Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Za-gef Cape Peninsula Sil (fy98)


  
1. Project Data:   
ICR Review Date Posted:
04/24/2006   
PROJ ID:
P035923
Appraisal
Actual
Project Name:
Za-gef Cape Peninsula Sil (fy98)
Project Costs(US $M)
 91.2  105.67
Country:
South Africa
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 12.3  12.19
Sector, Major Sect.:
Forestry, General agriculture fishing and forestry sector, General public administration sector, Other social services, Other industry,
Agriculture fishing and forestry; Agriculture fishing and forestry; Law and justice and public administration; Health and other social services; Industry and trade
Cofinancing (US $M)
 1.0  1.46
L/C Number:
     
   
Board Approval (FY)
  98
Partners involved
French GEF 
Closing Date
06/30/2004 06/30/2005
         
Evaluator: Panel Reviewer: Division Manager: Division:  
John C. English
Ridley Nelson Alain A. Barbu IEGSG

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The project development objectives were:

(i) to ensure the rehabilitation and sustainable protection of globally significant flora and related fauna of the Cape Peninsula including surrounding marine ecosystems; and
(ii) to initiate planning and conservation activities for the entire Cape Floral Kingdom.

b. Components (or Key Conditions in the case of Adjustment Loans):
Strengthening management of and extending the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) (Appraisal estimate US$ 77.1 million; Actual cost US$ 85.05 million). GEF support to TMNP supported a series of sub-components: (a) invasive alien plant eradication; (b) environmental education; (c) enhance fire management; (d) improved tourist infrastructure; (e) capacity building; (f) marine protection program; and (g) knowledge management. This component was managed by South African National Parks (SANParks).
Table Mountain Fund (TMF) - (Appraisal estimate US$ 13.0 million; Actual cost US$ 18.75 million ). The TMF was established in 1993 by WWF-SA with about US$ 2.0 million raised locally as a capital fund providing small grants to NGOs and other organizations for the conservation of the biodiversity of the Cape Peninsula and adjacent marine systems. The GEF contribution was to significantly augment this fund as a tool in mobilizing local resources to support small-scale, local biodiversity conservation efforts in the project area.
CFR Strategy and Action Plan (CAPE) - (Appraisal estimate US$1.1 million; Actual cost US$ 1.8 million). This component, managed by WWF-SA, was to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the conservation of the CFR and adjacent marine ecosystems, and to prepare a five year investment program focused on strategic priorities. It was intended to integrate four sub-components: (a) terrestrial biodiversity; (b) marine biodiversity and coastal zone management; (c) institutional, legal and policy factors; and (d) financial, economic and social aspects.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
The actual project cost was about 15 percent above the appraisal estimate, or US$14.5 million equivalent. Almost all of that amount was raised from local nongovernmental sources. The GEF contribution amounted to just under 12 percent of actual cost.


3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:

Major elements of the policy objectives of the Government of S. Africa are poverty alleviation and conservation of natural resources, especially the conservation of biodiversity which is a major element of the country's significant tourist industry. South Africa ranks as the third most biologically diverse country in the world, and is the only country to have within its borders an entire plant kingdom, the Cape Floristic Region. This relatively small region of 89,000 square km is one of the world's ecological hotspots, having the highest recorded species diversity of any similar area in the world. Given the population of over 5 million in the region, this ecologically sensitive area is under steady pressure. The Cape Peninsular is a key part of this region and conservation of its biodiversity - involving the local population as far as possible - is, therefore, of high priority. The project was designed to support and enhance local efforts and project operations were, where possible, linked to the GoSA's Expanded Public Works Program of labor intensive works.

4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :

1. Ensuring the rehabilitation and sustainable protection of globally significant flora and related fauna of the Cape Peninsula through the establishment of a financially and institutionally viable park. (Fully achieved).
Key elements of the project's achievements include: (a) a revised target of nearly 85% of the invasive woody species was achieved, with GoSA funds committed to completing the task; all cleared areas are under maintenance; (b) in areas cleared of alien invasive plants, three endangered plant species have expanded their range and numbers; (c) there has been no extinction of tracked species; (d) levels of fire-preparedness are significantly higher than at project inception and fire services are better organized; (e) a marine protected area has been proclaimed and is being implemented under an agreed management plan; and (f) TMNP is financially in surplus.
2. Initiating planning and conservation activities for the entire Cape Floral Kingdom. (Fully achieved)
The development of the Cape Strategy is considered to be an example of best practice and is acknowledged as one of the most advanced and innovative bioregional conservation initiatives. To finance it, US$ 60 million has been committed, including US$ 12 million from GEF, and US$ 45 million from domestic sources. Strong emphasis has been placed on building partnerships between executing agencies, NGOs research centers and the private sector.

It should also be noted that the TMF is considered to be a 'model' trust fund for supporting biodiversity and conservation in the area.

5. Efficiency:

No specific analysis was undertaken to determine an economic rate of return for this operation. Given the innovative nature of its operations, there are as yet no standards against which to judge its cost effectiveness. Data in the ICR do suggest the overall objectives were achieved in an efficient manner, but the ICR could have tried to more specifically review the outcome against the expectations contained in the Incremental Cost Matrix (Annex 4 of the PAD), in particular the outcomes of the activitities towards which the GEF contribution was specifically directed.
6. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization:

A comprehensive set of indicators and reporting was established for the project and was adhered to during the project. The M&E system played a significant role in helping maintain effective collaboration between the several bodies involved with the project by enhancing transparency in operation of the whole effort and, in particular, in enabling the two implementing agencies to work together as effectively as they did. During implementation a number of modest changes were made in the program and agreement on these changes was facilitated by the ability of the parties to quickly understand what was proposed and its implications.
7. Other (Safeguards, Fiduciary, Unintended Impacts--Positive & Negative):

No safeguard or related issues arose during the implementation of the project.

8. Ratings:
ICR
ICR Review
Reason for Disagreement/Comments
Outcome: 
Highly SatisfactoryHighly Satisfactory
Institutional Dev.: 
SubstantialSubstantial
Sustainability: 
Highly LikelyHighly LikelyThe Cape region is to some extent unique in that there is a long history of strong local interest and support (through academic and other groups) for conservation of its unique biological resources. The speed and professionalism with which the GEF proposal was prepared, and the mobilization of political support and local resources for the project (87 percent of cost), is a reflection of this. The sustainability rating is based on an expected continuation of this support. It should be noted that significant continued resource input will be required, especially to ensure the clearing of alien invasive species, which has proved to be a more long term task than initially envisaged.
Bank Perf.: 
SatisfactorySatisfactory
Borrower Perf.: 
SatisfactorySatisfactory
Quality of ICR: 
Satisfactory

NOTES:
- When insufficient information is provided by the Bank for IEG to arrive at a clear rating, IEG will downgrade the relevant ratings as warranted beginning July 1, 2006.
- ICR rating values flagged with ' * ' don't comply with OP/BP 13.55, but are listed for completeness.

9. Lessons:

Principal lessons from the project were:

The Cape region is world renowned for its biodiversity and there are a large number of local parties with strong interests in maintaining the biodiversity. Where a program is to operate in a region of this type it is important to
(i) create stakeholder buy-in and commitment to implementation at the outset;
(ii) use limited resources to catalyze projects and leverage other sources of funding; and
(iii) where possible, align agencies and programs.


10. Assessment Recommended?  Yes

          Why?  Because of organizational and process lessons relevant to Africa. Would also be useful to verify and document the strength of cross-institutional coordination and vision.

11. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR provides a succinct but satisfactory review of project implementation and outcome.

(ES-Rev4B-Dec/05)
© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions