facilitating and coordinating unit, rather than taking over as an executing agency. The experience of this Project demonstrates that project complexity is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that adequate capacity exists for effective project coordination. f. Longer-term, Programmatic Engagement. Achieving success in biodiversity conservation—and many other aspects of sustainable development—typically requires sustained commitment over a relatively long time frame. It often takes longer-term engagement to bring about meaningful change on the part of government agencies, local communities, the private sector, and other decision-makers. The Project was designed as a five-year time slice of a much longer CAPE Program, intended to run through 2024. Extending the Project to six years enabled certain key activities to be completed. Interestingly, NBI (later SANBI) initially requested a Project design of five years rather than six, due to concerns that implementation would proceed more slowly if the partner entities knew that more time was available. g. Mainstreaming through Outreach and Dissemination. The BCSD Project has been regarded as an example of best practice for mainstreaming biodiversity in the GEF portfolio. A key element of successful mainstreaming is effective dissemination of information, so that it will actually

25

be used by the intended decision-makers. For example, the development of useful tools, such as fine-scale biodiversity planning, is not sufficient on its own to guarantee their use. Accordingly, the Project devoted staff time and funding to actively promote the use and uptake of these tools by the relevant provincial and municipal planning departments. Aggressive dissemination of Project-generated information also helped to facilitate outcomes that went beyond the original targets, such as the recent approval of national legislation providing tax rebates for conservation on private lands. Many of the tools developed and lessons learned through the BCSD Project are applicable to biodiversity projects elsewhere, within southern Africa and even worldwide. With this in mind, SANBI (in partnership with DEA and UNDP) recently published the book, Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s Landscape Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Promoting Ecosystem Resilience (SANBI 2010a), on the lessons learned from the CAPE Program in general and the BCSD Project in particular.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 86. As the lead executing agency for the BCSD Project, SANBI provided comments this ICR in through a response letter dated April 15, 2011 (Annex 7). The letter indicates SANBI’s broad agreement with the findings of the ICR. The letter also emphasizes the measures that SANBI and its partner agencies have taken to ensure the long-term institutional and financial sustainability of the CAPE Program. World Bank management fully concurs with SANBI’s comments and recognizes that although the BCSD Project has closed, the CAPE Program is expected to continue with sustained Government support through various agencies at the national and sub-national levels. The Bank also looks forward to future opportunities to support biodiversity conservation in South Africa through the next tranche of GEF (GEF-5) and perhaps also mainstreamed through IBRD-financed development projects where feasible. 87. The CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU) embedded within SANBI has also produced a Self-Assessment on Project Results Achieved, which serves as the Government’s ICR for the CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. This Self-Assessment is presented in the form of a 9-page table, immediately following the SANBI letter (Annex 7). Bank management broadly agrees with the CCU’s Self Assessment, which emphasizes the Project’s positive aspects but is nonetheless well-founded and accurate. The Self Assessment correctly notes that most Project targets were achieved and often exceeded. Those activities where performance was lagging were re-oriented in the course of the Project (particularly during the MTR), with funds re-allocated within the same component to more readily implementable activities. This is a successful example of adaptive project management. The Self Assessment also points to other Project strengths, including (i) building and leveraging strong partnerships, including with CEPF and TMF; (ii) major advances in conservation stewardship of private lands—where much of the CFR’s most threatened biodiversity is located—through on-the-ground stewardship agreements, backed up by supportive tax policies that the Project catalyzed and influenced; (iii) and an impressive degree of mainstreaming biodiversity considerations within ongoing governmental programs and initiatives, including land use planning, fire and invasive species management, and watershed catchment management. The Self Assessment appropriately highlights the Project’s major advances in the expansion and consolidation of terrestrial protected areas, which exceeded the original targets. The Project was less highly successful overall in establishing and strengthening freshwater, estuarine, and marine protected areas, although some important progress was achieved nonetheless (such as with the Kogelberg MPA); the conservation of aquatic biodiversity is clearly a challenging area within the CFR that merits further attention in the years ahead.

26

(b) Cofinanciers

88. As co-financier of the BCSD Project, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) provided comments on this ICR report through its letter of April 12, 2011 (Annex 8). The UNDP letter notes that the findings of this ICR are in substantial harmony with the Terminal Evaluation Report (TER) commissioned by UNDP. The letter also highlights the constructive collaboration and collegial approach that characterized the partnership between the World Bank and UNDP for this Project. For its part, Bank management welcomes and fully agrees with the UNDP comments, and notes that this Project represents a best-practice example of a highly collaborative partnership between the two institutions.

89. The Terminal Evaluation Report (Tortell 2010) is summarized below in Annex 8. Bank management broadly agrees with the TER findings. Management concurs that the reasons for this Project’s generally high degree of success include (i) strong ownership of BCSD Project and CAPE Program objectives by the executing agencies (SANBI, CN, ECPB, and SANParks); (ii) a highly effective Cape Coordination Unit; (iii) close collaboration between both GEF Implementing Agencies (World Bank and UNDP); (iv) effective mechanisms for stakeholder participation in Project-related activities; and (v) strong information management and dissemination. Management also agrees that the initial Project design had several weaknesses, including (i) the choice and wording of key Project indicators, some of which did not meet the SMART criteria and (ii) overly ambitious plans for aquatic biodiversity conservation, including new Marine Protected Areas. However, these design weaknesses were addressed through adaptive Project management, particularly a re-orientation of the main under-performing activities during the MTR.

(c) Other partners and stakeholders 90. No issues have been raised.

27

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate

(US$ millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(US$ millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Total GEF Total GEF Total GEF 1. INSTITUTIONAL

STRENGTHENING (UNDP)

5.80

1.40

7.46

1.40

129

100 2. CONSERVATION

EDUCATION (UNDP )

1.11

0.60

1.70

0.60

153

100 3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION (BANK)

1.79

1.10

1.68

1.27

94

115

4. PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT (BANK)

27.72

4.12

30.11

4.11

109

99

5. ESTABLISHING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE

BIODIVERSITY ECONOMY (BANK)

11.67

2.45

14.32

2.33

123

95

6. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (BANK)

7.04

1.32

7.13

1.29

101

98

Total Baseline Cost 55.13 11.00 62.40 11.00 113 100

Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Total Project Costs 55.13 11.00 62.40 11.00 113 100

Project Preparation Facility (PPF) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0

Total Financing Required 55.13 11.00 62.40 11.00 113 100

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of

Cofinancing

Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Borrower 44.13 51.40 116 Global Environment Facility (GEF) 9.00 9.00 100 UN Development Program – GEF 2.00 2.00 100

28

Annex 2. Outputs by Component 1. The Project was an ambitious mix of activities across a range of geographic sites and thematic areas, requiring effective collaboration between many players. Nevertheless, it showed good progress on implementation of most components; several key sub-components could be rated as Highly Satisfactory (see below). The Project included six components and was jointly implemented by UNDP (Components 1 and 2) and the World Bank (Components 3-6); good collaboration between the Bank and UNDP, including joint implementation support missions, ensured that the Project was managed holistically. For completeness, this ICR covers all six components. The Terminal Evaluation of the whole Project (Tortell 2010), undertaken to meet UNDP requirements, is consistent with the findings of this ICR (see Annex 8). Component 1: Institutional Strengthening (GEF: US$1.4 million; Executed by SANBI; Financed by UNDP): Rating: Satisfactory 2. The CAPE Partnership expanded from 18 to 23 signatory partner organizations that are committed to implementing the CAPE Strategy. The number of stakeholders registered on the CAPE Program database and receiving the bi-weekly electronic newsletter grew from 1,850 to 3,510-- a 90% increase during the course of project implementation, greatly exceeding the 30% target. 3. The original Component 1 allocated resources for capacity building for the staff of five new Water Catchment Agencies, to be established by the national Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). However, these new agencies were much delayed in establishment, with only four in existence by the end of the project and one operational. Because of these institutional delays within DWAF, at the MTR the funds initially planned for training of water catchment agencies were re-allocated within Component 1 to support the development of business cases to the National Treasury for Cape Nature and Eastern Cape Parks Board. 4. The BCSD Project was instrumental in informing national capacity programs and development of individuals to strengthen organizations. Three capacity-building programs were piloted or expanded through the Project. Some 176 participants took part in the capacity-building programs on mentoring, stewardship, and environmental education, exceeding the target of 150. The new mentoring course supported Cape Nature and the City of Cape Town in setting up their own mentoring programs. SANBI entered into a partnership with the Wildlife Society of South Africa (WESSA) to expand its offering of the Environmental Educators course. The new Stewardship Course was taken up by Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in the city of George and is being offered nationally on an ongoing basis. Lessons from the capacity-building initiatives supported through BCSD are being fed into the Human Capital Development Program being led by SANBI. 5. A total of nine Project Developers’ Forums, Protected Areas Forums, and Landscape Initiatives knowledge exchange events were held, as well as five annual Partners’ Conferences. The Partners’ Conferences were especially useful for the exchange of experiences and lessons from different sites and backgrounds, from the diverse perspectives of government agencies, NGOs, and local communities. 6. The Project helped to develop a shared information management system known as the Biodiversity GIS (B-GIS), which is freely available to online users. Twenty-six systematic biodiversity planning products are published on the Biodiversity-GIS website and there are now almost 3,000 registered users of the website, far exceeding the proposed target of a 300% increase.

29

SANBI is maintaining and expanding B-GIS with dedicated resources and staff positions from its non-project budget. The B-GIS system is being utilized by a wide range of users, from environmental consultants to planners. The State Electricity Corporation, Eskom, is also looking at how it can use B-GIS in its planning for expanded power generation and transmission. 7. To ensure financial sustainability, the Project helped to develop financing strategies for a suite of Project Executing Agencies and task teams. BCSD-funded business plans developed for Cape Nature and Eastern Cape Parks Board have been used to justify increased budgets for the agencies, in line with their expanded roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the Project-funded business plans for invasive species and fire management have helped to leverage additional resources from pre-existing national programs such as Working for Water and Working on Fire to target resources to high-priority biodiversity sites. Component 2: Conservation Education (GEF: US$1.11 million; Executed by SANBI in partnership with Rhodes University; Financed by UNDP): Rating: Satisfactory 8. Rhodes University developed a considerable body of educational materials, including inputs to revision of the Eco-Schools Program and a Teachers’ Handbook that was adopted as a workbook to support a Teacher Network being developed for the countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). 9. A considerable amount of learning support materials were developed by partner organizations--specifically, 141 products, exceeding the project target of 135. A total of 109 people participated in courses on conservation education, exceeding the target of 15 participants per year. Experiences from workplace learning have been adopted by SANBI into national Human Capital Development strategies. 10. Three sub-regional networks for conservation education were established in the western, southern, and eastern Cape, with plans in place for institutions to sustain them post-BCSD. The number of organizations involved in the networks grew from 27 to 76; those having explicit conservation education strategies grew from 4 to 67. A new strategy document, “Towards 2020: Strategic Directions for Biodiversity Conservation Education in the Fynbos Biome and Beyond”, was developed and adopted by partner organizations. 11. A biodiversity conservation hub will be maintained at Rhodes University, integrated with the university’s teacher and community engagement work and the networking, training, and capacity development functions of SANBI.

Component 3: Project Management, Coordination, and Monitoring (GEF: US$1.79 million; Executed by SANBI; Financed by the World Bank):

Rating: Highly Satisfactory

12. Under the Project, a small but highly effective coordination and facilitation unit, the Cape Coordination Unit (CCU), was established within SANBI to coordinate activities in the CFR. The CCU was responsible for project planning, procurement, financial management, monitoring and evaluation, and establishing a communications program including website and regular monthly bulletins. The CCU function and staff will be maintained within SANBI to coordinate follow-up within the Cape Floristic Region that was the focus of the BCSD Project, as well as expanding to the Succulent Karoo Biodiversity Hotspot (further north within South Africa).

30

13. A high level Cape Coordination Committee (CCC) was established with representation from all key government agencies to act as a steering committee for implementation of the Cape Action Plan (with a wider scope than just the BCSD Project). Because of difficulties in achieving full participation in regular meetings, an Executive Steering Committee (ExCo) drawn from the Project partner agencies oversaw implementation of the BCSD Project. The ExCo ensured close liaison and synergies between Project partners and other organizations and enabled mobilization of other resources from regular government budgets to support and replicate priority actions.

14. Eight Landscape Initiative Steering Committees and 14 cross-cutting Task Teams were established, with 4 Landscape Initiatives and 14 Task Teams having received direct support from the Project. Seven of the 14 cross-cutting Task Teams have expanded to a national scope of work, thereby disseminating lessons learned and replicating good practices. Other Task Teams will continue to have a CFR focus, coordinated by partner institutions. Collaboration between Task Teams improved the effectiveness of partner institutions and the efficient utilization of government budgets, such as specifically targeting the funds for clearing of non-native plant species to the high-priority sites for biodiversity conservation.

15. The project benefited from collaboration and linked co-funding from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and the Table Mountain Fund (TMF) to support associated civil society and private sector conservation projects. The CCU was also given some initial support through the CEPF and served as the local coordination unit for the CEPF investments within the Cape Floristic Region Hotspot, thereby ensuring close synergies between CEPF grants and the BCSD Project, such as support for planning in the Gouritz Initiative biodiversity corridor. Both CEPF and TMF are supporting follow-up activities, such as (i) consolidation of the Stewardship, Biodiversity and Business, and Learning Network activities (CEPF) and (ii) capacity-building and Stewardship positions in conservation-oriented government agencies (TMF).

16. The Project led to dissemination of about 100 communications products including brochures, campaigns, exhibitions, media releases, popular articles, and other publications were produced and disseminated; most of these are available on-line from SANBI and the other executing agencies (Annex 9). The book Fynbos Fynmense: People Making Biodiversity Work (Ashwell et al. 2006), which describes in detail the CAPE Program’s goals and approach, was released for the GEF Assembly in South Africa in 2006. Other major Project-inspired publications include (i) Celebrating Conservation: Consolidating Partnerships for Tomorrow (SANBI 2010b), which catalogues the concrete achievements of each BCSD sub-component and (ii) Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s Landscape Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Promoting Ecosystem Resilience (SANBI 2010a), which details the different tools for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation within economic development that were piloted under the Project, including (i) policy reforms; (ii) land use planning; (iii) private lands stewardship; (iv) biodiversity-friendly production systems; and (v) biodiversity-friendly public works and job creation programs; and (vi) inter-institutional collaboration and partnerships.

Component 4: Protected Areas (GEF: US$4.12 million; Executed by CN, ECPB, WF, SANParks, WWF-South Africa; Financed by the World Bank):

Rating: Satisfactory

17. This component was allocated almost half of the World Bank GEF resources and achieved some strong results. This component supported site-based interventions in three key mega-reserves through different project partners: Baviaanskloof through Wilderness Foundation (WF) and Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB); Garden Route through SANParks; and Greater Cederberg Corridor through Cape Nature (CN). The component also supported protected area activities in the Kogelberg portion of the CFR. The original project also proposed to establish two freshwater, two estuarine, and

31

two clusters of marine protected areas; this objective was amended at the Mid-Term Review (MTR) to focus more narrowly on improved participatory planning to manage two clusters of marine reserves, adjacent to the Kogelberg and Garden Route. 18. The total number of hectares under formal conservation agreements in the Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz (funded through CEPF), Garden Route, and South West Lowlands almost doubled from 1,054,033 ha to 1,953,246 ha, exceeding the target of 1,854,033 hectares. 19. Within the Project areas, the initial 16,115 ha of endangered and critically endangered ecosystems under conservation increased to 61,603 hectares (a 282% increase) through stewardship agreements with private landowners and communities. A new, streamlined model for biodiversity stewardship was agreed upon and implemented nationally, with a total of 58 contracts signed between landowners and Cape Nature, establishing 39 private Nature Reserves and 19 Biodiversity Agreements for biodiversity-friendly land management. 20. The number of person-days of work associated with conservation more than doubled from an initial estimate of 85,804 to an actual average of 181,276 per year over the Project period (an increase of 111%). This was accomplished through the Project-promoted targeting of funds from regular government programs (such as Working for Water), in collaboration with civil society initiatives such as the small grants programs supported by CEPF and TMF. 21. The GEF-initiated Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (PAMETT) was applied to all existing and new protected areas within the Project area. Many of the existing protected areas were already reasonably well-managed but overall scores still improved, most appreciably in the newly-established and expanded protected areas. Eighty percent of the protected areas scored an average over the project period that was better than the national average (calculated from the more detailed SAMETT, developed by SANBI for nationwide use). The Project led to the adoption of some version of the PAMETT by non-project partners such as the City of Cape Town for its metropolitan protected sites and by DEAT for all protected areas country-wide. 22. Overall implementation of this component is rated as Satisfactory, with strongly favorable outcomes in most sub-components. 23. Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve. Prior to the Project, Baviaanskloof was recognized as an area of outstanding biodiversity, natural beauty, and cultural heritage but had very little effective management or funding. Because of extremely limited capacity in the DEAET of the Eastern Cape, the project was designed with the Wilderness Foundation, a local NGO, as the executing agency for Baviaanskloof. Wilderness Foundation promoted the concept of the mega-reserve as a relatively large area of mostly natural landscapes that encompasses strictly protected, publicly managed areas as well private lands under different kinds of conservation stewardship arrangements, tied together with a common management plan including land use zoning. Wilderness Foundation also leveraged additional resources from the CEPF to support small-scale civil society initiatives to benefit local communities, such as bee-keeping and nature guide training, and to introduce more biodiversity-friendly practices among citrus farmers in the neighboring Gamtoos Valley. A grant from the National Lottery was used to build a new World Heritage Visitor Center. In 2007, Wilderness Foundation successfully handed over Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve management to the newly-created Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB), but continued to provide technical support to ECPB as needed, as well as continued support for stakeholder participation. ECPB has taken full responsibility for the management of the Mega-Reserve and newly-established stewardship program; it is already committed to replicating lessons from the stewardship program in its other projects, including along the Wild Coast. Wilderness Foundation (WF) continues its close association and support for the area,

32

through the involvement of the WF CEO as chair of the ECPB; WF was the first landowner to contract its property into the Mega-Reserve. Baviaanskloof is an excellent example of a government-NGO partnership, in which a qualified and highly committed NGO, the Wilderness Foundation, initiated Mega-Reserve management and assisted government agencies that had very limited capacity. 24. Much of the land within the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve itself is marginal for crop production and many local farmers are reliant on tourism, especially domestic tourism, as well as livestock to maintain a living. There is strong local support for stewardship from local landowners and ECPB is already working with 12 farmers on potential stewardship arrangements to set up conservation agreements that would incorporate valley slopes into the Mega-Reserve as wildlife corridors. Local NGOs, including WF and Living Lands, have begun experimenting with plantings of spekboom, a thicket biome species with high carbon sequestration value, to restore the overgrazed landscape. The government-funded Working for Water Program has provided much of the funding for this restoration, since Baviaanskloof is an important water catchment for the Nelson Mandela metropolitan area. Some farmers are hoping to gain future revenues from payments for ecosystem services, especially carbon sequestration. Although the Coleske community was not resettled during the Project period because of a lengthy legal and political decision-making process, the Project helped provide the technical tools—particularly a detailed Resettlement Action Plan—to enable the resettlement to be appropriately carried out, if and when Government decides to proceed. 25. Garden Route Initiative (GRI). The Garden Route is a an area of high biodiversity value stretching from the Tsitsikamma Mountains to the coast and including important water catchment areas, existing national parks (such as Tsitsikamma National Park), and important estuaries and marine protected areas. The Garden Route is highly developed for agriculture as well as tourism, with coastal areas being developed for tourism and high-value housing. The GRI was executed by SANParks, the national agency with responsibility for all national parks; SANParks has also implemented another World Bank-GEF project focused on the Greater Addo Elephant National Park. The main successes from the BCSD Project are (i) expansion of the PA system and consolidation of the expanded Garden Route National Park, especially through restoration of lands that have been retired from plantation forestry; (ii) building partnerships with other organizations, including Cape Nature, NGOs, and private landowners; and (iii) utilization of planning tools, including the fine-scale planning for Critical Biodiversity Areas, invasive species maps, and integrated fire management through the Fire Protection Associations. Fine-scale mapping has been taken up by the SANParks Planning Unit and will be replicated by SANParks around the Greater Addo Elephant National Park as a useful tool for environmental review of proposed development projects, as well as implementation of activities associated with new legislation on Buffer Zones. Although the Project provided support for three stewardship positions and there is strong demand from local landowners for stewardship agreements, SANParks made a policy decision (beyond the scope of this Project) to drop the stewardship program as beyond its mandate. Nevertheless, SANParks is working off-reserve through other initiatives, such as the Fire Protection Associations, and will pay extra attention to off-park activities as prescribed through the new Buffer Zone Act.

26. Greater Cederberg Biodiveristy Corridor. The Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor (1.8 million hectares) extends from the mountains to the sea, creating a mega-reserve under different forms of land management: Provincial protected areas, private reserves (such as Bushmanskloof), and stewardship arrangements with private landowners and communities. It is a region of high biological and cultural diversity, with impressive examples of San (aka Bushman) rock art in the mountains, such as at the Stadsaal Caves. The highland area has limited agricultural potential (livestock, fruit orchards, and some olive, citrus, and vineyards) but much of the lowland area is under severe threat. Large areas of some lowland habitats, especially the biologically distinctinve Sandveld ecosystem, have been converted for agriculture, especially potato and rooibos production.

33

Cape Nature (then the WCNCB) was allocated US$1.69 million for protected areas in the Western Cape, including Cederberg and the Kogelberg Marine Reserve. Of the total Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor (GCBC) planning domain, a total of 602,143 ha--about one third of the area--is now under some form of conservation status with an environmental management plan in place. This includes 256,000 ha of national parks and provincial reserves, including new land acquisition in the Tankwa Karoo National Park and 62,674 ha of contractual stewardship agreements. Another 282,953 ha is under some form of voluntary conservation agreement, including 100,000 ha through the Biodiversity and Business properties with environmental management plans (supported through CEPF); this has been especially important for lowland habitats. 27. The GCBC has a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee, which includes government agencies (Cape Nature and Western Cape Department of Agriculture Landcare), private landowners, NGOs, and local communities. This governance structure has promoted partnerships with NGO and government programs to catalyze increased support to supplement BCSD Project activities. Thus, Landcare Area-Wide Planning enabled surveys of the Olifantsberg and Groet Winterhoek core corridors to identify priority biodiversity properties; the Cederberg Conservancy helped to secure stewardship sites to consolidate the core corridor. The GCBC also acted as a catalyst for accessing other funding. The CEPF funded complementary activities to support the overall CAPE Program, including the Biodiversity and Business initiative (which has prepared best practice guidelines for potato and rooibos production) and a Small Grants program for local communities. A tourism plan was developed and has led to community-led tourism initiatives, funded through the small grants program, such as the Rooibos Heritage Route and donkey cart tourism at Wuppertal. This has enabled local communities to participate in, and benefit from, livelihoods based on conservation. Cape Nature has also been successful in leveraging other funds to promote conservation in the GCBC, including support (i) from WWF-SA and TMF for the Groet Winterhoek riverine corridor and (ii) from Working for Wetlands for clearing non-native invasive species in the biologically signficant Verlorenvlei wetland and its catchment areas. The GCBC has also developed two children’s stories about the corridor (Krokkitor and Krokkitor 2) and associated workbooks in Afrikaans, which are now used in local schools. Cape Nature is strongly committed to maintaining and expanding the stewardship program. Several of the stewardship positions were originally funded through the BCSD Project (or associated CEPF funding) but Cape Nature has made considerable efforts to retain trained staff, even though some have been moved to other functions because of budget constraints. Nevertheless there are some questions over further expansion of the stewardship program because of the considerable operational costs required by Cape Nature to maintain, service, and audit the stewardship arrangements. 28. Kogelberg. The Kogelberg lies at the heart of the CFR and is one of the most florally diverse parts of the region, with about 1,900 plant species recorded, many of them found nowhere else. The area includes important water catchments under protected area status, as well as important fruit orchards and vineyards. The Project provided resources to strengthen management of a fourth site, the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve (KBR), which is managed by the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve Company (KBRC). A Kogelberg Coordinator and a Stewardship Extension Officer were appointed through Cape Nature. Negotiations are ongoing to secure seven local authority and eight private landowner properties under land acquisition and stewardship agreements to expand priority corridors. Several priority landowners, including the Kluver Wineries and the community-run Thandi Estate have developed stewardship agreements, which bring important remnant threatened habitats, such as Renosterveld, under protection. A hiking trail has been established in the Groenland Mountains, including walking sticks made from non-native tree species and marketed under “Walking with Aliens”, an ecotourism initiative. Funding was secured from the Development Bank of South Africa and DEADP for drafting a Spatial Development Framework for the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve. DEADP and the Overberg District Municipality are providing funding for some of the operational costs. The Kogelberg marine sub-component was outsourced to WWF in 2008 and recently

34

developed a participatory Management Plan for Betty’s Bay. The Project provided a boat and Cape Nature has appointed a MPA manager (who also has terrestrial responsibilities) but the MPA is still under-staffed and under-resourced. Marine and Coastal Management, which has overall responsibility for MPAs, provides only very limited funds to Cape Nature to manage the MPA. The WWF Honda Marine Parks Program will continue to provide some support to the Kogelberg MPA until the end of 2013. Nevertheless, gains made under the BCSD in the KBR are limited and there are questions of sustainability. The national government does not provide resources for Biosphere Reserve Management; securing long-term operational funds for the KBR, including staff positions, thus remains a challenge. 29. Marine Protected Areas. Project design targeted the establishment of new marine, freshwater, and estuarine reserves and the piloting of fisheries co-management in the Kogelberg MPA. Given the limited capacity of MCM and budget cuts at CN, this was probably too ambitious and the decision to cut back these targets can be considered a good example of adaptive management. Instead, WWF-South Africa was engaged to undertake a two year participatory planning exercise to zone the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area (MPA) and test the principles of co-management in the Kogelberg and Garden Route marine reserves. This has laid a sound foundation for preparing an integrated management plan with strong stakeholder engagement especially from small-scale fishermen. In the Kogelberg MPA, local fishermen have agreed to zoning with 20% of the area as no-take and 80% for multiple-use, with preferential treatment for local fishermen. Effective implementation will require enhanced political support and additional capacity and resources in responsible agencies (especially Cape Nature) but it is encouraging that the Eden municipality is already using the planning process to improve coastal and near-shore management. WWF South Africa is rolling out the lessons learned on participatory planning and management elsewhere in South Africa, including the Wild Coast, through its Honda Marine Program. The framework used to develop the final Integrated Coastal Management Plans is now being used as the minimum requirement in the development of other proposals for marine protected areas around the South African coastline. Component 5: Biodiversity Economy (GEF: US$2.45 million; Executed by SANBI and Cape Nature; Financed by the World Bank): Rating: Satisfactory 30. Fine-scale planning. As a result of the BCSD Project, Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) maps with associated land use guidelines were produced for 31 of the 34 local municipalities of the Cape Floristic Region. These maps are publicly available and are being widely used in planning decisions and environmental impact studies. A total of 564 officials, planners, environmental assessment professionals, and students participated in comprehensive full-day training courses to build their capacity in using these CBA maps and guidelines. 31. In Western Cape, the provincial planning authority has integrated biodiversity considerations into provincial land use planning policy. Through the BCSD Project, biodiversity issues are being integrated into the Spatial Development Frameworks of 15 out of the total 18 CFR local municipalities. The Project has also promoted the use of resource economics as a way to improve conservation related to water and land management, such as through a Sandveld study with the national Department of Agriculture. 32. The Project assigned resources both for developing the fine-scale maps and for “marketing” them to ensure their uptake, including assignment of dedicated staff to work within the planning divisions of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP). This process of map development and outreach to ensure public access and uptake can be regarded as best

35

practice and provides a model that similar projects could follow. Ensuring the creation, updating (for real-time information), and further dissemination and utilization of the fine-scale maps should be a priority for follow-on CAPE Program activities, including support to strengthen the capacity of local municipalities and planners to utilize the maps in development decisions. 33. Stewardship Planning. A Conservation Action Priorities map was developed as an internal tool for Cape Nature to guide biodiversity stewardship work throughout the Western Cape. Fifty-eight contracts have been signed between landowners and Cape Nature, establishing 39 private Nature Reserves (highest level of protection) and 19 Biodiversity Agreements. 34. Financial Sustainability and Payments for Ecosystem Services. Business plans were prepared for Cape Nature and ECPB under Component 4 and have helped to motivate increased budgets for specific activities. 35. Policy Reforms. The project led to agreement of a new, streamlined model for biodiversity stewardship, now being implemented at the national level. Two new incentive mechanisms were developed for biodiversity stewardship-- a municipal rates rebate and a national tax deduction have become available to qualifying landowners. These fiscal incentives were ground-breaking for South Africa; they are now being applied nationally.

Component 6: Watershed Management (GEF: US $l.32 million; Executed by SANBI and Cape Nature; Financed by the World Bank): Rating: Satisfactory

37. This component was designed to address biodiversity measures in watershed management from catchment to coast, with special emphasis on freshwater and estuarine systems. At the time of Project preparation, it was expected that five new Catchment Management Agencies would be established and that Component 6 would support capacity building for these agencies. In reality, only four Agencies have been established and only one is fully operational. Nonetheless, Component 6 has appreciably improved watershed catchment management from a biodiversity conservation standpoint, by strengthening and re-orienting existing government programs, in addition to assisting the still incipient Catchment Management Authorities. This Project component supported planning and priority-setting activities that served to mainstream biodiversity considerations within (i) water management and environmental water allocations (known in South Africa as the “Ecological Reserve”); (ii) invasive species management; and (iii) fire management programs. Management Plans were also developed for key estuaries. Even though firm data may be lacking, relevant agency staff have indicated that the improved collaboration and planning carried out under the BCSD Project have enabled more cost-effective and efficient use of resources, in line with a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities between agencies. 38. Estuary Management. A Protocol and 11 Estuary Management Plans were developed through consultative processes (six with Project funding and the rest through co-funding). Estuary Management Plans are under preparation for another 10 estuaries. Local stakeholder forums--including local governments, landowners, and communities--are being established to oversee implementation; the first committee was established for the Bot River Estuary. Cape Nature has institutionalized responsibility for estuary management with a new Estuaries, Islands, and Coasts program with dedicated staff. 39. Non-Native Invasive Species. Under the Project, a comprehensive and collaborative strategy for managing non-native plant and animal species in the Cape Floristic Region was developed.

36

Responsible agencies have established a new cooperative approach with assigned implementation structures in place and an active Invasive Species Task Team. 40. Catchment Management. Biodiversity considerations were strengthened in water resources management procedures, techniques, and protocols in three of the five CFR catchments (Olifants-Doring, Baviaanskloof, and Breede-Overberg). This served to mainstream biodiversity conservation within the decision-making processes of recently-established catchment management agencies. 41. Environmental Water Allocations. The BCSD Project catalyzed a national audit and review of the methodologies, techniques, and status of Ecological Reserve implementation of water allocations in South Africa. This is helping to guide national strategies for integrating environmental water requirements into water resource management. 42. Information Management. The Project has developed a wide range of products from publications and reports to posters, leaflets, stickers, videos, DVDs, etc. All have been of high technical quality and serve as a lasting legacy of the Project. Similarly, the CAPE Program website www.capeaction.org.za and SANBI’s Biodiversity Advisor website http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org are attractive and informative, reaching out with Project products such as the fine-scale plans and the Biodiversity GIS. Information has been well-managed and shared with all partners and other agencies, strengthening the partnership together and creating outreach to the wider Cape Province community. Information management is considered to be Satisfactory.

37

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 1. In accordance with GEF requirements, Project preparation included an Incremental Cost Analysis to assess the incremental GEF costs of achieving global biodiversity benefits. These incremental costs were calculated to be US$11 million (World Bank 2004). The biodiversity-related global environmental benefits identified for each component in the Project Appraisal Document have mostly been fully achieved.

2. The available data strongly suggest that implementation of the BCSD Project was (i) efficient in terms of leveraging GEF funds and (ii) cost-effective in terms of achieving the PDO in general and specific biodiversity conservation targets in particular. With respect to the leveraging of available GEF funds, this was expected at appraisal to be at a ratio of 4:1—specifically, Government assembling a total of US$44.13 million in counterpart (SANBI, CN, ECPB, and SANParks) and other co-funding (from other sources), in addition to the $11 million from GEF. Although not all of the originally expected sources of co-funding came through, the Project nonetheless succeeded in leveraging more than the originally planned amount of co-funding: $51.40 million was actually obtained (versus $44.13 million planned). Much of this co-funding came from regular government budgets, where programs were re-aligned to target BCSD priority areas, from a thematic as well as geographical standpoint. In addition to the Project co-funding obtained from national, provincial, and local governments and public universities, some $12 million came from NGOs and the private sector (Tortell 2010). From a GEF resource mobilization perspective, the Project was highly efficient with a relatively modest GEF contribution leveraging substantial co-funding, much of it from regular government budgets and programs that are expected to continue implementing further the CAPE Strategy. 3. With respect to achieving Project objectives, the overall PDO was achieved to a Satisfactory extent, as noted above. Moreover, most component-specific targets were achieved and many were exceeded, as detailed in Annex 7. Since these targets were achieved and exceeded with the level of GEF funding available at appraisal, this indicates that the Project was cost-effective relative to expectations. In terms of incremental land area conserved, some 71,000 hectares under formal conservation arrangements (on public and private lands) in the Kogelberg, Cedarberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz, Garden Route, and South West Lowlands were added under the Project, exceeding the target of 40,000 ha. For the endangered and critically endangered habitat types (the highest terrestrial biodiversity conservation priority), the incremental area brought under conservation through the Project was 45,488 ha, exceeding the target of 40,287 ha. Considering that only a portion of the total Project investment of US$62.4 million (including $11 million from GEF) was directed towards terrestrial conservation areas, the Project appears to be quite cost-effective in terms of hectares conserved per dollar. The aquatic biodiversity conservation results were less impressive, though nonetheless tangible in terms of the improved management of estuaries and Marine Protected Areas. 4. The Project was a stand-alone GEF project with two GEF grants (US$9 million through World Bank and $2 million through UNDP), along with counterpart funding from several national government agencies and co-funding from other organizations including NGOs. The GEF funds implemented through both the World Bank and UNDP were fully disbursed, mostly as planned for each component. As Annex 1 shows, the actual GEF funding for each of the six project components was very close to the amounts estimated at appraisal. The largest variation was that the GEF funds actually spent on Component 3 (Program Management and Coordination) were 15 percent greater than the appraisal estimate. This modest increase in project management costs can be attributed to the higher-than-expected demand for CCU assistance from the executing agencies as well as other participating governmental and non-governmental entities; this high demand is viewed as a positive

38

indication of strong interest among national and local government agencies, NGOs, and landowners in carrying out specific Project-promoted activities. Even so, Project management and coordination costs amounted to only 11 percent of total GEF (World Bank and UNDP) Project costs.

39

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/ Specialty

Lending Christopher Warner Sr. Technical Specialist Task Team Leader

Christopher Crepin Sector Leader Project Design & GEF Policy

Agi Kiss Regional Environment and Safeguards Advisor

Biodiversity & Project Design quality

Jonathan Nyamukapa Sr. Financial Management Spec. AFTFM Financial Management Aberra Zerabruk Sr. Counsel LEGAF Legal Iraj Talai Consultant AFTFM Finance V’s Krishnakumar Manager AFTPC Procurement John Boyle Consultant AFTWR Safeguards Kristine Ivarsdotter Sr. Social Dev. Specialist Safeguards Suzanne Morris Sr. Finance Officer Disbursement Jean-Christophe Carret Sr. Env. Economist AFTEN Market based approaches Matthew Stern Economic Linkages Caroline Guazzo Program Assistant AFTCS Editing Erika Odendaal Program Assistant AFCS1 Editing Hisham Abdu Kahin Senior Counsel LEGES Legal Claudia Sobrevila Sr. Environmental Specialist Review Supervision/ICR Paola Agostini Senior Economist AFTEN Task Team Leader Mohammed A. Bekhechi Lead Counsel LEGEN Legal Mohamed Arbi Ben-Achour Lead Social Development Spec. AFTCS Social Safeguards Slaheddine Ben-Halima Consultant MNSHD Jean-Christophe Carret Sr. Environmental Econ. AFTEN Antonio L. Chamuco Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement Fenwick M. Chitalu Financial Management Spec. AFTFM Financial Karsten Feuerriegel E T Consultant AFTEN Juan Gaviria Sector Leader AFTTR Jayne Angela Kwengwere Program Assistant AFTEN Administrative Support George C. Ledec Lead Ecologist AFTEN ICR Team Leader Kathleen S. Mackinnon Consultant AFTEN ICR Preparation Jonathan Nyamukapa Sr. Financial Management Spec. AFTFM Financial Sophia Elizabetha Frederi Odendaal

Program Assistant AFCS1 Admin. Support

Stefano P. Pagiola Sr. Environmental Econ. LCSSD Christopher James Warner Sr. Technical Specialist ENVCF Task Team Leader Rogier J. E. van den Brink Lead Economist EASPR Aziz Bouzaher Task Team Leader

40

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY02 8.20 11.78 FY03 10.82 42.82 FY04 13.36 46.29

Total: 32.38 100.89 Supervision/ICR

FY05 11.41 59.76 FY06 16.44 92.65 FY07 15.41 84.21 FY08 7.08 45.82 FY09 8.59 53.70 FY10 7.51 61.58 FY11 6.38 33.26

Total: 72.82 430.98

41

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Not applicable.

42

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results 1. A final workshop involving all stakeholders was held in May 2010 to coincide with the final joint World Bank-UNDP implementation support mission. The workshop included presentations on the results achieved by each Project activity, along with the next steps for post-Project implementation. The workshop included representatives from executing agencies, other government and partner agencies, co-funders such as TMF and Working for Water, NGO partners, representatives from project task teams, private landowners, local steering committees representing corridor initiatives, local communities and beneficiaries, and local government and municipalities. Participants reflected the breadth, scope, and commitment of the CAPE partnership. Reports and presentations from that workshop are described in the Project-supported publication, Celebrating Conservation: Consolidating Partnerships for Tomorrow (SANBI 2010b), as well as available on the CAPE website http://www.capeaction.org.za 2. During Project implementation, a series of stakeholder workshops were held on a variety of topics and themes, including capacity building. Annual meetings of all stakeholders were organized to enable various stakeholders to come together, report progress, and exchange experience and learning. These workshops were summarized in useful publications which documented activities and lessons learned. A conservation primer documenting stakeholder experiences from the BCSD and other GEF-supported activities in South Africa (SANBI 2010a) was also prepared and launched at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP-10) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010.

43

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR 1. As the lead executing agency for the BCSD Project, SANBI provided comments on the World Bank’s draft ICR through the April 15, 2011 letter shown on the following page. The CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU) embedded within SANBI has also produced a Self-Assessment on Project Results Achieved, which serves as the Government’s ICR for the CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. This Self-Assessment is presented in the form of a 9-page table, immediately following the SANBI letter.

45

Self-Assessment by the Cape Coordination Unit on Results Achieved under the CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project

OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

Reference: UNDP (PD)/ WB (PAD)

Outcome Indicators. (Where these changed, the original indicator is indicated in italics)

Baseline June 04 unless otherwise stated

March 2010 target March 2010 actual

PDO: To support the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) and adjacent marine environment by laying a sound foundation for scaling up and replicating successful project outcomes. Project Development Objective 1 A foundation is established for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities Project Development Objective 2 Conservation o f the CFR enhanced through piloting and adapting models for sustainable, effective management

UNDP & WB (1.1)

All C.A.P.E. signatory institutions directly support implementation of the Project

18 C.A.P.E. partners regularly attend CIC meetings

All C.A.P.E. partners regularly attend CIC meetings

The CAPE partnership expanded from 18 to23 signatory partner organisations committed to implementing the vision for 2020.

UNDP & WB (3)

The number of registered civil society stakeholders and individuals participating in the Project increases by 30%.

No. of people on C.A.P.E. database in October 2002: 1850 individuals

increase by 30% over baseline (2405)

The number of stakeholders registered on the CAPE database and receiving our fortnightly electronic newsletter grew from 1 850 to 3 510 – a 90% increase, far exceeding the targeted 30% increase.

UNDP & WB (2)

A CFR-wide conservation education strategy is successfully designed and implemented across the Project area

Participating CE organisations / CCEP project team at Rhodes University

strategy implemented by key partners

The number of organisations involved in the networks grew from 27 to 76and three sub-regional networks for conservation education were established in the Western, Southern and Eastern Cape, with plans in place for institutions to sustain them post-BCSD. The “Towards 2020: Strategic Directions for Biodiversity Conservation Education in the Fynbos Biome and Beyond” Document was developed and adopted by partner organisations.

RU – NEW (2)

Increased number of conservation organisations with education strategies (revised from: A CFR-wide conservation education strategy is successfully designed and implemented across the Project area)

Programme initiated in July 2004. Baseline data gathering started in November 2004 with a series of partner consultations involving 27 partner organisations.

Final review of status of CE Strategy in participating partner organisations.

The number of organisations with explicit conservation education strategies grew from 4 to 67.

WB (4)

The Baviaanskloof, Cederberg and Garden Route protected areas have been consolidated and expanded through critical lowland habitats (as alternative to: the extent of protected areas in the CFR increases by 4000km2 = 400 000ha)

1054033 ha under formal management agreements, including voluntary with management plans, contractual and statutory. (see Tab 1)

Increase by 400 000ha over baseline = 1454033 ha

The total number of hectares under formal management agreements in the Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz, Garden Route and South West Lowlands areas grew from 1 054 033 hectares to 1 764 117 hectares – exceeding the target of 1 454 033 hectares.

UNDP & WB (4)

The number of jobs directly associated with conservation and nature-based tourism in Project

570 people employed in protected areas falling within the Cederberg, GRI and

Increase by 20% over baseline = 684.

1107 jobs created at project sites

46






intervention sites increases by 20%

Baviaanskloof planning domains (jobs related to project objectives)

UNDP & WB (4)

The number of jobs directly associated with conservation and nature-based tourism in Project intervention sites increases by 20%

85804 person days worked in protected areas falling within the Cederberg, GRI, Baviaanskloof and Kogelberg planning domains (in work related to the project objectives)

increase by 25% over baseline = 107255 person days

The number of person days of work associated with conservation increased from an initial 85 804 per year to an average of 181 276 person days per year over the project period – an increase of 111% that far exceeds the targeted increase of 25%.

UNDP & WB (5)

Spatial development frameworks in six representative lowland local municipalities sites incorporate conservation priorities.

No spatial development frameworks in the CFR explicitly incorporate biodiversity priorities.

Two additional SDFs incorporate conservation priorities. Total = 10

Through the BCSD project, we are in the process of strengthening the biodiversity component of the Spatial Development Frameworks of 15 out of the total 18 CFR local municipalities.

UNDP & WB (4, 5)

Five-year targets for protected area status for irreplaceable broad habitat units in lowlands and watersheds are met as defined by the C.A.P.E. 2000 strategy.

Within project focal areas: 16115 ha of endangered and critically endangered biodiversity under conservation management.

250% increase in no. ha of critically endangered and endangered veg under formal conservation management = 56402 ha

Within the project areas, the 16 115 hectares of endangered and critically endangered biodiversity under conservation was increased to 61 603 hectares – a 282% increase that is greater than the targeted increase of 250%.

GBO: to ensure that the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment is secured by 2024.

WB (3)

At project closure, the C.A.P.E. signatory institutions commit to a second phase of the C.A.P.E. Program due to the successful completion of the project.

Agreement on implementation of second phase of C.A.P.E. programme

Pathfinder discussions have resulted in signatory partners committing to the next phase of C.A.P.E., with an emphasis on local rather than international funding. Strategy elucidation and fundraising efforts will be initiated in early 2010. There is no ‘GEF Phase 2’ as was envisaged when the project was designed.

Output 1: Capacitated institutions implement the project

1.1 Enhance inter-agency cooperation and strategic planning for conservation management in the CFR

WB Institutions are able to meet demand to incorporate private land into protected areas,

Legal capacity and institutional mandates for inclusion of private land into PA system undefined.

Contracts with landowners concluded.

A new streamlined model for biodiversity stewardship was agreed upon and implemented nationally, with a total of 58 contracts signed between landowners and CapeNature – establishing 39 nature reserves and 19 biodiversity agreements.

1.1 Enhance inter-agency cooperation and strategic planning for conservation management in

WB Use of Project supported management systems in the various agencies

Few mechanisms for coordinated planning and implementation across the CFR.

All task teams established and functional and using project work plans and financial reporting systems

8 landscape initiative steering committees and 14 cross-cutting task teams were established, with 4 landscape initiatives and 14 task teams receiving direct support from the project. 7 of the 14 cross-cutting task teams have expanded to a national scope of work. Others will continue to have a CFR focus, coordinated by

47






the CFR

partner institutions.

1.4 Establish a comprehensive information management system

UNDP 300% increase in number of conservation information management products produced (part replaces: 50% increase in number of conservation information management products produced and used in biodiversity management)

1 300% increase in number of conservation information management products produced (4)

430 updated 2009 BGIS DVDs, 50 pamphlets describing the new SANBI website (Biodiversity Advisor) and 550 documents describing the Land-Use Decision Support tool were produced and distributed.


UNDP 250% increase in number of biodiversity conservation planning products published on the BGIS website (part replaces: 50% increase in number of conservation information management products produced and used in biodiversity management)

3 conservation information products published on the BGIS website

250% increase in number of biodiversity conservation planning products published on the BGIS website (15)

The number of systematic biodiversity planning products published on the Biodiversity-GIS website increased from 3 to 26 – a 767% increase, which is significantly higher than the targeted 250% increase. The number of registered users of the Biodiversity-GIS website grew from approximately 50 to 2 934 – an increase of 5 768%, far exceeding the target of a 300% increase.


UNDP 100% increase in the number of users of the information management products (part replaces: 50% increase in number of conservation information management products produced and used in biodiversity management)

Baseline not measured but estimated to be 50 registered users.

100% increase in the number of users accessing the information management products (200). Increase in site visits.

506 new website registrations from March 2009 - 2010. A total of 2934 users have registered on the BGIS website since it's inception in April 2008.

1.2 Build capacity for effective conservation management in the CFR

UNDP Number of learning programmes that respond to identified C.A.P.E. capacity building needs (new)

Zero (2007) - only tracking from project inception

7 learning programmes 7 learning programmes: 3 capacity building programmes were piloted or expanded through the BCSD project: the new mentorship course supported CapeNature and the City of Cape Town to set up their own mentoring programmes, SANBI entered into a partnership with WESSA to expand its offering of the Enviro Eds course, and the new stewardship course was taken up by Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and is being offered nationally on an ongoing basis.

1.2 Build capacity for effective conservation management in the CFR

UNDP Number of people within participating institutions who directly benefit from C.A.P.E. capacity building activities (revised from 50%

Zero (2007) - only tracking from project inception

Total of 150 people directly benefiting from capacity building activities

216 people benefitted directly through the investment in the capacity development sub-component through mentors training, the stewardship and extension course and enviro-eds training.

48






increase in number of people within participating institutions who directly benefit from C.A.P.E. capacity building activities)


UNDP Legal mandates and roles of institutions clarified

Rationalisation of functions incomplete (bioregional plans not mobilised; conservation functions not rationalised; world heritage function unallocated)

Rationalisation of conservation functions agreed and implemented

The study, Defining the Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative’s approach to co-operative governance and rationalisation of functions, aimed to deriving clear options for rationalizing institutional mandates. After long delays, this study is now being used by DEA as part of a revitalized process to look at rationalizing the management of protected areas in South Africa

1.3 Develop financial sustainability plan

UNDP Financial plans and strategies developed for executing agencies

Financial sustainability of key components of organisational strategy uncertain.

Financial sustainability plans agreed and being implemented

Stewardship business case development process completed and integrated into the Cape Nature business case process. Cape Nature business case development process completed and submissions made to MTEC and MTEF as well as extensive organisational development interventions undertaken. Eastern Cape Parks Board business case development process underway.


UNDP Work plans of target CMAs incorporate biodiversity concerns

The work plans of DWAF regions (proto CMAs) do not include aquatic biodiversity conservation priorities / plans

The Catchment Management Strategies and/or ISP documents of all 5 CFR WMA includes aquatic biodiversity priorities

As a result of CMA establishment being delayed, this component was dropped. Work towards strengthening biodiversity in the ecological resource in reported under component 6.

Output 2: Inhabitants of the CFR contributing to biodiversity conservation through improved awareness raising and environmental education/ Increased environmental awareness and committed action of people in the CFR contributes to biodiversity conservation

2.1 Raise awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues and benefits in CFR

WB Civil society and private sector initiatives support conservation of the CFR

98 projects registered on C.A.P.E. database, including CEPF, TMF, lottery etc.

No. of registered projects on C.A.P.E. database increases by 5% (136)

The number of civil society and private sector conservation projects supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and the Table Mountain Fund grew from 98 to 210, significantly exceeding the target of 136.

RU - NEW Increased number of conservation education professionals offering programmes

Baseline audit data on existing professional capacity for conservation education

No. of participants registering and completing CE courses increases by 15/ annum

A total of 109 people participated in courses on conservation education, exceeding the target of 15 participants per year. 88 bursaries were provided by the end of Phase 1.

RU - NEW Learning support materials (LSM) in use and supporting CE (revised from Training materials (that incorporate elements and measures relating to HIV/ AIDS) produced

Resource audit 2004/2005

LSM increases by 1 / partner / annum

A total of 141 learning support materials were developed by partner organisations – just over the target of 135 (1 per partner per year based on the original 27 partners). All resources developed during Phase 1 located on CCU Learning Network website; There are 450 materials entries on the database of materials.

49






and disseminated) UNDP & WB: SUGGEST REPLACE?

Increased community awareness about the value of the CFR in the GCBC planning domain (replaces: Increased community awareness about the value of the CFR)

2006: Results of community survey in target areas that assesses knowledge and activity that supports C.A.P.E. objectives.

Community awareness about the GCBC increases.

Two community outreaches have been held per quarter as well as well as interventions on 3 environmental days were completed over the last period.

UNDP Annual increase in school children in the CFR that attend biodiversity education centre programmes. Target 10%

Not measured as school children were not targeted by the project

Output 3: CCU capacitated to perform project coordination function

3.1 Undertake Project and program coordination, management and monitoring

WB Project partners support the CCU in Phase 2 of the C.A.P.E. program

2006: Project partners indicate satisfaction with CCU performance

Project partners indicate satisfaction with CCU services

Project partners have indicated satisfaction with the CCU, and have supported the proposal that SANBI continue to house the Coordination Unit within its Fynbos Programme.

WB CCU staffed to deliver on project management and coordination

CCU staffed with Coordinator, Programme Developer, Financial Manager, Communications Manager and Administrator. Project management and M&E systems in development.

CCU full staff complement in place, and resources securing for continued hiring or core staff beyond the project.

SANBI has committed to continue supporting CAPE’s coordination function. To this end, both the programme developer and the coordinator are now permanent positions.

UNDP CCU undertakes effectives coordination, financial management, communication, monitoring and evaluation and programme development functions

CCU staffed with Coordinator, Programme Developer, Financial Manager, Communications Manager and Administrator. Project management and M&E systems in development.

Full staff complement in place and supporting project implementation

All project and financial management, communication, M&E and programme development functions were well supported by the CCU. SANBI has committed to continue supporting CAPE’s coordination function. To this end, both the programme developer and the coordinator are now permanent positions.

UNDP Lessons learned through monitoring and evaluation are recorded, disseminated and periodically incorporated into C.A.P.E. strategy and M&E system

C.A.P.E. M&E systems not developed, formal mechanisms for sharing and documenting lessons not developed

Lessons learned through monitoring and evaluation are recorded, disseminated and periodically incorporated into C.A.P.E. strategy and

A total of 28 case studies were produced, recording lessons learnt and achievements of the partnership, and adding qualitative detail to the CAPE Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. An overarching M&E system for the CAPE Programme has been developed, and has informed the development of an M&E system in the Succulent Karoo and Grasslands Programmes. It is also feeding into the

50






M&E system process of developing national indicators for biodiversity. UNDP 50% increase in number

of communication programme materials produced and disseminated

25 including brochures, campaigns, exhibitions, media releases, popular articles and publications

90 including brochures, campaigns, exhibitions, media releases, popular articles and publications

A total of 101 communications products including brochures, campaigns, exhibitions, media releases, popular articles and publications were produced and disseminated, going beyond the target of 90 products.

Output 4: Protected areas established as per project document; Additional 4000kms of viable protected area established and properly managed

4.1 Establish and consolidate key protected areas

WB PA estate in planning domains of Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, GI, GRI and SW Lowlands is consolidated and expanded. (Replaces presence of nine expanded protected area systems)

Extent of PA estate in Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, GI, GRI and SW Lowlands planning domains = 1054033 ha.

For UNDP, target was 1454033 ha (= + 400 000 km2);


4.2 Development of sustainable management effectiveness

UNDP 4000km2 (400 000ha) of additional protected area established

1 054033 ha 1454033 ha (= + 400 000 km2)


UNDP METT ratings improve continually and by project end, 75% of target Pas have effective management systems. (Replaces: Effective management systems that comply with international standards operational in 75% of target PAs.)

No METTs completed METTS competed for third time for all target Pas. An assessment of METT ratings in target PAs concludes that 75% of target Pas have effective management systems.

METTS completed for a fifth time for 20 protected areas. The ratings of the CFR protected areas in terms of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool improved slightly from an average of 55.7 to an average of 57.3 over the project period; and 80% of the protected areas scored an average over the project period that was over the national average of 49 obtained from the METT-SA.

Output 5: Biodiversity in six priority lowland landscapes identified and secured in conjunction with civil society

5.1 Undertake fine-scale conservation planning

WB / UNDP Conservation plans implemented in six lowland areas / 6 fine scale biodiversity (conservation) plans and associated guidelines produced for priority lowland areas

Fine scale plan developed for Overberg and Swartland Renosterveld lowlands

Biodiversity plans for 6 new areas. Associated guidelines for six areas. Biodiversity plans and maps for all 6 areas adequately mainstreamed into 5.2 (Integrating biodiversity into land use planning and decision making) and Stewardship.

As a result of the BCSD project, critical biodiversity area maps with associated land-use guidelines have been produced for 31 of the 34 local municipalities of the Cape Floristic Region, including and going far beyond the targeted lowland priority areas. A Conservation Action Priorities map was developed as an internal tool for Cape Nature to guide biodiversity stewardship work throughout the Western Cape.

5.2 Integrate biodiversity in

UNDP 100% increase in number of officials who

Zero - this indicator will only measure

195 officials (average of 4 officials per

564 officials benefitted from training under this sub-component including

51






land-use decision-making

received capacity building in conservation planning

direct project results as other data has not been recorded.

municipality (120 total); 5 officials each from Agriculture, Mining and DWAF (15 total); 20 from CapeNature and 40 from DEA&DP)

DEA&DP Environmental officers trained on biodiversity plans and land-use guidelines, specifically the CBA-maps and the Rural Planning and land-use management guidelines.

DEA&DP planners trained on biodiversity plans and land-use guidelines, specifically the CBA-maps and the Rural Planning and land-use management guidelines.

IAIA members trained on biodiversity plans and land-use guidelines, specifically the CBA-maps and the Rural Planning and land-use management guidelines.

Masters students in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Cape Town.

Planners from local municipalities. 5.3 Increase landowners commitment to conservation

UNDP 50% increase in number of landowners who receive input or support regarding biodiversity conservation from extension teams in priority areas

225 (Baviaanskloof). Baselines for GRI, SW Lowlands and GCBC to be determined.

815 (Baviaanskloof). Targets to be set for GRI, GCBC and SW Lowlands

2630 landowner visits reported in the Baviaanskloof as a direct result of the BCSD project investment.

WB Institutions are able to meet demand to incorporate private land into protected areas,

Legal capacity and institutional mandates for inclusion of private land into PA system undefined.

Contracts with landowners concluded.

A new streamlined model for biodiversity stewardship was agreed upon and implemented nationally, with a total of 58 contracts signed between landowners and CapeNature – establishing 39 nature reserves and 19 biodiversity agreements.

5.4 Investigate economic incentives for enhancing conservation stewardship of priority lowland

UNDP Economic incentives for enhancing conservation stewardship in priority lowlands identified and tested

Project will work from zero base

Results documented Two new incentive mechanisms were created for biodiversity stewardship – a municipal rates rebate that municipalities can promote, and a national tax deduction now legislated and available to qualifying landowners.

Output 6: Biodiversity concerns are integrated into watershed management

6.1 Improve watershed management and water resource management

UNDP Extent to which the implementation of the ecological Reserve integrates biodiversity concerns in target areas (Replaces: Extent to which biodiversity concerns are integrated into ecological reserve determinations in target areas)

The determination and implementation of the Ecological Reserve do note make specific provision for aquatic ecosystem biodiversity conservation

The determination and implementation of the Ecological Reserve make specific provision for aquatic ecosystem biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity considerations were strengthened in water resource management procedures, techniques and protocols of 3 of the 5 CFR catchments (Olifants-Doring, Baviaanskloof and Breede-Overberg), with a view to informing catchment management in the emerging catchment management agencies and integrating environmental water requirements into decision-making processes. The BCSD project catalysed a national audit and review of the methodologies, techniques and status of Ecological Reserve implementation in South Africa that will guide national strategies for integrating environmental water requirements into water resource management.


WB Plans developed and implemented to remove threats to biodiversity in watersheds (alien invasives, fire,

Generic process for determining ecological reserve requirements in place, but no comprehensive

Make recommendations for improvement and implement, and roll out to other priority

Biodiversity considerations were strengthened in water resource management procedures, techniques and protocols of 3 of the 5 CFR catchments (Olifants-Doring, Baviaanskloof and Breede-Overberg), with a view to informing catchment management in the emerging catchment management agencies and integrating environmental water

52






ecological reserve, estuarine management)

determination in biodiversity priority areas, and not adequately implemented.

areas identified at project start (n=2)

requirements into decision-making processes. The BCSD project catalysed a national audit and review of the methodologies, techniques and status of Ecological Reserve implementation in South Africa that will guide national strategies for integrating environmental water requirements into water resource management.


WB Plans developed and implemented to remove threats to biodiversity in watersheds (alien invasives, fire, ecological reserve, estuarine management))

No comprehensive fire management strategy for the CFR

Findings of FMDP published and utilized in CapeNature Strategic Planning process.

The CapeNature fire management policy is based on information derived through the Fire Management Data Project. The project included an assessment of the impact of fires on fynbos ecosystems, and proposed changes to CapeNature’s fire management policy and guidelines.


UNDP Adoption and implementation of biodiversity conservation measures in fire management systems in target watersheds

Establish fire history regimes in the protected areas of the Western Cape. Use data to prescribe Fire Management policy and guidelines.

Findings of FMDP published and utilized in CapeNature Strategic Planning process.

The CapeNature fire management policy is based on information derived through the Fire Management Data Project. The project included the establishment of fire regimes, an assessment of the impact of fires on fynbos ecosystems, and proposed changes to CapeNature’s fire management policy and guidelines.

6.2 Improve management of Invasive Alien Species

UNDP & WB Plans developed and implemented to remove threats to biodiversity in watersheds (alien invasives, fire, ecological reserve, estuarine management)

No comprehensive IAS strategy for the CFR

Institutional arrangements in place and business plan implemented

A comprehensive strategy for managing alien plant and animal species in the Cape Floristic Region was developed, and a new cooperative approach to this work has been achieved, with implementation structures in place

6.2 Improve management of Invasive Alien Species

UNDP A pilot IAS control project is implemented in priority ecosystems (Revised from: Two pilot IAS control projects implemented in priority ecosystems)

No protocol in place for the management and eradication of invasive alien fish from CFR rivers

The resultant methods for eradication have been implemented successfully in the four identified priority rivers.

EIA completed. EIA Report, Environmental Management plan, Biodiversity Monitoring plan, Legal opinion produced. Stakeholder support obtained. Implementation not undertaken and planned as a CapeNature activity in the near future.

6.3 Improve estuarine management

UNDP Two estuarine and freshwater protected areas established.

Not measured. Dropped and integrated into Catchment Management Project

6.3 Improve estuarine management

UNDP & WB Protocol developed for CFR estuarine management

No protocol for estuarine management for CFR, estuaries managed ad hoc

Protocol developed A protocol for estuary management plans was developed, and with co-funding, 11 estuary management plans developed through consultative processes.

53

Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 1. The CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development (BCSD) Project was co-funded with Global Environmental Facility (GEF) resources provided by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). UNDP’s comments on this ICR report are provided in the April 12, 2011 letter shown on the following page. In addition, for its part in evaluating the results of the BCSD Project, UNDP commissioned a Terminal Evaluation Report (Tortell 2010). The Executive Summary of this report is reproduced below verbatim, following the UNDP letter.

55

CAPE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: TERMINAL EVALUATION REPORT

Executive Summary

The Project This is the independent Terminal Evaluation of the GEF/World Bank/UNDP/ Government of South Africa Project “Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development” under the CAPE Program. The World Bank and UNDP served as Implementing Agencies for the sake of the GEF and the project was executed by the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and three sub-executing agencies (CapeNature, SANParks and the Wilderness Foundation). Project activities were coordinated by the CAPE Coordination Unit (CCU) established for the purpose by SANBI and based in Cape Town. The Project website can be found at: http://www.capeaction.org.za/. The Project Development Objective was “to support the conservation of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) and adjacent marine environment by laying a sound foundation for scaling up and replicating successful Project outcomes”. It also had two Immediate Objectives as follows: --Immediate Objective 1: “A foundation is established for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities” --Immediate Objective 2: “Conservation of the CFR enhanced through piloting and adapting models for sustainable, effective management” Work towards the first Immediate Objective comprised three Components, namely, Institutional Strengthening, Conservation Education, and Programme and Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring. And a further three Components were expected to contribute to the second Immediate Objective, viz., Protected Areas, Biodiversity Economy and Conservation Stewardship, and Watershed Management. The Project had an initial total budget of US$55.13 million and the GEF provided the only identifiable cash input of US$11 million. While the original co-funding estimate was US$44.13 million, this was exceeded by a significant amount. The Evaluation Like all GEF Terminal Evaluations, this TE is being carried out: • To promote accountability and transparency, and to assess and disclose levels of project accomplishments; • To synthesize lessons that may help improve the selection, design and implementation of future GEF activities;

56

• To provide feedback on issues that are recurrent across the portfolio and need attention, and on improvements regarding previously identified issues; and, • To contribute to the GEF Evaluation Office databases for aggregation, analysis and reporting on effectiveness of GEF operations in achieving global environmental benefits and on quality of monitoring and evaluation across the GEF system. The approach adopted was participatory which, while safeguarding the independence of the Evaluator, included self-assessments by the CAPE Coordination Unit. A six-point rating system was applied to elements of the Project, in particular on progress towards the Objectives and Outcomes. Key Findings and Conclusions Project Formulation The Project concept was sound with a reasonable timescale and an adequate budget. However, the project design was complex and the degree of relevance of some of its components to its objectives was not always clear. Project formulation was undertaken in a participatory manner, involving a broad range of stakeholder groups using a number of different information gathering methods. Project Governance, Coordination and Partnerships Governance of the Project was complex and multi-layered, but it worked satisfactorily. The fact that the project was embedded in the wider CAPE Program worked in its favor and ensured a high level of involvement by many stakeholders especially at the provincial level, but also at national level. It was a good example of collaboration between Government organizations and between Government and non-Government partners. The CCU has played a crucial role in the coordination of the project which has been carried out effectively and efficiently. The small team has worked well together, cohesively, with good leadership and excellent team spirit. It is held in high regard by all those consulted. Implementation Approach and Institutional Arrangements Setting the BCSD Project within the wider CAPE Program context, which was being implemented by an existing organization, was probably instrumental in its success. The partnerships which had already been forged, the consultative and governance processes which were already in place, the technical support which was available, all stood the project in good stead and allowed it to benefit from on-going complementary initiatives. This approach was efficient and cost-effective. Stakeholders have been meaningfully involved in project implementation. Information has been well-managed. It has been shared with partners and beyond and it has served as one mechanism holding the partnership together. Project Financial Management Financial planning and management of the financial resources and reporting as a means of accountability has been as complex as other aspects of the project. However, they have been carried out diligently and effectively. The amount of co-funding pledged far

57

exceeded the GEF requirement and the amount actually delivered was even more impressive. Risk Management A number of problems and constraints which could impact on the successful delivery of the project were identified at the project design stage. Others were raised as part of the Mid-Term Evaluation. In the event, half of the risks identified either did not eventuate or they were mitigated successfully and no new risks emerged during project implementation. Of the risks that eventuated, three were not successfully mitigated. Monitoring and Adaptive Management The project M&E Plan comprised an impressive, comprehensive matrix which more than satisfied GEF requirements. The matrix has served as an effective basis for monitoring performance, reporting progress and informing management to take any necessary corrective action. The only weakness of this approach was that the M&E matrix was based on Indicators gleaned from the LogFrame which, even when amended by subsequent revisions, were weak and unhelpful. As a result, the project often set about achieving the Indicators rather than the Outcomes and Objectives they were meant to measure progress towards. At times the project seemed to set aside the Indicators and work effectively towards the Outcomes. With a stronger set of Indicators which satisfy the SMART criteria, this approach to monitoring and adaptive management could be considered best practice. Results and Impacts In spite of the fact that some Indicators in the LogFrame were not completely specific or relevant to the Objective, indications are that the Development Objective has, in the main, been achieved. This conclusion is supported by the Close-out reports, PIRs, the Aide-Mémoires, consultations and field visits. It is also very likely that the results achieved under Immediate Objective 1 will make a significant contribution to a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities. However, mainstreaming is a difficult result to ascertain and better Indicators were necessary. A number of piloting initiatives were carried out successfully under Immediate Objective 2, but whether these results achieved “enhancement of CFR conservation” is too early to tell. However, the models are sound and if they are sustained, can be expected to lead to this ultimate result. The project targeted many foundational and intermediate products and it achieved most of these successfully. Some progress has also been made towards true results and impacts but the full impact of the project will only accrue in time, and in conjunction with other initiatives. Relevance, Effectiveness, and Sustainability Project activities have been very relevant to the needs of the CFR and they were carried out effectively in general. Most products have been internalized, institutionalized and mainstreamed as core activities of key agencies at both national and provincial levels. However, some institutionalization is dependent on funds becoming available and financial sustainability is not yet secure for some activities. On the other hand, there are

58

good prospects for ecological sustainability with the stewardship scheme, management plans, the widespread use of the METT, etc, in place. Overall Conclusion This has been a successful project. Through its plans, strategies, methodologies, and pilots it has laid a good foundation for biodiversity conservation in the CFR. Its results are mainly intermediate at this stage and its impacts will accrue through the use of its products and the application of its services by the responsible institutions. Cooperation and collaboration are the most distinguishing features of the project - between the GEF IAs, between the EAs, and between various other stakeholders. It is a model which is rarely encountered, certainly not to this extent. Good progress has been made towards the Development Objective and both Immediate Objectives which have been met, in the main, and the Outputs have been achieved. Two Outcomes and two Sub-Outcomes are seen as Highly Satisfactory. Serious efforts have gone into ensuring sustainability for the project products, and it is generally very likely. Recommendations The following is more of an exhortation than a recommendation and it is made primarily to SANBI as the coordinator of the CAPE Program, in search of sustainability for the products and services of BCSD especially those that have been tested and merit scaling up and replication. SANBI should ensure that the next phase of the CAPE Program makes provision for the following elements: --Safeguard its own coordination function to maintain collaboration, cooperation and alignment --Broaden the range of active stakeholders to include others whose action/inaction has a bearing on biodiversity conservation, such as agriculture --Invest the necessary effort and resources to extend the work to Municipalities --Invest the necessary effort and resources to ensure the meaningful involvement of grassroots communities --Continue building capacity within government institutions as well as in the private sector and at community level --Provide for Fine-Scale Planning to be updated regularly and managed effectively --Instigate at national level those activities that were piloted successfully by BCSD --Recognize that MPAs have different needs from terrestrial PAs, and provide for them --Explore the applicability of the impressive tools developed by BCSD to other situations in South Africa, the region and further afield --Seek institutional champions e.g. for Stewardship, Fine-Scale Planning, financial incentives and other successful products and services --Recognize financial and budgetary constraints and seek innovative sustainable financing --Lobby for State funding and State involvement where other avenues are not successful --Apply a special focus on the estuarine, coastal and marine environment

59

--Apply a special focus on the tourism sector as a potential income earner and ally for biodiversity conservation

60

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents and Web Sites Ashwell, A., T. Sandwith, M. Barnett, A. Parker and F. Wisani. 2006. Fynbos Fynmense: People Making Biodiversity Work. SANBI Biodiversity Series 4. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute. CES. 2008. Resettlement Action Plan: Coleske-Baviaanskloof Nature Reserve. East London: Coastal & Environmental Services, 214p. DEAT. 2005. South Africa Country Study 2005 : Situational Assessment Undertaken to Inform South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. DEAT. 2005. South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. NBI. 2003a. Environmental and Social Management Framework for CAPE. Cape Town: National Botanical Institute of South Africa, 59p. NBI. 2003b. Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework for CAPE. Cape Town: National Botanical Institute of South Africa, 72p. SANBI. 2010a. Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s Landscape Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Promoting Ecosystem Resilience. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute, 170p. SANBI. 2010b. Celebrating Conservation: Consolidating Partnerships for Tomorrow. Cape Town: South African National Biodiversity Institute, CAPE Coordination Unit, 151p. Steyn, L. 2008. CAPE Pathfinder 2008-- Sustaining Achievements (Draft, November 2008).

Stolton, S., M. Hockings, N. Dudley, K. MacKinnon, and T. Whitten. 2003. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas--A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Washington: World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use.

Terrapon, H. 2010a. Analyzing and Monitoring Biodiversity Loss Trends in the CFR in regards to the CAPE Programme Interventions. Cape Town: South African National Biodiversity Institute, 33p. Tortell, P. 2010. CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project (BCSD): Terminal Evaluation Report. Cape Town: South African National Biodiversity Institute, 71p.

61

Tunley, K. 2009. State of Management of South Africa’s Marine Protected Areas. WWF South Africa Report Series 2009/Marine/001. Van Wilgen, B.W. and Forsyth, G.G. 2008. The Historical Effects and Future Management of Fire Regimes in the Fynbos Protected Areas of the Western Cape Province. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0078/C. Stellenbosch World Bank. 2004. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant from the Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund in the Amount of US$9.0 Million to the Republic of South Africa for the CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. Washington, The World Bank, 112+p. The Project also produced a host of supporting documents, data, and reports on all major Project activities, including fine-scale biodiversity planning, conservation education, operational manuals for stewardship, fire and invasive species management, estuarine management plans, and planning frameworks for particular sites. Many of these documents are available on the CAPE and the SANBI Biodiversity Advisor websites, or at the other, Project-enhanced websites listed below: CAPE: http://www.capeaction.org.za/ SANBI: http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/ Baviaanskloof: http://www.baviaanskloof.net/tourist_route_and_area_map.htm Cederberg: http://www.cederberg.co.za/ CEPF: http://www.cepf.net Garden Route: http://www.sa-venues.com/garden_route.htm Cape Nature: http://www.capenature.co.za/ Eastern Cape Parks Board: http://www.ecparks.co.za/ SANParks: http://www.sanparks.org/ WWF-South Africa: http://www.panda.org.za/

PortPortElizabethElizabeth

CradockCradockGraaf-RenetGraaf-Renet

AberdeenAberdeen

UitenhageUitenhage

SaldanhaSaldanha

PaarlPaarl

SwellendamSwellendam

MosselbayMosselbay

GeorgeGeorge

Beaufort WestBeaufort West

WorcesterWorcester

KleinmondKleinmond

Cape TownCape Town

G O U R I T Z I N I T I A T I V EG O U R I T Z I N I T I A T I V E

G A R D E N R O U T E I N I T I A T I V EG A R D E N R O U T E I N I T I A T I V E

B A V I A A N S K L O O FB A V I A A N S K L O O FM E G A - R E S E R V EM E G A - R E S E R V E

G R E A T E R C E D E R B E R GG R E A T E R C E D E R B E R GB I O D I V E R S I T Y C O R R I D O RB I O D I V E R S I T Y C O R R I D O R

WEST COASTWEST COASTBIOSPHERE CORRIDORBIOSPHERE CORRIDOR

AGULHASAGULHASBIODIVERSITY INITIATIVEBIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE

KOGELBERGKOGELBERGBIOSPHEREBIOSPHERERESERVERESERVE

CAPE FLATSCAPE FLATSFLORAFLORA

W E S T E R N C A P EW E S T E R N C A P E

N O R T H E R N C A P EN O R T H E R N C A P E

E A S T E R N C A P EE A S T E R N C A P E

PortElizabeth

CradockGraaf-Renet

Aberdeen

Uitenhage

Saldanha

Paarl

Swellendam

Mosselbay

George

Beaufort West

Worcester

Kleinmond

Cape Town

G O U R I T Z I N I T I A T I V E

G A R D E N R O U T E I N I T I A T I V E

B A V I A A N S K L O O FM E G A - R E S E R V E

G R E A T E R C E D E R B E R GB I O D I V E R S I T Y C O R R I D O R

WEST COASTBIOSPHERE CORRIDOR

AGULHASBIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE

KOGELBERGBIOSPHERERESERVE

CAPE FLATSFLORA

W E S T E R N C A P E

N O R T H E R N C A P E

E A S T E R N C A P E

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

I N D I A N O C E A N

Area of map

SOUTH AFRICA

INDIAN OCEAN

INDIAN OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Cape Town

Mayotte(Fr.)

COMOROS

MOZAMBIQUE

SWAZILAND

MADAGASCAR

LESOTHO

ZIMBABWE

BOTSWANANAM IB I A

ANGOLA

DEM. R EP.OF CONGO

TANZAN I A

CONGOGABON RWANDA

BURUNDIKENYA

ZAMB IAMALAWI

Cabinda(Ang.)

Th is map was produced by the Map Des ign Uni t o f The Wor ld Bank. The boundar ies , co lo rs , denominat ions and any other in format ionshown on th is map do not imply, on the par t o f The Wor ld BankGroup, any judgment on the lega l s ta tus of any te r r i to r y, o r anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundar ies .

IBRD 38559

MAY 2011

SOUTH AFRICA

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ANDSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

PROJECT AREA (CAPE FLORISTIC REGION)

FINE-SCALE BIODIVERSITY PLANNING

PRIVATE LANDS STEWARDSHIP SITES

MAIN CITIES

PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES

Document of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/877901468114548548/pdf/ICR16890P... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Document of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/877901468114548548/pdf/ICR16890P... ·...