Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Za-c.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation And Sustainable Development Project


  
1. Project Data:   
ICR Review Date Posted:
06/11/2013   
Country:
South Africa
PROJ ID:
P075997
Appraisal
Actual
Project Name:
Za-c.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation And Sustainable Development Project
Project Costs(US $M)
 55.1  62.4
L/C Number:
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 US$9.0m  US$9.0m
Sector Board:
ENV
Cofinancing (US $M)
 2.0  2.0
Cofinanciers:
UNDP
Board Approval Date
  05/18/2004
 
 
Closing Date
10/31/2009 10/30/2010
Sector(s):
General agriculture fishing and forestry sector (60%), General agriculture fishing and forestry sector (60%), Central government administration (21%), Central government administration (21%), General education sector (8%), General education sector (8%), Agricultural extension and research (7%), Agricultural extension and research (7%), Sub-national government administration (4%), Sub-national government administration (4%)
Theme(s):
Biodiversity (50% - P) Environmental policies and institutions (25% - S) Rural non-farm income generation (25% - S)
         
Prepared by: Reviewed by: ICR Review Coordinator: Group:
Lauren Kelly
Robert Mark Lacey Soniya Carvalho IEGPS1

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives:
The Global Environment Objectives of this stand-alone GEF project, as laid out in the GEF grant agreement (Schedule 2), are to catalyze and drive the implementation of the C.A.P.E. Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) 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.

b. Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation?
No

c. Components:

Component 1: Institutional Strengthening (Estimated US$5.80 million; Actual US7.46 million; Implemented by UNDP and executed by the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). This component was to align and strengthen institutions to conserve the Cape Floristic Region (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.

Component 2: Conservation Education (Estimated US$1.11 million; Actual US$1.70 million. Implemented by UNDP and 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 a focal point and mechanism for coordination and 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.

Component 3: Program and Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring (Estimated US$1.79 million; Actual US$1.68 million. Implemented by the World Bank and executed by SANBI).The component was designed to support the C.A.P.E. 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.

Component 4: Protected Areas (Estimated US$27 ,72 million; Actual US$30.11 million. Implemented by the World Bank and executed by WW-South Africa, South Africa National Parks, Wilderness Foundation, Eastern C.A.P.E. Parks Board, and C.A.P.E. Nature). 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 protected areas through implementation of a Strategic Performance Management System, based on the models developed in the C.A.P.E. Peninsula National Park and rapid assessment techniques for management effectiveness developed by the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (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.

Component 5: Biodiversity Economy and Conservation Stewardship (Estimated US$11.67 million; Actual US$14.32 million. Implemented by the World Bank and executed by SANBI and by C.A.P.E. Nature for the Western C.A.P.E. 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.

Component 6: Watershed Management (Estimated US$7.04 million; Actual US$7.13 million. Implemented by the World Bank and executed by SANBI for estuarine and freshwater protected areas and by C.A.P.E. 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 was also 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.

d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
Project cost. Total project cost was US$62.4 million, compared to an appraisal estimate of US$55.13 million. Most of the increase was in the protected area management and foundations of the biodiversity economy, which were, respectively, US$2.39 million and US$2.65 million higher than estimated at appraisal.
Financing. GEF financing was US$11 million, 17.6% of the total required. The other external source was UNDP, which contributed US$2 million. The remaining US$49 million came from the Borrower. The ICR reports (page 37) that "not all of the originally expected sources of co-funding came through, [but] the project nonetheless succeeded in leveraging more than the originally planned amount of co-funding (US$51.40 million from UNDP and counterpart contributions versus US$44.13 million planned). A number of related and ancillary activities were funded from national and external sources (for example, the project leveraged a suite of sub-projects that were funded by the Table Mountain Fund).
Borrower contribution. The Government assembled a total of US$49 million in counterpart contributions from the National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Nature, Eastern Cape Parks Board, and South African National Parks.
Dates. The project was originally due to close on October 31, 2009 but was extended for one year, until October 30, 2010 in order to complete the Stewardship agreements in priority target areas and put in place tax incentives and payments for environmental service schemes that could promote the sustainability of the demonstration effects achieved.


3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:

a. Relevance of Objectives:
The Relevance of the project development objective is High. A GEF-financed operation, the project aimed to conserve globally important biodiversity by supporting the Cape Floristic Kingdom, one of the world’s five floral kingdoms that is wholly located within South Africa and that is home to more than 9,600 known species of plants, many of which are endemic to the region. The project development objective is also in line with the 2004-2008 and 2008-2012 Country Partnership Strategies (CPS). As noted in the 2008-2012 CPS, "the environment portfolio has been the main area of World Bank financial engagement in South Africa and has provided the basis for a broader dialogue and trust building. The main instrument underlying dialogue and project work since 1998 has been GEF grants. Prior to and during the CPS period, over US$50 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) was mobilized to support the Government of South Africa to integrate biodiversity considerations into local development planning and to develop global best practice on national and trans-frontier environment policy" (p. 10). The objective is also in line with several of the GEF's Operational Strategies. The project is embedded in South Africa's 2000 Cape Action Plan for the Environment, that laid out a spatial plan identifying conservation priorities and a specific series of programmatic activities to be implemented in three phases over twenty years.

b. Relevance of Design:
The Relevance of Design is Substantial.The project was designed to be placed within the wider CAPE program context. it did not create parallel structures. it built on the partnerships that had already been forged, the consultative and governance process that had already taken place, and with the available South African technical support. The first sub-objective of laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy was clearly linked to measurable intermediate outcomes such as the passage of national and regional legislation, policies and guidelines for spatial and land use planning, the development of a Non-Native Species Strategy for the CFR, and fire management programs, as well as reaching an agreement on new incentive mechanisms to promote biodiversity at the national and municipal levels. Final outcomes that were linked to the objective included placing an extended number of critically endangered ecosystems under conservation (through stewardship agreements with private landowners and communities). The second sub-objective of undertaking targeted conservation demonstrations with a view to scaling up selected biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts could have been strengthened by more clearly articulating a plan in the project documentation as to how the outcomes of the demonstration activities would be tracked and lessons would be shared across the multiple partners involved to influence the learning process and uptake of the selected demonstrations.


4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :


The discussion of efficacy draws on both the ICR and on the conclusions of the Terminal Evaluation that was conducted, in accordance with GEF guidelines, by an independent consultant just prior to project closure.

1. Catalyze and drive the implementation of the C.A.P.E. Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) program by laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy. Substantial.
Outputs
  • The 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 C.A.P.E. Provincial Spatial Development Framework.
  • The project helped put in place an agreement that includes two new incentive mechanisms to promote biodiversity stewardship: a municipal rates rebate; and a national tax deduction for qualifying landowners.
  • 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. By project close, a total of 58 contracts had been signed between landowners and C.A.P.E. Nature, establishing 39 private Nature Reserves and 19 Biodiversity Agreements for biodiversity-friendly land management.
  • The project supported the development of Critical Biodiversity Area maps for 31 of the 34 municipalities for the Cape Floristic Region that are being used in local planning decisions and to guide environmental impact studies.
  • The project also supported planning and priority-setting activities that sought to mainstream biodiversity considerations into water management, lent support to the development of a Non-Native Species Strategy for the Cape Floristic Region, and supported fire management programs.
  • The project catalyzed a national audit and review of the "Ecological Reserve" which has helped guide national strategies in integrating environmental requirements into water resource management.
  • However, only four of the six envisioned Catchment Management Agencies were established, and of these only one is operational.
Outcomes
  • The project has had far-reaching policy implications beyond the Cape Floristic Region (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 the National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) as an executing agency for the project has enabled it to become a strong national institute, promoting biodiversity conservation across the whole country. The Institute 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.
  • 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, the Province of Eastern Cape recently approved a Bio-regional Plan as the framework for future spatial development. The project's implementing agencies have already committed to a second-phase.
  • A 5-year Action Plan for further implementation of the C.A.P.E. Program is expected to be implemented and funded primarily through ongoing government programs and budgets.
  • , the provincial planning authority has integrated biodiversity considerations into provincial and land use planning policy: the project supported the integration of biodiversity issues into the Spatial Development Frameworks of 15 out of the total 18 CFR local municipalities.
2. Catalyze and drive the implementation of the C.A.P.E. Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) program by undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations with a view to scaling up selected biophysical, socio-economic and institutional contexts. Substantial.
Outputs
  • The number of hectares that were put under formal conservation in the Kogelberg, Cederberg, Baviaanskloof, Gouritz, Garden Route, and South West Lowlands areas almost doubled from 1,054,033 ha to 1,953,246 ha, exceeding the target of 1,854,033 hectares.
  • The project fell short of its aim of establishing two freshwater, two estuarine, and two clusters of marine protected areas. Recognizing the overly-ambitious nature of project design, the team at mid-term modified project design and amended the aims surrounding the marine cluster so that the project more narrowly focused on enhancing participatory planning of the marine protected adjacent to the Kogelberg and Garden Route.
Outcomes
  • The ICR provides evidence that the project exceeded its original targets of putting critical biodiversity habitats under formal conservation agreements.
  • Using the GEF Tracking tool (the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, or the METT) - that assigns scores to various management effectiveness criteria such as the area's legal status, presence of appropriate regulations, enforcement capacity etc. - the ICR was able to report scores that showed an improvement in protected area management. Eighty percent of the protected areas scored an average over the project period that was better than the national average.
  • There is some evidence of the outcomes of the targeted conservation demonstrations that were undertaken within select biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts, however, a much more systematic review of these outcomes would have been useful. The project team provided some additional evidence through the publication commissioned by SANBI and the Department of Environmental Affairs entitled, "Biodiversity for Development: South Africa's Landscape Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Promoting Ecosystem Resilience" (2010). A more systematic review of the successes and failures of the demonstration projects would have been beneficial to promote learning between the advanced practices employed in South Africa and other countries attempting to put in place a landscape level based approach for conservation and development.

5. Efficiency:


Efficiency is rated Modest due to lack of evidence provided in the ICR. The ICR provides information in the efficiency section on criteria required by the GEF e.g. the incremental cost assessment; co-financing ratios; and catalytic effects. However, an assesment of efficiency according to the Bank's Guidelines requires an analysis of whether the costs involved in achieving project objectives were reasonable in comparison with both the benefits and with the recognized norms, or value for money. The project's effectiveness in bringing land under conservation arrangements - in fact, exceeding its targets - is recognized in the efficacy section as is the project's acknowledgement that the aquatic bio-diversity component was not successful. Likewise, the project’s successful use of GEF funds to incubate and test ideas and tools for biodiversity mapping and planning at different scales offers opportunities for learning, adaptation, and application of these models at a wider scale – at the national level as well as outside of South Africa. However, these are pertinent to efficacy, but only to the benefit side of efficiency. The ICR also provided qualitative information about the efficient use of funds by the Government to bridge funding gaps and to support collaboration between different government agencies and constituencies. There is, nevertheless, no analysis of the value for money of the use of these funds, and the support to key counterparts with regard to value for money, would have been needed to gauge the efficiency with which project resources were used.

One of the main instruments employed by this program was the rolling out of conservation stewardships. Useful evidence of efficiency would have included an analysis of the costs and benefits of applying this stewardship approach to conservation planning. While the points made about the efficiency of the stewardship approach and partnerships appear plausible, it would have been useful to provide actual evidence of unit costs or cost-effectiveness of the stewardships and partner collaboration, as they were implemented. A similar point pertains to water and land management enhancements supported by the project.

There were no significant time or cost overruns or other operational and administrative inefficiencies.

a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR)/Financial Rate of Return at appraisal and the re-estimated value at evaluation:


Rate Available?
Point Value
Coverage/Scope*
Appraisal:
No
%
%
ICR estimate:
No
%
%

* Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated

6. Outcome:

The outcome of this project is rated Moderately Satisfactory. An operation with highly relevant objectives and substantial design, the project substantially achieved its first objective of laying the foundations for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy. With regard to the second objective, there is some evidence of the outcomes of the targeted conservation demonstrations that were undertaken within select biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts, however, a much more systematic review of these outcomes would have been useful. On balance, this objective is rated substantial. Efficiency is rated modest.

a. Outcome Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

7. Rationale for Risk to Development Outcome Rating:

The risks to development outcome are moderate. Biodiversity consideration has been mainstreamed in spatial land use and water resource planning: Critical Biodiversity Area maps for 31 of the 34 municipalities for the Cape Floristic Region are being used in local planning decisions and to guide environmental impact studies. In the Western Cape, the provincial planning authority has integrated biodiversity considerations into provincial and land use planning policy: the project supported the integration of biodiversity issues into the Spatial Development Frameworks of 15 out of the total of 18 local municipalities in the Floristic Region. Most products supported by the project 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. These include fine-scale biodiversity planning and further expansion of the stewardship program in the Western Cape. More systemic challenges that may erode conservation benefits over time include the difficulties of engaging key government departments that are not directly involved with the overall C.A.P.E. program and decentralizing the program as a whole to the level of district municipalities.

a. Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate

8. Assessment of Bank Performance:

a. Quality at entry:

Project design was based on lessons learned in previous World Bank implemented GEF projects in the Cape Peninsula, including the need to develop new market-based mechanisms for conservation, build institutional capacity into project design, and apply a participatory approach to conservation planning. Many of these activities were developed from experience in implementing the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project (the outcome of which was rated satisfactory in IEG's Project Performance Assessment Report). As noted in the Terminal Evaluation of the project under review, setting the operation in the wider C.A.P.E. program which was being implemented by an existing organization was instrumental in its success: the partnerships that had already been forged, the consultative and governance processes which were already in place, and the technical support which was available, allowed the project to benefit from complementary initiatives. The project leveraged a suite of sub-projects that were funded by the Table Mountain Fund, which was supported by the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project, and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, a global program partly supported by the World Bank. The project design was embedded in South Africa's C.A.P.E. 2000 Strategy, or the C.A.P.E. Action Plan for the Environment, that laid out a spatial plan identifying conservation priorities and a specific series of programmatic activities that would be implemented in three phases over twenty-years. The project was designed to support the first phase of the C.A.P.E. Program.

Quality at Entry was also strengthened by an analysis and use of the comparative advantages of the two implementing organizations involved -- the World Bank and UNDP. As noted in the PAD (p. 17-18), the World Bank's strengths "lie in supporting large programs which leverage significant investment including public and private sector, which provide opportunities for mainstreaming into productive sectors of the economy and which identify how best to enhance economic linkages whereas UNDP is positioned to lead on the capacity building and conservation education components of the Project as it has provided support and is currently preparing a number of programs in the region which focus on integrated ecosystem management."

Quality-at-Entry Rating: Satisfactory

b. Quality of supervision:
Bank staff provided regular supervision - on average twice a year - during project implementation. Supervision missions were conducted jointly with UNDP, and supervision benefited both from the Bank's Mid-Term Review (MTR) and an independent MTR that was commissioned by UNDP. While the resettlement process for farm workers at Coleske was not fully resolved by project closure, the Bank has taken the necessary steps (See Section 11).

Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory

9. Assessment of Borrower Performance:

a. Government Performance:
The Government of South Africa has demonstrated its strong commitment to the conservation of the Cape Floristic Kingdom by adopting the C.A.P.E. Action Plan. It has supported the expansion of the National Biodiversity Institute’s mandate and put in place two new incentive mechanisms to promote biodiversity stewardship: a municipal rates rebate and a national tax deduction for qualifying landowners. The Government has supported the expansion of the country's protected area system, bioregional planning exercises, and, at the sub-regional level, various municipal governments have become active participants in the C.A.P.E. Program activities. Although the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency (formerly Eastern Cape Parks Board) had put in place a Resettlement Action Plan – developed with World Bank assistance under this project – to date, agreement has not been reached between the different stakeholders, most notably between the communities and the Eastern Cape Provincial Government.

Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

b. Implementing Agency Performance:
The project was mainly implemented by the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), with support from three other executing agencies: C.A.P.E. Nature, the Eastern C.A.P.E. Parks Board, and the South African National Parks. Project activities were coordinated by the C.A.P.E. Coordination Unit within SANBI. The overall performance of the main implementing agency, SANBI, was satisfactory. As noted in the ICR, the C.A.P.E. Coordination Unit successfully managed the coordination of activities across four executing agencies, the government, and participating non-governmental organizations, mobilized a significant level of co-finance, and maintained continuity of functions during staff transitions.

Implementing Agency Performance Rating: Satisfactory

Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

10. M&E Design, Implementation, & Utilization:

a. M&E Design:
M&E design was weak and mostly limited to output indicators, with five of the seven key indicators requiring reporting only on “the number of" e.g. signatory institutions, civil society participants, conservation organizations with education strategies, jobs, and spatial development frameworks. Physical biodiversity indicators are imbedded in the C.A.P.E. program's 5-Year targets for measuring the status of protected areas, but the reporting in this operation is limited to a measure of the number of hectares placed under protection. The ICR does not indicate which entity was to have responsibility for M&E, or whether baseline indicators were measured.

b. M&E Implementation:
The GEF-initiated Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (PAMETT) was applied to all existing and new protected areas within the project area. The PAMETT – the effectiveness of which is widely recognized in the sector – rates overall protected area management on a 0-100 scale according to a number of criteria. Overall effectiveness, as measured by the PAMETT, improved for project-assisted areas. With regard to M&E implementation, the PAMETT largely superseded the project's M&E system designed during preparation. The conservation aspects of the program were systematically assessed through the use of the PAMETT, which influenced the national development of M&E systems related to conservation. However, project implementation should have done more to compensate for the weak M&E design and efficiency analysis.

a. M&E Utilization:
As an outgrowth of the project, South African National Parks has adapted and strengthened the PAMETT tracking tool to monitor more closely biodiversity status and infrastructure in South Africa, as well as threats to biodiversity. The system was rolled out nationally - 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 Africa protected areas, including the metropolitan protected areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Cape Town. Also, the Department of Environmental Affairs has expanded the METT 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.

M&E Quality Rating: Substantial

11. Other Issues:

a. Safeguards:

The project's environmental assessment classification was Category "B." According to the PAD (p. 26), five safeguard policies were triggered: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP4.10); Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04); Forests (OP 4.36); Cultural Property (OPN 11.03), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). According to the ICR, "project compliance with the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies was Satisfactory."

Environment. An Environmental and Social Management Framework was prepared by the National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) that included formal consultation with project executing agencies and stakeholders. According to the ICR (page 10), the project did not produce any significant adverse environmental impacts; indeed, its goal was to be entirely beneficial from an environmental standpoint. “The [safeguards 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”)” (ICR, page 10).

Involuntary resettlement. A Resettlement Policy Framework and a Process Framework was prepared by SANBI. However, the proposed resettlement of resident farm workers (35 families) away from the Coleske Farm area within the core of the Bavianskloof mega-Reserve was not completed by project close. The ICR reports (page 11) that, although the Coleske Farm was purchased by the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment, and Tourism in 2001 (prior to the project), 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. Yest the Eastern Cape Parks Board has sought to reach agreement with the Coleske community on resettlement to an area outside the Reserve's core zone, with improved housing and access to services. Efforts by the Eastern Cape Parks Board to reach agreement with the Coleske community on resettlement to an area outside the Reserve’s core zone, with improved housing and access to services, have still not been accepted by all segments of the community. Given the political sensitivity involved in involuntary resettlement in South Africa, the Eastern Cape Parks Board has not yet proceeded with the option of seeking a court order that would require the resettlement to take place. The Resettlement Policy Framework prepared for the project provided for the completion of a Resettlement Action Plan in the event of a decision to relocate the Coleske residents outside the Reserve. The final Bank supervision mission visited the site proposed for the resettlement 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. According to the ICR, if and when resettlement takes place it would be funded with the Government’s own resources.

b. Fiduciary Compliance:
According to the ICR (page 11), "Under the Project, both procurement and financial management
were Satisfactory." During the early stages of implementation, Bank procurement specialists provided training on the Bank’s procurement procedures. Implementing agency 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. The ICR does not state that the auditor's opinions were unqualified, but this was subsequently confirmed by the project team. 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.

c. Unintended Impacts (positive or negative):

d. Other:



12. Ratings:

ICR
IEG Review
Reason for Disagreement/Comments
Outcome:
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Efficiency is rated modest owing to a lack of information in the ICR. There is some evidence of the outcomes of the targeted conservation demonstrations that were undertaken within select biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional contexts, however, a much more systematic review of these outcomes would have been useful. 
Risk to Development Outcome:
Negligible to Low
Moderate
Moderate financial risks to the full institutionalization of some of the activities were identified by the ICR; further risks include mainstreaming the fine-scale biodiversity planning into the expansion of the stewardship program in the Western Cape and systemic challenges exist that may erode conservation benefits over time such as the difficulties of engaging key government departments that are not directly involved with the overall C.A.P.E. program and decentralizing the program as a whole to the level of district municipalities. The resettlement of Coleske farm families while being addressed is still incomplete.  
Bank Performance:
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
 
Borrower Performance:
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Government Performance is rated moderately satisfactory. Resettlement of farm families at Coleske was unresolved at the time of project closure. Although the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency (formerly Eastern Cape Parks Board) had put in place a Resettlement Action Plan – developed with World Bank assistance under this project – to date, agreement has not been reached between the different stakeholders, most notably between the communities and the Eastern Cape Provincial Government.  
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.
- The "Reason for Disagreement/Comments" column could cross-reference other sections of the ICR Review, as appropriate.

13. Lessons:
Lessons derived from the project implementation experience were reported in the ICR and are presented here with some adaptation of language.


Longer Term Programmatic Engagement is Needed in Biodiversity Conservation. Success in biodiversity conservation typically requires sustained commitment over a relatively long time frame. This long term sustained commitment also typically has to involve a wide array of stakeholders, including national and local government, communities, the private sector, and NGOs.

Mainstreaming of Biodiversity Considerations into Development Planning Requires Effective Outreach and Dissemination. A key element of successful biodiversity mainstreaming is effective dissemination of information, so that it will actually be used by decision-makers. The development of fine-scale planning and identification of critical biodiversity areas provides useful, accessible, and transparent tools for influencing local spatial development frameworks. Nonetheless, the development of good tools is not sufficient on its own to guarantee their use; projects also need to allocate sufficient staff time and resources to actively market their use and uptake in national, provincial, and local level planning.

GEF finance should be utilized to exploit the catalytic role of the GEF; a small amount of GEF finance is capable of leveraging considerable co-financing if it is applied through strategic partnership programs in critical ecosystems. In such critical ecosystems, close collaboration with other GEF funded global programs, such as the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, can expand the reach of the overall GEF program to civil society actors. It can also help such global programs, that are administering small grant programs, and "raise their game" by connecting the small grant activities on the ground to larger national policy initiatives.


14. Assessment Recommended?

Yes
Why?
To verify the ratings and document lessons learned. This project offers sector-wide lessons on environmental and biodiversity mainstreaming and the development of new and private financing mechanisms for conservation.

15. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR reported thoroughly on all aspects of project implementation except for project efficiency. The ICR documented the implementation challenges associated with the marine protected areas. Additional comments and supporting documents were provided by the project implementation team and have been utilized in this review. But there were shortcomings. The ICR would have benefited from editing. It should have stated whether or not auditors’ opinions were qualified. The ICR should have reported more fully on the Resettlement, Cultural Property, Natural Habitat, and Forest safeguards.

a. Quality of ICR Rating: Satisfactory

(ICRR-Rev6INV-Jun-2011)
© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions